![]() 1) has emerged over the past 20 years (Berlemann et al., 2018 Wolter & Hauser, 2001). ![]() At least in German-speaking countries, a longstanding “ lively and quite controversial scientific discussion on the question how Mittelstand companies can be defined adequately” (Berlemann et al., 2021, p. However, research on Mittelstand companies is faced with a dilemma: just as there exists no legal or a generally accepted definition (Becker & Ulrich, 2011 Krimphove & Tytko, 2002), there similarly is no broad understanding of what constitutes the Mittelstand. The Mittelstand is therefore frequently portrayed as the “backbone of the German economy” and as flagship of the country’s innovativeness and export success (Audretsch & Lehmann, 2016). Not only is West Germany’s “economic miracle”, the Wirtschaftswunder of the 1950s and 1960s, along with the well-known brand “Made in (West) Germany” attributed to the Mittelstand (Berghoff, 2006 Muzyka et al., 1997) but also the resilient performance of the German economy in the wake of the financial crisis (e.g., Bruff & Horn, 2012 Lehrer & Schmid, 2015 Pichet & Lang, 2012). Although these companies play a more unique role for German economic development than in other countries, such as the USA or the UK (Audretsch & Elston, 1997), there is some interest in understanding and - to some extent - in emulating the German Mittelstand (e.g., Bod, 2014 Logue et al., 2015 Ross Range, 2012), also from policymakers worldwide (Pahnke & Welter, 2019). Germany’s Mittelstand companies have attracted increased attention in the entrepreneurship field as well as from policy makers and media at the international level. In this way, a more comprehensive and unified understanding of the Mittelstand and its heterogeneity should emerge at all levels. Highlighting their systematic differences, we finally suggest that research, policy makers, and practitioners should set the unity of ownership and management at the core of the Mittelstand. The paper addresses this ambiguity of the term Mittelstand prevalent throughout the literature and compares different approaches to measuring, identifying, and classifying the Mittelstand. As a result, research on the Mittelstand is less coherent causing confusion in media, politics, and academia. On the other hand, there is no common, widely accepted and consistently applied understanding of what constitutes the Mittelstand. On the one hand, Germany’s Mittelstand companies have attracted increased attention in the entrepreneurship literature as well as from policy makers and media at an international level. Research on Mittelstand companies is faced with a dilemma. Consequently, we suggest a conceptualization of Mittelstand companies that paves the way for more comprehensive research by setting the distinctive company identity based on ownership and management at the core of what constitutes the Mittelstand. ![]() Focusing on the criteria owner-management, firm size, and a sense of belonging to the Mittelstand, we highlight systematic differences of these approaches. ![]() ![]() The paper challenges this simplified equation of Mittelstand and SMEs and provides a first comparison of different approaches to analyze Mittelstand companies. Most empirical research has relied on data for SMEs, taking quantitative metrics on firm size as constituent features of Mittelstand companies. Until today, no common, widely accepted, and consistently applied understanding of what constitutes the Mittelstand exists, and related international research is consequently less coherent as well as a strong evidence-base for policy makers lacking. A common fallacy is that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the translation for Mittelstand companies. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |