the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
1/69
The Relationship between Culture and Entrepreneurship: An Inquiry to a Culturally Diverse
Developing Country
ABSTRACT
The relationship between culture and entrepreneurship has produced causalities that areindeed more complex, as both culture and entrepreneurship hold a unique position in affecting
each other. Even though it is highly affected by culture, entrepreneurship through its
entrepreneurs also drives cultural changes. Unfortunately, most literatures on
entrepreneurship and culture do not address these complexities into their relationship. This
research will fill those gaps by studying the relational nature between cultures attributes and
entrepreneurship that exists locally within a nation, as well as how they mutually affect one
another in their local settings. It seeks to understand the relationship between culture and
entrepreneurship by describing and analysing entrepreneurs social actions through the form of
multiple mental constructions, socially and experientially, from the entrepreneurs point ofview. Therefore, unlike traditional models and theories that focus solely on economic reality or
personality traits of individual entrepreneurs, this research will acquire holism that has the
potentiality to lead to a satisfactory alternative paradigm for entrepreneurship. It will adopt an
exploratory research design that emphasized on naturalistic research inquiries. Rather than
aiming to verify pre-defined theoretical constructs concerned with specific issues, this research
aims to generate new theories and concepts from the data collected in the field. Moreover,
considering that it is also concerned with the underlying pursuit of contextual depth, this
research will use Indonesia as a research context and the multiple-case study as an approach.
This approach consists of communities as cases (macro-cases) and several individualentrepreneurs within those communities as sub-cases (micro-cases). Both contribute to the
unique relation between the particular situations and phenomenon of interest mentioned
before. Beside the fact that many of its population depend on various informal entrepreneurial
activities for subsistence and that entrepreneurship through various Small and Medium
Enterprises (SMEs) played a crucial role in sustaining its economy during the 1997 Asian
Financial Crisis, Indonesia is chosen as a research context because it is also the most culturally
diverse developing country in the world. As a result, from the Indonesians viewpoint, the
research outcome is expected to represent the Indonesias culture-fit model of
entrepreneurship informing effective policies to foster entrepreneurial competitiveness, while
at the same time enhancing and highlighting local culture as the countrys regional asset.
Meanwhile, from the social sciences standpoint, the research outcome is expected to provide
understandings on how cultural variability explains the effect of entrepreneurial activity, the
insights into the significance of entrepreneurship in many communities, and the possible
responses, both individual as well as community, which balances the needs of individuals,
communities, and economic institutions as a whole.
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
2/69
1. BACKGROUND
Entrepreneurial activity has been around for as long as man existed. However, serious
researches regarding the nature of the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship haveonly begun since the early twentieth century1, 2,3. Although the concept of culture is very
complex and is used with various meanings, it has become a generally accepted view that
cultural factors affect entrepreneurial activity4. Weber, through his thesis, outlined the
relationship between the attributes of culture (mainly religion)
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
3/69
and entrepreneurship, which he represented as the spirit of capitalism, and was discovered to
be an interesting topic to be studied5,6. Nevertheless, it is only in the last three decade, when
Hofstede introduced his famous model on cultural dimension based on national culture for the
first time in 1980, that this relationship was empirically studied. Consequently, since then many
studies on the relationship between entrepreneurship and culture or cultural values have beenusing his model as the basis of their research7. Hoftstede8 defines culture as a collective
programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people
from another. He considers culture as a collective phenomenon, formed by the social
environment of individuals in a particular place. According to Hofstede, variations related with
nationality, ethnicity, social classes, religion, gender, and language cause cultural differences. In
the core of his model of culture are values, which he holds as a critical feature of culture and
cultural distinctiveness9. Hofstedes research has successfully shown how national culture
affects the environment essential for entrepreneurship across a range of countries. However,
by assuming that national culture is a common component of a wider culture which contains
both its global and subnational constituents10, his study ignores the differences among local
cultural groups within a country11,12,13,14,15. In fact, in a highly centralized country, cultural
systems that exist locally still dominantly influence grassroots communitys way of life16. In
reality, local cultural attributes also serve as a non-formal standard entry requirement needed
to be acquired by a person in order to be accepted as a community member17. In other words,
compared to Hofstedes common component of national culture, the dynamics of culture that
exist locally have a greater impact towards a community member of a country. Moreover, the
evolution of local cultures and their interactions with supporting national policies have also
been a key determinant of success that encourages entrepreneurship activities locally18.
