While it is clear that one&#x27;s access to capital is an important consideration, the article is weak, because it overlooks several important points, some which have been mentioned here by others. I&#x27;ll mention two that I haven&#x27;t seen being pointed out elsewhere in this discussion. I hope they are of interest.<p>1. The article states:<p><pre><code>    ... and found that most were white, male, and highly 
    educated. “If one does not have money in the form of a 
    family with money, the chances of becoming an 
    entrepreneur drop quite a bit,” Levine tells Quartz.
</code></pre>
Given that the daughters of rich families are just as well-off and educated as the sons, and have as much access to parental&#x2F;familial capital, having a wealthy family background cannot be the whole story. We can have long discussions about why this is, but the key point is that this disparity really undermines the article, regardless of cause.<p>2. The article doesn&#x27;t reflect on the what exactly entrepreneurship is. One could argue that poor people in the developing world are much more entrepreneurial because most of them are in some form or other self-employed, ie. are entrepreneurs: the cigarette and waterbottle seller on the street corner, the coconut seller on the beach, the fisherman fishing with his own boat and net, the garbage picker who sells empty plastic bottles by the kilo for recyling ... They often are not employed. In a sense it&#x27;s poverty that forces them into Entrepreneurship. It&#x27;s the absence of large structured firms with the stability of employment that provide that&#x27;s missing. By cherrypicking specific forms of glamorous entrepreneurs, they arrive at a skewed conclusion that more careful analysis would undermine.