Entrepreneurship and Kinship: An Integrative Review of a Nascent Domain

Abstract

Contrary to the widely accepted adage ‘do not engage in business activities with relatives’, individuals from Chinese, Indian, and Pakistani backgrounds are achieving significant progress, while individual groups experience stagnation. While prior research offers substantial insights into the relationship between kinship and entrepreneurial ventures, there exists a paucity of information regarding the mechanisms through which certain kin individuals attain success while others do not. The principal inquiries revolve around the question, ‘In what ways do kinship networks contribute to entrepreneurial success?’ Furthermore, within a multicultural and heterogeneous framework, how might kinship networks serve as essential resources that promote entrepreneurial development, or do they instead pose additional challenges to such advancement? To address these inquiries, this study conducts an integrative review of entrepreneurship through the conceptual framework of kinship (kin-entrepreneurship), a notion distinctly from emerging disciplines. The contextual backdrop of this study is firmly anchored in the rising incidence of business failures and their resultant ramifications for sustainable economic development on a global scale. By employing an integrative review methodology that encompasses both bibliometric and content analyses of extant literature, adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, this research elucidates the fundamental components relevant to kin-entrepreneurship. In tackling this issue, the present investigation explores the trends, trajectories, and potential futures concerning the nexus of kinship and entrepreneurship. A bibliometric analysis was conducted on a dataset comprising 292 scholarly articles focused on kin-entrepreneurship, published between 1980 and 2023, sourced from the Scopus and Web of Science databases. Significant findings highlight “kinship-based business influencers” and “entrepreneurial environment and consequences”, as crucial themes. Subsequent to the discovery of the themes, this paper advocates for a paradigm shift from a narrow familial perspective on business to a more expansive kinship viewpoint, which can enhance comprehension of the complex dynamics within business environments where kinship-based business influencers are multifaceted, affecting economic performance (where entrepreneurs capitalize on these affiliations for economic advantage), decision-making (which improves business sustainability through resource allocation among kin), and employee relations (as kin connections foster both formal and informal employment opportunities) for entrepreneurs. Consequently, this study posits that kinship-oriented business dynamics play a crucial role in influencing entrepreneurial decision-making by offering social capital, resources, and strategic guidance, which are essential for mitigating existing entrepreneurial attrition rates and, in turn, are fundamental for fostering economic development.

1. Introduction

Kinship is an inherent principle governing the structure of society in all human civilizations. This intricate phenomenon incorporates elements of both biology and culture (Wilson 2016). Although kinship commonly corresponds to biological kinship, there exists notable diversity among human populations, which serves as evidence for cultural underpinnings. Fascinatingly, kinship is a fundamental principle of societal structure in all human societies, although its precise delineation and comprehension can manifest considerable divergence. While biological relatedness often determines kinship, there is also exceptional variation across human populations, indicating cultural foundations (Khayesi et al. 2014). Kinship can be understood as a mutual existence where individuals are interconnected and participate in each other’s lives (Sahlins 2011, 2013). Kinship is a universal concept found in all human cultures, yet its definition, measurement, and terminology systems exhibit variation across cultures. However, from the definitions, there are four different aspects through which kinship shapes people’s attitudes and actions. These can be summarised as follows:

• Kinship relatedness: The inclusion of familial connections, encompassing both consanguineous and affinal relationships, involves individuals tied by shared genetics and marital bonds (Verver and Koning 2018). This sphere consists of one’s marriage partner, parents, offspring, and other kin such as siblings and extended relatives through marriage.
• Intimacy kinship: Relationships where everyone is honest to and trusting of the other; each cares for the other and seeks the other’s company (LaFollette 2017).
• Kinship reciprocity: A relationship among individuals or collectives wherein the supposition of receiving an equivalent return for something provided freely or through an obligation is surpassed by established duties to distribute resources and services in a generous and cooperative manner (Brady 1972).
• Fictive kinship: Relationships in which individuals are identified as fictive (pseudo and para) kinship are not connected through blood relations or marriage. Nonetheless, they perceive each other as family and utilize a conventional cultural classification (resembling blood relations, legal-contracted or marital ties, and parental roles) to characterize these relationships that are not based on kinship (Chatters et al. 1994).

Kinship plays a multifaceted role in shaping entrepreneurial activities. Current scholarly research affirms that the complexities inherent in kinship networks can significantly affect the outcomes of entrepreneurial pursuits (Alsos et al. 2014; Gassie-Falzone 2016; Verver and Koning 2018). Given the advent and increasing importance of entrepreneurship in connection to national economic development, inquiries into the distinctive characteristics of enterprises within the specific frameworks of varied economic systems increasingly dominate contemporary academic discourse (Chakuzira et al. 2024; Junejo et al. 2022; Sevilla-Bernardo et al. 2022). Modern literature has shifted its focus and now primarily aims to clarify the formation, governance, and significance of business enterprises within the global economic landscape (Ranjan 2019; Sevilla-Bernardo et al. 2022; Staniewski et al. 2024; Usman et al. 2024). In this context, scholars are also progressively analyzing kinship ties within the sphere of entrepreneurship, particularly regarding their development and impact on the success of enterprises.

Kinship affiliations serve to enhance social networks that bolster the acquisition of resources, which are subsequently utilized to leverage entrepreneurial opportunities, thus impacting organizational performance and value creation (Chakraborty et al. 2015; Verver and Koning 2018; Zhou and Xu 2023). As posited by Criaco et al. (2021), such networks carry particular importance for small entrepreneurial ventures that frequently depend significantly on familial or kinship affiliations for the procurement of resources, especially during the formative phases of business establishment. In a broad sense, kinship ties include relationships formed through blood relations and marital bonds, encompassing one’s spouse, ancestors, descendants, and other relatives such as siblings and in-laws (Gillespie 2000; Read 2000; Sahlins 2013). It is noteworthy that, within various societies, kinship ties are extensive, incorporating both nuclear and extended family configurations, which can occasionally comprise hundreds of individuals or even reach the magnitude of a tribe (Grimm et al. 2013; Allen et al. 2008). A multitude of scholarly investigations have elucidated the increasing significance of kinship networks as a source of economic resources within the globe (Grimm et al. 2013; Igwe and Icha-Ituma 2020; Khayesi et al. 2014). As such, this article systematically reviews and analyzes the pivotal role of kinship networks in facilitating the proliferation of entrepreneurial activities around the world.

The existing literature underscores that kinship constitutes a fundamental component within the social and cultural milieu of entrepreneurs, exerting a significant influence on the mechanisms and motivations underlying entrepreneurial activities (Verver and Koning 2018). In Asian economies, such as those of China, India, and Pakistan, kinship networks assume a multifaceted role in determining entrepreneurial success. Specifically, within these nations, an individual’s traditional genealogical status tends to exert a detrimental effect on success, whereas elevated family status is associated with favorable entrepreneurial outcomes (Valdez 2011). Accordingly, in leveraging the potential of kinship for entrepreneurial achievement, access to capital emerges as a critical factor, with inheritances enhancing the probability of entrepreneurial sustainability and expansion (Holtz-Eakin et al. 1993). Conversely, in European contexts and especially within developing African nations, family and kinship networks predominantly serve a role in job acquisition, thereby neglecting their potential to facilitate business creation (Nordman 2016). Typically, these networks encompass various categories of kinship ties, degrees of relatedness, and forms of reciprocity and trust, which are consequently underutilized in multiple dimensions of entrepreneurship development (Verver and Koning 2018). Nevertheless, this study acknowledges that the efficacy of these networks is not uniform, and it is imperative to identify and replicate effective informal networks to foster opportunities for entrepreneurship development in contexts where such potential has been overlooked.

Igwe and Icha-Ituma (2020) postulated that there exists a paucity of management scholarship focused on entrepreneurs who, in most cases, operate in societies marked by multiethnic or cultural heterogeneity and high dependency ratios1, which reflect the proportion of individuals who are not engaged in formal employment (DESA 2020). High dependency ratios indicate that entrepreneurs are compelled not only to pursue profit-oriented objectives but also to address the needs of their dependents, which encompass broader community welfare aims. A pronounced reliance on fellow community constituents is anticipated to influence the activities associated with resource aggregation; entrepreneurs frequently discover that they are compelled to address both the social and financial requirements of community members, consequently constraining their capacity to amass resources for the purpose of investing in their entrepreneurial initiatives.

Notably, the existing literature reveals notable discrepancies in entrepreneurial achievement among Asian and Black people. Indeed, enterprises owned by individuals of Asian descent generally exhibit superior performance compared to those owned by Black individuals, evidenced by elevated rates of self-employment and enhanced success metrics (Fairlie and Robb 2008; Boyd 1990). Research suggests that critical determinants of Asian entrepreneurial success encompass higher levels of initial capital, more advanced educational attainment, and significant pre-entrepreneurial experience derived from kin-based enterprises. Consequently, the expertise acquired through familial business ventures, along with social networks and familial participation, are pivotal to the success of Asian-owned businesses; for instance, in South Africa, numerous Indian restaurants consistently attract a clientele of Indian patrons purchasing their own cuisine, whereas the Black community has struggled to replicate this model utilizing indigenous products with similar success. Many Black entrepreneurs face substantial barriers due to restricted access to economic and social capital, compounded by interpersonal jealousy that undermines collaborative support, thereby significantly impeding business growth and sustainability (Lee 2003). Furthermore, in most developing countries, the high prevalence of public sector employment among Black individuals may deter the pursuit of self-employment. These observations underscore the intricate interactions among individual, social, and structural elements that shape entrepreneurial outcomes across various racial demographics. Consequently, this integrative review may furnish valuable insights to Black African communities regarding the utilization of kin-based business strategies to promote entrepreneurial development.

In most studies exploring the influence of kinship on the growth of entrepreneurship, the academic literature has employed social capital theory, which posits that economic actions are situated within social relationships. As articulated by Sandefur and Laumann (2009) and Lin (2017), the foundational assumption of social capital theory is that networks of relationships serve as both a resource that enhances and a constraint that limits social and economic endeavors and outcomes (Khayesi et al. 2014; Zhou and Xu 2023). Therefore, within the field of entrepreneurship, social capital is recognized as a significant asset that is interwoven within a network of relationships, thereby facilitating the activation of additional resources for individuals and enterprises. However, the nature of the influence exerted by kinship ties within network relationships remains ambiguous. On the one hand, the impact is beneficial when the intervention of kinship or other social network members leads to a reduction in costs. Social networks appear not only to mitigate the effects of volatile market forces or inadequate governmental interventions but also to foster an environment conducive to their own enhancement through the cultivation of trust within firms. Conversely, a detrimental effect on entrepreneurial growth may also arise from individual or collective non-market strategies, such as favoritism.

Despite the burgeoning body of research focusing on kinship dynamics and entrepreneurship, this manuscript identifies this discrepancy as a significant research void and draws upon the existing literature pertaining to kinship to investigate the pivotal role of social networks in fostering entrepreneurial advancement around the world. The inquiries that propel this investigation include: Do kinship networks furnish vital resources that facilitate entrepreneurial development, or do they present supplementary obstacles to such growth? Furthermore, scholarly inquiry that employs a kinship lens remains limited. This scarcity can be attributed to the disintegration within the existing corpus of literature concerning kinship and entrepreneurship thus far, particularly in terms of definitions: (1) in what ways and for what reasons do kinship dynamics influence entrepreneurial practices and (2) which dimensions of entrepreneurship are subject to kinship influence? The present review also attempts to investigate this fragmentation with the objective of establishing a coherent kinship perspective on entrepreneurship.

2. Methodology

Through a thorough integrative review that synthesizes bibliometric-content analysis of a wide range of academic publications, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, coupled with meticulous content analysis, this investigation critically examines the variances and fragmentation related to the impact of kinship on entrepreneurship (Donthu et al. 2021; Kraus et al. 2020). To achieve this aim, the current study investigates research patterns, developmental paths, and prospective areas for further inquiry regarding the kinship perspective on entrepreneurship by utilizing a dataset of academic articles focused on kinship and entrepreneurship that were published from 1980 to 2023, obtained from the Scopus and Web of Science databases. Figure 1 depicts the methodology process.

From Figure 1, the integrative review presented here first adheres to the established PRISMA guidelines, which delineate a systematic methodology that ensures both transparency and replicability of the review process (Kraus et al. 2020). As illustrated in Figure 1, the manuscript employed a multimethod analytical framework that incorporates bibliometric analysis alongside content analysis of pertinent publications identified in accordance with the PRISMA protocol. As such, the PRISMA protocol functions as an essential framework for the systematic exploration and identification of a relevant compilation of scholarly publications for review (Kraus et al. 2020), while bibliometric analysis represents a methodological strategy proficient in navigating large volumes of literature and elucidating the performance indicators and intellectual framework of the field through quantitative or statistical techniques (Donthu et al. 2021). Accordingly, content analysis in the current paper serves as a methodological approach that enables a comprehensive examination of the thematic elements intrinsic to the intellectual framework revealed through bibliometric analysis (Kraus et al. 2020).

2.1. The PRISMA Guidelines

The research methodically utilized the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) framework (Shamseer et al. 2015) to scrutinize the extant literature pertaining to kinship and entrepreneurship. This methodological framework was chosen due to its systematic nature and its broad recognition within the academic community (Shamseer et al. 2015). Figure 2 illustrates the data extraction methodology employed in this investigation.

2.1.1. Data Identification

In the present investigation, two prominent online PRISMA databases were employed, specifically Scopus and Web of Science (Wahab et al. 2024). The selection of these databases was predicated on their vast assemblage of peer-reviewed scholarly articles, rendering them trustworthy repositories in the context of an integrative methodology (Lim et al. 2024; Wahab et al. 2024). Moreover, it is noteworthy that both databases are frequently utilized by researchers engaged in systematic reviews due to their esteemed credibility in disseminating information pertaining to scientific inquiry (Wahab et al. 2024). The deliberate choice of these databases facilitated an exhaustive exploration of the academic discourse surrounding kinship and entrepreneurship from a scholarly perspective in this investigation. To optimize the incorporation of pertinent literature on this topic, meticulous keyword selection was of paramount importance. Data from Scopus and Web of Science were extracted utilizing the search terms “kinship” AND “entrepreneurship” as well as “kinship” AND “entrepreneur” (refer to

Table 1. Databases for article selection.

Search Query	Year Range	Subject Area	Document Type
TITLE-ABS-KEY (“kinship” AND “entrepreneurship”) AND PUBYEAR > 1985 AND PUBYEAR < 2024 AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “BUSI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “ECON”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “re”))	1980–2023	Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Business Management and Accounting, Multidisciplinary	Article, Review, Conference Paper
Scopus Results	76	36	29
TITLE-ABS-KEY (“kinship” AND “entrepreneur”) AND PUBYEAR > 1985 AND PUBYEAR < 2024 AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “ECON”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “BUSI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “Undefined”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “re”))	1980–2023	Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Business Management and Accounting	Article, Review
Scopus Results	121	52	44
(TS = (“kinship”)) AND TS = (“entrepreneurship”) refined by publication years, web of science categories, document types	1980–2023	Business, Management, Economics, Business Finance, Family Studies, Multidisciplinary	Article, Proceeding Paper
Web of Science Results	80	47	46
(TS = (“kinship”)) AND TS = (“entrepreneur”) refined by publication years, web of science categories, document types	1980–2023	Business, Management, Economics, Area Studies, Multidisciplinary	Article
Web of Science Results	15	10	10
Total Search	292	145	129

). On 1 July 2024, a comprehensive search was executed for these keywords across the abstracts, titles, and keywords within both Scopus and Web of Science, with the resultant findings delineated in Table 1.

2.1.2. Data Screening

The preliminary findings derived from the Scopus (197) and Web of Science (95) databases underwent a rigorous filtering process based on multiple criteria. Firstly, the scope of inclusion was constrained to journal articles that reside within subject classifications, namely Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Business Management and Accounting, Multidisciplinary Studies, Family Studies, and Area Studies (see Table 1). Secondly, the retention criteria were limited to journal articles, conference proceedings, and review papers, while books and book chapters were systematically excluded. Thirdly, only journal articles composed in the English language were deemed acceptable. This process of screening substantially refined the research focus pertinent to the designated subject area of interest.

2.1.3. Eligibility Criteria

Upon the conclusion of the screening procedure, all collected data were compiled into an Excel spreadsheet. Thereafter, the dataset underwent a thorough examination to identify and eliminate duplicate entries. A total of 45 data points were identified as having been recorded more than once, necessitating the removal of these duplicates. Consequently, the remaining 84 articles were evaluated based on their titles and abstracts. The abstract evaluation process led to the exclusion of an additional 44 articles, resulting in a total of 40 articles that were considered for an exhaustive full-text review. In the final stage of the selection process, a comprehensive analysis of the articles was performed. An additional 13 articles were discarded following this analysis, as their content did not correspond directly with the kinship and entrepreneurship perspective. Finally, a selection of 27 articles was identified for in-depth analysis, which was facilitated through bibliometric and content analysis.