Hence, aspects contained in a locally cultural system along with all of its supporting attributes
are more dominant in building a local environment that fosters entrepreneurship19,20.
Moreover, the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship does not only produce a
one-way interaction21. Although regarded as the elements orientating further actions, in reality
culture itself is also the product of actions22,23,24,25. Therefore, this condition places culture
as a subject of both repulsive and attractive forces of change, which are typically wrapped in
innovations and cultural inventions. Innovations as well as cultural inventions change
communitys social structures and affect culture internally26. They produce changes within a
community by altering social dynamics, which facilitate creative actions in promoting new
cultural models. Subsequently, these social shifts will stimulate ideological modifications and
other types of cultural changes27. Besides, in order to survive, a culture always needs to be re-
acceded and re-integrated under the consensus of the community where it belongs to28. This is
where entrepreneurship, through its entrepreneurs who were previously shaped by culture,
takes its critical role in driving cultural changes. Entrepreneurs act as a catalyst of change that
imagines new solutions. As the true agents of creative destruction, they endogenously destroy
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
4/69
old ways and replace it with new ones29. Entrepreneurs possess the power in advancing those
cultural changes, no matter how big the impact is30,31. They are fully equipped with various
new ideas, as well as the ability to convert those ideas into successful innovations and social
inventions in order to alter inferior creation as a whole or a part (for examples see: Putnam32,
Baumol33, Boettke & Coyne34, Kirzner35, and Leff36). Eventually, through their creativity,entrepreneurs will not just create new products or even new business models, but also develop
a new cultural system37.
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
5/69
All of those situations previously mentioned produce causalities that are indeed more complex,
due to the unique position both culture and entrepreneurship hold in affecting each other.
While it is highly affected by cultural factors existing locally within a nation, entrepreneurship
through its entrepreneurs also act as the catalyst of cultural changes38. Unfortunately, most
studies on entrepreneurship and culture have not integrated these complex causalities (seeLow & MacMillan39 and Voros40). They relegate the complexities by considering the
relationship as simply a one-way interaction, treating questions, such as how cultural attributes
affect entrepreneurship and how entrepreneurship through its entrepreneurs acts as the driver
of cultural changes, as a separate study or research topic. This condition will obviously enlarge
the literature gap regarding the relational nature between cultures attributes and
entrepreneurship that exist locally within a nation, as well as how they mutually affect one
another in their local settings41.
1.1 Rationalizing the Research Context
During the course of the twentieth century, globalization has marginalized indigenous people
around the world. The rapid shifts in economic forces, advances in technology, social
acculturation forced by the dominant ruling culture under the premise of common culture, as
well as other negative effects have made them suffer greatly. Therefore, studies on the degree
of cohesion that remains and the desire among many indigenous people to rebuild their
communities on a traditionally and culturally grounded foundation are important42. However,
those studies should not only be used as a supporting tool or a simple exercise in analysing the
existence of outliers in the global world-system. Studies of indigenous populations comprise of
efforts in providing theoretical and empirical sources of analysis, and are considerably relevant
to the development of a generalizable theory of entrepreneurship and its associations with
culture. These theories can be put forward in many settings including, but not exclusive to,
indigenous communities43. They can be used to provide insights into the significance of
entrepreneurship in many communities and the possible responses, both individual as well as
community, which balances the needs of individuals, communities, and economic institutions as
a whole. Indonesia, as the most culturally diverse country in the world, has numerous
indigenous populations that are separated into various distinct ethnic groups. While in some
colonialized countries indigenous people are considered minorities in their own motherland, in
Indonesia they represent the majority of the population. Nevertheless, we have to trace back
through history in order to describe clearly the concept of indigenous people in Indonesia44.
