Social entrepreneurship as an object of institutional analysis

Abstract

The development of social entrepreneurship, interpreted as a set of interrelated activities aimed at solving social problems through the commercial activities development of economic agents, is determined by a variety of factors, including a set of institutions that regulate this type of activity. The article shows the possibilities to apply the institutional approach for the research and development of this phenomenon. It allowes to consider social entrepreneurship as an object of institutional analysis. The most frequently used methods that are used in the study of social entrepreneurship have been identified on the basis of bibliometric analysis of articles presented in the leading indexed international databases. This analysis has shown that the descriptive method is the most common, whereas the regression analysis is the most common among the applied mathematical methods of analysis. The novelty of the research is a substantial treatment of an institutional environment of social entrepreneurship, that differentiates regulatory, supporting and cognitive types of institutions. While analyzing regulatory environment, we have distinguished and characterized institutions that are most often studied in research literature, in particular, the institutions of private property, social security, taxation, corruption. With regard to the analysis of the supportive environment, the institutions of lending and borrowing, the institutions of education and the religious activity organization have been distinguished and described. Analyzing the cognitive environment, particular importance was given to institutions of cultural values, institutions of the gender relation formation, institutions of social value creation and institutions of the social capital development. The above mentioned list of institutions characterizes the economic and social conditions for the social entrepreneurship development. The theoretical significance of the results is to systematize institutions that influence the development of social entrepreneurship. Practical significance is to form a platform for further research and development of the institutional environment of social entrepreneurship at particular territories.

Keywords

institutions, social entrepreneurship, institutional environment, regulatory institutions, supporting institutions, cognitive environment institutions, mathematical methods of analysis

For citation

Popov E.V., Veretennikova A.Y., Kozinskaya K.M. Social entrepreneurship as an object of institutional analysis. Perm University Herald. Economy, 2017, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 360–374. DOI 10.17072/1994-9960-2017-3-360-374

Acknowledgements

The article was prepared with the financial support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, No. 17-06-00281 “Modeling of an institutional environment for social and innovation development in Russia”.

References

1. Baker M.J. Editorial – Why ‘Social Business’? Social Business, 2011, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–15. doi: 10.1362/204440811X570536.
2. Drayton B. Social Entrepreneurship in the Age of Atrocities. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publ., 2012. 304 p.
3. Mair J., Marti I. Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight. Journal of World Business, 2006, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 36–44.
4. Bacq S. Janssen F. The Multiple Faces of Social Entrepreneurship: A Review of Definition Issues Based on Geographical and Thematic Criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development: An International Journal, 2011, vol. 23, no. 5-6. pp. 373–403.
5. Jacoby S.M., Sanford M.J. The New Institutionalism: What Can it Learn From the Old? Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 1990, vol. 29, no 2, pp. 316–340. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-232X.1990.tb00757.x.
6. North D. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990. 152 p.
7. Acemoglu D., Robinson J.A. Pochemu odni strany bogatye, a drugie bednye [Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty]. Moscow, AST Publ., 2015. 696 p. (In Russian).
8. Popov E.V. Instituty [Institutions]. Ekaterinburg, Institute of Economics, UrB RAS Publ., 2015. 712 p. (In Russian).
9. Stephan U., Uhlaner L., Stride C. Institutions and Social Entrepreneurship: the Role of Institutional Voids, Institutional Support, and Institutional Configurations. Journal of International Business Studies, 2015, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 308–331.
10. Short J.C., Moss T.W., Lumpkin G.T. Research in Social Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions and Future Opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2009, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 161–194. doi: 10.1002/sej.69.
11. Williamson O. Ekonomicheskie instituty kapitalizma: Firmy, rynki, «otnoshencheskaya» kontraktatsiya [Economic Institutions of Capitalizm: firms, Markets, "Relations" Contracting"]. SPb., Lenizdat; CEV Press, 1996, 702 p.
12. Ostrom E. Constituting Social Capital and Collective Action. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1994, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 527–562.
13. Scott W.R. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publ., 2001. 280 p.
14. Seelos C., Mair J., Battilana J., Dacin T.M. The Embeddedness of Social Entrepreneurship: Understanding Variation Across Local Communities. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 2011, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 333–363.
15. Peng M.W., Sun S.L., Pinkham B., Chen H. The Institution-based View as a Third Leg for Strategy Tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2009, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 63–81.
16. Dacin M.T., Goodstein J., Scott W.R. Institutional Theory and Institutional Changes. The Academy of Management Journal, 2002, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 45–57. doi: 10.2307/3069284.
17. Mair J., Battilana, J., Cárdenas, J. Organizing for Society: A Typology of Social Entrepreneuring Models. Journal of Business Ethics, 2012, vol. 111, no. 3, pp. 353–373.
18. Sullivan J., Shkolnikov A. Combating Corruption: Private Sector Perspectives and Solutions. Economic Reform. CIPE Economic Reform Issue Paper, 2004, no. 22. Available at: http://www.cipe.org/publications/
detail/combating-corruption-private-sector-perspectives-and-solutions (accessed 10.06.2017).
19. Treisman D. The Causes of Corruption: a Cross-national Study. Journal of Political Economics, 2000, vol. 76, no 3, pp. 399–457.
20. Zhao E., Lounsbury M. An Institutional Logics Approach to Social Entrepreneurship: Market Logic, Religious Diversity, and Resource Acquisition by Microfinance Organizations. Journal of Business Venturing, 2016, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 643–662.
21. Parker S. Robson M. Explaining International Variations in Self-employment: Evidence from a Panel of OECD Countries. Southern Economics Journal, 2004, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 287–301. doi: 10.2307/4135292.
22. West III G.P., Noel T.W. The Impact of Knowledge Resources on New Venture Performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 2009, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2008.00259.x.
23. Castrogiovanni G.J. Pre-startup Planning and the Survival of New Small Businesses: Theoretical Linkages. Journal of Management, 1996, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 801–822.
24. Choi H. Religious Institutions and Ethnic Entrepreneurship: the Korean Ethnic Churches a Small Business Incubator. Economic Development Quarterly, 2010, vol. 24, no 4, pp. 372–383.
25. Wilson F., Kickul J., Marlino D. Gender, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2007, vol. 31, no 3, pp. 387–406. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00179.x.
26. Stevens R., Moray N., Bruneel J. The Social and Economic Mission of Social Enterprises: Dimensions, Measurement, Validation, and Relation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2015, vol. 39, no. 5, pp 1051–1082. doi: 10.1111/etap.12091.
27. Bourdieu P. Formy kapitala [Forms of Capital]. Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya [Economic Sociology], 2002, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 60–74. (In Russian).
28. Tobias M. J., Mair J. Toward a Theory of Transformative Entrepreneuring: Poverty Reduction and Conflict Resolution in Rwanda's Entrepreneurial Coffee Sector. Journal of Business Venturing, 2013, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 728–742.

Show full text