Abstract - We examine to what extent bankrupt entrepreneurs are stigmatized in the mass media. Based on a decade of newspaper articles, we show that while overall the level of

This paper is published in Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08276331.2015.1017869#abstract.

THE STIGMATIZATION OF BANKRUPT ENTREPRENEURS IN DUTCH NEWSPAPERS

Wakkee, I., Dorrestein, F. and Englis, P.

Abstract - We examine to what extent bankrupt entrepreneurs are stigmatized in the mass media. Based on a decade of newspaper articles, we show that while overall the level of

stigmatization is lower than expected based on popular belief, stigmatization increases in the years with many bankruptcies, and in the months following a prominent bankruptcy. These differences are caused by the distinctions made by journalists between entrepreneurs in charge of large and small firms respectively as villains responsible for the bankruptcy and its

consequences, or as hard-working victims of the system. Findings are explained in terms of experienced peril and cultural factors.

Keywords: bankruptcy, entrepreneurship, media, stigmatization, culture, exposure

Introduction

It is often suggested that entrepreneurs who have been involved in a bankruptcy are stigmatized and that this stigma keeps them from ever starting another new firm (Landier 2002;

Burchell and Hughes 2006; European_Commission 2007). Nevertheless few empirical studies have been undertaken to establish whether this stigma is reality or merely popular belief and possibly an excuse for those entrepreneurs who do not dare to start again. The present research considers the first of these issues and investigates whether evidence is found for the alleged stigmatization of (ex-) bankrupt entrepreneurs in the media.

As yet, few entrepreneurship studies have relied solely on newspaper articles to develop insight into how relevant stakeholders and society perceives entrepreneurs. Studies by Nicholson and Anderson (2005) on changing metaphoric portrayal of entrepreneurs, by Achtenhagen and Welter on the depiction of female entrepreneurs in the German media and by Schultz and Achtenhagen (2013) on stereotypes of ethnic entrepreneurs in U.S. newspapers form some interesting recent exceptions. Here, the nature and extent of stigmatization of bankrupt

entrepreneurs is explored by qualitatively examining how they were portrayed in the Dutch mass media. By systematically analyzing newspapers articles from 2000 till 2009, we examine the extent and nature of stigmatization and connect the level of stigmatization to the number of bankruptcies in a specific period, the characteristics of these bankruptcies in terms of firm size, and to the occurrence of prominent bankruptcy cases. We reveal that the overall level of stigmatization of ex-bankrupt entrepreneurs in the media is not as high as expected. A rather balanced picture of bankruptcy emerges in the media.

Closer inspection reveals that in years with many bankruptcies the overall tone is more

stigmatizing, just like in the period following a prominent bankruptcy case. In addition,

considerable differences are observed in the way the media report firms of different sizes

experiencing a bankruptcy. While entrepreneurs involved in medium sized to larger firms are

often portrayed as mainly taking care of their own (financial) position, owner-managers of micro

and small ventures that go bankrupt are typically shown as victims of the system or as slaving

against all odds. We explain the findings using insights from previous studies on stigma in other

domains such as mental illness or obesity (Goffman 1963; Pinel 1999), and on the role of culture

perceived peril (Jones et al. 1984; Neuberg et al. 2000) offers a better explanation of stigmatization compared to exposure or empathy effects (Corrigan et al. 2001; Jacoby et al.

2004). In terms of culture, we argue that the egalitarian nature of the Dutch society may explain differences in stigmatizing reports of large versus small firm bankruptcies.

This paper is organized in the following manner. The next section starts with a description of the meaning and nature of bankruptcy in the Netherlands where this study was conducted and how it leads to the stigmatization of entrepreneurs involved in bankruptcy. Next we provide an overview of the literature on media framing and how this connects to the issue of entrepreneurial bankruptcy. The third section describes the qualitative method that we adopted including a description of our main data sources, our sample and a qualitative articles classification framework. After presenting our findings we end this study with a discussion in which we interpret our findings in terms of exposure to bankruptcy stories versus the perceived level of peril resulting from bankruptcy as well as in terms of a number of national culture dimensions.

Background

Bankruptcy and the destruction of entrepreneurial capital

Bankruptcy is an important legal means to protect the rights of debtors and acts as an important mechanism to filter out less capable entrepreneurs resulting in more successful entrepreneurial activities at the macro-level (Hunt 1997; Thornhill and Amit 2003). Yet, bankruptcies are typically due to many different internal and external factors, only some of which are controllable by the entrepreneur. Furthermore, bankruptcies are a cause of destruction of entrepreneurial capital when the entrepreneurs involved give up (Shepherd 2009; Shepherd, Covin, and Kuratko 2009; Shepherd, Wiklund, and Haynie 2009). Indeed only a small proportion of these actually start a new firm. Most would like to do so (Reynolds et al. 2004) but are kept from it by extensive perceived and actual stigmatization (Furuya 2002; Landier 2002; Alesina and Glaeser 2004).

In the Netherlands, any legal entity can be declared bankrupt by the court if they have at

least two creditors and fail to pay their debt. Both the creditors and the owner-manager of the

firm can request for bankruptcy. The court then appoints a liquidator who assumes guardianship

of the firm and who seeks to execute the firm’s estate to pay off as much of the debt as possible by drastically reorganizing or liquidating the firm. Also, the liquidator is responsible for

initiating a potential investigation into director’s liability.

(http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001860/geldigheidsdatum_16-12-2013). While liquidators should settle a bankruptcy case as soon as possible, there are no legal time limits. Consequently many bankruptcy cases linger for many months or even years depending on the size of the debt and complexity of the case. While discussions about updating the 19

century bankruptcy law have been going on between lawyers and policy makers for several years now, no major changes in the bankruptcy law have been implemented between 2000 and 2009. The number of

bankruptcy cases in the Netherlands ranged from 4.498 in 2000 to 10.559 in 2010 with annual variations as a result of the number of firms and the stage of the economic cycle (CBS, 2011).

The total economic and societal damage of firm bankruptcies is difficult to establish but in 2010 it was estimated that about 4 billion euro’s in unpaid debt remained after bankruptcy (CBS 2011). The number of jobs lost as a result of bankruptcies in this period tripled from almost 20.000 in 2000 to almost 60.000 in 2009 (Sprangers, Timmermans, and Lalta 2010).

Stigmatization of bankrupt entrepreneurs

According to Goffman (1963) stigma refer to “personal attributes that are deeply

discrediting and that reduces a whole and usual person into a tainted and discounted one” (p. 3) and that separate this person from the society or community in which he lives (Kasperson, Jhaveri, and Kasperson 2001; Semadeni et al. 2008). Stigmatization thus refers to an invisible divide that can be seen as sign of disapproval which permits "insiders" to draw a line around the

"outsiders" in order to demarcate the limits of inclusion in any group. This demarcation enables insiders to know who is "in" and who is "out". This allows a group to maintain its solidarity by demonstrating what will happen to individuals who deviate from accepted norms of conduct (Falk 2001). Individuals stigmatize in order to reduce complexity, to feel better about themselves or about their group, to justify their perceived status in society or to validate an important

worldview (Crocker and Quinn 2003). This is most likely to happen to individuals who threaten

the successful functioning of the group (Neuberg et al. 2000).