From the year 1844 until 1942, through the Regeringsreglement 1854 article 109, the Dutch
divided citizenship of the Dutch East Indies (currently Indonesia) into three social classes45,46.
The Europeanen (Europeans) was designated the highest of the three groups, followed by the
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
6/69
Vreemde Oosterlingen (Foreign Orientals which consisted of mostly Chinese, Indian, and some
Arabians). The Inlanders stood at the very bottom of these groups (nativeindigenous). After
declaring its independence, Indonesia recognizes only two types of citizenships, the
warganegara Indonesia (Indonesians) and the warganegara asing (foreigners)47. Until now,
warganegara Indonesia consists of the indigenous people as well as the former Europeanen andVreemde Oosterlingen, as well as their descendants who have chosen the Indonesian
citizenship. Since the colonial period, culturally the indigenous people (Inlanders) are called the
pribumi, while those whose ancestors originated from other races or countries (Europeanen
and Vreemde Oosterlingen) are called non-pribumi48. The pribumi, consisting of 1,128 distinct
ethnic groups49, are spread all over
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
7/69
Indonesia. Each differentiates itself mainly based upon ancestry and resides in particular places,
which they culturally proclaim as their land of origin. This differentiation has produced 746
different local languages (Bahasa Daerah)50 and informally legislate each pribumi ethnic group
its local status as the local community attached to a certain areas in Indonesia. In these local
communities, the pribumi retain their ancestral graves and main cultural practices. Thus, theconcept of indigenous community and local community are interrelated to each other, as for
Indonesians they have the same meaning. This condition defines the concept of local culture in
Indonesia and raises the term of Orang, which is used to refer an indigenous community and
their inherited culture, tied as the local community and local culture of a particular area. For
instance, Orang Bali (Balinese) and their inherited culture represent the local community and
local culture of Bali, or Orang Sunda (Sudanese) and their inherited culture represent the local
community and local culture of West Java. Referring to the above situation, multicultural
interaction and acculturation among those ethnic groups are a compulsory requirement for the
countrys sustainability. Hence, from the declaration of independence, Indonesia has been
trying to strengthen its culture, unfortunately, by imposing a national culture in the name of
national unity and integrity through centralized political structure, leadership, legislation, and
education51. Yet up until today, the expansion of Indonesias national culture was never able to
replace local cultures. Even under Soehartos centralized regime, local cultures still dominated
the lives of those pribumi ethnic groups52. In fact, their significance was reaffirmed through the
regional autonomy law first introduced in 1999. Consequently, the pribumi are increasingly
wishing for and talking about local wisdom possessed by their local cultures and traditions.
They believe that each local culture has its own geniuses that are instrumental in the
maintenance of socio-cultural stability and harmony53. This is not surprising, because younger
generations are initially brought up according to the values and modesty of their own ethnicity,
culture, and tradition54. This creates the idea of personhood in relation to their parents,
families, and society based on the traditional norms that are considered most appropriate for
each group. In terms of economic activity, many Indonesians depend on various informal
entrepreneurial activities for subsistence. As a result, entrepreneurship in this country is highly
manifested in the form of various SMEs. Historically they have played the main role in the
household economy of the countrys population, a generator of primary or secondary sources
of income for many families55, 56, 57. SMEs in Indonesia are regionally dispersed and are
mostly located in the rural areas. According to BPS58, in 2008 the majority of Indonesian SMEs
operate in agriculture (including forestry and animal husbandry, 52.48%), trading and
hospitality (28.1%), production (6.32%), service (4.25%), and transportation (6.25%) sectors of
the economy. They have employed approximately 94 million people (97.15% of the total
number of national employment) and contributed to 55.67% of Indonesias real Gross Domestic
Product (GDP). Until 2009, the number of SMEs in Indonesia grew to roughly 52.76 million units
or approximately 99.99% of all business units59. This shows how Indonesia deeply relies on its
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
8/69
SMEs entrepreneurship in maintaining its economic growth, enhancing income distribution at
the rural and regional level, as well as their potentiality in reducing unemployment. It must be
admitted that the countrys awareness on the importance of entrepreneurship studies is
however due to SMEs pivotal role in sustaining the countrys economy during the 1997 Asian
Financial Crisis60. This is why studies or researches on entrepreneurship in Indonesia werenotoriously limited before the end of the twentieth century61,62,63. Literature such as The
Achieving Society of David McClelland64 and The practice of Entrepreneurship of Geoffrey G.
