Refine
Year of publication
- 2009 (10) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (4)
- Article (2)
- Contribution to a Periodical (2)
- Editorship book (1)
- Case Study (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (10) (remove)
Keywords
- Gemeinwirtschaft (2)
- Bricolage (1)
- Development (1)
- Entwicklungsländer (1)
- India (1)
- Institutional entrepreneurship (1)
- Institutional voids (1)
- Institutionalismus (1)
- Institutionelle Infrastruktur (1)
- Nachhaltige Entwicklung (1)
À l’heure où tout nouveau débouché est un enjeu stratégique de taille, peut-on ignorer à la masse de consommateurs des pays du Sud ? Focus réalisé d’après « Profitable Business Models and Market Creation in the Context of Deep Poverty: A Strategic View », de Christian Seelos et Johanna Mair, Academy of Management Perspectives, novembre 2007, et l’interview d’Iqbal Quadir, fondateur et directeur du Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship (US), février 2009.
Can we continue to categorically dismiss consumers in Southern countries at a time when companies are struggling to find new markets? Based on « Profitable Business Models and Market Creation in the Context of Deep Poverty: A Strategic View », by Christian Seelos and Johanna Mair, Academy of Management Perspectives, November 2007, and the interviews of Iqbal Quadir, founder and director of the Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship at MIT (USA), February 2009.
The powerful imagery of entrepreneurship as a means to induce and explain institutional change is gaining momentum (Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). In response to criticisms that institutional theory was chiefly being used to explain homogeneity and persistence, important efforts have been devoted to restoring human agency in explanations of endogenous institutional change (DiMaggio, 1988; Sewell, 1992; Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). However, the image of the entrepreneur as institutional change agent has also been a source of controversy among institutional theorists, especially when accompanied by voluntarist, un-embedded conceptions of individual action (Holm, 1995; Leca & Naccache, 2006). As a result we observe vivid scholarly discussions on how to solve the “paradox of embedded agency”– i.e. on explaining how institutional change is possible if actors are fully conditioned by the institutions that they wish to change (Holm, 1995; Seo & Creed, 2002; Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006). The current debate is important and we welcome more agent-oriented views on institutions. The purpose of this chapter is to advance institutional theory by rethinking various aspects of institutional work (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; DiMaggio, 1988) and thereby to contribute new insights into the paradox of embedded agency. We do so by challenging and breaking dominant patterns in current empirical research. While previous research on institutional entrepreneurship has predominantly looked at elite and/or powerful actors (DiMaggio, 1988; Fligstein & Mara-Drita, 1996) who assume either peripheral (Leblebici, Salancik, Copay & King, 1991) or central (Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006) positions, we focus instead on institutional work carried out by actors with limited power and very few resources.
In many developing countries those living in poverty are unable to participate in markets due to the weakness or complete absence of supportive institutions. This study examines in microcosm such institutional voids and illustrates the activities of an entrepreneurial actor in rural Bangladesh aimed at addressing them. The findings enable us to better understand why institutional voids originate and to unpack institutional processes in a setting characterized by extreme resource constraints and an institutional fabric that is rich but often at odds with market development. We depict the crafting of new institutional arrangements as an ongoing process of bricolage and unveil its political nature as well as its potentially negative consequences.