The extent to which bankruptcy is a cause for stigma varies across regions and over time due to differences and changes in norms and values which are caused by contextual factors such as rules and regulations, demographics and economic circumstances (Dake 1992; Douglas and Wildavsky 1983; Landier 2002; Saxenian 1996). Damaraju, Barney, and Dess (2010) showed that bankrupt entrepreneurs are stigmatized more commonly in collectivist cultures, like the Netherlands, than in individualistic cultures. In individualistic cultures, environmental dynamism suppresses the effect of stigmatization on entrepreneurial risk taking. In collectivistic cultures environmental dynamism does not act as a moderator. These findings suggest that culture alone cannot explain either the stigmatization or the effects on the number of restarts after bankruptcy.

Indeed (Burchell and Hughes 2006) show that despite having a higher tolerance towards failure than Europeans, Americans are slightly less willing to grant a second chance to those who start again. Yet, re-startup rates are much higher in the U.S than in Europe. According to the authors, GDP growth rather than cultural differences explain differences in the (re)startup rate.

Previously, (Landier 2002) suggested differences in the regulation and bankruptcy procedure, rather than general cultural attitudes, might explain variations in re-startup rates across countries.

Nevertheless, stigmatization is generally seen as an important contributor to permanent exits from entrepreneurial careers after bankruptcy.

Several mechanisms play a role in the formation and persistence of stigma of bankruptcy in different institutional environments (Jones et al. 1984). The first mechanism comes into play when individuals fear that bankrupt entrepreneurs are either incompetent or not to be trusted and that they will mess up again. When individuals consider entrepreneurs involved in bankruptcy are not to be trusted, they are often afraid that this entrepreneur will (intentionally) deceive them some point in the future. The second mechanism is not based on an individual’s personal views about bankrupt entrepreneurs, but on the (correct or incorrect) assumption that third parties will negatively evaluate their association with a bankrupt entrepreneur. This assumption causes individuals to distance themselves from (ex-)bankrupts to save their own reputation, almost as if the stigma would be contagious (Goffman 1963; Jones et al. 1984; Sutton and Callahan 1987).

Most individuals do not deal with bankrupt entrepreneurs on a daily basis and therefore they typically cannot rely on their own experiences to form an opinion about such entrepreneurs.

Instead, they form opinions by ‘following’ or ‘adopting’ the opinions of individuals or groups

who occupy an elite position like business analysts, judges and liquidators and journalists and who are expected to be able to form an accurate perception of a particular attribute or

phenomenon (Wiesenfeld, Wurthmann, and Hambrick 2008). Because the viewpoints of these opinion leaders are usually shared with the general audience through the mass media, in this research we will explore how mass media report about bankrupt entrepreneurs and how these reports change over time.

Framing Bankruptcy

Mass media refer to newspapers, book publishing, radio and television (Krippendorff 2012). Mass media both affect which topics are brought to the attention of the public (agenda setting theory (McCombs 2013; McCombs and Shaw 1972) and how these topics are brought to their attention and consequently what the public should think of these topics (framing theory (Otieno, Spada, and Renkl 2013; Semetko and Valkenburg 2000)). The key assumption of framing theory is that people have different perspectives when looking at events or phenomena, and that the way in which journalists characterize or frame these in their reports can influence how people perceive the issue or through which perspectives people see the world (Hallahan 1999; Iyengar and Simon 1993). Frames enable individuals to locate, perceive, identify and label events and have four functions: problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and recommendation of solutions (Entman 1993).

The public expects the media to be objective and driven by professional codes of conduct

and thus to present a balanced picture of a specific phenomenon. Journalists and media managers

nevertheless are also driven by their own prejudices and by commercial considerations. Thus,

when creating a report they consciously or unconsciously select characteristics and attributes of

the event they stress to demarcate the issue (Wilkins 2006; Skovsgaard et al. 2013). Further due

to competitive motives, journalists and media managers seek to present the news in such a way

that it meets the expectations of the audience and resonates with them. Wiesenfeld, Wurthmann,

and Hambrick (2008) argue that this has led to an increase in the use of colourful expressions

and dramatizations of events. When reports reflect a certain level of pleasure at the expense of

other people’s mistakes, this contributes to further stigmatization via the activation of negative

stereotypes to a larger extent than the underlying actual factors and mechanisms justify (Van

Although some suggest that the audience is more susceptible to negative than to positive stories in the media (Byrne 2003), it is also widely accepted that informing and educating the audience plays a major role in reducing stigma by providing accurate and balanced information

concerning causes and consequences (Reeder and Pryor 2008).

To determine to what extent framing contributes to stigmatization of entrepreneurs

involved in bankruptcy, two dimensions of framing need to be considered. The first relates to the type of frame that is being used and the second concerns the way in which frames are utilized (Scheufele 1999). On the basis of these two dimensions the framing process can be subdivided into frame building and frame setting. Five frame types are commonly used (Semetko and Valkenburg 2000). 1: Conflict frames in which emphasis is placed on conflicts between individuals, groups and institutions; 2. Economic frames in which emphasis is placed on the economic consequences of an event; 3. Human interest frames that show the personal side or human face of an event; 4. Morality frames that position an event in the context of contemporary norms and social codes of conduct; and 5. Responsibility frames that are used to indicate

responsibility of groups and institutions for either an event or problem or for the solution to this problem. Recent studies suggest that these five frame types are equally used in relation to such crises. The extent to which a specific type of crisis is seen as either preventable or inevitable determines which of these frames is more commonly used. In particular when a crisis is seen as being avoidable, the responsibility frame is used most commonly (An and Gower 2009). While testing the actual impact of different frames on the audience is beyond the scope of this study, Entman (1993) showed that the responsibility and the morality frame will have the strongest impact on the opinions the audience will form about a particular phenomenon as they explicitly address and evaluate causal agents and the effects.

Determining which type of frame is used is not sufficient when seeking insight in the level

of stigmatization. In fact, each type of frame can contain elements that are stigmatizing, neutral

or stigma-reducing. Therefore it is equally important to examine the actual content of a media

frame. Four dimensions can be used to determine the content of a frame: 1. the attributes of the

event that are being highlighted; 2. the nature of the presentation and prominence of a report in

the media (e.g. its length or location, usages of images); 3. the extent to which reporters seek to

invoke an emotional response; and 4. the level and nature of the details and connections between

these presented in order to allow the audience to cognitively understand the issue and or its potential solutions (Ghanem 1997). By selecting both the type of frame and determining which dimensions to incorporate when creating a news report and how to apply these, journalists build media frames. In this frame building process, journalists are influenced by both external and internal factors such as professional values, political orientations, perceptions about the expectations of the audience, the views of other opinion leaders and pressure groups.

