Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
Language
- English (8)
Has Fulltext
- no (8)
Keywords
- Bricolage (1)
- Design and development (1)
- Development (1)
- Entrepreneurialism (1)
- Entrepreneurship (1)
- Entwicklungsländer (1)
- Gemeinwirtschaft (1)
- Institutional entrepreneurship (1)
- Institutional theory (1)
- Institutional voids (1)
Much effort goes into building markets as a tool for economic and social development; those pursuing or promoting market building, however, often overlook that in too many places social exclusion and poverty prevent many, especially women, from participating in and accessing markets. Building on data from rural Bangladesh and analyzing the work of a prominent intermediary organization, we uncover institutional voids as the source of market exclusion and identify two sets of activities—redefining market architecture and legitimating new actors—as critical for building inclusive markets. We expose voids as analytical spaces and illustrate how they result from conflict and contradiction among institutional bits and pieces from local political, community, and religious spheres. Our findings put forward a perspective on market building that highlights the on-the-ground dynamics and attends to the institutions at play, to their consequences, and to a more diverse set of inhabitants of institutions.
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.
The article discusses how institutional voids can be spaces of opportunity for companies. Institutional void refers to the absence of supporting institutions in certain economy. Institutions are shared conceptions and constraints that shape human interaction. They constitute the rules of the game, for doing business, for social interaction, and for human behavior in general. For motivated entrepreneurs, institutional voids is perceived as opportunities. Two examples are presented to illustrate the nature of institutional voids in Bangladesh and India.
Purpose – 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 aims to examine, in microcosm, such an institutional void and to illustrate the strategy and activities employed by an entrepreneurial actor in rural Bangladesh in addressing it.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on an in-depth case study. Data were gathered
over two years from field interviews, archives, and secondary sources.
Findings – The data illustrate how market access for the poorest of the poor is facilitated through the creation of platforms for participation in the economy and broader society. The authors conceptualize this process as the crafting of new institutional arrangements and as resource and institutional bricolage occurring in parallel.
Practical implications – The study offers insights for development agencies, policy makers and
companies on how to combat poverty, fight corruption, and stimulate social and economic change.
Originality/value – The paper enriches current thinking on institutions and entrepreneurship as well as strategies for social impact.
Social entrepreneurship, as a practice and a field for scholarly investigation, provides a unique opportunity to challenge, question, and rethink concepts and assumptions from different fields of management and business research. This article puts forward a view of social entrepreneurship as a process that catalyzes social change and addresses important social needs in a way that is not dominated by direct financial benefits for the entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurship is seen as differing from other forms of entrepreneurship in the relatively higher priority given to promoting social value and development versus capturing economic value. To stimulate future research the authors introduce the concept of embeddedness as a nexus between theoretical perspectives for the study of social entrepreneurship.
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.