Social entrepreneurship and well-being: The configurational impact of institutions and social capital
- PDF / 1,482,991 Bytes
- 25 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 85 Downloads / 239 Views
Social entrepreneurship and well-being: The configurational impact of institutions and social capital Wei Deng 1 & Qiaozhuan Liang 1 & Peihua Fan 2
& Lin
Cui 3
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract Social entrepreneurship (SE) is often viewed as an effective means to promote social well-being (SWB). However, how SE emerges from a country’s institutional and social context, and consequently, how the institutional and social embeddedness of SE influences the level of SWB in a particular country, remains unanswered. This study, utilizing fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), addresses these questions by exploring, (1) the configurations of institutional and social capital conditions that lead to high prevalence rates of different types of SE activities in a country, and (2) the configurations of such institutionally and socially embedded SE activities that deliver high level of SWB in a country. It advances the SE literature by revealing the embeddedness and configurational nature of SE. Specifically, multiple equifinal configurations of socio-political conditions can lead to high prevalence rates of not-for-profit SE and hybrid SE. Moreover, this study finds that while both notfor-profit SE and hybrid SE can facilitate SWB by interacting with sociopolitical conditions, they do so through different mechanisms. Keywords Social entrepreneurship . Social well-being . Institution . Social capital . fsQCA .
Embeddedness
* Peihua Fan [email protected] Wei Deng [email protected] Qiaozhuan Liang [email protected] Lin Cui [email protected] Extended author information available on the last page of the article
W. Deng et al.
Research on social entrepreneurship (SE) has recently gained momentum. SE includes both not-for-profit organizations and social enterprises that carry out for-profit activities to support other not-for-profit activities (Hoogendoorn, 2016; Mendoza-Abarca, Anokhin, & Zamudio, 2015). It is generally believed that SE can improve social well-being (SWB) (George, Rao-Nicholson, Corbishley, & Bansal, 2014). However, SE activities take different forms (Lepoutre, Justo, Terjesen, & Bosma, 2013; Short, Moss, & Lumpkin, 2009). Previous studies have not examined how different types of SEs emerge from a country’s institutional and social context, and how (i.e. through what mechanisms) these institutionally and socially embedded SEs, albeit of different types, can equally promote SWB in a country. This study aims to address these questions. Scholars have elucidated the emergence of SE and its social impact from different theoretical perspectives. For example, social capital theory emphasizes the social integration and social participation function of SE (Coleman, 1988; Pathak & Muralidharan, 2016). Institutional theory pays attention to the institutional factors, especially the role of the government, that influence SE’s resources acquisition (Ault & Spicer, 2014; Dart, 2004; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). These theories have advanced the understandin
Data Loading...
