958 24 99 95 La tertulia

La biblioteca

Publicaciones sobre Historia de la Empresa

Volver al inicio La biblioteca Entrepreneurship, Madrid 1886-1935

¿Qué dicen de nosotros?

  • ELISABETH MONTILLA ROLDÁN CONSULTORA NUEVAS TECNOLOGÍAS Gracias a su estudio pude completar mi tesis doctoral

Entrepreneurship, Madrid 1886-1935

ESPACIO: España, Madrid

TIEMPO: Siglo XIX, Siglo XX

TEMÁTICA TRATADA: Clases mercantiles - Historia, Fuentes para la investigación histórica, Historia de la Empresa, Sociedades mercantiles - historia

AUTOR: Caruana de las Cagigas, Leonardo

JEL: L250 - Firm Performance: Size, Diversification, and Scope, L260 - Entrepreneurship, L290 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior: Other

Entrepreneurship, Madrid 1886-1935. Autores: Begoña Blasco y Leonardo Caruana

The article discusses entrepreneurship in Madrid between 1886 and 1935. It is done with the information of the Mercantile Register of Madrid. We investigate the details of the early life of a large number of companies. Basically the information is on the name and business activity, its legal constitution, the nominal capital, the people who founded the company and in many cases their professions. The period analyzed is half a century, characterized by many important changes in the production structure.

The city of Madrid saw an increase in activity as did the country. This period has three major changes

  1. The first in the nineteenth century with little entrepreneurship.
  2. The second up to the end of the First World War with significant foreign investments.
  3. The third with more Spanish entrepreneurship.

10 percent success achieves in entrepreneurship, Madrid 1886 to 1936.

Begoña Blasco Torrejón - University CEU-San Pablo

Leonardo Caruana de las Cagigas - University of Granada


1. Introduction

As William Baumol explains, the concept of Entrepreneurship is in addition to the classical factors of production: land, labor and capital.

However the term is difficult to define. A good example of entrepreneur is Bill Gates, the problems happen with the other possible entrepreneurs. For example, is it possible also to consider as an entrepreneur some one that has a new small business? Or the innovative people like Rey Kroc? The former are still not clear but innovative people are considered as entrepreneurs (Glancey, Keith S. and McQuaid, Ronald W. 2000, p. 1-17).

Maybe a definition of entrepreneurship is that of Hisrich and Peters (1998, p. 8):

“the process of creating something new with value by devoting the necessary time and effort, assuming accompanying financial, psychic and social risks, and receiving the resulting rewards of monetary and personal satisfaction and independence”

As Keith Glancey and Ronald McQuaid suggest, that includes a new way of selling insurance. These last authors explain that there are five diverse research works about entrepreneurs:

     a) Role of entrepreneurs in the economy

     b) Entrepreneurs that have a particular form of behaviour

     c) Characteristics of an entrepreneur as innovator

     d) The entrepreneur creates a new firm or organization

     e) Entrepreneur as an owner-manager of a business, normally a small business.

The latter possibility generally is more often considered as small business than entrepreneurs. There is some overlap among the five, but it helps us to understand entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs.

One of the earliest persons to refer to the concept of the risk taker as an entrepreneur is Richard Cantillon. He also refers about its form of behaviour. Another French economist, Jean Baptise Say, refers to the entrepreneur as an organizer of factors of production. Knight adds the calculation of the risk and also manages the uncertainties.

More recently, Mark Casson (1990) explains that an entrepreneur has the skill to make judgmental decisions about resources that are scarce. Peter Drucker (1985) considers that this behaviour can be learnt and Taylor (1988) refers to youthful experience (learning by doing). The most attractive perspective in the entrepreneur, albeit not the only one, is that of Joseph Schumpeter, who considers entrepreneurs as innovators who introduce new methods of production, a new good or improve one, the development of a new source of supply; the re-engineering/organization of business management processes or open up new markets. Furthermore the entrepreneur not only generates the new idea, he also implements it.

Many times the best ideas did not succeed and others with more implements do, for example the story of DVD of the Dutch company Phillips and the Japanese. The Dutch DVD was considered technologically more advanced, but the Japanese one became the standard one. With reference to small business there is the important difference between those small businesses that innovate and the others that only copy, (such as franchises) that are not considered as entrepreneurs.