Meredith, Robert E. Nelson, and Philip A. Neck65 were translated into Bahasa Indonesia more
than a decade since they were first published in English, in 1987 and 1996 respectively. Even
both literatures are still used as primary
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
9/69
textbooks for entrepreneurship courses in the country until today. The oldest comprehensive
account on entrepreneurship and its relationship with cultural attributes in Indonesia was
written by Clifford Geertz66 in his Peddlers and Princess, which consists of a closely observed
case study examining cultural factors of economic development through an examination of
entrepreneurs in Kediri (East Java) and Tabanan (Bali). Geertz published his work in 1963, whichwas then translated to Bahasa Indonesia in 1973. Nevertheless, since Geertzs publication, no
more in-depth research on the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship found in
Indonesia. This condition allows no other alternatives for academics in Indonesia but only to
uncritically validate various indices or models on national culture, such as models built by
Hostede, as something that is irrefutable (for example Nursjanti & Sulganef67, Purnomo68,
Suryana69, Winarningsih70, Handayani71, Atmanti72, and Ciputra73). Indeed, they encourage
the Indonesian government to foster the development of entrepreneurship by sponsoring an
entrepreneurial culture (see Presidential Instruction No. 474, Winarningsih75, Atmanti76, and
Ciputra77), which is built based upon various characteristics of entrepreneurship introduced by
prominent scholars around the world. For Indonesian academics, local culture is regarded as a
hindrance for entrepreneurial activity78,79. From their point of view, local culture is incapable
of assisting entrepreneurs to gain Lambing and Kuehls80 initiatives, selfconfidence, self-
determination, as well as high tolerance for ambiguity and failure; Hyrskys81 innovativeness
and creativity; Littunens82 ability to learn; Deakins83 needs for achievement; Mazzarol,
Volery, Doss, and Theins84 locus control; Bridge, ONeill and Cromes85 autonomous and
independence; Brockhaus86 risk-taking propensities to gain profits. This situation in fact
contradicts the affirmation of local culture in Indonesia discussed earlier. It is actually a general
datum that while the phenomenon and the role of entrepreneurship in the economy have been
widely studied in developed countries, studies of entrepreneurship in developing countries,
such as Indonesia, are still under-represented87. Even Lingelbach, De La Vina and Asel88 claim
that, Entrepreneurship in developing countries is the most understudied important global
economic phenomenon today. This situation is also exacerbated by the presence of
mainstream development theories and classical theories of entrepreneurship in those
countries, where they maintain their own conceited view in promoting the universality and
superiority of their western model89. Both failed to render real contribution to the
developmental aspirations of the people in developing countries, because most of their
assumptions often ignore cultural, environmental, technological, and structural differences
found between the developed and developing countries. Even when regarded as a common
phenomenon, entrepreneurship should still remain a country-specific experience that must be
promoted accordingly. Thus, it is argued here that by not considering the complexity of local
contexts will consequently hinder attempts to understand entrepreneurship.
