Perkin Harold. The Origins of Modern English Society

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

landlords in the United Kingdom owned more than 3,000 acres each, worth more

than  3,000 a year, exclusive of London property. Of these, 866 had rentals of

over  10,000, 76 of over  50,000, and 15 of over  100,000.

These were the

owners who had gained and continued to gain most from industrialism and the

growth of towns, and to leave their country cousins still further behind.

Within the working class, too, there is some evidence that the skilled workers

with their natural or artificial monopoly of their trades did better than the

unskilled at the mercy of the free labour market.

Authentic unskilled wages are

hard to come by, but builders’ labourers’ wage rates in London and Manchester,

for example, rose between 1850 and the later 1870’s by 25 and 33 per cent

respectively, while the craftsmen’s wage rates rose by 50 per cent or more.

Agricultural wages, which set the floor for unskilled wages generally, lagged

behind the average rate of increase until the spurt associated with Arch’s

agricultural labourers’ union in 1872–74. With the exception of printing, wages

in all the higher-paid industries, iron and engineering, building, and mining,

advanced until 1874 faster than those in the lower-paid, wool, cotton and

agriculture.

Thus what objective evidence there is suggests, contrary to contemporary

opinion, not only that the rich were getting richer at a faster rate than the poor,

but that the whole scale of income distribution was being stretched, so that

inequalities were increasing within as well as between classes, from top to

bottom of society. This increasing inequality, at all levels, of income distribution

is what we should expect in a free-for-all society rapidly increasing in wealth and

population, in which the few possessed of valuable resources or special talents,

skills or energy enjoyed unprecedented opportunities for increasing their

incomes, while the many were forced by their lack of these and by their own

increasing numbers to sell their services in a buyers’ market. It is confirmed by

all the circumstantial evidence. The peak rate of investment was reached between

the 1830’s and the 1870’s, when man-made or reproducible capital increased

between 1833 and 1865 from just over three to about four-and-a-half times the

national income,

thus arguing a very considerable shift in income distribution

towards profits available for re-investment. The ratio of domestic servants to

population reached its peak, at nearly one in six of the occupied population

between 1871 and 1891,

a sure sign that the servant-keeping class could afford

J.C.Stamp, British Incomes and Property (1916), p. 49, table A4, Schedule A (1), Lands

(including Tithes)—‘a very stable series for purposes of comparison’, pp. 41–2.

F.M.L.Thompson, op. cit., p. 240.

Stamp, op. cit., p. 50.

J.Bateman, The Great Landowners of Great Britain and Ireland (1879), pp. 490–1.

Cf. Hobsbawm, Labouring Men, p. 293.

A.L.Bowley, Wages in the United Kingdom in the 19th Century (1900), pp. 62, graph

opp. 90, 130–1, 132–3 and graph.

344 ENTREPRENEURIAL SOCIETY: IDEAL AND REALITY

to purchase a larger proportion of the labour of the rest. The specific forms of the

new wealth— gargantuan meals for the rich, new and larger houses with gas

lighting, hot water, flush lavatories, bathrooms, patent kitchen stoves, the

hideously comfortable and expensive furniture and decorations, the

‘monumental’ fashions in women’s dress of the crinoline and bustle periods, the

top hats and tails of the men’s, all more or less confined to the well-to-do classes

—argue a shift of income towards the wealthy. So does the new physical

framework of community life, with passenger transport on a much larger scale,

horse buses and suburban railways, almost confined to the middle and upper

classes, and the new segregated suburbs to provide clean air and decent

sanitation, and therefore better health and longer life, as well as social

exclusiveness.

It is of course true that industrialism was already providing benefits for many,

in increased quantities of food, clothing and, rather more belatedly, decent

housing, and that in the long run it would do so for most. But the argument is

that in the short run the benefits came first and in larger quantities to the well-to-

do, and that the initial effect down to and including the mid-Victorian age was to

increase the lead of the rich over the poor. It is a phenomenon exactly parallel to

that in population growth, in which the rich were the first to benefit from reduced

mortality and, later, from smaller families, so that for a transitional period in

each case, although longevity and, later, smaller families were increasing

amongst all classes, the gap between rich and poor considerably widened. All the

evidence suggests that, in spite of the undoubted improvement in real wages, the

transitional gap in income distribution between rich and poor was at its widest in

the mid-Victorian age, when the free-for-all society was at its zenith and before

the efforts of the State to redress the balance by means of welfare benefits for the

poor had begun to have much effect.

