Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations

By Ute Stephan, L. Uhlaner, Chris Stride. Journal of International Business Studies, 2014

741 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We develop the institutional configuration perspective to understand which national contexts facilitate social entrepreneurship (SE). We confirm joint effects on SE of formal regulatory (government activism), informal cognitive (postmaterialist cultural values), and informal normative (socially supportive cultural norms, or weak-tie social capital) institutions in a multilevel study of 106,484 individuals in 26 nations. We test opposing propositions from the institutional void and institutional support perspectives. Our results underscore the importance of resource support from both formal and informal institutions, and highlight motivational supply side influences on SE. They advocate greater consideration of institutional configurations in institutional theory and comparative entrepreneurship research.

Subfields: Management of Technology and Innovation, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e30430b52d072f9a97379cf6ec56fc3bd393c50b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Digital Sustainability and Entrepreneurship: How Digital Innovations Are Helping Tackle Climate Change and Sustainable Development (2020, background): “Here, entrepreneurs need first to build institutions from whole cloth before investing effort to reshape them to advance a given set of particular interests (Mair & Marti, 2009; Stephan et al., 2015).”
How do resilience and self-efficacy relate to entrepreneurial intentions in countries with varying degrees of fragility? A six-country study (2020, background): “We reveal some of the individual-level micro-mechanisms through which the effects of fragility have been previously observed at the more aggregate level, such as for organisations (Ault, 2016; Kolk and Lenfant, 2015) and industries (Ault and Spicer, 2014) where institutional structures often directl”
Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: what has been learned? (2019, background): “8 For example, Aidis et al. (2008), Estrin and Mickiewicz (2012), Field et al. (2010), Levie and Autio (2008), Meek et al. (2010), Stephan et al. (2015), van Hemmen et al. (2015), among others.”
Formal Institutions and Opportunity Entrepreneurship. The Contingent Role of Informal Institutions (2019, background): “Previous work has focused on issues such as entrepreneurial traits or characteristics of the entrepreneur (Mueller and Thomas, 2001; Thomas and Mueller, 2000), entrepreneurial intention (Entrialgo and Iglesias, 2016), the formation rates of new firms at the regional or national level (Davidsson and ”
Human capital in social and commercial entrepreneurship (2016, methodology): “weak rule of law) and at other times to weak government provision of services (Estrin et al., 2013a; Hoogendoorn and Hartog, 2011; Mair et al., 2013; Stephan et al., 2015).”