Nevertheless, Shane and Venkataraman assumed an important precision “What appears to constitute entrepreneurship research today is some aspect of the setting (e.g., small businesses or new firms), rather than a unique conceptual domain” (2000, p. 217). In economic history the concern about entrepreneurship was request by Arthur H. Cole in 1942 that did refer to Chester W. Wright Economic History of America demanding more research about Entrepreneurship. Two years later, James H. Stauss said that the firm is the entrepreneur (1944, p.112).

With the difficulty to clarify what is exactly an entrepreneur, in the definition of the word what has been clearer is what not an entrepreneur is. William B. Gartner explain in 1985 that entrepreneurs are different from non entrepreneurs including the research of Brockhaus; Carland, Hoy, Boulton, & Carland; Collins & Moore; DeCarlo & Lyons; Hornaday & Aboud; Howell; Komives; Litzinger; McClelland; McClelland & Winter; Palmer; Schrier and Shapero. Also that entrepreneurial firms are different from non entrepreneurial firms (Collins & Moore; Cooper; Smith; Thorne & Ball)(Gartner 1985, p. 969).

Finally, as George Heberton Evans, Jr. said: “Some scholars will doubtless contend that the most worth-while propositions concerning entrepreneurs' motives and actions cannot be established by any method of inquiry. That may turn out to be the case, but defeat should not be accepted easily, for the stakes are high.” (Everton, 1949).

Our analysis follows Stauss hypothesis that entrepreneurs are new firms. We use data provided by the Mercantile Register of Madrid since it started in 1886 until 1936 that describes certain details of the early life of 6961 firms. Primarily the information is about the name and the business that they develop the new companies, the legal constitution of them, the nominal capital at the beginning and whether it increased, the people who founded the firms and in many cases their professions.

The period analysed is broad, half a century, characterized by many important changes in the production structure. The city of Madrid experienced an increase in activity as did the country. Now we are going to analyze the information that we have from the Mercantile Register of Madrid. 


2. Main information generated by the Mercantile Register of Madrid.  

First of all it is important to explain that the purpose of the Mercantile Register of Madrid was to have public information about the firms in Madrid and it was not intended to be used for analysing the entrepreneurship in the Capital of the country.

So the information is incomplete for our purpose and does not answer several questions that we would like to know. Also it is important to explain that the registry data also leads us to entrepreneurs that do not carry out their work in Madrid. They can be people from other parts of Spain or from abroad. This can be explained in the first case –from other parts of Spain- because in a poor Spain it was clearly better to be known as a business from Madrid and not from the “provinces”. Let us say that from a marketing viewpoint it was better.

The story of the foreign entrepreneurs is clearly different and registers an important presence for example of French entrepreneurs that raised the prestige of business, normally better qualified people and with more money. In order to isolate the possible effect that Madrid had as a centre of attraction because it is the capital of the country, we have considered separately, as sub-data, firms with more members not from Madrid, those whose business was not located in Madrid and those that had emerged in other places, other than the capital. We have analysed foreign partners, undoubtedly a small percentage, as expected, but relatively significant both in terms of capital inflow, and in their technological contribution.

Another aspect to try to assess in the Mercantile Registry of Madrid is the qualifications of new entrepreneurs. It is essential to begin by recognizing that for this purpose the information is incomplete. On the one hand, this was because there were different trends among registrars, and there are periods in which there is detailed information on members and other years in which such details are omitted. It is important to point out that the information is about the professions of the partners, not their studies, but it is clear their studies in some cases like lawyers, architects, doctors, teachers or engineer, in others we do not know. However, despite this problem, we believe we can contribute, with limitations, to introduce some information for the debate over whether the entrepreneur is born or not. And while the entrepreneurs of the Madrid Register are just a section of the business, at least we can also see trends in studies/occupations.

