We wrote it partly because of our longtime fascination with the history of entrepreneurship and its institutional underpinnings. But we also noticed that most discussions of the topic took entrepreneurship for granted, as though it were an easy and predictable result in a capitalist society. Some writers celebrated it, while others faulted it for disrupting society and undermining equality, but none went into depth about what it required or why the United States has had a much stronger entrepreneurial economy than in the rest of the world. At a time of major calls for reforming capitalism, along with rising interest in entrepreneurship, we thought it essential to understand what that amazing activity required.

We wanted a historical image that showed economic development and emphasized individuals. We chose “The Lackawanna Valley,” c. 1856, part of a series of images drawn by George Innes with a commission by the Delaware, Lackawanna and Erie Railroad. While railroads were not major exemplars of entrepreneurship, we liked the image because it ran counter to the prevailing Hudson River School of painting, which emphasized natural settings in the unspoiled frontier. It also centers on a single individual seemingly considering opportunities opened up by the railroad—which describes many of the entrepreneurs in our book.

We define it as the daring act of individuals to draw together resources and ideas to address customer needs in a new way. In many cases, these individuals must overcome the opposition of established interests, either direct business rivals or workers, suppliers, communities and regulators tied to the prevailing practices. These individuals might operate within a large company, but they chart a new path rather than follow an established strategy.

They take it for granted, as though it’s a normal thing for someone to risk their job and savings on a highly risky venture. They assume it’s undertaken mainly by wealthy elites, when many of our greatest entrepreneurs have been first- or second-generation immigrants without a fortune. Or they think it’s a random but expected occurrence, like a lottery.

First, a historical account is the clearest way to understand why the United States proved so hospitable to entrepreneurship. But second, seeing the development over four centuries shows that entrepreneurship arose less because of wise decisions by rulers, but because the United States became an open society where people could fight for the right to compete against otherwise privileged elites.

No. We do think that the United States is exceptional in its receptivity to entrepreneurship, and its resistance to concentrated economic power. The country has largely succeeded in balancing private rights with a right to compete. But entrepreneurship is a highly disruptive act with clear drawbacks. Many Americans are the descendants of people who welcomed disruption, and our culture has in effect self-selected to favor disruption. America is a great place for people who want to express themselves and try out practical ideas; not so good for everyone else.

Entrepreneurship does tend to increase disparities of income and wealth – but it also reduces inequality by preventing established firms from taking their market power for granted. Elitism is harder when your position in society isn’t entrenched. Social entrepreneurship can do a lot to improve the position of the weakest people in society. Equality is also about equal access to economic opportunity. European societies with smaller income gaps and greater social benefits than we offer may nevertheless involve demoralizing economic restrictions.

Yes, entrepreneurship has damaged the economic well-being of communities such as Youngstown, Ohio that have not found sizable new opportunities after their main industry failed. These struggles are the downside of the American dream. As for climate change, entrepreneurs have probably hastened the development of carbon-heavy industry – but they are also doing much of the work now to address this crisis.

We’re comfortable with limited antitrust, to address blatant competitive cheating such as tying contracts. But we’re skeptical about calls to restrict big companies from acquiring firms or carrying out certain kinds of business.

For most of the country’s four-hundred year history, white men carried out most of the political economy and the (commercial) entrepreneurial activities. We’ve worked with the story we had. We highlight a few exceptions in the book, and we look forward to adding more as these stories come to light.

Yes, but these tariffs were general enough, and the domestic market large enough, to discourage political cronies from abusing those protections. 19th century protections also gave local entrepreneurs the space to develop domestic industries instead of remaining an economic colony of Britain. All the same, tariffs were a dangerous and much contested element of American political economy that have fortunately were sharply reduced in the 20th century. Tariffs certainly did promote a degree of cronyism, but what matters is that this cronyism was less common in the United States than in most other countries.