2.2. Data Analysis

To elucidate on the contemporary discourse surrounding entrepreneurship and kinship, a bibliometric analysis was executed, entailing a statistical and systematic examination of a specific scientific domain (Mukherjee et al. 2022). The bibliometric analysis incorporated within this integrative review establishes a robust theoretical framework for the categories and themes identified during the data analysis. This investigation utilizes VOSviewer 1.6.20, a specialized bibliometric software, for the execution of the bibliometric analysis (Lim et al. 2024). The initial dataset comprised entries (refer to Table 1) derived from Scopus and Web of Science, which served as the foundation for the bibliometric analysis. Furthermore, the study meticulously assessed each of the final 27 selected publications (see Figure 2) through content analysis, thereby facilitating a more profound comprehension of the intellectual architecture of the nascent field of entrepreneurship and kinship, which informs the conclusions and recommendations for future research and policy.

3. Main Findings: The State of Kin-Entrepreneurship Research

The methodology is delineated in the previous section; in this section, the paper initially articulates the principal findings regarding the current landscape of entrepreneurship studies through a kinship lens. Subsequently, the outcomes derived from content analysis are employed to engage in a discourse regarding the findings obtained from the bibliometric analysis.

3.1. Publication and Citation Trends

The analysis of entrepreneurship performance through a kinship perspective was conducted, and the resultant trends in publication and citation for publications with at least 20 citations are illustrated in Figure 3. The aggregate of publications escalated from a singular instance in the timeframe spanning from 1980 to 2020. The inaugural publication addressing this discourse within either the Web of Science or Scopus databases emerged in 1987, accruing a total of 162 citations. A duration of five years elapsed prior to the appearance of the second publication in 1992, while merely one year was required for the subsequent document to be disseminated in 1993. A marked increase from one to five publications on this subject matter was observed between 1991 and 2000, concomitantly with a rise in total citations from 162 to 286.

Scholarly publications concerning this nascent topic exhibited consistent prevalence from 2001 to 2010, culminating in the highest total citations of 1068 during this interval. The peak of publication activity transpired between 2011 and 2020, culminating in 17 documents and the second-highest citation count of 1019. Approximately 55% of the total documents were disseminated in the preceding decade (2011–2020), with a noteworthy surge occurring in 2014. From 2020 to 2023, only two documents were published, garnering 66 citations. This persistent production of research documents, along with the concomitant rise in citations, underscores the escalating significance of inquiries that examine the role of kinship in fostering entrepreneurship growth.

3.2. Top Publications on Entrepreneurship and Kinship

Table 2. Top publications on entrepreneurship and kinship (publications with at least 20 citations).

Article Title	Journal Title	Authors	Year	Citations
Kinship Networks and Entrepreneurs in China’s Transitional Economy	American Journal of Sociology	Peng	2004	342
Informal Family Business in Africa	Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice	Khavul, Bruton and Wood	2009	224
Resource Mobilization through Ethnic Networks: Kinship and Friendship Ties of Shopkeepers in England	Sociological Perspectives	Zimmer and Aldrich	1987	162
Kinship and Business: How Entrepreneurial Households Facilitate Business Growth	Entrepreneurship & Regional Development	Alsos, Carter, and Ljunggren	2014	133
Kinship in Entrepreneur Networks: Performance Effects of Resource Assembly in Africa	Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice	Khayesi, George, and Antonakis	2014	88
Indigenous Entrepreneurship: An Emerging Field of Research	International Journal of Business and Globalisation	Dana	2015	87
“We Don’t Deal with Courts”: Cooperation and Alternative Institutions Shaping Exporting Relationships of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Ghana	International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship	Amoako and Lyon	2014	86
The Characteristics of Family Firms: Exploiting Information on Ownership, Kinship, and Governance Using Total Population Data	Small Business Economics	Andersson, Johansson, Karlsson, Lodefalk, and Poldahl	2018	62
Entrepreneurial Workaround Practices in Severe Institutional Voids: Evidence from Kenya	Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice	Sydow, Cannatelli Giudici, and Molteni	2022	38
Toward a Kinship Perspective on Entrepreneurship	Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice	Verver and Koning	2018	27

delineates the ten most impactful scholarly publications, encompassing their respective authors, year of publication, journal title, and citation frequency. The manuscript authored by Peng (2004) and published in the American Journal of Sociology boasts the highest citation count, totaling 260. This article scrutinizes the economic benefits derived from kinship networks within the framework of China’s rural industrialization, positing that kinship solidarity and trust significantly facilitated the safeguarding of private entrepreneurs’ property rights while concurrently mitigating transaction costs during the nascent phases of market reform, characterized by the inadequacy of formal property rights legislation and the underdevelopment of market institutions.

The second most-cited scholarly work is attributed to Khavul et al. (2009) and appeared in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. This investigation garnered a total of 224 citations and illustrates that East African entrepreneurs employ both robust familial and communal connections to initiate and expand their enterprises while also utilizing strong community networks to mitigate the obligations imposed by extensive familial ties. The remaining influential publications elucidate the critical role of familial connections, social capital, and networks in the progression of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial development (Amoako and Lyon 2014; Andersson et al. 2018; Khayesi et al. 2014; Sydow et al. 2022; Verver and Koning 2018; Zimmer and Aldrich 1987).

3.3. Top Publishing Sources for Entrepreneurship and Kinship

Table 3. Top publishing sources.