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
10/69
1.2 Guiding Question and Research Objectives
Since culture is intangible and lies within the subjective realm of entrepreneurship, this
research is in accordance with the interpretivists position via the framework of naturalistic
inquiry and can be regarded as an exploratory study that does not conform to any existing
hypothesis90,91. Thus, the central research question is general and focuses mainly on a what
question92,93. This type of question is used to guide the study towards exploring the individual
and social phenomenon through an integrative rocess94, 95 . The question is designed to better
understand the interface between exogenous factors and the unique elements of the existing
local culture, as well as entrepreneurial activity, where the emphasis can be changed or
modified throughout the field study. The goal is to substantively comprehend and
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
11/69
systematically generate theory that emerges from the data96,97 in order to bring new insights
to the study of entrepreneurship. By considering the research background and the above
explanations, this research will be directed by the following central research question: What is
the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship in a culturally diverse developing
country? The central research question will guide this research to achieve the three mainobjectives below. First objective - develop a theoretical framework that directly germane to
understand the socio-cultural structures and contexts related to entrepreneurship within a
particular community. The research seeks to develop, as its principal finding and output, an
analytical framework that can describe and explain how different local cultures construct the
concept of entrepreneurship and how entrepreneurship manifests itself in those cultures.
Second objective - develop a theoretical framework that directly germane to understand how
sociocultural structures and contexts construct the subjective and objective elements of
entrepreneurs actions. The study seeks to develop, as its principal finding and output, an
analytical framework that can: 1) describe and explain how local entrepreneurs understand the
concept of entrepreneurship that exists in their local culture and how that concept develops
local entrepreneurs values on business practices; and 2) describe and explain how local
entrepreneurs values on business practices change overtime, what drives those changes, and
how those changes influence their first understanding on the concept of entrepreneurship that
exists in their local culture. Third objective - develop a theoretical framework that directly
germane to understand how entrepreneurs drive cultural changes in their community. The
study seeks to develop, as its principal finding and output, an analytical framework that can: 1)
describe and explain how local entrepreneurs understand their local culture; and 2) describe
and explain how local entrepreneurs accommodate their business with their domestic activities
along with all social activities related to their local culture overtime.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Studies regarding the relational nature of culture and entrepreneurship consist of multifaceted
backgrounds, informed by several disciplines98. Each discipline can be considered as a domain
for examining the relevant scholarly works including, but are not limited to, social psychology,
cultural anthropology, sociology, economics, political economy, or international business99.
Furthermore, apart from the range of theory that informs both subjects, concomitant
exploration of culture and entrepreneurship is further complicated by the very different
spectrums through which scholars approach economics and cultural studies. Indeed merely
defining them has spawned a mass of literature (see Schumpeter100, Leff101, Morrison102,
and Kuratko & Hodgetts103). The positive outcome is that the subject has produced a diversity
of approaches and perspectives. However, at the same time it may also be viewed as a negative
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
12/69
outcome because every single academic discipline speaks with its own distinct language or
methodology, much too solid for outsiders to comprehend. As noted by Mankiw104, social
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
13/69
scientists attempt to study the authenticity of cultures and their conformity to specific norms,
whereas economists study universal laws of economic decision-making by individuals and firms.
With the above annotations in mind, this discussion will first begin with a section overviewing
the evolution of entrepreneurship studies to date and different perspectives within the
research field. Afterwards, the second section is dedicated to explore the connection betweenculture and entrepreneurship in order to relate the research background with the guiding
research question and objectives. It consists of a discussion on defining and measuring culture,
followed by an outline regarding various discourses on the relationship. Finally, the third
section of the literature review will discuss the importance of SME as a representation of
entrepreneurship in developing countries and will serve as the basis for examining
entrepreneurship in Indonesia.
2.1 Overviewing Entrepreneurship Studies
Historically, Richard Cantillons105 Essay on the Nature of Commerce in General and Jean
Baptiste Says106 A treatise on political economy, are often given credit of being the first in
introducing the concept of entrepreneurship into scientific literature, primarily economics.