The interactions between different internal and external influences are not yet fully

understood (Scheufele 1999)) and developing insight into the underlying mechanisms is beyond the scope of the research. Here we explore the effect of two external factors namely the number of bankruptcies and the occurrence of prominent bankruptcy cases. First, journalists might be influenced by the frequency with which the events about which they report occur. Wiesenfeld, Wurthmann, and Hambrick (2008) suggest that when confronted with the bankruptcy of a firm, stakeholders ask themselves questions about who is responsible or even to blame. If they attribute bankruptcy to the behavior of the entrepreneur (due to lack of skills and capabilities or even malicious intent), individuals will shut these entrepreneurs out and are unwilling to give them a second chance (Furuya 2002). If bankruptcies occur frequently in a specific period, journalists – possibly affected by economic analysts or policy makers who express themselves negatively on the issue - might perceive this as an important sign that entrepreneurs are poorly equipped for their position and thus to blame for the economic and societal perils of termination of so many firms (Jones et al. 1984). Consequently, journalists may write about bankrupt

entrepreneurs in a more stigmatizing manner than they would generally do. Alternatively, when many firms experience bankruptcy simultaneously, journalists potentially start to consider external factors like general economic decline or inadequate policies and regulations. Indeed, previous research has shown that mere exposure to patients reduces the extent to which an individual stigmatizes someone affected by a mental illness (Corrigan et al. 2001). Exposure (via personal interaction or via the media) is suggested to lead to the accumulation of actual

knowledge about an illness or phenomenon and thus to the reduction of stereotypes that lead to stigmatization. This in turn would lead to a reduction of the stigmatization (Jacoby et al. 2004).

The question therefore remains, to what extent is the level of stigmatization of an entrepreneur

involved in a bankruptcy explained by the number of bankruptcies that occur in a given period?

Second, we expect that stigmatizing reports concerning prominent bankruptcy cases have a negative influence on the reports concerning other bankruptcies. Prominent cases are defined in this study as those bankruptcy cases that are described by the media as being large, as involving extensive debt and or massive layoffs. They do not necessarily have to involve entrepreneurial firms in the sense that they are owned and managed by a single entrepreneur or small team of entrepreneurs but can also involve (publicly owned) corporations. Scheufele (1999) argues that journalists act as a public when they read news reports of other journalists and are influenced in a similar way. Referring to earlier research by Gamson and Modigliani (1989), Van Gorp (2007) suggests that this process occurs most likely after large events that are imprinted on the

collective memory of a country. In their study, Gamson and Modigliani (1989) explain how accidents with the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl led to a change in the way media report about nuclear power plants in general. The original positive frame of innovation and

development was replaced by ‘Faustian’ or fatalistic frames. This line of thinking might lead to the assumption that reports about prominent bankruptcy cases negatively influence the way in which journalists report about other bankruptcy cases. However the lack of empirical research in this area calls for more investigation into the question of how reports about prominent cases affect the level of stigmatization in reports about other bankruptcies cases that occur shortly after the prominent case is first announced.

Method

Qualitative research provides an excellent means to explore and make sense of societal developments over time as it allows researchers to incorporate contextual and intervening conditions that may impact upon a specific issue or process, while also showing the dynamic interplay of various factors (Saldaña 2003). Qualitative researchers are typically interested in the

“lived experiences” of the actors involved and how these experiences influenced the actors in

relation to the issue or process under investigation. Therefore, most qualitative research is based

on primary information collected via interviews and observations, which allow for a direct

interaction between the researcher and the subject of the study. Secondary materials, which are

independent and not created for the purpose of research like newspapers or websites, typically

serve as background information in a data triangulation process (Decrop 1999). These materials

are mainly used to confirm the trustworthiness of primary information or to serve as a starting

point for an interview or conversation with the research subjects (Groen, Wakkee, and De Weerd-Nederhof 2008; Taylor and Jack 2012){Groen, 2008 #1742;Taylor, 2012 #1743}. While this use of secondary materials advances insight in entrepreneurship, we maintain that qualitative researchers have so far overlooked the full potential of secondary materials. First, secondary materials are typically easily accessible via the web or public archives when and how often the investigators want to access it. Collecting secondary materials is thus less obtrusive for the subjects involved and the investigator has the potential to go back to the material again and again without burdening these subjects. Second, no recollection biases are involved as the materials were created at time of the events on which they report. Biases resulting from social desirable behavior towards the investigator are also not an issue. Particularly when exploring the

development of attitudes and behaviors over time, this constitutes a major benefit of secondary materials.

To explore how mass media report about bankrupt entrepreneurs, we set up a qualitative design using content analysis involving the analysis mass media reports covering the period 2000 - 2009. Since no significant differences can be observed between different types of mass media and the types of media frames that are being used (Semetko and Valkenburg 2000), the

investigation is limited to newspapers because these are used most commonly by relevant stakeholders such as bank employees and policy makers to keep informed

(NationaalOnderzoekMultimedia 2010). In addition, the analysis of text (newspapers) is considered more efficient that the analysis of spoken words (radio) and or images (television).

Rather than including all Dutch newspapers, three newspapers (Telegraaf, Volkskrant (VK) and Financieel Dagblad (FD)) are included. Each has a significant market share and serves a different reader profile. In particular the Telegraaf is the largest national newspaper with an average market share of about 15% between 2000 and 2010). The newspaper is generally typified as

‘popular’ for its considerable attention to entertainment and sports. The newspaper attracts a readership from a broad section of the population with its relatively conservative (right wing) or even populist tone of voice. Yet, its financial section is more serious and therefore generally appreciated by policy makers and business people. The Volkskrant has much smaller market share with about 5% but is still the third largest newspaper in terms of readership. The

newspaper is considered one of the country’s three “quality newspapers” and is seen as being left

wing although its editorial voice has moved more to the political center in the past decade. Its

readers generally have a higher level of education compared to the Telegraaf. Finally, the Financieel Dagblad is a specialized newspaper that focuses on financial and corporate news. It has a market share of about 1.3% but is well read amongst the upper echelon, decision makers of Dutch SMEs corporations and policy makers (Cebuco 2009; Upmedia 2010).

Relevant articles were selected via the search engine LexisNexis and utilizing (the Dutch translation of) two combinations of search terms: “bankrupt entrepreneurs” and “bankruptcy AND entrepreneur(ship)”. After removing double entries and articles that were too small to classify such as announcements that a particular firm was declared bankrupt, that a bankruptcy was terminated, or that (parts of) a bankrupt firm were sold to another firm, we ended up with a sample of 323 newspaper articles. It should be noted that most bankruptcy cases were discussed in a single article only or only once per newspaper. Very few cases were tracked over time as developing stories.