Also we have information about the legal form chosen for their business, the nominal capital and corporate social order with which it is involved and the evolution of these relationships over time. In addition we can see how it grows over time, the number of members who are already established in companies and go on to take stakes in others, from the beginning, as founding members of others, usually in the same field, creating a business network and a network of increasingly complex interests. This phenomenon, which at the beginning of the data was small, gradually increased over time, and we can identify the type of business that does it, as well, usually stock companies, with the entry of other founding partners and the relevance of their stock companies, which we identify with the capital input. Certainly, the register provides information on each company, both in terms of the legal form and its activity or purpose. This shows relatively stable patterns of behaviour and, especially, different approaches. In a regular partnership the responsibility is not limited. The partners are responsible, individually and collectively with the whole of their assets for the debts of the society, which is probably the simplest and also very numerous in the observed data, characteristic of dealers or traders, a figure without excessive interest in growth and the more refined model of the stock companies, whose aims are to grow and expand capital by raising funds and a more normal social order than the first. This model is also chosen by the foreign partners usually, as well as the limited liability company. In some companies the objective is the exploitation of a patent, usually provided by one or several of the partners, either as a generator of it or as a simple owner of it. This is very rewarding especially when it intersects with the chronological development to know when they decide to exploit the patent. The problem here is that we do not have too much information of this phenomenon.

The study also provides evidence of records on nominal capital, but not on capital paid out, they did not have in this period obligation to inform the Mercantile Registry of Madrid or on the duration of societies. On the issue of capital actually paid out, and this affects stock companies in particular, until 1953 there was no need to specify exactly, leaving for consideration by the Board of Directors the terms and amounts, which obviously was conditioned by the scarcity of available funds. On the issue of duration, also the companies had no obligation to register their dissolution, which has led to our losing track of their history. In many cases, we only have a single entry record of a company. Since the stock companies in 1953 had to undergo a process of adaptation to the new Law, that gives us new information. This has enabled us to summarise in many cases the data of the company, but not of those where the companies had de facto dissolved.

On the whole, the research in the Commercial Registry of Madrid in the period 1886-1936, founded by more than 20,000 members provides rich and abundant information that can supplement the data supplied by other sources to illustrate some of the patterns of behaviour exhibited by the entrepreneurs in the period under review and offer some key assumptions about entrepreneurship. It may also allow further exploration of the case of persons who took part in more than one activity (as a simple network) and groups of people, as a more complex network, which sought to address various initiatives and test, as far as data permit, their success or duration.

This source has been used in other regions of Spain, such as Andalusia, Catalonia and many more as Coruña, Pontevedra, Extremadura, Canaries, Navarra, Aragon and Valencia Community (Martin, Garrués, and Hernandez, eds., 2003). There is a long story related to registration in Italy, mercatores stock companies regulated by statutory common law of medieval Italy. Since the XII century in many Statuti many scriptures are included that register companies with the purpose of giving limited liability to the owners that put capital into the firm, and who are called comanditario. This was also developed in Spain, for example in the ancient Trade Consulates where the traders themselves deposited the official document of their company, so that everyone interested had knowledge of it, as is explained in the Ordenanzas of Bilbao, 1737. The institutionalization of the Commercial Registry in Spain was mandatory since 1829. The Commercial Code in its Article 22 provides that “each provincial capital establish a public registration of Commerce” (Registro mercantil). The legal form of creating a company in those days was of four different types: regular partnership, limited partnership, limited partnership by shares and stock companies (art. 265 and 275). The information to be contained in the registration was the name of the company, legal form, date of foundation, purpose of the business, name of the founders, the capital, etc. (Martin Aceña, 1993, pp 6-7). Even though it was mandatory the “legislative requirements were systematically ignored" (Soler, 2003, p. 16).

In the case of Madrid, between 1830 and 1848, the number of companies registered in the Commercial Registry of Madrid was 320 (Martin Aceña, 1993, p. 11), however there were many who did not meet the legal requirement. This situation lasted until the enactment of the Commercial Code of 1885, which replaced the one of 1829. The new Code of Commerce sought to “guarantee against third parties interested in the Partnership Agreements" (Martin, Garrués, and Hernandez, eds., 2003, p. 7). This way, it reinforced the role of the Register, specified in the Code in articles 16 to 32. Article 21 contains the question of share capital and the members of the board of the company. It also contains the name of the company, purpose of the business, date of the beginning of the company, dissolution, transformation, merger of a division of the company. The Limited Company was not introduced in the Code of Commerce of 1885, although the liberal interpretation of Article 122 led to this type of company being accepted since the early twentieth century. It was in 1919 that for the first time the existence of such companies was explicitly recognized. And its regulation would come with the Act of the 17th of July of 1953 (cf. Abreu, 2003, p. 63). Mutual and Cooperative Insurance firms were not considered as commercial, and, therefore, not governed by the Code (the exception was if they had commercial business or were companies with fixe premiums). Since the new Code of 1885 the information was more complete because it was almost “a reproduction of what the notaries’ deed before for the companies (Lindoso, 2003, p. 33).