Cantillon recognized that discrepancies between demand and supply in a market create
opportunities for buying cheaply and selling at a higher price, and that this arbitrage would
bring the competitive market into equilibrium. His presumption was that the entrepreneur
would buy products at a fixed price, have them packaged and transported to market, and sell
them at an unpredictable price107. Cantillon loosely defined entrepreneurship as self-
employment of any sort and entrepreneurs as risk-takers108. On the other hand, Say
considered that effective entrepreneurs must possess the moral qualities of judgment and
perseverance, as well as enrich themselves with the knowledge of the world. He realized that
wealth is essentially and originally metaphysical. Say reasoned that wealth is the result of
creativity, ideas, imagination, as well as innovation, thereby placed the role of the entrepreneur
at the hub of economic theory109,110,111. He also stated economic advancement requires
both entrepreneurs and the accumulation of capital. Nevertheless, until now it must be
acknowledged that a generally accepted definition for entrepreneurship does not
exist112,113,114,115. Subsequently after Cantillon and Say, entrepreneurship research has
become highly diverse and complex116, 117. It cannot be confined to one discipline only,
because entrepreneurship research currently involves a variety of disciplines outside economics
to its field, such as psychology, anthropology, sociology, and management (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 (will be inserted here) Bases of Entrepreneurship Theory Building
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
14/69
Entrepreneurship research has also included individual, group, organization, industry, and
society within its level of analysis119. The research topic seems to have an expanding trend,
discussing issues such as gender, ethnicity, migration, social capital, culture, or religion. The
diversity is further complicated by the proliferation of subcategories of entrepreneurship
research, which introduce additional terminology such as venture capitalist, corporateentrepreneurship, corporate venturing, intrepreneuring, internal entrepreneurship, and
venturing120. This is why any effort to condense them (see Table 1) into a single summary of
definition is dubious121.
Table 1 (will be inserted here) Definition List of Entrepreneurship
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
15/69
Hans Landstrom146 argues that this diversity is due to the time discrepancy of interest among
researchers on entrepreneurship studies, which are linked to societal economic development
on a particular time. He labels this time discrepancy of interest as swarms of entrepreneurship
research and classifies it as follow:
Table 2 (will be inserted here) The Linkage between Societal Development and
Entrepreneurship Research
Landstrom furthermore explains that those swarms have been evolving entrepreneurship as a
multidimensional concept148, where each definition depends largely on the disciplinary
approach, the focus of the research undertaken, and the level of analysis149. According to
Verheul et al.150, all of the existing definitions can be categorized into two broad perspectives,
the supply side and the demand side. Commonly it is also referred as the pull and push factors
of entrepreneurship151. The demand sides perspective emphasizes its studies on
entrepreneurship opportunities created by the diversity of consumers demand or the industrial
structures. Its Supporters highly consider the influence of technological developments and
government regulations as being central for their research. Meanwhile, the supply sides
perspective highlights the characteristics of the population or demographic compositions within
a particular country as important subjects to be studied. Examples of those characteristics are
the influences of cultural and institutional environment on individuals, as well as their attitudes
towards entrepreneurship. In reality, the real debate between those perspectives lies in
theories of entrepreneurship emphasizing variation in individual traits versus theories that
privilege variation in the structural environment152, in explaining factors determining the level
of entrepreneurship in a certain place or time153. This condition has divided literatures on
entrepreneurship into two main traditions, concentrating largely on individuals and structure
respectively154,155,156. The first seeks to explain the prevalence of entrepreneurs in terms of
innate psychological traits or special characteristics formed in certain social groups. They argue
that special types of people are pulled to create entrepreneurship. Alternatively, the second
highlights how social and cultural structures call forth entrepreneurs by providing opportunities
for entrepreneurship. They argue that people are pushed into entrepreneurship by a supportive
culture that stems from any number of infra structural factors. The first important contribution
that highlights individuals as the primary focus of entrepreneurship studies was done in 1961 by
David McClelland through157 The Achieving Society. According to McClelland158, societies
are bounded by cultural attributes, which can be translated into primary socialization practices
that foster entrepreneurship. Since McClellands publication, various researchers have studied
the individual characteristics associated with entrepreneurship in order to find the differences
between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs (see Gartner159). They have sought the
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
16/69
entrepreneurial personality as having qualities, such as innovativeness and creativity (see
Hyrsky160); the ability to learn as well as the need for achievement, autonomy, and
independence (see Littunen161 and Bridge et al.162; locus of control (see Mazzarol et al.163);
initiative, self-confidence, self-determination, as well as tolerance for ambiguity and failure (see
Lambing & Kuehl164); and risk-taking propensity to gain profits (see Brockhaus165).Barreira166 compiled a list characteristics most often attributed to entrepreneurs by the
individual tradition, as follow:
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
17/69
Table 3 (will be inserted here) Entrepreneurship Characteristics
On the contrary, scholars in the structural tradition seek to understand how social, cultural, and
institutional factors induce entrepreneurship167. Although some insist on the significance ofsocial distortion and marginalization, most of them agree that cultural and institutional
supports encourage entrepreneurship168. Under the structural tradition, supporting factors of
entrepreneurship can be categorized into three core dimensions169,170. They are the
regulatory dimension consisting of institutions and policies, the cognitive dimension consisting
of a widely shared social knowledge, and the normative dimension consisting of value systems.
Moreover, in the field of management, structural tradition researchers often emphasize on
distinctive organizational influence before an individual decides to work in a particular
established firm171. These researchers claim that organizations provide opportunities in
building confidence, knowledge about the opportunities, social networks, and access to criticalresources172. The importance of the totality of interpretation to reunite the two traditions has
been repeatedly reminded by various scholars such as Patricia Thornton173. She suggests the
use of sociological frameworks, an embeddedness perspective, ecological and institutional
theories, as well as multilevel models to integrate both traditions analyses of individuals,
groups, organizations, industries, and the characteristics of a society in explaining how, where,
and why entrepreneurship exist. However, these attempts appear to have failed174. There is
still no common link across the broad array of academic disciplines to reflect the rich diversity
of settings in which entrepreneurship may possibly takes place175. Thus, up until now,
questions on how cultural attributes affect entrepreneurship and how entrepreneurshipthrough its entrepreneurs act as the driver of cultural changes are treated as separate studies
by those traditions. This counter-intuitive situation prohibits the uncritical adoption of western
concepts in entrepreneurship studies and is considered not relevant in a culturally different
context176, 177 .
2.2 Culture and Entrepreneurship
The relational nature between culture and entrepreneurship is a circumstance hard to be
disputed. Although the hypothesized link between them is still not well established178, it has
become a generally accepted view that cultural factors affect entrepreneurial activity179. This
situation has motivated several disciplines, such as economics180, sociology181,
psychology182, and anthropology183 to raise several synthetic issues attributed to several
social characteristics, which consequently consist what we understand about their relationship.
Both traditions mentioned in the previous section put different emphasis on culture in their
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
18/69
research. The individual tradition considers culture as an essential factor for the development
of psychological traits to pull entrepreneurship. In contrast, the structural tradition considers
culture as an important part of Kostovas184 normative and cognitive dimensions in order to
push entrepreneurship. These differences divided literatures discussing the relationship
between culture and entrepreneurship into two broad streams of research questions185:questions addressing the impact of cultural structure on entrepreneurial activity, inquired by
the structural tradition; and questions addressing the association between personal
entrepreneurial characteristics with entrepreneurship, inquired by the individual tradition.
Nevertheless, before discussing the differences between those traditions any further, it will be
best to discuss the definition and measurement of culture first.
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
19/69
2.2.1 About culture
Kroeber and Kluckhohn186 made a critical review of culture based upon a compiled list of over
100 different definitions and concepts. They systematically sketched together different
meanings, then grouped them into six groups: descriptive, historical, normative, psychological,
structural, and genetic. They summarized that culture explains the way of life, thinking, feeling,
and believing, which not only comprises of social legacies and learned behaviour of an
individual, but also refers to the stored learning of society and groups187. Both men suggested
that culture is more than just social habits or patterns of behaviour learned and passed on from
generation to generation. In the 1950s, culture is defined as the ideational side of social action
or social practice, and anthropologists are called upon to view cultural analysis as the
interpretative study of behaviour. Geertz188, on the other hand gave a definition emphasizing
on symbol. He defined culture as a historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in
symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic form by means of which men
communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towards life189.
He also placed attention to the regulatory function of culture on individual and gave an
emphasis on religion as cultural system. