Skip to main content
Log in

Business borrowing and control: A theory of entrepreneurial types

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A formal model of the bank borrowing decision by the small firm is provided to explain why some entrepreneurs borrow and others do not, and why some businesses grow and others remain stationary over long periods.

Loan capital is productive and increases the firm's revenue but brings the business under the control of the bank. Profits generated by borrowing are a ‘good’ increasing owner utility whereas control is a ‘bad’, reducing it. The consequent tradeoff between borrowing and control implies that the business' optimum will involve borrowing less than the amount that maximises profits. If owner control-aversion is strong enough equilibrium may involve a corner solution with the business being entirely self-funding. The above result holds under conditions of symmetric information and zero credit rationing.

Dynamic analysis distinguishes one group of entrepreneurs (Movers) whose preferences towards control evolve through time and their control-aversion diminishes, from another group (Stayers) whose preferences remain stationary. For the Movers borrowing increases over time up to a profit-maximising optimum whereas for the Stayers independence of control is maintained but at the expense of non-growth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Berle, Adolf A. and Gardner Means, 1932,The Modern Corporation and Private Property, New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchflower, D. and Andrew Oswald, 1990, ‘What Makes and Entrepreneur’,NBER Working Paper #3252, NBER, Dartmouth College, New Jersey, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchflower, D. and Andrew Oswald, 1990, ‘Self Employment and the Enterprise Culture’, Ch. 6 inBritish Social Attitudes Survey.

  • Blanchflower, D. and Andrew Oswald, 1993, ‘Entrepreneurship, Happiness and Supernormal Returns: Evidence from Britain and the USA’,Centre for Economic Performance, Discussion Paper #134, London School of Economics, March.

  • Bolton, Sir John (Chairman), 1971,Committee of Enquiry into Small Firms, London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boot, Arnoud, Anjan V. Thakor and Gregory F. Udell, 1991, ‘Secured Lending and Default Risk: Equilibrium Analysis, Policy Implications and Empirical Results’,The Economic Journal 101(2), 458–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowling, M., R. Samuels and R. Sugden, 1991,Small Firms and Clearing Banks, Report for the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, Research Centre for Industrial Strategy, University of Birmingham.

  • Cressy, Robert C., 1992, ‘Loan Commitments and Business Starts: An Empirical Investigation on UK Data’,SME Centre Working Paper, Warwick Business School.

  • Cressy, Robert C., 1993,The Startup Tracking Exercise: Third Year Report, prepared for National Westminster Bank of Great Britain, November.

  • Cressy, Robert C., 1994, ‘Are Business Startups Debtrationed?’,SME Centre Working Paper, Warwick Business School.

  • Dolton, P. J. and G. H. Makepeace, 1990, ‘Self Employment Among Graduates’,Bulletin of Economic Research 42(1), 35–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, David and Boyan Jovanovic, 1989, ‘An Estimated Model of Entrepreneurial Choice Under Liquidity Constraints’,Journal of Political Economy 97(4), 808–827.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, David and Boyan Jovanovic, 1989, ‘The Role of Interest Rate Taxes in Credit Markets with Divisible Projects and Asymmetric Information’,Journal of Public Economics 39(2), 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, Patrick and Ray Graham, 1986, ‘Surviving the Financial Stress of Small Enterprise Growth’, in J. Stanworth and D. Watkins (eds.),The Survival of the Small Firm, Lowdown: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic, Boyan, 1982, ‘Selection and the Evolution of Industry’,Econometrica 50(3), 649–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Meza, David and David Webb, 1987, ‘Too Much Investment: A Problem of Asymmetric Information’,Quarterly Journal of Economics 102, 281–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, G and J. Lott, 1993, ‘Have U.K. Venture Capital Firms a Bias Against Investment in New Technology-based Firms?’,Working Paper Series, Marketing and Strategic Management Group, Warwick Business School.

  • Penrose, Edith, 1959,The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, London: Bauil, Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanworth, J. and C. Gray (eds.), 1991,Bolton 20 Years On, London: Paul Chapman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, Joseph E. and Andrew Weiss, 1981, ‘Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information’,American Economic Review 71(3), 393–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, Robert, 1990, ‘Employment Change, Profits and Directors' Renumeration in Small and Closely-held U.K. Companies’,Scottish Journal of Political Economy 37(3), 259–274.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cressy, R. Business borrowing and control: A theory of entrepreneurial types. Small Bus Econ 7, 291–300 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01108618

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01108618

Keywords

Navigation