In addition to these articles on entrepreneurial bankruptcies we also searched for prominent (corporate) bankruptcies cases that attracted considerable media attention. After discussions between the authors, three bankruptcies were identified as being highly profiled during the period 2000- 2009 based on recollection of our collective memory and separate search using the keyword “prominent” AND “bankruptcy”. The first case concerns the bankruptcy of KPNQwest on May 31

, 2002. One of the newspapers wrote about this case as it being the “Largest

Bankruptcy since DAF in 1993” (September 30

, 2010). KPNQwest was a telecom joint venture founded by the Dutch KNP and the US firm Qwest which was founded in 1999. The firm began to build a broadband Internet network and experienced a quadrupling in sales but never reached positive results. Even before the network was completed, the firm was declared bankrupt. 550 employees lost their job. To this date the bankruptcy is still an active and highly disputed case. In total eight articles were published about this bankruptcy in the first three months after its

announcement which is indicative of the media coverage of this case. Only one article contained stigmatizing remarks about the firm’s senior management, but overall the tenor in these articles was stigma-reducing or neutral in nature. Rather, the blame for this bankruptcy is put on the American shareholder. For example, “Riseeuw is surprised that the American Qwest

Communications, that owns 48% of the shares of KPNQwest, did not provide a helping hand to

improve the poor situation the company was in” (Telegraaf, June 8

, 2002). While the pattern of

reporting on particular cases over time is beyond the scope of this investigation, it should be noted that articles published about the case in later periods became increasingly judgmental and stigmatizing in nature as a result of the additional information that surfaced.

The second case involves the bankruptcy of the military/defense company SP Aerospace and Vehicle Systems on August 13

, 2004. 250 employees lost their job. Shortly after the bankruptcy was declared, the firm was split in two parts that were subsequently acquired by two key customers (Stork and KMW) providing jobs for most of the employees who lost their job due to the bankruptcy. The first article printed on this case (FD, August 13

, 2004) was neutral in tone, as it only announced the bankruptcy and named the appointed executor. The other five articles were neutral towards the entrepreneur. However, articles published in July 2006, and October, November and December of 2007 were highly stigmatizing towards the owner. In these articles the entrepreneur is linked to bankruptcy fraud. While these articles are not included when testing proposition 2 because they were published outside the three month scope for the analysis, the change in tone is remarkable. It suggests that journalists do not automatically blame

entrepreneurs when a firm goes bankrupt but that they remain neutral until additional relevant information surfaces.

The third prominent case concerns the demise of the Dirk Scheringa Bank (DSB) of October 19

2009. The DSB bank was a relatively young bank that originated in a financial advice agency founded in 1977 and only obtained a bank license in 2005. The bank experienced rapid growth by offering consumer credit and a number of insurance and savings products. At the time of the bankruptcy, the bank had reached a market share of about 17% in consumer credits.

In contrast to the other two cases, the tenor in the first twelve articles about the bankruptcy of DSB was predominantly negative towards the entrepreneur: The bankruptcy is completely attributed to the entrepreneur: “Some self-reflection would have become DS when he announced the bankruptcy of his bank this morning. It has long been his strength to ignore the past while ruling his advanced money bank. Eventually however this became his Achilles’ heel in

practicing the serious banking profession. DSB existed because of him but now it also ceased to

exist because of him” (FD, October 20

, 2009). The negative tone towards the entrepreneur

remained prominent in later articles about the case. In addition, reports about the liquidator

involved in the case also turned increasingly stigmatizing over time.

Following Nicholson and Anderson (2005), we used a content analysis to rigorously capture beliefs, values and ideologies embedded in documents and how these change over time (Weber 1985). The analysis process consisted of three steps. First, we established the type of media frame used per article. Second, we tried to determine how these media frames were used on the basis of the attributes that were highlighted (Ghanem 1997). Finally, we classified each article as stigmatizing (negative towards (ex-bankrupt entrepreneurs) or neutral (impartial towards (ex-)bankrupt entrepreneurs) or stigma-reducing (positive towards (ex-)bankrupt entrepreneurs or offering alternative explanations for bankruptcy rather than incompetence or misconduct from the side of the entrepreneur on the basis of previously developed checklist. To ensure credibility and dependability in the assessment, the first author using the jointly

developed framework, initially classified all the articles. Next, the second author performed a similar analysis using a random subsample consisting of 75 articles relying on the list of qualitative categories that were inductively identified by the first author. In only three cases a somewhat different interpretation of the text led to a different categorization. After having discussed the results and reviewing similar cases collectively, the original classification made by the first author was used in the remainder of the analysis.

Data on the number of bankruptcies in a specific year were obtained from the website of the Dutch Bureau of Statistics (www.cbs.nl). Prominent bankruptcy cases were identified as follows: one was presented as “the largest bankruptcy since DAF” and the other two were identified on the basis of the high debt and massive layoffs.

Findings

Descriptive Results

Of the 323 articles included in our analysis, 84 were originally published in de Telegraaf,

87 were published in de VK and 152 were published in Het FD. From 2000, the number of

reports rose gradually until the middle of the decade followed by a decline in the period 2005 –

2007 only to start rising very sharply by the 2008 and through 2009. All three newspapers

roughly follow these same patterns although the increase in the number of articles began

somewhat earlier in the Telegraaf than in the other newspapers.

Turning to the type of media frames used then, the FD predominantly uses economic frames to report about bankruptcies, the articles in de Telegraaf most commonly adopted a responsibility frame, and the VK mainly used the human interest frame. From our analysis we conclude that when considering all three newspapers over the entire period, the responsibility frame is used most commonly (n = 103), followed by the human interest frame (n = 84) and the economic frame (n =72). The morality frame is used less frequently (n =49) while the conflict frame is used only rarely (n = 15). Following insights from An and Gower (2009), the wide use of the responsibility frame suggests that journalists generally believe that bankruptcies are avoidable; yet, the usage of the responsibility frame varies rather widely throughout the decade.

From the analysis however no apparent explanation for this variation could be identified. As can be observed from Table 1, the usage of the human interest frame (HF) began to be more

dominant in the second half of the decade. This is in line with earlier observations that suggested the competitive landscape forces journalists to try and capture the audience’s interest

(Wiesenfeld et al. 2008; Skovsgaard et al. 2013).

Table 1 about here

Next, subcategories of frames were identified to determine in more detail how the Dutch mass media report about bankrupt entrepreneurs and to what extent these reports could lead to stigmatization of or stigma-reduction for such entrepreneurs. While this was not a focal area of attention at the start of our analysis, when conducting this analysis it became increasingly clear that across all types of media frames journalists clearly distinguish between entrepreneurs who are in charge of medium to large sized firms and corporations and entrepreneurs who operate micro and small firms. Although the number of employees or the sales level (prior to the demise of the firm) was not always explicitly mentioned, either the approximate size class of the firm became apparent from the story or in some cases it was already known to one of the authors through previous exposure to information about these firms. While we identified stigmatizing, neutral and stigma-reducing reports about both types of entrepreneurs, the tenor proved distinct across the different frame types.

