City companies charities. Report of the Educational Endowments Committee. February, 1881.

"The charities described ... are exclusively those under the trust of the guilds or companies of the city of London."

The London and Southampton railway companion, containing a complete description of every thing worthy of attention on the line; of the gentlemen's seats, villas, towns, and villages; an account of the churches, endowments, livings, patrons; and of the various packs of hounds and angling stations near the line; with guides to Southampton and Isle of Wight.

Mode of access: Internet.

The hand; its mechanism and vital endowments, as evincing design.

Mode of access: Internet.

Our widows and orphans endowments. A study. Dedicated to the members of the I.O.B.B.,

Errata slip inserted.

A topographical and historical account of the parish of St. Mary-le-Bone, comprising a copious description of its public buildings, antiquities, schools, charitable endowments, sources of public amusement, &c. with biographical notices of eminent persons. Illustrated with six views and a map.

Mode of access: Internet.

The hand : its mechanism and vital endowments, as evincing design /

Binder's title: Bell on the hand.

The great schools of England: an account of the foundation, endowments,

Mode of access: Internet.

Fundamental by-laws and tables of rates, for reversionary annuities, annuities and endowments,

Reprinted, 1876.

The importance of gestation process dynamics

Principal Topic In this paper we seek to highlight the important intermediate role that the gestation process plays in entrepreneurship by examining its key antecedents and its consequences for new venture emergence. In doing so we take a behavioural perspective and argue that it is not only what a nascent venture is, but what it does (Katz & Gartner, 1988; Shane & Delmar, 2004; Reynolds, 2007) and when it does it during start-up (Reynolds & Miller, 1992; Lichtenstein, Carter, Dooley & Gartner, 2007) that is important. To extend an analogy from biological development, what we suggest is that the way a new venture is nurtured is just as fundamental as its nature. Much prior research has focused on the nature of new ventures and attempted to attribute variations in outcomes directly to the impact resource endowments and investments have. While there is little doubt that venture resource attributes such as human capital, and specifically prior entrepreneurial experience (Alsos & Kolvereid, 1998), access to social (Davidsson & Honig, 2003) and financial capital have an influence. Resource attributes themselves are distal from successful start-up endeavours and remain inanimate if not for the actions of the nascent venture. The key contribution we make is to shift focus from whether or not actions are taken, but when these actions happen and how that is situated in the overall gestation process. Thus, we suggest that it is gestation process dynamics, or when gestation actions occur, that is more proximal to venture outcomes and we focus on this. Recently scholars have highlighted the complexity that exists in the start-up or gestation process, be it temporal or contextual (Liao, Welsch & Tan, 2005; Lichtenstein et al. 2007). There is great variation in how long a start-up process might take (Reynolds & Miller, 1992), some processes require less action than others (Carter, Gartner & Reynolds, 1996), and the overall intensity of the start-up effort is also deemed important (Reynolds, 2007). And, despite some evidence that particular activities are more influential than others (Delmar & Shane, 2003), the order in which events may happen is, until now, largely indeterminate as regard its influence on success (Liao & Welsch, 2008). We suggest that it is this complexity of the intervening gestation process that attenuates the effect of resource endowment and has resulted in mixed findings in previous research. Thus, in order to reduce complexity we shall take a holistic view of the gestation process and argue that it is its’ dynamic properties that determine nascent venture attempt outcomes. Importantly, we acknowledge that particular gestation processes of themselves would not guarantee successful start-up, but it is more correctly the fit between the process dynamics and the ventures attributes (Davidsson, 2005) that is influential. So we aim to examine process dynamics by comparing sub-groups of venture types by resource attributes. Thus, as an initial step toward unpacking the complexity of the gestation process, this paper aims to establish the importance of its role as an intermediary between attributes of the nascent venture and the emergence of that venture. Here, we make a contribution by empirically examining gestation process dynamics and their fit with venture attributes. We do this by firstly, examining that nature of the influence that venture attributes such as human and social capital have on the dynamics of the gestation process, and secondly by investigating the effect that gestation process dynamics have on venture creation outcomes. Methodology and Propositions In order to explore the importance that gestation processes dynamics have in nascent entrepreneurship we conduct an empirical study of ventures start-ups. Data is drawn from a screened random sample of 625 Australian nascent business ventures prior to them achieving consistent outcomes in the market. This data was collected during 2007/8 and 2008/9 as part of the Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE) project (Davidsson et al., 2008). CAUSEE is a longitudinal panel study conducted over four years, sourcing information from annually administered telephone surveys. Importantly for our study, this methodology allows for the capture and tracking of active nascent venture creation as it happens, thus reducing hindsight and selection biases. In addition, improved tests of causality may be made given that outcome measures are temporally removed from preceding events. The data analysed in this paper represents the first two of these four years, and for the first time has access to follow-up outcome measures for these venture attempts: where 260 were successful, 126 were abandoned, and 191 are still in progress. With regards to venture attributes as gestation process antecedents, we examine specific human capital measured as successful prior experience in entrepreneurship, and direct social capital of the venture as ‘team start-ups’. In assessing gestation process dynamics we follow Lichtenstein et al. (2007) to suggest that the rate, concentration and timing of gestation activities may be used to summarise the complexity dynamics of that process. In addition, we extend this set of measures to include the interaction of discovery and exploitation by way of changes made to the venture idea. Those ventures with successful prior experience or those who conduct symbiotic parallel start-up attempts may be able to, or be forced to, leave their gestation action until later and still derive a successful outcome. In addition access to direct social capital may provide the support upon which the venture may draw in order to persevere in the face of adversity, turning a seemingly futile start-up attempt into a success. On the other hand prior experience may engender the foresight to terminate a venture attempt early should it be seen to be going nowhere. The temporal nature of these conjectures highlight the importance that process dynamics play and will be examined in this research Statistical models are developed to examine gestation process dynamics. We use multivariate general linear modelling to analyse how human and social capital factors influence gestation process dynamics. In turn, we use event history models and stratified Cox regression to assess the influence that gestation process dynamics have on venture outcomes. Results and Implications What entrepreneurs do is of interest to both scholars and practitioners’ alike. Thus the results of this research are important since they focus on nascent behaviour and its outcomes. While venture attributes themselves may be influential this is of little actionable assistance to practitioners. For example it is unhelpful to say to the prospective first time entrepreneur “you’ll be more successful if you have lots of prior experience in firm start-ups”. This research attempts to close this relevance gap by addressing what gestation behaviours might be appropriate, when actions best be focused, and most importantly in what circumstances. Further, we make a contribution to the entrepreneurship literature, examining the role that gestation process dynamics play in outcomes, by specifically attributing these to the nature of the venture itself. This extension is to the best of our knowledge new to the research field.

Just do it : action's central role in venture creation

This study examined the effect that venture creation action has on the outcomes of nascent entrepreneurship. A theoretical model was developed which proposes action as a fundamental mechanism in venture creation. Thus, action should rightly be considered as a means rather than an end in itself. In this respect, action transmits the effects of venture resource endowments on to venture creation outcomes. This conceptual model was empirically supported in a random sample of nascent ventures. Ventures with higher levels of human or social capital tend to be more active in venture creation. In turn, more active venture attempts are more likely to achieve improved results.

Action’s place in the venture creation process

This study examined the effect that venture creation action has on the outcomes of nascent entrepreneurship. A conceptual model was developed which proposes action as a fundamental mechanism in venture creation. Thus, action should rightly be considered as a means which transmits the effects of venture resource endowments on to venture creation outcomes. This conceptual model was empirically supported in a random sample of nascent ventures. Ventures with higher levels of human or social capital were found to be more active in venture creation. In turn, more active venture attempts were more likely to achieve improved venture creation outcomes. Further, human and social capital, on their own, exhibit little direct influence on the venture outcomes achieved. These findings confirm action’s central place in the venture creation process.

Disability and the labour market : an analysis of British males

This paper attempts, using data from the British Labour Force Survey 1996, to examine to what extent differences in labour market outcomes between able-bodied and disabled men may be attributed to differences in endowments of human capital and associated productivity differences. Both labour force participation and selectivity corrected human capital equations are estimated and decomposition techniques applied to them. Using the methodology of Baldwin and Johnson [Baldwin, M., Johnson, W.G., 1994. Labor market discrimination against men with disabilities. Journal of Human Resources, XXIX(1), Winter, 1–19], the employment effects of wage discrimination against the disabled are also estimated. Evidence of both substantial wage and participation rate differences between able-bodied and disabled men are found, which have implications for the operation of the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act.

Dimensions of the venture creation process : amount, dynamics, and sequences of action in nascent entrepreneurship

This research examines the entrepreneurship phenomenon, and the question: Why are some venture attempts more successful than others? This question is not a new one. Prior research has answered this by describing those that engage in nascent entrepreneurship. Yet, this approach yielded little consensus and offers little comfort for those newly considering venture creation (Gartner, 1988). Rather, this research considers the process of venture creation, by focusing on the actions of nascent entrepreneurs. However, the venture creation process is complex (Liao, Welsch, & Tan, 2005), and multi-dimensional (Davidsson, 2004). The process can vary in the amount of action engaged by the entrepreneur; the temporal dynamics of how action is enacted (Lichtenstein, Carter, Dooley, and Gartner 2007); or the sequence in which actions are undertaken. And little is known about whether any, or all three, of these dimensions matter. Further, there exists scant general knowledge about how the venture creation process influences venture creation outcomes (Gartner & Shaver, 2011). Therefore, this research conducts a systematic study of what entrepreneurs do as they create a new venture. The primary goal is to develop general principles so that advice may be offered on how to ‘proceed’, rather than how to ‘be’. Three integrated empirical studies were conducted that separately focus on each of the interrelated dimensions. The basis for this was a randomly sampled, longitudinal panel, of nascent ventures. Upon recruitment these ventures were in the process of being created, but yet to be established as new businesses. The ventures were tracked one year latter to follow up on outcomes. Accordingly, this research makes the following original contributions to knowledge. First, the findings suggest that all three of the dimensions play an important role: action, dynamics, and sequence. This implies that future research should take a multi-dimensional view of the venture creation process. Failing to do so can only result in a limited understanding of a complex phenomenon. Second, action is the fundamental means through which venture creation is achieved. Simply put, more active venture creation efforts are more likely more successful. Further, action is the medium which allows resource endowments their effect upon venture outcomes. Third, the dynamics of how venture creation plays out over time is also influential. Here, a process with a high rate of action which increases in intensity will more likely achieve positive outcomes. Forth, sequence analysis, suggests that the order in which actions are taken will also drive outcomes. Although venture creation generally flows in sequence from discovery toward exploitation (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Eckhardt & Shane, 2003; Shane, 2003), processes that actually proceed in this way are less likely to be realized. Instead, processes which specifically intertwine discovery and exploitation action together in symbiosis more likely achieve better outcomes (Sarasvathy, 2001; Baker, Miner, & Eesley, 2003). Further, an optimal venture creation order exists somewhere between these sequential and symbiotic process archetypes. A process which starts out as symbiotic discovery and exploitation, but switches to focus exclusively on exploitation later on is most likely to achieve venture creation. These sequence findings are unique, and suggest future integration between opposing theories for order in venture creation.