 3. Still few entrepreneurs in Madrid.

The basic assumption underlying this research is that all entrepreneurs and their new ventures or creating a new firm are much the same (Gartner 1985, De la Torre and García Zuñiga 2011). We can see in graph 1 how scarce the entrepreneurs were since 1886 up to the beginning of the XX century. During this period we can observe that in 3 years not even 1 per 10.000 inhabitants created a new firm. And in the XX century they were more companies that started, with a significant improvement after World War I, with more than 4 per 10.000 inhabitants that started a firm; this is similar to other European countries, that after the war many companies were created or more entrepreneur spirit did exist. What is also important for our research is that in this moment, after WWI, was when most stock companies list in the Mercantile Registry of Madrid. In the appendix we put the ten most important companies in nominal capital in the Registry in 1886, 1900, 1920 and 1935 to show the sectors were the most important entrepreneurs were.  

 Graph 1. Coefficient of entrepreneurs in Madrid (1886 – 1935).                  

Source: Mercantile Registry of Madrid (number of firms by 10.000 inhabitants).

 If we compare the coefficient of entrepreneurship of Madrid with Barcelona or Andalucía in the last period that we have data of Xavier Tafunell (2005) with the one of the Mercantile Registry of Madrid it varies in a great way.

The variation in comparison with Barcelona up to the period of the Republic is relevant, so still in the capital of the country the are few entrepreneurs, Barcelona was in a clear lead and the 30´s in both cities are low the coefficient. With Andalucía, one of the less dynamic parts of Spain the different as well is enormous and was positive for Madrid, in the south of Spain there were entrepreneurs, over 27.000 since 1886 to 1959, but Madrid with less population since 1886 to 1935 they already had over 20.000 (Garrues et alt. 2011) (Graph 2).

What is true that Madrid as the capital of the country did attracted foreign investment that Andalucía practically did not and from other parts of the country because it was the capital of the country. 

Graph 2. Coefficient of entrepreneurs comparing Madrid with Barcelona and Andalucía (1912 – 1934). 

Source: Mercantile Registry of Madrid and Tafunell (2005, p. 772 and 776). Data in logarithms, (number of firms by 10.000 inhabitants).

 Now we want to point out the different types of business by activities that were created during the period. Madrid has the highest percentage in the tertiary sector (Graph 3), the second sector, even if the number was important, the nominal capital of the new companies were small and not many in the primary sector. With these percentages it identifies a dynamic city that was moving in the direction of modernization (García Ruiz 2006).

 Graph 3. The distribution of the number of companies by sectors in Madrid (1886-1935).

 Source: Mercantile Registry of Madrid, criteria of the sectors is of the CNAE. We do not put 1936 because the Spanish Civil War started in July of that year and the information obviously is not homogeneous with the other years.

 What is important of the information of the Mercantile Registry of Madrid that specify the create differences between the nominal capital[1] in the tertiary sector and the rest aggregated. And as we said, if we compare the number of companies with the nominal capital in average is also important because it clarify that the second sector was of small industries as already indicated Garcia Ruiz (2006).

Another characteristic that did take place in the entire world is that the investment is mainly before World War I (Graph 4). During that period the world was in a clear process of globalization and it was a liberal moment, so it was relatively easy for foreign investments. And the Spanish case was not an exception.

 Graph 4. Nominal capital by sectors during the period 1886-1935 (constant pesetas of 1913).

Source: Mercantile Registry of Madrid (it is in logarithms).