As mentioned previously, the responsibility frame is used most frequently over the course

of the decade. Careful analyses of the content of these articles lead to the identification of nine

entrepreneurs. Specifically we distinguished the following qualitative categories: fraudulent large entrepreneurs (n = 23), overall poor quality of entrepreneurial skills in the Netherlands (n = 12), incompetent ‘small’ entrepreneurs (n = 11), and mismanagement by entrepreneurs running larger firms (n = 10). In these articles, the role and responsibility of other contributing stakeholders and environmental factors is neglected or trivialized as shown from the following example:

“While the poor economic situation is often asserted as causing the problems in 75% of all cases we can simply point to mismanagement.” (Telegraaf, November 9

2005). Likewise an article in the VK of October 2003 suggests: “The large number of startups in 2000 and 2002 is part of the boom in bankruptcies. The starting entrepreneur from the latter days of the economic boom was poorly educated and only had hobby-like knowledge.”

In the other five categories, journalists do inform on the role of other parties. Several pointed to the poor quality of support and consultancy services (n = 15), inadequate legislation (n

= 14) or the impact of customers who do not pay their invoices or do so too late (n = 9). Whereas most of the articles in these categories have a neutral tone, about one third can be typified as stigma-reducing for entrepreneurs involved in a bankruptcy as they either offer an alternative explanation for the occurrence of a bankruptcy, other than misconduct or lack of capabilities of the entrepreneur or actually portray the entrepreneur as being the victim of other actors’

behaviors An example of such an article can be found in FD on April 7

2004: “Late-paying debtors are a huge expense: the supplier suffers from an interest loss and recovering the claims requires manpower. When the money does not come at all it may be the fatal blow”.

Furthermore, reports about the role of monitoring and controlling bodies such as boards of governors or (financial) watchdogs (n = 6) or the rigid (credit) approach of banks (n = 3) can be seen as potentially reducing stigmatization for entrepreneurs as they offer an explanation for the occurrence of bankruptcies that does not involve incompetency or misconduct of entrepreneurs.

For instance “Research of State Secretary Ybema (Economic Affairs) shows that two out of three

bankruptcies is unnecessary and would be avoidable if banks were more lenient.” (Telegraaf,

January 23

, 2002). The reports in these last two categories are typically neutral in tenor as they

do not completely discharge entrepreneurs from their responsibility but rather suggest that they

are not the only ones to blame.

Turning to articles using a human interest frame, seven qualitative categories were identified. The majority of these focused on the personal life of the entrepreneur. Very few articles devoted attention to potential other “victims” of bankruptcies such as former employees or un-served customers (n = 4) or to bankruptcy lawyers reflecting on the bankruptcy

phenomenon (n = 6). From the articles focusing on the entrepreneurs, we could again observe a strong distinction between the way in which entrepreneurs running small firms and entrepreneurs running medium sized to large firms are being depicted. Entrepreneurs running small businesses are most typically portrayed as “foolish or naive” or as “Muddling through against the Odds” (n

= 29). As the following example shows: “… a break out of a bacterial disease, for which a costly vaccine had to be developed…tremendous increases in the price of fodder and extensive competition from imported fish due to the cheap dollar … the labor-intensive character of the tilapia production is detrimental to the sale of expensive Dutch farm fishes. In an attempt to save his firm he sets up a pilot to breed another fish even though he knows he officially is not allowed to do so: according to the regulations of the Ministry his cannot breed other fishes until at least three years after having obtained a subsidy for breeding tilapia. Anonymous breeders tip off the inspection and he receives a fine” (FD, October 29

2008). The majority of these articles are not stigmatizing in nature. We also identified several articles that may contribute to the reduction of stigma on bankruptcy as they portrayed entrepreneurs running small businesses who had become very successful in a new venture after having experienced a bankruptcy in the past (n =8).

When it comes to the articles about entrepreneurs running larger firms, we identified a qualitative category that depicted these as Struggling against the Tide (n = 11) . These articles resembled those about entrepreneurs running small businesses who are muddling through. For instance on June 13

2000, De Telegraaf reports about a particular entrepreneur as “emaciated, as poor as a church rat but with admirable resilience he is fighting for complete rehabilitation.”

Another category presents entrepreneurs running larger firms as “Cunning and focused on protecting their personal interest.” (n = 18). For instance, the VK reported that “While financially business may be bad…. – his corporation has been declared bankrupt last Tuesday – his

personal finances are apparently in good shape: he recently bought a brand new airplane” (VK,

April 4

2005). Articles in this final category are without exception stigmatizing in nature.

When analyzing articles using an economic frame, we identified seven qualitative categories of arguments to explain the occurrence of bankruptcies. Two of these categories establish a direct connection between the behavior of the entrepreneurs and the bankruptcy and as such could be considered stigmatizing towards entrepreneurs involved in bankruptcy. The first category (n = 12) suggests that many starting entrepreneurs go bankrupt as a result of a lack education and training and thus a lack of knowledge and skills. The second category points to more general and sometimes even deliberate mismanagement (n = 19). These articles typically also point to the residual debts that such entrepreneurs leave behind when their firm goes bankrupt. For instance, The FD reports that “Some analysts began to question the reliability of the financial reports openly. In addition, insiders suggested that the book keeping at Landis was rattling. The word ‘Mismanagement’ is mentioned repeatedly”. In the other five categories bankruptcies are attributed to factors beyond the control of the entrepreneur and as such these articles cannot be classified as being stigmatizing towards entrepreneurs. In particular in these articles, reporters attribute bankruptcies to late or non-paying customers (n = 5), government policies (n = 10), general economic decline (n = 13), termination of support from others (n = 9), and drops in demand (n = 4). For instance the VK reports that: “Based on the numbers produced by Euler Hermes we can conclude that, relatively in no other European country so many firms go bankrupt as in the Netherlands. According to Toemen this cannot only be attributed to poor entrepreneurship. The economic decline of recent years plays a significant role. Especially amongst consumer-oriented companies there are many casualties. Consumers after all keep a tight hand”.

Articles in which a morality frame is used tend to incorporate one of three pleas. Two of these pleas (for reduction of stigma (n= 29) and for changing the role of the administrator during the bankruptcy process (n = 9)) contain strong stigma reducing elements. The third type of plea (for dealing with malicious or incapable entrepreneurs (n = 11)) clearly stigmatized

entrepreneurs as is shown from an example in the VK: “Companies sometimes use a bankruptcy to get rid of their employees. In case of a through-start they recruit new personnel. The FNV <a trade union> examines why this type of fraud is so difficult to fight” (June 7

2004).

Finally, while analyzing the articles in which a conflict frame is being used, we could

distinguish between five types of conflicts stakeholders with whom bankrupt entrepreneurs are

considered to be in conflict with: franchisers (n = 3), investors (n =5), bankruptcy lawyers/

administrators (n = 2), customers (n = 4) and banks(n = 1). These articles predominantly placed the blame for the conflict with the entrepreneur. For instance the VK reported that “This type of management is really killing the Fund. They show they are incapable of running a firm.”

However, in six cases the reporter sought to create a more balanced picture that does justice to both parties. Also in a number of reports, the entrepreneur is being portrayed as the victim of their customer or of the executor handling the bankruptcy case.