Rank	Source	Documents	Citations	Average Citation	h-Index
1	Entrepreneurship: theory and practice	8	563	70.4	198
2	Ethnic and racial studies	2	275	137.5	118
3	Entrepreneurship and regional development	3	144	48	112
4	Journal of small business and entrepreneurship	2	103	51.5	40
5	Small business economics	3	102	34	167
6	International journal of entrepreneurial behaviour & research	3	74	24.7	91
7	Journal of ethnic and migration studies	2	39	19.5	117
8	Journal of enterprising communities	3	19	6.3	40
9	Sustainability (Switzerland)	2	17	8.5	169
10	International journal of entrepreneurship and small business	2	11	5.5	46

enumerates the sources exhibiting the most substantial quantity of published articles. Table 3 indicates that the journal “Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice” possesses the preeminent number of publications, accompanied by an elevated h-index, and disseminates numerous high-quality studies, as substantiated by its highest citation total of 563. The journal commenced its publication of scholarly articles in 1976, and as pertains to this analysis, the mean citation stands at 70.4 per document, as depicted in Table 3.

The journal attaining the highest average citation count of 137.5 is “Ethnic and Racial Studies”, which boasts an exceptional h-index of 118. The journals “Entrepreneurship and Regional Development” and “Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship” exhibit commendable average citations alongside remarkable h-index values exceeding 100 for this investigation, corroborated by Rousseau (2006), who posited that for journal sources, an h-index of 20 is commendable, 40 is outstanding, and 60 is exceptional after two decades of scholarly activity. Moreover, the “International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business” records the lowest average citations; nevertheless, it possesses an impressive h-index of 46, reflecting the least significant impact among the ten influential publications listed in the table.

3.4. Top Nations Publishing Entrepreneurship and Kinship

Table 4. Top nations publishing entrepreneurship and kinship.

Country	Organization	Total Number of Documents	Percentage Documents	Cumulative Percentage
United States	University of Wisconsin—Whitewater; North Carolina State University; Illinois State University; Brown University and Nber	52	27.66	27.66
United Kingdom	Strathclyde business school; Imperial College London, business school; Middlesex University; University of Manchester	42	22.34	50
China	East China normal university; Peking university	14	7.45	57.45
Germany	Heidelberg University; EU Business School	10	5.32	62.77
Canada	St. Jerome’s University; University of Waterloo; University of Toronto; University of British Columbia	9	4.79	67.56
Netherlands	Vrije University of Amsterdam	8	4.26	71.82
France	Groupe sup de co Montpellier business school	7	3.72	75.54
Italy	ESCP Business School; University of Turin	7	3.72	79.26
New Zealand	Auckland University of Technology	7	3.72	82.98
India	Indian Institute of Management Bangalore	6	3.19	86.17
Australia	Australian National University; Macquarie University	5	2.66	88.83
Sweden	Hui research, Stockholm, Orebro University School of Business	5	2.66	91.49
Scotland	University of St Andrews	4	2.13	93.62
Norway	Bodø graduate school of business; University of Norland	3	1.6	95.22

delineates the leading countries regarding their contributions to entrepreneurship research through a kinship lens.

The review corpus is predominantly derived from America, Europe, and Asia, which collectively constitute approximately 90% of the corpus (with contributions from China, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Sweden, India, Scotland, and Norway), thereby underscoring the significance of these regions in entrepreneurship research through a kinship perspective. The remaining nations represented in the corpus are principally underrepresented, as they are associated with fewer than one institution and a limited number of publications.

4. Thematic and Content Analysis

For content analysis, a curated collection of 27 publications, as delineated in Figure 2, was subjected to a comprehensive examination, which was enabled through bibliometric co-occurrence methodologies and a constant comparative analysis of the keywords. Consequently, this section conceptually and systematically scrutinized the thematic elements that emerged from the 27 chosen scholarly articles, thereby augmenting the comprehension of the theoretical underpinnings within the nascent field of entrepreneurship and kinship, which consequently informs the inferences and suggestions for future research endeavors and policy formulations.

4.1. Co-Occurrence Network

This study delineates significant domains of inquiry within the realm of kinship and entrepreneurship and examines their spatial distribution and evolution through the utilization of title-based co-occurrence networks. The thematic elements of the research are manifested in the frequency of keywords. The present investigation conducted a keyword co-occurrence analysis utilizing VOSviewer, and Figure 4 illustrates the fundamental areas of kinship and entrepreneurship as comprising five clusters, represented by the colors red, green, blue, purple, and orange.

A total of 522 keywords were identified, with 21 keywords recurring more than five times. The keyword cluster map generated by this study is illustrated in Figure 4. Distinctively colored frames represent various categories of keyword clusters; the thickness of the lines signifies the strength of the relationship between two keywords, whereas the dimensions of the frames reflect the frequency of a keyword’s occurrence. As depicted in Figure 4, the keyword cluster network analysis revealed four distinct cluster groups: Cluster 1 (red) comprised eight keywords; Cluster 2 (green) included six keywords; Cluster 3 (dark blue) contained four keywords; and Cluster 4 (yellow) encompassed three keywords. Furthermore, as broader frameworks for these terminologies are illustrated in Figure 4, the three most prevalent keywords identified were “entrepreneurship” (33 instances), “kinship” (29 instances), “performance” (17 instances), and “networks” (17 instances).

4.2. Thematic Evolution

The thematic evolution delineated numerous evolutionary interconnections that evidenced the advancement of the discipline while underscoring the trajectories, pathways, and alterations in the thematic essence, intensity, and frameworks of the research domain. The principal aim is to discern and scrutinize pivotal themes from 1981 to 2023, with a specific focus on the progression and transformations of research in entrepreneurship through a kinship lens. In particular, the study sought to address the following two inquiries: (1) in what manners and for what purposes do kinship dynamics affect entrepreneurial practices, and (2) which aspects of entrepreneurship are influenced by kinship?

Consequently, a continuous temporal frame spanning from 1981 to 2023 was employed to construct a thematic map illustrated in Figure 5. The thematic map in this study uses keywords from the selected 27 publications to evaluate the significance and evolution of the study themes. The research categorized the themes into a strategic diagram based on density (y-axis) and centrality (x-axis). The selected themes’ centrality and density are employed to assess their relevance and growth, respectively. Centrality in this investigation evaluates the extent of collaboration between two networks and quantifies the degree of external connections to other themes. Notably, centrality in this research acts as a metric for gauging a theme’s significance relative to the evolution of the entire research domain under scrutiny. Density appraises the internal robustness of the network. The density of each keyword that characterizes the study theme is utilized to ascertain the level of association among them and can be interpreted as an indicator of the theme’s progression.

The themes were scrutinized based on the quadrants in which they were allocated, as depicted in Figure 5. The upper-right quadrant encompasses motor themes, the lower-right quadrant contains basic themes, the lower-left quadrant includes emerging or declining themes, and the upper-left quadrant comprises highly specialized or niche issues. The configuration of a scholarly field is contingent upon the themes situated in the upper-right quadrant, which are also well-established within that domain. Owing to their considerable centrality and elevated density, they are designated as the motor themes of the specialization.

4.3. Content Analysis

A comprehensive content analysis of the predominant themes within kinship and entrepreneurship research indicates that these themes may integrate into broader themes congruent with the principles of inductive analysis, wherein first-order themes are systematically categorized under second-order themes (Thomas and Tee 2022). Ultimately, the study identified two significant aggregate thematic dimensions, specifically kinship-based business influencers and the entrepreneurial environment and consequences.

Table 5. Content (inductive) analysis of themes in kin-entrepreneurship research.

Clusters	1st Oder Concepts	Second Order Themes	Aggregate Dimension
1	Kinship, trust, networks, family, embeddedness, social capital, ties, social networks, social structure	Kinship-Defining Attributes	Kinship-based business influencers
2	Entrepreneurship, entrepreneur, family firm, SMEs, Ethnic entrepreneurship, institutions, management, business	Entrepreneurial Ecosystem and Governance
3	Business development, economic activity, informal sector, employment, rural economy, internationalisation, creativity and innovation, performance	Socioeconomic Influences	Entrepreneurial environment and consequences
4	Culture, religion, evolution, historical perspectives, context	Entrepreneurial Mindset and Orientation

presents a comprehensive examination of content (inductive) analysis of themes derived from Figure 5.

In the initial cluster, the phrase “kinship-defining attributes” signifies the influence of kinship-based business factors emanating from the associated keywords (kinship, trust, embeddedness, social capital, ties, social networks, and social structure). These theme’s keywords are situated within the motor theme of the thematic map, which exhibits considerable centrality and high density. The lower left quadrant (cluster 4) is characterized as encompassing emerging or declining themes, which are marked by low density and low centrality. The findings of this study indicate that the concept of “entrepreneurial mindset and orientation” constitutes this cluster. The salient keywords associated with this theme include culture, religion, historical kinship perspectives, and kinship context. If further research is conducted on these variables, it is plausible that emerging themes may ultimately transition into fundamental or motor themes. An analysis of Table 5 suggests that the cluster pertaining to the entrepreneurial environment and its consequences has been the subject of previous research and is anticipated to evolve into motor themes in the future.

The upper left quadrant (cluster 2) encompasses well-developed and isolated themes. The specialized themes of “entrepreneurial ecosystem and governance” are aligned with this cluster and identified as a niche theme. Keywords pertinent to this theme include entrepreneurship, entrepreneur, family firm, SMEs, ethnic entrepreneurship, institutions, management, and business. The lower right quadrant (cluster 3) pertains to basic, general, and transversal themes. The primary category within this theme cluster is “socioeconomic influences”, which is represented by keywords such as business development, economic activity, informal sector, employment, rural economy, internationalization, creativity and innovation, and performance.

5. Discussions and Implications

Based on the findings and comprehensive examination of significant scholarly works concerning kinship and entrepreneurship (see

Table 6. Summary of the selected papers.

Year and Author	Kinship Defining Attributes					Entrepreneurial Ecosystem and Governance				Socioeconomic Influences					Entrepreneurial Mindset and Orientation
	Kinship/Ties	Trust	Networks	Social Capital	Social Structure	Entrepreneurship	Family Firm	Ethnic Ventures	Management	Firm Development	Economic Activity	Informal Sector	Creativity/Innovation	Internationalisation	Culture	Religion	Historical Perspective	Context
Ramu (1986)	X	X			X			X
Zimmer and Aldrich (1987)			X			X		X		X
Bal (1998)												X			X		X
Peng (2004)			X				X			X
Khavul et al. (2009)	X						X											X
Au and Kwan (2009)				X			X
Mustafa and Chen (2010)	X	X		X
Rutherford (2010)							X	X	X
Grimm et al. (2013)	X									X				X
Amoako and Lyon (2014)	X		X
Alsos et al. (2014)			X								X
Khayesi et al. (2014)	X		X	X	X
Daspit and Long (2014)	X								X
Amoako and Lyon (2014)	X	X													X
Dana (2015)				X									X				X
Shi et al. (2015)		X			X	X	X
Chakraborty et al. (2015)	X		X			X
Gassie-Falzone (2016)
Lux et al. (2016)			X															X
Basit (2017)									X						X	X
Verver and Koning (2018)	X		X		X	X
Andersson et al. (2018)	X		X										X
Burt (2019)	X		X	X					X
Criaco et al. (2021)				X			X			X
Sydow et al. (2022)	X							X					X
Cutcher and Dale (2023)		X			X
Li and Johansen (2023)							X
Kazlou and Wennberg (2023)	X				X

), the present investigation emphasized the swift expansion and heightened importance of this concept within contemporary academic discussions. The increasing focus on scholarly inquiries pertaining to the definition of kinship and the mechanisms through which kinship dynamics impact entrepreneurial practices can be ascribed to its practical implications and immediate utility in identifying optimal strategies for utilizing entrepreneurship as a means of economic advancement by various nations worldwide.