 In the distribution of the entrepreneurs in Madrid by origin of the founders of the companies Madrid inhabitants represent 77 per cent, Spaniards not from Madrid 15[2] per cent and foreigners are 8 per cent. Even if the percentage of foreigners in the Mercantile Register is small they are significant for the development of the city because of their knowledge and because the foreign investment[3].

 Subsequently it does confirm the hypothesis of Alexander Gerschenkron (1965) about the financial significance of foreign investment for underdeveloped countries[4]. And that FDI increase employment and productivity, we can add here also the foreign entrepreneur that transfer technology and managerial skills (Daniels, Radebough, Sullivan, 2009, Harrison, 1994, Zhang, 2001).

Therefore is essential and important the foreign presence in the dynamic development of the companies for the development of Spanish economy and in this case for the capital of the country, Madrid. This is a key factor and the percentages are interesting because they are less than 10 percent of the entrepreneurs and they are in companies that have over 90 per cent of the capital of all the companies in the city. It is a historical problem in Spain the need of initiative that was solved with foreign people (Totella 2000) and Spanish people prefer to copy from abroad or directly the development is done by foreign entrepreneurs.

And who were the foreign? These are mainly from more develop countries, and between these they come mostly from France and Britain, the number of French entrepreneurs is higher than British, but the capital is greater from the last. Another basic element to analyse is the different legal type of companies.

 3.1. The triumph of the Stock Company

The largest number was the Stock Companies 40,13 per cent, second the Regular Partnership was 35,47 per cent, third was the Limited Companies 10,94 per cent, Limited Partnership 8,60 per cent and 4,86 per cent others. If we look at the information year by year (Graph 5), we see that at the beginning of the period there were not many stock companies, albeit there was an increase in the 20´s and 30´s. Also there is a decline of the Limited Partnership and they developed more at the beginning of the period.

The process is opposite to the Limited Companies which began to be recognized as such in 1919. Each legal type of company shows us what the ambitions of the founders of these companies were and of course the capital that they could invest in the project. It is clear that a peasant or several of them would find it very difficult to create a stock company and so they created a Regular Partnership. The foreign entrepreneurs are the opposite; normally they create a Stock Company and not a Regular Partnership.

Graph 5. Percentages of companies according to their different legal types by years (1886-1935).

Source: Mercantile Registry of Madrid

3.2. Low qualification of the entrepreneurs in Madrid.

In general the qualification during this period is low and what we can describe is the qualified entrepreneurs that we do have information from the Mercantile Register of Madrid (Nuñez, C.E. 1992). Human Capital is essential for the development of companies with high technological innovation and in general for the economic growth in the XX Century as already explains Gary Becker (1964) and the higher level of salaries is with higher level of education (Mincer, 1974). The credibility of the company is furthermore superior because it has high education (Arrow, 1973). 

The Stock Companies have more qualified entrepreneurs, qualified with university studies (the total is 1.281). Of all the entrepreneurs with university studies they represent 62,79 per cent, and only 18,9 per cent in the second most numerous types of companies, the Regular Partnership (the total is 347). All the entrepreneurs with university studies are 2.040 and with some studies they are 4.065 over a total of more than 20.000 entrepreneurs (in percentages they are 10,02 percent the entrepreneurs with university studies over the total and 19,97 percent with some studies over the total of entrepreneurs[5]).

 The information we divide in two periods because in the Mercantile Register of Madrid did not introduce the profession of the founders during the period 1920 to 1924. The person responsible in the Mercantile Register of Madrid decided that the information of the profession of the founders was not needed to add in each registration of the companies, so in the 50 years there is a gap of those years. The graphs show the entrepreneurs in each type of legal form of company in percentages in Graph 6-A from 1886 to 1919 and Graph 6-B from 1925 to 1935.

Graph 6-A. Entrepreneurs with university studies in the Mercantile Register of Madrid in the different types of legal company (1886-1919) in percentages.

Source: Mercantile Registry of Madrid. At least one of the founders has university studies.

 What can be surprising in the Graph 6-B are the Limited Partnership in 1934, however we must remember that during this period they are few Limited Partnership, so if in 1934 they have a greater percentage than the Stock Companies it is not so relevant, in that year the Stock Companies were 95 and the Limited Partnership were only 3.

Graph 6-B. Entrepreneurs with university studies in the Mercantile Register of Madrid in the different types of legal company (1925-1935) in percentages.