When looking at the differences across the three newspapers, VK and FD both use

stigmatizing elements in just over half of their articles about bankrupt entrepreneurs. The use of such stigmatizing frames in the Telegraaf is less common, at 30%. This result might at first seem surprising because of the more populist-oriented tone of voice, which is often associated with a higher level of stigmatization. Yet, this newspaper is very well-read amongst entrepreneurs and this might explain why this newspaper is more careful when it comes to stigmatizing part of its audience.

Effect of the Number of Bankruptcies

The number of bankruptcies in a particular period might lead to the use of different media frames and the use of more or less stigmatizing reports. We proposed that a negative relationship would occur between the number of bankruptcy cases and the level of stigmatization in the media. As can be seen in Figure 1, there are five years where the number of bankruptcies is relatively high: 2003-2006 and 2009. In the years 2000 till 2002 and 2007 – 2008, the number of bankruptcies was much lower. During the first half of the decade in years with many bankruptcy cases, the responsibility frame (RF) was used most frequently. Since 2005 however, the human interest frame has steadily become more and more popular and it has been the most dominantly used media frame in relation to bankruptcy cases, even surpassing the responsibility frame during the peaks in the number of bankruptcies in 2004/5 and 2009.

Figure 1 about here

Subsequently we examined whether in years with more bankruptcies the content of the

articles was less negative towards bankrupt entrepreneurs. As can be seen in Table 2 and Figure

percentage of stigmatizing reports was higher than in years with fewer bankruptcies and these patterns extend to each of the three newspapers. The exception to this pattern however is the year 2006. In this year the number of bankruptcies is still very high but the share of stigmatizing articles drops sharply. An explanation for this could be that in that the media observed a downward trend in the number of bankruptcy cases and anticipated that the trend would

continue. Alternatively, journalists might at this stage also begin to recognize that since so many entrepreneurs suffered from bankruptcy in the preceding period, clearly they could not be to blame for all of these bankruptcies.

Table 2 and Figure 2 furthermore show that the relationship between the number of

bankruptcies and the extent of stigmatization extends to all media frames but were most apparent for articles adopting a human interest frame. In years with few bankruptcies, less than 12% of the articles using a human interest frame is stigmatizing while in years with many bankruptcies this share rises to more than 53%. The apparent volatility that is observed with respect to the use of stigmatizing elements in articles based on a conflict frame is explained by the very small number of articles in this category (n = 6) rather than by another underlying mechanism.

While overall the number of stigma-reducing articles is relatively limited (n = 63), more than half of the articles adopting a morality frame are stigma-reducing. In years with fewer bankruptcies this share rises to almost two thirds.

Figure 2 about here

To explore the relationship between the number of bankruptcies and the share of

stigmatizing frames further we investigated the previously observed difference between reports about large and small entrepreneurs in more detail. As was reported, journalists use relatively more stigmatizing frames when portraying entrepreneurs running larger businesses while they typically use more neutral or stigma-reducing frames in their reports about entrepreneurs with micro or small businesses. Figure 2 shows that the increased use of stigmatizing media frames in years with many bankruptcies extends to small and large firms and likewise to reports about the bankruptcy phenomenon in general. While the stigmatization of large firms was already

extensive in years with few bankruptcies, it rises further in years with many bankruptcies.

Stigmatizing reports about small firms and bankruptcy in general are not common in years with

few bankruptcies; yet, stigmatizing frames are used a lot more frequently in years with many bankruptcies – though still much less compared to large firms. Based on these analyses, we conclude that the level of stigmatization of all (ex-) bankrupt entrepreneurs in the media increases when the number of bankrupts is high.

Effects of Prominent Bankruptcy Cases

In our theoretical framework we argued that prominent bankruptcy cases would lead to the usage of more stigmatizing frames in the reports about other bankruptcy cases in the period following the announcement. We expected this effect to be the largest when the reports about the

prominent case would be stigmatizing.

To determine the effects of these prominent cases on the framing of later bankruptcies, we selected all the articles in our sample that were published in the three months prior to and the three months after the announcement, whereby the articles published in the months prior to the announcement of the prominent case were used to set a baseline. Next we determined which frame types were used in these two periods and to what extent the articles in each period could be classified as stigmatizing, neutral or stigma-reducing. The results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 about here

As can be seen from Table 3, after all three prominent cases the relative use of stigmatizing media frames increased as was in line with expectation. While the number of articles published in the periods prior and after the announcement is too limited to infer robust conclusions, the trend suggests that after the announcement of a prominent bankruptcy case, the articles about other bankruptcy cases contain relatively more stigmatizing frames compared to the baseline period. This effect is strongest when the baseline was less stigmatizing.

In the three months after the announcement of the DSB bankruptcy, we observed both an

increase in stigmatizing frames and in stigma-reducing frames in articles about other bankruptcy

cases. While these articles refer explicitly to the DSB case, these findings possibly mean that

rather than seeking balance, journalists find it more important to take a position in the public

debate on bankruptcy in general. Furthermore, in-depth analysis revealed an interesting pattern:

The increase in stigmatizing frames applied predominantly to articles about the bankruptcy phenomenon in general and about entrepreneurs involved in medium sized and larger firms.

Almost all articles about entrepreneurs involved in micro and small firms remained neutral or stigma-reducing in nature. This can be seen as further evidence that the stigmatization of bankrupt entrepreneurs in the Netherlands does not apply to entrepreneurs involved in micro- and small sized firms. Rather stigmatization of bankruptcy remains confined to the domain of entrepreneurs running larger firms. In the discussion and conclusion section some possible explanations will be discussed.

Discussion and conclusion

Through systematic analysis of newspaper reports about bankruptcies appearing in Dutch newspapers in the past decade, we examined how mass media report about bankrupt entrepreneurs and explored whether these reports contain evidence of stigmatization. In

particular, we sought to relate the nature of the reporting to the number of bankruptcies occurring in a specific period and to the occurrence of prominent cases.

We have shown that over the entire decade about half of the articles published in the VK and the FD on (ex-) bankrupt entrepreneurs contained elements of stigmatization, while less than a third of the articles in the Telegraaf did so. Almost as many articles were neutral in tone and a

considerable share even showed elements of stigma-reduction. From this we might conclude that

overall the media present a fairly balanced image of entrepreneurial bankruptcy. Closer scrutiny

reveals that two important factors play a role in the level of stigmatization. First, contrary to our

expectations the level of stigmatization rose sharply in years with many bankruptcies (2003-

2006, 2009). In such years, the share of stigmatizing reports increased to about 53% at the

expense of the neutral reports. When excluding the year 2006, this share would even rise to more

than two-thirds. The relative share of the stigma-reducing reports remained stable in years with

many bankruptcies. This suggests that exposure to bankruptcy does not lead to the development

of a more forgiving attitude towards those affected by it. This finding is in contrast to results

reported in studies on the stigmatization of people suffering from mental illnesses or epilepsy

(Corrigan et al. 2001; Jacoby et al. 2004). At least in the case of entrepreneurial bankruptcy,

years with many bankruptcies might be found in early studies on stigmatization conducted by Neuberg et al (2000). These authors have suggested that stigmatization will happen when individuals perceive specific behavior to be a threat to themselves or to the functioning of their group (Neuberg et al. 2000). Similar ideas have been formulated by (Jones et al. 1984) who argued that the perceived peril of a given attribute contributes to stigmatization. When more firms go bankrupt, the costs to the economy increase and this will be felt by a larger part of the society. Journalists – possibly responding to what they expect their audience wants to hear (Wiesenfeld, Wurthmann, and Hambrick 2008) – might respond to this potential peril and utilize a more negative tenor in their reports about individual bankruptcy cases.