Some statistical confirmation of this may be derived from Dudley Baxter’s

well-known analysis of the distribution of the national income in 1867, which he

compared to the Atlantic peak of Teneriffe, ‘a good emblem of a wealthy state,

with its long low base of labouring population, with its uplands of the middle

classes, and with its towering peaks and summits of those with princely

incomes’

It is a remarkably accurate analysis, but for comparative purposes it

has three defects: it deals with individual, not family, incomes; it omits those

without incomes other than poor relief or charity; and it overstates the number of

income taxpayers, according to Stamp by as much as two-thirds.

Happily, these

defects tend to cancel out each other, and we might almost use the figures as they

stand. However, an attempt has been made, in Table 6, to translate them into family

incomes, as explained in the adjacent notes, in order to compare them with those

of Colquhoun for 1803 in Chapter II.

Deane, op. cit.. pp. 155–6.

Deane and Cole, op. cit., p. 142.

ENTREPRENEURIAL SOCIETY: IDEAL AND REALITY 345

The translation is not completely satisfactory, since the average family, at 3.4

persons, is somewhat too small, but the error is much the same for each class,

and the Table has the merit of approximating the division of incomes to the

distribution of the occupied population derived by Baxter from the 1861 Census.

It also yields much the same distribution of family incomes as Baxter’s

distribution of individual incomes, for the reason given above.

The resulting comparison is so striking that it would require an enormous

margin of error to overturn it. Whereas in 1803 more than one family in a

hundred (1.4 per cent) shared less than a sixth (15–7 per cent) of the national

income, in 1867 less than one family in a thousand (0–07 per cent) shared about

the same proportion (16–2 per cent) of the national income. The top 2 per cent in

1803 shared about a fifth, in 1867 about two-fifths of the income; and the top 10

per cent in 1803 about two-fifths, in 1867 over half the income.

Because of the

distortion of the income scale produced by Baxter’s peculiar residuary

intermediate class, which contained many clerks, shop assistants,

TABLE 6

DISTRIBUTION OF THE NATIONAL INCOME BETWEEN FAMILIES, ENGLAND

AND WALES, 1867

Families Income

Number 000 Percentage Amount  000 Percentage

I. Upper Class

(1)  5,000+ 4.5 0.07 111,104 16.2

(2)  1,000– 5,

000

25.2 0.41 69,440 10.1

II. Middle Class

 300– 1,000 90.0 1.46 72,912 10.6

III. Lower

Middle

(1)  100– 300 510.3 8.29 93,744 13.7

(2) Under  100 946.0 15.37 70,958 10.3

Upper and

Middle Classes

1,576.0 25.6 418,158 60.9

IV. Higher

Skilled

840.8 13.8 72,028 10.5

R.D.Baxter, National Income (1868), p. 1.

Stamp, op. cit., p. 449: he estimates 450,000 over  150, compared with Baxter’s 700,000

(deducting 196,000  100– 150).

See Table 1, pp. 20–1, above.

Baxter, op. cit., p. 15.

Estimated by graphing (Lorenz curves).

346 ENTREPRENEURIAL SOCIETY: IDEAL AND REALITY

Families Income

Number 000 Percentage Amount  000 Percentage

V. Lower

Skilled

1,610.0 26.1 112,042 16.3

VI. Unskilled

and Agricultural

1,516.8 24.6 70,659 10.3

VII. Wageless

families

610.4 9.9 13,466 2.0

Manual Labour

Classes

4,588.0 74.4 268,195 39.1

All Classes

6,154.0 100.0 686,353 100.0

NOTES:

1. Estimated from R.D.Baxter, National Income (1868), as explained below.

2. The number of taxpayers in each class I–III (1) has been reduced by 40 per cent to

conform with Stamp’s estimate, and one family allowed per taxpayer.

3. The non-taxpaying middle class, III (2), has been increased to absorb the above

reduction, and then allowed one and a half income earners per family, and an

average family income of  75.

4. The manual labour classes, IV–VI, have been allowed one family per adult male wage-

earner (on the assumption that the bachelors would very roughly offset families

supported by women or child breadwinners). To even out subsidiary earners,

one-third of the women’s and children’s income in class V has been transferred

to class IV. The resultant family incomes average for class IV  85.7 and for

class V  69.6.

5. Class VII is a new category based on the daily average number of paupers in 1866,

916,000, plus an equivalent number presumed to be living on charity, etc., and

allowed one family to three persons (cf. Rowntree’s poorest class A in York,

1899, Poverty: a Study of Town Life, p. 58). Their income has been estimated

from the average amount of poor relief in the 1860’s,  7 10s. per head, or  22

10s. per family.

small dealers and ‘collectors’, who earned much less than the highly skilled

manual workers, the working-class majority appears not to be very much worse

off than the equivalent group in 1803 (with 39 per cent as compared with 42 per

cent), but when allowance is made for the disproportionate share of this going to

the small and relatively prosperous aristocracy of skilled labour (in Baxter’s

original distribution of individual incomes one worker in seven shared nearly a

quarter of the available wages), it is clear that the mass of less skilled workers

had lost considerable ground. All this confirms the conclusion we reached in the

discussion on living standards in Chapter V, that, whether or not real wages

improved in the first half of the nineteenth century, they lagged far behind the

general increase in national income per head.

The main effect of the Industrial

Revolution on the distribution of income was to make it very much more

unequal.

Perhaps relative inequality, even increasing inequality, does not matter if

living standards for the poor are rising absolutely, and poverty is declining. The

ENTREPRENEURIAL SOCIETY: IDEAL AND REALITY 347

entrepreneurial ideal assumed, thirdly, that the economic system provided work

for all, at least at subsistence wages, and that such poverty as there was, apart

from the inevitable cases of misfortune and hardship dealt with by charity and

the poor laws, was voluntary, the result of individual vice, improvidence and

idleness. If pauperism was an adequate test, poverty was declining, relatively if

not absolutely. In 1803 there were just over a million paupers in England and

Wales, or about one in nine of the population. In 1850 and again in 1870 there

were still almost exactly the same number (though the mid-Victorian average

was slightly lower), but in a much larger population they represented less than

half the proportion, about one in eighteen and one in twenty-three respectively.

But the tightening of poor-law administration by the 1834 Act and the enormous

burgeoning of mid-Victorian charity suggest that pauperism is not an adequate test.

The New Poor Law was designed to stamp out outdoor relief for the able-bodied,

and within the workhouses the able-bodied declined from 38 per cent of the

inmates in 1842 to 15 per cent in 1860, and remained around that proportion for

the rest of the century.

Meanwhile, contemporary estimates show that in the

1860’s far larger sums were dispersed in organized charity than in poor relief,

while the extent of casual charity cannot be gauged at all.

The amount and degree of poverty in mid-Victorian England can therefore

only be guessed. Informed contemporaries like Henry Mayhew, who chronicled

the starvation earnings and conditions of the London street folk, or Dr. Edward

Smith who in 1863 found representative groups of domestic workers in London

and the provinces spending sums of from 2s. 6¼d. to 2s. 9½d. a week per adult

on food, many of them ‘insufficiently nourished, and of feeble health’, knew it to

be enormous.

At the very time when Sir Robert Giffen was arguing that ‘The

general conclusion from all the facts is, that what has happened to the working

classes in the last fifty years is not so much what may properly be called an

improvement, as a revolution of the most remarkable description,’ Charles Booth

was beginning the first modern social survey, which was to show that 30–7 per

cent of the population of London was living in poverty.

Where all is guess work an informed guess may be allowed, by working

backwards from the first survey to afford a precise definition of poverty, that of

Rowntree in York in 1899. Rowntree defined the poverty line as the ‘minimum

necessary expenditure for the maintenance of merely physical health’, and

divided the poor into those families whose total income fell below this line and

were therefore in ‘primary’ poverty, and those whose total income came only

slightly above but were pulled down below it by other expenditure, either useful

or wasteful, and were therefore in ‘secondary’ poverty. He found that 27–84 per

Cf. chap. v, § 1, above.

1803 1,040,000; 1850 1,009,000; 1870 1,033,000—Colquhoun, Indigence, p. 36; Porter,

op. cit., (1912 ed.), p. 70.

Porter, op. cit., p. 72.

348 ENTREPRENEURIAL SOCIETY: IDEAL AND REALITY

cent of the population of York in 1899, one of the most prosperous years of the

nineteenth century, were in poverty (9–91 per cent in primary and 17–93 per

cent in secondary poverty). Rowntree’s poverty line was calculated separately

for each family, but for a typical family of man, wife and two dependent children

in 1899 was 18s. 10d. a week.

For 1867, when prices were much higher though

rents somewhat lower, we can estimate the same line at 22s. 11d., or nearly  60 a

year.

In Table 2 the averages of the lowest class of paupers, etc., and of the

unskilled working class fall so far below this line that comparatively few

families can have risen above it. Those who did would certainly have come

within the zone where the slightest misspending of income would thrust them

down into poverty, and, judging by the record spending in mid-Victorian

England on beer, which reached an all-time peak in 1876,

secondary poverty

would be larger in 1867 than in 1899. And those in the unskilled class who still

managed to escape both kinds of poverty would probably be balanced by those in

the class immediately above, with an average income only marginally above the

line, who succumbed.

We can therefore guess that the equivalent of the whole of classes VI and VII

in Table 6 were in either primary or secondary poverty in 1867, or 35–5 per cent

in all, a figure clearly compatible with that for Booth’s London in 1889. A

society in which a third of the population was in poverty by the low standards of

1899, which Rowntree himself considered inadequate as a basis for his later

surveys in 1936 and 1949,

cannot be called prosperous in any absolute sense.

The ideal assumed, fourthly, that both poverty and inequality were adequately

compensated by increased opportunities for improving one’s standard of living

by social climbing. The myth of the self-made man was enshrined in Samuel

Smiles’ Self-Help only in 1859. Giffen relied on the movement from lower-paid

to higher-paid jobs to double the rate of increase in wages.

Levi declared that

In a large number of instances working men of 1857 have become middle-

class men of 1884. Many a workman of that day has now a shop or an

Sampson Low, jr., The Charities of London (1862), pp. xi, 86, estimated London

charities at  2,441,967, as against Metropolitan poor relief in 1857 of  1,425,063;

Thomas Hawkesley, The Charities of London (1889), p. 7, estimated both together at  7

million, the great bulk of it being charity; Woodroofe, op. cit., pp. 26–7.

Mayhew, op. cit., (1851 ed.), p. iii; Report by Dr. Edward Smith on Food of Labouring

Classes in England, 6th Report of the Medical Officer of Privy Council, 1863, pp. 219f.;

Burnett, op. cit., pp. 150–3.

Giffen, ‘Further Notes on the Progress of the Working Classes’; loc. cit., p. 473; Booth,

op. cit., II. 21.

ENTREPRENEURIAL SOCIETY: IDEAL AND REALITY 349

hotel, has money in the bank or shares in shipping or mills. Cases of rising

from the ranks are by no means so rare as we might imagine.

Even Mill, who doubted whether industrialism had benefited the workers as a

class, believed that it had increased their individual chances in life. The

distinguishing feature of modern society was the fact that

human beings are no longer born to their place in life…but are free to

employ their faculties and such favourable chances as offer, to achieve the

lot which may appear to them most desirable.

‘There is of course no doubt that there was a considerable amount of upward

mobility in mid-Victorian England, as in all periods of modern English history.

‘Petty’s law’, the movement of labour with economic growth from agriculture to

industry and services, continued to operate, with two significant new features.

The relative decline of agricultural employment now became an absolute one,

shrinking between 1851 and 1881 from a fifth to an eighth of the occupied

population and from 2–1 to 1–7 million persons. And for the first time the

proportion employed in manufacturing and mining industry ceased to grow, and

the emphasis shifted to the growth of trade, transport and other services.

Not all

of the expansion was in higher-paid occupations, for shop-assistants, clerks,

domestic servants and even teachers were often paid less than skilled manual

workers, but the upward movement on balance was strong enough to raise the

average increase in money wages over the period 1850–80 from 24 to 39 per

cent.

There was also a significant expansion of middle-class occupations, and

not merely of the lowly white-collar employments mentioned above. All the

professions, including central and local government, expanded faster than the

occupied population, with the doubtful exception of law and medicine, whose

advance the Census probably understates.

And the trebling of the number of

Schedule D assessments in Table 5 above compared with a 39 per cent growth in

the occupied population is probably evidence of an upward movement into and

within the business middle class. Against these upward movements must be set

Rowntree, op. cit. (2nd. ed., n.d.), pp. 119, 144, 150–1.

