|
|
|
| The Driving Mechanisms of Social Entrepreneurship: A Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis |
| Zhang Kun1,Zhang Xiu'e2 |
| (1.School of Business Administration, Nanjing University of Finance and Economics, Nanjing 210023, China; 2.School of Business and Management, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Social entrepreneurship challenges the balance between social value and economic performance, and it is the unique way to solve social problems efficiently and achieve sustainable development. In particular, at a critical stage when China has entered the new economic norm and people’s demand for a better life is increasingly urgent, social entrepreneurship has become an essential force for realizing common prosperity and achieving high-quality development. Such entrepreneurial activities are closely related to major realities such as poverty eradication, environmental protection, and rural revitalization.#br#Currently, the idea of creating social value by market means has been favored by many scholars, and social enterprises are emerging in more and more economies. But according to the global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM), the prevalence of social entrepreneurship varies widely across economies. So why is social entrepreneurial activity prevalent in some economies and dormant in others, and what are the pathways that drive social entrepreneurship?#br#This study constructs an analytical model containing multi-level elements to explore the driving mechanisms of social entrepreneurial activities based on the GEM framework. Referring to both psychological and human capital aspects, it selects two individual indicatorfor this model: perception of opportunity and fear of failure. At the institutional level, this study combines the perspectives of institutional voids and institutional support, and classifies the institutional environment into “pulled” and “pushing” institutional environment to comprehensively analyze its impact on potential social entrepreneurs. It should not be ignored that the prevalence of social entrepreneurship in different cultural contexts also shows significant differences, and the driving factors at the cultural level also need to be analyzed. At the cultural level,the study focuses on exploring the role of the humane orientation.#br#By considering the complexity of social entrepreneurship, the fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) that combines the advantages of qualitative and quantitative analysis is used in the study. The cases and data are obtained from the social entrepreneurship special survey of GEM and the GLOBE project. After censoring, 22 economies are included in the study.By the fsQCA, this paper derives the configurations that generate high and non-high social entrepreneurial activity.#br#The paper draws the following conclusions. First, each of the antecedent conditions studied in this paper cannot be a necessary condition for high social entrepreneurial activity on its own but requires a linkage match of the five conditions. Second, three paths generate high social entrepreneurial activity: the first path is the institutional environment-capability mode in the high humane orientation culture. Under such a cultural context, the high pushing institutional environment and high opportunity perception are taken as the core conditions. and they jointly promote the emergence of social entrepreneurship activities assisted by the low pulled institutional environment or low fear of failure. The second path is the pulled institutional environment mode in the low humane orientation culture.In the low humane orientation culture, the matching of a high pulled institutional environment and low fear of failure creates social entrepreneurship. The third path is the pulled and pushing institutional environment modes which refer to the linkage matching of high pulled and pushing institutional environment, high opportunity perception and low fear of failure are the helpful condition sets. Third, two paths create non-high social entrepreneurship activities. The first type of configuration is the poorlypulled institutional environment in low humane orientation, combined with other elements. In the culture of high humane orientation, the second configuration is formed by the matching of low opportunity perception and fear of failure with different types of the social entrepreneurial institutional environment. Fourth, there is an asymmetric relationship between the driving mechanisms of high and non-high social entrepreneurial activity. #br#This research reveals the complicated reasons for the emergence of social entrepreneurial activity, and it helps to pay more attention on the cultural dimension of social entrepreneurship. The results reveal that the influence of humane orientation values on social entrepreneurship activity doesn’t play a simple linear effect. It is uncertain if a high human-oriented culture will necessarily lead to social entrepreneurship and vice versa. Moreover, this study contributes to the institutional theory by refining the social entrepreneurial institutional environment. The results of the study provide several practical implications. First, practitioners should focus on improving the ability of opportunity perception, especially the potential social entrepreneurs in a high level of humane orientation. Second, it is necessary to improve the institutional environment for social entrepreneurship. All sectors should strive to create favorable conditions for social entrepreneurial activities. Finally and the most importantly, policymakers should integrate cultural traits to promote the social entrepreneurship.#br#
|
|
Received: 27 September 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 刘志阳,李斌,陈和午.企业家精神视角下的社会创业研究[J].管理世界, 2018,34(11):171-173.
[2] 徐虹,张妍,翟燕霞.社会创业研究回顾与展望[J].经济管理,2020,42(11):193-208.
[3] 杨英,李岩,张秀娥,等.正式制度与非正式制度如何驱动社会创业——基于效率驱动型国家的QCA研究[J].科技进步与对策,2021,38(3):21-29.
[4] MUNOZ P, KIBLER E. Institutional complexity and social entrepreneurship: a fuzzy-set approach[J].Journal of Business Research, 2016, 69(4): 1314-1318.
[5] YIU D W, WAN W P, NG F W. Sentimental drivers of social entrepreneurship: a study of China's guangcai (glorious) program[J].Management and Organization Review, 2014,10(1):55-80.
[6] HOCKERTS K. Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions[J].Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2017,41(1):105-130.
[7] HOOGENDOORN B. The prevalence and determinants of social entrepreneurship at the macro level[J].Journal of Small Business Management, 2016,54:278-296.
[8] ESTRIN S T,MICKIEWICZ, STEPHAN U. Entrepreneurship, social capital, and institutions: social and commercial entrepreneurship across nations[J].Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2013, 37(3): 479-504.
[9] STEPHAN U, UHLANER L M, STRIDE C STRIDE. Institutions and social entrepreneurship: the role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations[J].Journal of International Business Studies, 2015, 46(3): 308-331.
[10] MILLER T L, GRIMES M G, MCMULLEN J S, et al. Venturing for others with heart and head: how compassion encourages social entrepreneurship[J].Academy of Management Review, 2012, 37(4): 616-640.
[11] 张秀娥,张坤.先前经验与社会创业意愿——自我超越价值观和风险倾向的中介作用[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2018,39(2):142-156.
[12] DOUGLAS E, PRENTICE C PRENTICE. Innovation and profit motivations for social entrepreneurship: a fuzzy-set analysis[J].Journal of Business Research, 2019(99): 69-79.
[13] 张秀娥,孟乔,张坤.创业者特质对企业创新的影响:规制的调节作用[J].科技进步与对策,2021,38(2):95-102.
[14] PATHAK S, MURALIDHARAN E. Societal ethics and social entrepreneurship: a cross-cultural comparison[J].Cross-Cultural Research, 2020, 54(2-3):180-208.
[15] 刘振,丁飞,肖应钊,等.资源拼凑视角下社会创业机会识别与开发的机制研究[J].管理学报,2019,16(7):1006-1015.
[16] AUSTIN J, STEVENSON H, WEI-SKILLERN J. Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both[J].Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2006, 30(1):1-22.
[17] SHEPHERD D A. Learning from business failure: propositions of grief recovery for the self-employed [J].Academy of Management Review, 2003, 28(2): 318-328.
[18] 刘志阳,庄欣荷,李斌.地理范围、注意力分配与社会企业使命偏离[J].经济管理,2019,41(8):73-90.
[19] GRICHNIK D, SMEJA A, WELPE I. The importance of being emotional: how do emotions affect entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation and exploitation[J].Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2010, 76(1): 15-29.
[20] STEPHAN U, UHLANER L M. Performance-based vs socially supportive culture: a cross-national study of descriptive norms and entrepreneurship[J].Journal of International Business Studies, 2010, 41(8): 1347-1364.
[21] RAGIN C C. Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond[M].Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
[22] SCHNEIDER C Q, WAGEMANN C. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: a guide to qualitative comparative analysis[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
[23] FISS P C. Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research[J].Academy of Management Journal, 2011,54(54):393-420.
|
|
|
|
