How street protests can spark entrepreneurship

Social unrest in China can create unexpected economic opportunities – not because entrepreneurs respond to protests themselves, but because of how local governments respond to them. Jeremy Lei Xu , Milo Shaoqing Wang , Shon R. Hiatt and Haemin Dennis Park show that, even when the protest may have nothing to do with entrepreneurship, its institutional consequences can make it easier for people to start businesses.

On 30 March 2014 thousands of residents in Maoming, a major petrochemical city in southern China, took to the streets to oppose a proposed 3.5 billion yuan ($570 million) paraxylene (PX) plant, to be jointly owned by the city government and a subsidiary of the state-owned refiner Sinopec.

The protest was about environmental and health concerns – not entrepreneurship. Yet what happened next illustrates a surprising way that social unrest can reshape the business environment.

The local government initially treated the demonstrations as a threat to social stability. Riot police moved in to disperse the crowds, with reports of injuries among protesters . And the city police called on participants to turn themselves in. Smaller demonstrations continued for several days and spread to the provincial capital, Guangzhou. Within days, however, officials changed course. The city government announced that the project was still under scientific study, would be shelved if a majority of residents opposed it and would not start until the public reached a consensus. It also promised to communicate better with residents.^[1]

For entrepreneurs, the important consequence was not the protest itself. It was the government’s response and the changes that response could trigger in the local allocation of resources.

The hidden economic consequences of protest

We often think of protests as disruptive events. Shops may close, consumers may stay home, supply chains may be interrupted and investors may become more cautious. Research on social movements has also highlighted the way that protests can communicate information about changing social norms, political risks and community preferences.

But in developing economies, there can be another pathway. Local governments often have substantial influence over financing, regulation, infrastructure and other resources. When social unrest becomes visible, officials may have incentives to respond in ways that restore public confidence and demonstrate economic effectiveness.

This dynamic is especially striking in China, where the state is generally intolerant of protest. Under its policy of “stability maintenance” (维稳), authorities invest heavily in policing, surveillance and censorship to prevent collective action, and organisers risk detention. Yet local officials are also judged on keeping order and delivering growth in their jurisdictions. So a visible protest signals that something has gone wrong on their watch. Environmental protests that do not directly challenge the ruling Communist Party have therefore often been met with a mix of coercion and concession. From Xiamen in 2007 to Dalian in 2011 and Ningbo in 2012 , contested chemical projects were suspended or relocated after demonstrations – and Maoming followed the same script.^[2][3][4]

Our argument is that the concessions need not stop at the disputed project. Government officials seeking to restore public confidence may also expand access to credit or ease regulation. These responses are aimed at stability, not entrepreneurship, but they can inadvertently open up room for new businesses.

This creates a chain of effects: street protest → local government response → resource allocation → entrepreneurial opportunity. The protest may have nothing to do with entrepreneurship, yet its institutional consequences can make it easier for people to start businesses.

From political pressure to entrepreneurial opportunity

Our study examined a longitudinal prefecture-level panel dataset of 2,607 observations in China between 2008 and 2019. We focused on street protests concerning non-economic issues, including environmental protection and human rights, and examined what happened to new venture formation afterwards.^[5]

The results show that protests were associated with approximately 1,466 additional newly founded ventures on average. More importantly, the evidence points to a mechanism: protests were followed by increases in business lending and regulatory reforms, and these changes were associated with subsequent venture formation. Instrumental-variable, matching and Bartik-instrument analyses provided additional support for the relationship.^[6]

This is what we call a resource spillover effect: local politicians in developing economies are motivated to defuse or redirect the momentum of street protests by appealing to key constituents’ aspirations for economic wellbeing. An entrepreneur does not need to participate in a protest – or even care about the issue that caused it – to benefit from its indirect consequences. If a local government responds to social pressure by widening access to business loans or reducing regulatory barriers, a previously marginal business idea may suddenly become viable.

Watch the response, not just the disruption

For business leaders, the practical lesson is to look beyond the headline event. When political or social disruption occurs, the first questions are usually defensive . Will customers disappear? Will employees be unable to work? Will regulations tighten? Those questions matter, but they capture only the first-order effects.^[7]

A second set of questions can reveal a different opportunity. What will policymakers do next? Which resources might move? Could lending conditions change? Could licensing become easier? Could public spending or infrastructure priorities shift? The answers may matter more for long-term opportunity than the original disruption.

Entrepreneurs can therefore translate institutional change into business questions. Which costs have fallen? Which barriers have disappeared? Which resources have become accessible? Which industries have become easier to enter? Political awareness can become entrepreneurial awareness.

Not every city responds in the same way

The effects of protest are not automatic. They depend on the political environment in which a protest occurs. In our study, the resource spillover effect was stronger when mayors had stronger prospects for political advancement, proxied by their educational attainment.

This suggests that the same protest can produce very different economic consequences in different cities. Local officials differ in their incentives, discretion and ability to redirect resources. For entrepreneurs, simply counting protests is therefore not enough. Understanding who controls local economic resources – and what those officials stand to gain or lose – is equally important.

What leaders can learn

Watch the institutional response. Political events do not have fixed consequences. Pay attention to how governments, regulators and financial institutions react, because their responses can reshape the opportunity landscape.

Map policy changes into opportunity spaces. A new lending programme or regulatory reform can change who can enter an industry, which ventures can obtain finance and which existing firms can expand. Treat institutional change as a potential source of entrepreneurial opportunity.

Policymakers should consider unintended entrepreneurial effects. Policies introduced to stabilise communities or respond to dissatisfaction can reshape local entrepreneurial ecosystems even when entrepreneurship was never their stated objective.

Make new resources accessible to outsiders. When policies expand access to resources, established networks may capture disproportionate benefits. Broad information access and connections to resource providers can help ensure that policy-driven opportunities reach new entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurship can be a political side effect

The broader lesson is that entrepreneurship does not develop in isolation from society. New ventures depend not only on founders, technologies, networks and markets, but also on institutional environments that can change for reasons unrelated to business creation.

A protest about environmental protection can influence business lending. Political pressure can lead to economic-development initiatives. Regulatory reforms can reduce the costs of starting a company. The entrepreneurs who benefit may never have participated in the original movement – and may never realise that it helped create the opportunity they pursued.

For business leaders facing political uncertainty, the useful question is therefore not only “What could go wrong?” It is also “What is this likely to cause the local government to change?” Sometimes, the second-order changes triggered by disruption are where the next entrepreneurial opportunity begins.

This article is based on Revolutionary Sparks: Exploring the Resource Spillover Effect of Street Protests on Entrepreneurship , published in Organization Science , 2026.^[8]

This article gives the views of the author, not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics. You are agreeing with our comment policy when you leave a comment.