Calculated with the aid of commodity prices and rents in G.H.Wood, ‘Real

Wages and the Standard of Comfort since 1850’, Stat.J., 1909, LXXII. 91f.

Burnett, op. cit., pp. 81, 155.

B.S.Rowntree, Poverty and Progress: a Second Social Survey of York (1941), pp.

28–30, 101–9; Rowntree and G.R.Lavers, Poverty and the Welfare State: a Third

Social Survey of York (1951), pp. 8–9.

Giffen, op. cit., pp. 422–4.

Levi, op. cit., p. 30.

J.S.Mill, Principles, p. 455; The Subjection of Women (1869), p. 31.

350 ENTREPRENEURIAL SOCIETY: IDEAL AND REALITY

certain contrary ones, such as the continuing decline of self-employed workers

from perhaps 20 per cent in the 1820’s to 11 or 12 per cent towards the end of

the century, and, with the growing size of units of production, the increasing

proportion of workmen to managers.

But on balance the general drift was

certainly upward.

The important questions, however, are whether the extent of the upward

mobility was greater or smaller than before, and whether in the mid-Victorian

period itself it was expanding or contracting. To the first the answer is the more

elusive, but it is probably negative. Leslie Stephen believed that ‘there is

probably no period in English history at which a greater number of poor men

have risen to distinction’ than at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the

nineteenth century—instancing writers, scientists and scholars rather than

inventors and industrialists. Since then, however, patronage and free education

for the intelligent poor had substantially declined, and it is doubtful whether the

mid-Victorians could produce such a galaxy as that cited by Stephen.

Samuel

Smiles’ industrial heroes risen from the ranks were mostly drawn from the

eighteenth and the early rather than the mid-nineteenth century, and even that

optimist betrays a feeling that the heroic age is past.

Finally, such evidence as

there is suggests that fewer new men founded landed families in the nineteenth

than in the eighteenth century. In three typical counties, Shropshire, Oxfordshire

and Essex, in 1873, fewer estates belonged to new families which had arrived in

the nineteenth than to those which had survived from eighteenth-century

founders.

On the second question there is much better evidence, and it all points to a

contraction of opportunities for social climbing during the mid-Victorian age. In

the two industries whose leaders have been studied, steel and factory hosiery,

both new industries in this period, the chances of rising from humble origins

were comparatively small and steadily declined.

The majority of entrepreneurs

and company officials, in hosiery in 1871 52 per cent, in steel in 1865 89 per

cent, came from the landed, business or professional classes, and most of the

rest, 33 and 7 per cent respectively, from the lower middle class of retailers,

Deane and Cole, op. cit., pp. 142–3.

G.H.Wood, loc. cit., pp. 102–3.

Cf. H.J.Perkin, ‘Middle-Class Education and Employment in the 19th Century: a

Critical Note’, Ec.H.R., 1961, XIV. 128.

Deane and Cole, op. cit., pp. 149–50.

L.Stephen, The English Utilitarians (1900), I. 111–12 (Burns, Paine, Cobbett, Gifford,

Dalton, Person, Joseph White, Owen, Lancaster, Watt, Telford, Rennie).

S.Smiles, Lives of the Engineers (1861–65), passim.

F.M.L.Thompson, op. cit., pp. 124–5.

Charlotte Erickson, British Industrialists: Steel and Hosiery, 1850–1950 (Cambridge,

1959), pp. 12, 56, 93, 129.

ENTREPRENEURIAL SOCIETY: IDEAL AND REALITY 351

clerks, foremen and self-employed craftsmen. Only a small minority, in hosiery

16 per cent, in steel 4 per cent, were the sons of manual workers, and even these

small percentages were declining, to 9 in hosiery by 1905, to 3 in steel by 1875–

95. The proportion of managers and officials who had themselves started as

manual workers was smaller still, and between the same dates declined in hosiery

from 11 to 2 per cent, in steel from 13 to 4 per cent. Still more significant for the

direction of the trend was the difference between the two industries. The more

traditional, small-scale hosiery industry, dominated by old-fashioned individual

entrepreneurs and partnerships was the more open to outsiders and social

climbers, while the more progressive, large-scale steel industry rapidly became

the more closed, exclusive and patrician in its recruitment and connections.

Limited companies in both, moreover, recruited still fewer of their leaders from

the working class, and in so far as they recruited more from outside existing

business families, took them from the clerks and professional men in the office.

The incipient managerialism of the joint-stock company favoured the already

middle-class office worker rather than the manual worker.

This would perhaps have mattered less if educational opportunities for manual

worker’s sons had been improving, but they were not. If elementary education

was expanding, secondary education for the working class, as we saw in

Chapter VIII, was disappearing with the conversion of free grammar schools into

fee-charging day and boarding schools and of free places into scholarships

requiring expensive preparation.

As for higher education, ‘from 1854 to 1904

was the most difficult time for the poor scholar to make his way to Oxford and

Cambridge,’ while the new provincial university colleges were exclusively

middle-class.

Thus with industrial opportunities declining on the one side and

educational opportunities disappearing on the other, upward mobility for the

working class was probably at its nadir, and could scarcely provide adequate

compensation for the poverty and inequality of entrepreneurial society.

At the other end of the social scale, too, upward mobility in the form of the

rise of individual new men into the landed class was certainly more difficult than

before. The greatest single source of new men, government patronage and the

perquisites of high office, was drying up. The Lord Chancellorship had once

been the high road to landed status, but between 1832 and 1885 six of the eleven

Lord Chancellors were virtually landless, and the rest acquired much smaller

estates than those of the past. Twenty of the twenty-six ‘poor’ peers with less

than 3,000 acres in 1873 were government servants who would in the past have

been amply endowed.

At the same time, for them as for business men and

others, the cost of acquiring a landed estate was at its highest in the mid-

Ibid., pp. 189–93.

Cf. chap. viii, § 2 above; and Brian Simon, op. cit., pp. 312–18, 325–35.

A.Mansbridge, The Older Universities of England (1923), pp. 108–9; Armytage, Civic

Universities, chaps. viii–x.

352 ENTREPRENEURIAL SOCIETY: IDEAL AND REALITY

Victorian age, with both rents and the number of years’ purchase at their zenith.

The cost of a typical 1,000-acre estate had risen since the eighteenth century from

about  12,000 to over  30,000, and rose still further in the land boom of the

1860’s and early 1870’s, when  1,000 a year in rent might cost  40,000 to

acquire.

The competition for land was fierce, and many wealthy new men had to

make do with more modest estates than previously, or even with country seats

with little or no land attached.

The high price of land, however, argued no lack of large fortunes made in

business. Far from declining, the number of business men who could vie with the

landlords in wealth was rapidly increasing. But this was part of a far more

disturbing movement in mid-Victorian society than the mere rise of new men,

whose function had always been to maintain the dynamic stability of English

society. Now the rise of individuals was being overtaken by the rise of a whole

class, or, rather, of an important section of a class. For it was not the

entrepreneurial class as a whole which was beginning to rise above itself, but a

class of new and bigger business men, mostly corporate capitalists in the new

large-scale joint-stock companies, who differed in outlook and attitudes in

important ways from the traditional individual owner-manager. If the tensions

and dichotomies between the ideal and reality of entrepreneurial society in the

matters of material progress, poverty, increasing inequality and decreasing social

mobility were a threat to its stability and permanence, how much more so was

the evolution of a new business class which, as we must now see, did not accept

either the traditional place or the whole ideal of the entrepreneur.

THE EMERGING PLUTOCRACY

The entrepreneurial ideal assumed that the middle class consisted predominantly

of business men, large and small, who, whatever their line of business and scale

of operation, were distinguished from the other two major classes by the fact that

they both owned and actively managed their businesses, and earned profits which

varied with both the size of their capital and the skill and intensity of their

activity. In short, they were entrepreneurs, in the sense of active owner-managers

individually responsible for their firms and partnerships, who considered

themselves morally superior to both idle landowners and irresponsible wage-

earners in providing the initiative, drive and direction of the economic system.

We have already seen, of course, that this necessarily over-simplified view—

necessarily, because all class ideals can exist only by oversimplifying—left out a

major section of the middle class, the professional middle class. Until the mid-

nineteenth century, however, the professional class could be readily

F.M.L.Thompson, op. cit., pp. 56–7, 61–2.

Ibid., p. 122.

ENTREPRENEURIAL SOCIETY: IDEAL AND REALITY 353