When looking at the pattern of frame usages after the announcement of prominent bankruptcy cases, we observed an increase in the level of stigmatization. These findings are similar to previous studies on the impact of large-scale events such as the Chernobyl disaster (Gamson and Modigliani 1989; Van Gorp 2007). Contemplating these findings, we think that the announcement of prominent bankruptcy with its large debt and massive layoffs is some sort of wake-up call again directing the journalist’s attention to the possible perils of bankruptcy in a way similar to years with many bankruptcies. Interestingly, in the case of the DSB we not only observe an increase in the usage of stigmatizing frames but also an increase in the use of stigma- reducing frames. Possibly this means that rather than seeking balance or nuances in their reports, journalists give priority to taking a position in the public debate.

The idea that the experienced peril can indeed explain the extent of stigmatization also seems to be corroborated when looking at the way in which journalists differentiate between large and small entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs involved in large firms are more frequently blamed for the demise of their firm and for the consequences for others, while entrepreneurs previously running smaller firms are more often portrayed as being victims. Clearly, the threat of

bankruptcy of a larger firm to (members of) society is significantly larger than those of a smaller

bankruptcy where fewer jobs are lost and typically the residual debt is lower. If the perceived

peril explains the level of stigmatization, it is therefore not surprising that articles about large

entrepreneurs are more negative than those about small entrepreneurs or about the phenomenon

of bankruptcy in general.

Another explanation for the higher level of stigmatization of entrepreneurs involved in larger firms might be found in the Dutch culture. On the one hand, panel studies suggest that the majority of the population is of the opinion that successful entrepreneurs have a high social status (Hessels, Bosma, and Wennekers 2005). On the other hand, other studies (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1994) portray the Dutch “as more egalitarian and less hierarchical in than any other culture included in their survey, the Dutch distrust anyone who shows off or draws attention to him- or herself...no one is permitted to rise too high” [p269-270]. This resentment of success includes entrepreneurs who were able to create a large company. This resentment can lead to malicious delight or hidden pleasure when such individuals eventually fail (Angenot 2010). This culture of resentment might explain the higher level of stigmatization against large entrepreneurs compared to small entrepreneurs. These findings are visualized in Figure 3. In short, this figure shows that the number of bankruptcies and perceived impact therefore directly affect the perceived level of peril. Cultural dimensions have both a direct and an indirect effect on perceived peril, with firm size mediating the impact of cultural dimensions on perceived peril where bankruptcies of larger firms lead to higher levels of perceived peril. All of this affects the level of stigmatization of bankruptcy in media.

Insert Figure 3 here

Like any study ours has limitations. One concerns the timeframe of this investigation. We decided to incorporate a full decade of newspaper articles in our investigation. This choice is justifiable as during this decade we witnessed more than a complete economic cycle. At the beginning of the decade the number of bankruptcies was low, rising steadily until 2005, then declining again for a number of years in order to rise to the highest point of the decade under the influence of financial and economic crisis in the year 2009. While writing up our study, the number of bankruptcies is once more declining. Future studies could examine whether the sudden decrease in the share of stigmatizing articles in 2006 – while the number of bankruptcies was still high – is repeated since 2010.

Also, when looking at the time frame choice to explore the effect of high profile

bankruptcy cases, we have to consider a potential bias. While the declaration of a bankruptcy

case causes considerable attention in the media, many bankruptcy cases involve long term investigation and settlement processes. In fact each of the prominent cases described in this study are still open. Throughout a bankruptcy process the media might go back and report on relevant developments as they occur over time. When it comes to complex cases, it is more than likely that more accurate information about the event surfaces after some time passes. Therefore the reports that are published later on in the case might have a more extensive effect on how other bankruptcy cases are portrayed. Future research involving case study designs should shed more light on the influence of prominent bankruptcies on stigmatization of bankruptcies in general.

Another limitation of this study is that we only classified articles on the basis of the stigmatizing characteristics. It is generally accepted that mass media play a role in how other stakeholders perceive groups of individuals and social phenomena and that a slight change in the frames that media use have a significant effect on these perceptions. For instance Sniderman and Theriault (2004) showed that when referring to the freedom of speech 85% of their first sample indicated that meetings of hate groups should be allowed, while only 45% of their second sample would allow such meetings after reference was made to the risk of violence involved in such meetings (Sniderman and Theriault 2004). We expect similar effects to occur in relation to stigmatization of bankrupt entrepreneurs; however, we did not actually test the responses these articles evoked in the attitudes and perceptions of relevant stakeholders including the

entrepreneurs and those who support them. Also we do not know whether these other

stakeholders such as policy makers, bankers, consultants or suppliers differentiate between small and large entrepreneurs in a similar way as we observed here and adjust their level of support accordingly. Future studies should therefore be undertaken to establish the effect of the media reports on the number of renascent entrepreneurs. What we can say is that at least the media do not portray (ex-) bankrupt entrepreneurs in an overly negative manner thus strongly contributing to a climate of stigmatization.

Finally, while some findings were quantified we did not aim to seek statistical validity in this study. The observed frequencies and percentages reported in this study are merely used to offer insights in the developing trends and patterns underlying our qualitative observations.

To conclude, this research contributes to the extant literature by examining the extent to

of newspaper articles, our results show that in the media the level of stigmatization towards small entrepreneurs is lower than we expected based on anecdotal reports and popular belief

(European_Commission 2007); however, stigmatization increases in the years with many bankruptcies and in the months following a prominent bankruptcy. We also found distinctions made by journalists between entrepreneurs in charge of large and small firms respectively.

Although the number of articles that are actually stigma-reducing is limited, small entrepreneurs might take comfort in our findings - at least they do not have to battle against negative media reports.

References

Achtenhagen, L., and F. Welter. "'Surfing on the ironing board' - the representation of women's entrepreneurship in German newspapers." Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 23 (9-10):763-786.

Alesina, A., and E. L. Glaeser. 2004. Fighting poverty in the US and Europe: A world of difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press

An, S-K., and K. Gower. 2009. "How do the news media frame crises? A content analysis of crisis news coverage." Public Relations Review 35 (2):107-112.

Angenot, M. 2010. "The Ideologies of Resentment." AmeriQuests 7 (1).

Burchell, B., and A. Hughes. 2006. The stigma of failure: An international comparison of failure tolerance and second chancing. Cambridge: Center for Business Research, University of Cambridge.

Byrne, P. 2003. "Psychiatry and the media." Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 9 (2):135-143.

Cebuco. 2009. "Oplage - en bereikcijfers " Accessed December 20th 2009.

http://www.cebuco.nl/dagbladen/oplage_en_bereik_cijfers.

Corrigan, P., A. Green, R. Lundin, M.A. Kubiak, and D.L. Penn. 2001. "Familiarity with and social distance from people who have serious mental illness." Psychiatric Services 52 (7):953-958.

Crocker, J., and D. Quinn. 2003. "Social stigma and the self: Meanings, situations, and self- esteem." In The social psychology of stigma, edited by T. Heatherton, R. Kleck, M. Hebl and J. Hull, 153-183. New York: Guilford Press.

Dake, Karl. 1992. "Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk." Journal of Social issues 48 (4):21-37.

Damaraju, N.L., J. Barney, and G. Dess. 2010. "Stigma and entrepreneurial risk taking."

Summer Conference, Imperial College London Business School.

Decrop, A. 1999. "Triangulation in qualitative tourism research." Tourism management 20

(1):157-161.

Douglas, Mary, and Aaron B Wildavsky. 1983. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers: University of California Pr.

Entman, R. 1993. "Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm." Journal of communication 43 (4):51-58.

European_Commission. 2007. Overcoming the Stigma of Business Failure – for a Second Chance Policy Implementing the Lisbon Partnership for Growth and Jobs. Brussels:

Commission of the European Communities.

Falk, G. 2001. Stigma: How we treat outsiders: Prometheus Books.

Furuya, K. 2002. "A socio-economic model of stigma and related social problems." Journal of economic behavior & organization 48 (3):281-290.

Gamson, W.A., and A. Modigliani. 1989. "Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach." American journal of sociology:1-37.

Ghanem, S. 1997. "Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda setting." Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory:3-14.

Goffman, E. 1963. Stigma: Notes on a spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Groen, A.J., I. Wakkee, and P.C. De Weerd-Nederhof. 2008. "Managing Tensions in a High-tech Start-up An Innovation Journey in Social System Perspective." International small business journal 26 (1):57-81.

Hallahan, K. 1999. "Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations." Journal of Public Relations Research 11 (3):205-242.

Hessels, J, N Bosma, and S Wennekers. 2005. "Nieuw ondernemerschap in herstel; global entrepreneurship monitor 2004 Nederland (in Dutch), EIM publieksrapportage A200502." Zoetermeer: EIM.

Hunt, S. D. 1997. "Resource-advantage theory: an evolutionary theory of competitive firm behavior?" Journal of Economic Issues 31 (1):59-77.

Iyengar, S., and A. Simon. 1993. "News Coverage of the Gulf Crisis and Public Opinion A Study of Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing." Communication research 20 (3):365-383.

Jacoby, A., J. Gorry, C.l Gamble, and G.A. Baker. 2004. "Public knowledge, private grief: a study of public attitudes to epilepsy in the United Kingdom and implications for stigma."

Epilepsia 45 (11):1405-1415.

Jones, E., A. Farina, A. H. Hastorf, and R. French. 1984. Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships: WH Freeman New York.

Kasperson, R., N. Jhaveri, and J.X. Kasperson. 2001. "Stigma and the social amplification of risk: Toward a framework of analysis." In Risk, media, and stigma: Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology, edited by J. Flynn, P. Slovic and H.

Kunreuther, 9-27. London/ Sterling: Earthscan.

Krippendorff, K. 2012. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology: Sage.

Landier, A. 2002. "Entrepreneurship and the Stigma of Failure." Unpublished thesis. Mimeo, MIT.

McCombs, M. 2013. Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion: Polity.

McCombs, M., and D. Shaw. 1972. "The agenda-setting function of mass media." Public opinion quarterly 36 (2):176-187.

NationaalOnderzoekMultimedia. 2010. Managers Verknocht Aan Dagbladen. Amsterdam:

Nationaal Onderzoek Multimedia.

Neuberg, S., D. Smith, T. Asher, T. Heatherton, R. Kleck, M. Hebl, and J. Hull. 2000. "Why people stigmatize: Toward a biocultural framework." The social psychology of stigma:31-61.

Nicholson, L., and A.R. Anderson. 2005. "News and Nuances of the Entrepreneurial Myth and Metaphor: Linguistic Games in Entrepreneurial Sense‐Making and Sense‐Giving."

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29 (2):153-172.

Otieno, C., H. Spada, and A. Renkl. 2013. "Effects of News Frames on Perceived Risk, Emotions, and Learning." PloS one 8 (11):e79696.

Pinel, E.C. 1999. "Stigma consciousness: the psychological legacy of social stereotypes."

Journal of personality and social psychology 76 (1):114.

Reeder, G., and J. Pryor. 2008. "Dual psychological processes underlying public stigma and the implications for reducing stigma." Mens sana monographs 6 (1):175.

Reynolds, Paul D, Nancy M Carter, William B Gartner, and Patricia G Greene. 2004. "The prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs in the United States: Evidence from the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics." Small Business Economics 23 (4):263-284.

Saldaña, J. 2003. Longitudinal qualitative research: Analyzing change through time: Altamira Pr.

Saxenian, AnnaLee. 1996. Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128: Harvard University Press.

Scheufele, D. 1999. "Framing as a theory of media effects." Journal of communication 49 (1):103-122.

Schultz, C. J. P., and L. Achtenhagen. 2013. "Discouraging stereotypes? US newspaper coverage of ethnic minority entrepreneurs before the economic downturn." Journalism.

Semadeni, M., A.A. Cannella Jr, D.R. Fraser, and D. S. Lee. 2008. "Fight or flight: Managing stigma in executive careers." Strategic Management Journal 29 (5):557-567.

Semetko, H., and P. Valkenburg. 2000. "Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news." Journal of communication 50 (2):93-109.

Shepherd, D. A., J. G. Covin, and D. F. Kuratko. 2009. "Project failure from corporate entrepreneurship: Managing the grief process." Journal of Business Venturing 24 (6):588-600.

Shepherd, D.A. 2009. "Grief recovery from the loss of a family business: A multi-and meso- level theory." Journal of Business Venturing 24 (1):81-97.

Shepherd, Dean A, Johan Wiklund, and J Michael Haynie. 2009. "Moving forward: Balancing the financial and emotional costs of business failure." Journal of Business Venturing 24 (2):134-148.

Skovsgaard, M., E. Albæk, P. Bro, and C. de Vreese. 2013. "A reality check: How journalists’

role perceptions impact their implementation of the objectivity norm." Journalism 14 (1):22-42.

Sniderman, P.M., and S.M. Theriault. 2004. "The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing." Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change:133-65.

Sprangers, A. , R. Timmermans, and V. Lalta. 2010. Bedrijfseconomisch ontslag verdubbeld in 2009. In Sociaal Economische Trends Zoetermeer: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS)

Sutton, R.I., and A.L. Callahan. 1987. "The stigma of bankruptcy: Spoiled organizational image

and its management." Academy of Management Journal 30 (3):405-436.