Source: Mercantile Registry of Madrid. At least one of the founders has university studies.

To summaries, they are few entrepreneurs with university studies over the total number of entrepreneurs in the different types of companies in the fifty years (1886-1935).


 4. Conclusion

They are two conclusions that we can draw from the information refer to entrepreneurship that we have from the Mercantile Registry of Madrid.

First the importance of foreign entrepreneurs that are in the companies with more capital and here we can quantify with the capital that is over 90 percent. This follows Gerschenkron idea of the importance about foreign investment for underdeveloped countries. In addition we show how important were the foreign entrepreneurs and the capability of the Spanish entrepreneurs to learn from them.

The risk factor that is assumed by foreign entrepreneurs was far greater along the period, which follows what Knight points out: improving the calculation of the risk and also they manage better uncertainties. In this period after World War I is a crucial moment because in Spain drops the foreign capital flow.

On the other side, the Spanish entrepreneur started to show more capability since 1919, as it is the moment when more companies did develop in the country so is an evidence of the improvement of the economy of Madrid. From the issue about qualification it is clear the low qualification of the entrepreneurs, only 10 percent with university studies over the total of entrepreneurs that we have the information.

The title of the article: “10 percent success achieves in entrepreneurship” is a clear reference of the lack of qualification of the Spanish entrepreneur and the lack of Spanish capital, as more than 90 percent is with foreign entrepreneurs, so only 10 percent is 100 percent Spanish.

In a general overview we can not forget that Spain was still far from the develop countries and this information confirms this problem that will not be solve up the last decades of the XX century. In 1930 the income per capita of Spain in percentage of the combine French and British was 57 percent (Tortella 2000).


Ten biggest companies register in 1886, 1900, 1920 and 1935 in the Mercantile Registry of Madrid in nominal capital.


Year 1886 - Nominal Capital in pesetas 

Compañía de los Caminos de hierro del Norte de España - 185.250.000,00

Compañía Metalúrgica de San Juan de Alcaraz - 10.000.000,00

Canal del Duero - 6.000.000,00

Compañía del Ferro-carril de Madrid a S. Martin de Valdeiglesias - 3.000.000,00

Union Hullera y metalúrgica de Asturias - 2.900.000,00

Sociedad Minero-Industrial de Almeria - 2.000.000,00

Tranvia del Este de Madrid - 600.000,00

Sociedad anónima Española de construcciones navales - 600.000,00

Moreno y Compañía - 500.000,00

Jornos hermanos - 245.000,00


Year 1900

Fourcade et Provot - 4.200.000,00

La Unión Industrial del Norte - 800.000,00

Sociedad Metalúrgica Duro-Felguera - 6.136.558,00

Colonia de San Pedro Alcántara. Sociedad  Anónima - 2.280.000,00

Sociedad General Gallega de Electricidad - 2.000.000,00

El Águila - 2.000.000,00

Compañía Ibérica de Resinas - 1.650.000,00

Sociedad Valenciana de Molinería y Panificación Sistema Scheitzer - 1.500.000,00

Compañía Española del Gas Aerógeno - 1.500.000,00

Banco Agrícola Español - 1.000.000,00

Compañía Madrileña de Panificación - 1.000.000,00


Year 1920

 Compañía Minero Metalúrgica - 50.000.000,00

 Banco Previdente Segurador - 28.000.000,00

 Lazaro Brothers & Co. Sociedad Limitada - 10.000.000,00

 Construcciones y Materiales - 10.000.000,00

 Almacenes   Rodríguez - 10.000.000,00

 Banco Clamarte - 10.000.000,00

 Peninsular   Engineering Company - 10.000.000,00

 London County Westmister and Parr's Foreign Bank Limited - 5.000.000,00

 Hispano-American International Corporation - 6.250.000,00

 Gran Empresa Sagarra - 6.000.000,00


Year 1935

Inmobiliaria Central Española - 15.000.000,00

Compañía Nacional de Automotores S.A. - 10.000.000,00

Banco General de Administración - 10.000.000,00

Productora de azúcares y derivados S.A. - 6.000.000,00

Agua y Saneamiento - 5.000.000,00

Fomento de Construcciones Urbanas S.A. - 5.000.000,00

Fuerzas Eléctricas del Oeste - 5.000.000,00

Compañía Inmobiliaria Española - 5.000.000,00

Cacahual S.A. - 5.000.000,00

Constructora Nacional de Casas Baratas - 5.000.000,00

Compañía Hispano Argentina de Inmuebles   Sociedad Anónima - 5.000.000,00

Inmobiliaria Luz S.A. - 5.000.000,00


Abreu Sernández, L.F. (2003), “Los libros de sociedades del Registro de Comercio: 1866-1885 y del Registro Mercantil: 1886-1940, de la provincia de Pontevedra”, en Martín Rodríguez et al. (ed.), 53-79.

Arrow, K. J. 1973. Higher education as a filter. Journal of Public Economics, 2: 193-216.

Baumol, W.J. (1987); “Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory”, American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), 58, 64-71.

Becker, G. S. 1964. Human capital. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Botrel, J.F. y Chastagnaret, G. (1973), “Une source pour l’histoire économique et sociale de l’Espagne conemporaine. Los Registros Mercantiles”, en Mélanges de la Casa de Velázquez, IX, 747-754.

Casson, M. (1990);  Entrepreneurship,  Aldershot,  Edward Elgar.

Carreras, A. y Tafunell, X. (coordinadores) (2005); Estadisticas historicas de Espana : siglos xix-xx /2.a ed. Bilbao : Fundacion BBVA, 2005.

 Carreras, A., Sudria, C. (1987), "Formación de capital i finanerament industrial a Catalunya (s. XIX) ". Revista Económica de Catalunya, 4, 75-87.

Cole, A. H. (1942); “Entrepreneurship as an Area of Research: A Historical and Analytical Approach”. The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 2, Supplement: The Tasks of Economic History, pp. 118-126.

Cordero, J.E. y Arribas, J.F. (1989), “La inversión en Madrid a través del Registro Mercantil (1876-1901)”, en Bahamonde, A. y Otero, L.E. (ed.), La sociedad madrileña durante la Restauración, Madrid, Alfoz, 402-211.

Daniels J.D., Radebaugh, L.H., Sullivan, D.P. (2009). International Business, Pearson Education Inc., NewJersey.

De la Torre, J and García‐Zúñiga, M. (2011), “Instituciones y empresarialidad en el Norte de España, 1885 - 2010”, Xth Congress of the Spanish Asocciation. Carmona.

Dirección General de los Registros Civil y de la Propiedad y del Notariado (1901), Estadística del Registro Mercantil (1886-1899), Madrid.

Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado (1911), Estadística del Registro Mercantil (1899-1909), Madrid.

Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado (1912), Anuario de los Registros y del Notariado, Madrid.

Drucker, P. F. (1985); Entrepreneurship and innovation, London, Heinemann.

Evans, G.H. Jr. (1949); “The Entrepreneur and Economic Theory: A Historical and Analytical Approach” The American Economic Review, Vol. 39, No. 3, Papers and Proceedings of the Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May), pp. 336-348.

García Ruiz, J. L. y Manera Erbina, C. (2006), Historia Empresarial de España. Un enfoque regional en profundidad. Madrid, LID.

Garrúes J.; Rubio J. A. y Hernández S. (2011), “Legos, vagos y traidores: empresarios andaluces en la II Revolución Tecnológica”, Xth Congress of the Spanish Association of Economic History, Carmona.

Gartner, W. 1985. A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10: 696-706.

Germán Zubero, L. (1981), "Evolución de la formación de capital en Aragón, 1886-1977". Cuadernos Aragoneses de Economía, 5, 197-207.

Glancey, Keith S. and McQuiad, Ronald W. Entrepreneurial Economics. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. 

Harrison, A. (1994). “The Role of Multinationals in Economic Development The Benefits of FDI”, Colombia Journal of World Business, 29(4), pp. 6-11

Hisrich, R.D. and Peters, M.P. (1998); Entrepreneurship, 4th edition, New   York, Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Jiménez Araya, T. (1974), “Formación de capital y fluctuaciones económicas. Materiales para el estudio de un indicador: creación de sociedades mercantiles en España entre 1886 y 1970”, Hacienda Pública Española, 27, 137-185.