As articulated by Ramu (1986), extended family and kinship connections facilitate rather than impede the process of entrepreneurial development by enabling the mobilization of capital, the manipulation of credit, and the socialization of the younger generation into entrepreneurial roles. Clearly, as demonstrated by Sahlins (2011, 2013), kinship encompasses familial connections, which include both consanguineous and affinal relationships, involving individuals bound by shared genetic heritage and marital affiliations. Consequently, the contemporary literature on entrepreneurship supports the utilization of joint family relationships as assets for economic development (Cutcher and Dale 2023; Kazlou and Wennberg 2023). The joint family connections foster reciprocal expectations of support and camaraderie, thereby engendering trust, a vital component for the establishment of entrepreneurial ventures and economic adaptations.

In their scholarly article entitled “Resource Mobilization Through Ethnic Networks Kinship and Friendship Ties of Shopkeepers in England”, Zimmer and Aldrich (1987) elucidate certain dimensions of entrepreneurship that are influenced by kinship. By identifying unique attributes and numerous characteristics that are prevalent among all small-business proprietors, particularly in the context of the volatile environment they navigate (Chakraborty et al. 2015; Lux et al. 2016). Furthermore, Basit (2017) posited that the entrepreneurial process transpires within a social milieu comprised of connections between business owners or prospective business owners and other individuals. Thus, the interconnections among group members are deemed essential resources for the initiation and operation of small enterprises, superseding the role of market forces that influence the dynamics within the unpredictable small business landscape.

The corpus of literature derived from the selected studies has recognized the correlation between structural social capital, specifically network size, and the volume of resources procured, as well as the overall expenditure incurred in resource mobilization (Khayesi et al. 2014). Consequently, a collective identity, in relation to affiliation with a specific network, may significantly impact the accumulation of resources during the nascent phase of an entrepreneurial initiative. This assertion is further corroborated by an increasing body of literature elucidating the pivotal role of networking in the promotion of entrepreneurial development (Alsos et al. 2014; Criaco et al. 2021; Peng 2004). Khayesi et al. (2014) provide significant insights into the manner in which sociocultural norms affect the accumulation of resources and advocate for entrepreneurs to mitigate such influences through the inclusion of nonfamily individuals within their primary networks. Daspit and Long (2014) built upon the foundational work of Khayesi et al. (2014) by broadening their methodology to encompass structural social capital and incorporating relational capital in order to investigate the dynamics of dependence and independence within entrepreneurial networks. As a result, Daspit and Long (2014) determined that for entrepreneurs operating within environments characterized by high dependency, the reconfiguration of the entrepreneurial network constitutes an effective strategy for alleviating the moral hazards linked to networks predominantly influenced by familial ties.

Consequently, in the process of addressing the fragmentation present in the literature pertaining to kinship and entrepreneurship, Verver and Koning (2018) assert that the involvement of kinship in entrepreneurial ventures is fundamentally rooted in the principles of relatedness, reciprocity, and trust. Consequently, various classifications of kinship connections, encompassing familial or ethnic affiliations, along with distinct degrees of relatedness and disparate forms of reciprocity and trust, assume diverse roles within the entrepreneurial framework (Cutcher and Dale 2023; Khayesi et al. 2014; Verver and Koning 2018). This context serves as the foundation upon which the current study is established, proposing two overarching themes, namely “kinship-based business influencers” and “entrepreneurial environment and consequences”, as pivotal themes for prospective research endeavors.

5.1. Implications

The initial aggregate thematic dimension pertinent to the present investigation pertains to kinship-based business influencers, which amalgamates the themes of kinship-defining attributes and the entrepreneurial ecosystem alongside governance. The entrepreneurial ecosystem and governance represent a comprehensive theme characterized by niche themes, encompassing domains such as types of entrepreneurship and business management factors. Conversely, kinship-defining attributes constitute a specialized motor theme, concentrating on the significance of kinship, familial connections, personal and social networks, trust issues, and social capital within the realm of entrepreneurship. Previous scholarly works corroborate that there exists a scarcity of studies that emphasize collaborative analyses of these two themes, with only Verver and Koning (2018) from the final selected publications making an effort to explore a collaborative investigation of the aforementioned themes. The dynamic business ecosystem prevalent in contemporary environments has compelled startups to adopt competitive strategies aimed at augmenting their market share. This scenario poses a challenge for entrepreneurs, who must increasingly regard entrepreneurship as a mechanism for self-employment and economic development. Entrepreneurial attributes, encompassing perceptions and social cognition, are crucial in the entrepreneurial process, with the impact of kinship and kin networks being an area that warrants further scholarly inquiry. In this context, the current study encourages future research endeavors to enhance the understanding of kinship-based business influencers, thereby examining the interaction between kinship-defining attributes and the entrepreneurial ecosystem within the framework of kin-entrepreneurship.

The second aggregate thematic dimension concentrates on the concept of “entrepreneurial environment and consequences”, which emerges from an amalgamation of the themes concerning socioeconomic influences and entrepreneurial mindset and orientation. The socioeconomic influences represent a fundamental theme encompassing business development, economic activity, the informal sector, employment, rural economy, and business performance, all of which have been extensively examined within the academic literature. A plethora of research has also been undertaken to investigate the social and economic ramifications of business policies and the entrepreneurial ecosystem (Ranjan 2019; Sevilla-Bernardo et al. 2022; Staniewski et al. 2024; Usman et al. 2024). In the context of the present study, the entrepreneurial mindset and orientation from a kinship perspective constitute an innovative notion that nations ought to leverage to comprehend how entrepreneurship can be optimally utilized as a mechanism for economic advancement. In this context, forthcoming research may delve into the diverse ways in which kinship can influence the efficacy of entrepreneurial orientation and mindset in selected regions; this could potentially address the research conundrum wherein entrepreneurship is effectively employed as a catalyst for economic development in certain nations, while in others, the anticipated entrepreneurial surge frequently fails to materialize.

5.2. Implications for Policy and Entrepreneurs

The two predominant themes identified within this research, namely “kinship-based business influencers” and “entrepreneurial environment and consequences”, exert a considerable influence on the field of entrepreneurship, particularly within the context of developing economies. Firstly, kinship-based business influencers refer to entrepreneurial kin networks that, when effectively leveraged, afford entrepreneurs access to critical resources and support essential for business development. Furthermore, a more nuanced examination of categories associated with kinship-based business influencers equips entrepreneurs with valuable insights regarding the significance of networks in facilitating resource aggregation and job creation, thereby contributing to enhanced business stability. Moreover, while kinship can bolster business operations, it also plays a pivotal role in the decision-making process, especially in community contexts, where decisions frequently mirror familial hierarchies.

Nonetheless, it is imperative to acknowledge that the influence of kinship ties on entrepreneurial success may be intricate, yet this study advocates for a paradigm shift from a narrowly defined familial perspective on business to a broader kinship lens, which can deepen the understanding of the complex dynamics within business environments where kinship-based business influencers are multifaceted, impacting economic performance (where entrepreneurs leverage these affiliations for economic gain), decision-making (which enhances business sustainability through resource distribution among kin), and employee relations (as kinship networks cultivate both formal and informal employment opportunities) for entrepreneurs. Consequently, this study contends that kinship-centric business dynamics play a vital role in shaping entrepreneurial decision-making by providing social capital, resources, and strategic guidance, which are indispensable for alleviating current entrepreneurial attrition rates and, consequently, are fundamental for promoting economic development.

Secondly, entrepreneurs frequently encounter the dilemma of judiciously incorporating or excluding family members in their ventures based on their competencies. Consequently, the prevailing theme, “entrepreneurial environment and consequences”, serves as a framework for policymakers to gain insights into the entrepreneurial landscape, particularly concerning the influences exerted by kin-based entrepreneurs, which are instrumental in fostering the emergence and expansion of enterprises. Importantly, as policymakers become cognizant of the entrepreneurial environment and its ramifications, especially regarding the concept of kinship in entrepreneurship, policy recommendations will broaden in scope to encompass not only immediate family members but also various degrees of relatedness, each contributing distinctively to diverse facets of business operations. Therefore, an understanding of environmental dynamics and the implications of reciprocity and trust within these networks is essential for a thorough comprehension of entrepreneurial processes; thus, this paper advocates for policymakers to recognize and replicate effective informal networks to formulate innovative support strategies for entrepreneurs.

Lastly, in examining the entrepreneurial dynamics inherent in kin-based businesses, both entrepreneurs and policymakers must remain vigilant to the fact that cultural, ethnic, and economic factors significantly influence Indigenous entrepreneurship, as evidenced by kin support, which tends to affect business performance, sociocultural challenges, and entrepreneurial resilience, particularly during the formative stages of ventures. As a result, this paper posits that various categories of kinship ties, encompassing differing levels of relatedness, are employed for distinct facets of entrepreneurship, with reciprocity and trust serving as foundational elements of kinship engagement in entrepreneurial endeavors. Thus, it is imperative for policymakers to grasp the environmental dynamics and their consequences when formulating supportive measures for kin-based entrepreneurs.

6. Conclusions

The contemporary integrative inquiry within an emergent field revolves around elucidating and augmenting factors that are critical to the literature on kinship and entrepreneurship. Indeed, the mechanisms and rationales by which kinship dynamics shape entrepreneurial practices have been succinctly articulated in the review. Furthermore, the facets of entrepreneurship that are susceptible to kinship influences have been systematically examined. Notably, there has been a notable proliferation of academic publications pertinent to this topic over the preceding decade. The findings of this study unveiled several fundamental themes and subthemes, encompassing (1) defining attributes of kinship, (2) the entrepreneurial ecosystem and governance, (3) socioeconomic determinants, and (4) the entrepreneurial mindset and orientation. In addition to exploring kinship’s influence on entrepreneurship, this study identified various factors with considerable implications.

A salient illustration included the synthesis of two themes, “defining attributes of kinship” and “entrepreneurial ecosystem and governance”, culminating in a composite theme, “Kinship-based business influencers”. This methodological framework holds the potential to significantly advance forthcoming investigations aimed at comprehending the mechanisms and rationales through which kinship dynamics impact entrepreneurial practices. Moreover, the evolution of entrepreneurship as a mechanism for economic development may be compromised without a thorough analysis of the prevailing environment and dynamics alongside their ramifications. For instance, considering the current sustainable development goals, the social implications of operating an entrepreneurial venture have gained prominence, thereby necessitating entrepreneurs to adopt a more environmentally conscious stance in their business endeavors. Consequently, this integrative review has established “entrepreneurial environment and consequences” as a composite theme for subsequent kin-entrepreneurship research.

Despite its scholarly importance, it is imperative to recognize the limitations inherent in this study. Although the selected search keywords were ostensibly the most pertinent for kin-entrepreneurship research, the possibility exists of broadening the search parameters by integrating supplementary keywords. Moreover, the exclusion of additional analyses, such as books and book chapters, signifies a potential avenue for enhancement and increased relevance in forthcoming research endeavors. The insights garnered from this integrative review of seminal publications have illuminated gaps that provide a foundation for recommendations in future inquiries within this nascent field. Upon scrutinizing the referenced journal articles, it becomes evident that associated theoretical frameworks could also be incorporated into the analysis. Furthermore, the findings of this study are derived from a constricted set of variables that were considered in assessing kinship and entrepreneurship, with a pronounced focus on kin-entrepreneurship attributes prevalent in the existing literature. Therefore, future research endeavors should incorporate a more expansive array of variables, such as entrepreneurial pedagogy.