Lindoso Tato, E. (2003), “El Registro Mercantil de La Coruña: una fuente para la historia empresarial decimonónica”, en Martín Rodríguez et al. (ed.), 31-51.

Pennings, J.M.;  Lee, K.; Van Witteloostuijn, A. (1998), Human Capital, Social Capital, and Firm Dissolution. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Aug.,), pp. 425-440.

Madoz, P. (1846-1850), Diccionario Geográfico-Estadístico­ Histórico de España y sus posesiones de Ultramar. Madrid.

Martín Aceña, P. (1993), La Creación de Sociedades en Madrid (1830-1848). Un análisis del Primer Registro Mercantil, Fundación Empresa Pública-Programa de Historia Económica, Documento de Trabajo, 9303. 1-61.

Martín Rodríguez, M., Garrués Irurzun, J. y Hernández Armenteros, S. (ed.) (2003), El Registro Mercantil: una fuente para la historia económica, Granada, Universidad de Granada.

Mincer, J. 1974. Schooling, experience, and earnings. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Nuñez Romero-Balmas, C. E. (1992), La fuente de la riqueza. Educación y desarrollo económico en la España contemporánea, (1992) Madrid, Alianza Editorial.

Stauss J. H. (1944), “The Entrepreneur: The Firm.” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 112-127.

Shane, Venkataraman (2000), “The promise of Entrepreneurship as a field of Research”. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 25, No. 1, 217-226.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1943); Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, London, Allen and Unwin.

Soler, R. (2003), “Problemas de homogeneización en la información registral”, en Martín Rodríguez et al. (ed.), 15-29.

Sudriá, C., Pascual, P., Castañeda, L. (1992), "Oferta monetaria y financiación industrial en Cataluña, 1815-1860". Revista de Historia Industrial, 1, 189-202.

Tafunell, X. (2005), “Empresa y bolsa”, en Carreras, A. y X. Tafunell (ed.), Estadísticas históricas de España. Siglos XIX y XX, Bilbao, Fundación BBVA, 707-833.

Taylor, R.R. (1988), Exceptional Entrepreneurial Women, Strategies for Success, New   York, Quorum Books.

Toro, J. (1986), “El registro de sociedades mercantiles (1885-1900)”, en Otero Carvajal, L.E. y Bahamonde, A. (eds.), Madrid en la sociedad del siglo XIX, Madrid, Comunidad de Madrid, 527-532.

Tortella Casares, G. (2000); The Development of Modern Spain. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England. Harvard University Press.

Vázquez García, J. A. (1980), "Creación de sociedades e inversión en Asturias, 1886-1973. El auge de fin de siglo” Investigaciones Económicas, 12, 165-181.

Zhang, K.H. (2001). “How does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth in China?”, Economics of Transition, 9(3), pp. 679-693.


[1] It is impossible to use other quantities, because in many registrations of companies they only put the nominal capital and no other information.

[2]Madrid was a city that grows with immigrants, and the entrepreneurs also were relevant from other parts of the country, but are not relevant the nominal capital from other parts of the country, still it is a poor country, underdeveloped, less than 10 per cent is national nominal capital. Anyway we are preparing another paper about the non madrileños to understand this factor in the development of the city.

[3] Source: Mercantile Registry of Madrid. The companies that we consider foreign are those that the company has its main office out of Spain or/and between the founders are a foreign in the Registry of Madrid or/and the nominal capital is in foreign currency.

[4] As is said it was of great importance the presence of the French, the British and Germans. Also significant are the Belgians (in percentage for a small country). What is surprising is the lack of American businessmen. The Americans were not yet considering expanding much in Spain. It is also clear that Italy was not very developed in these years because their businessmen were even less than Belgium in Madrid

. It is also important that around 90 percent are Europeans, though we were far from the globalization of today.

 [5] In the percentages with do not put the entrepreneurs of the period 1920-1924, because we do not have the information about there professions.


MailContactar con el autor

¿Estás a la última?

Una mano escribe con un lápiz sobre uons papeles

Colabora con nosotros

Ayúdanos, colabora con nosotros a descubrir la historia y siénte parte de ella: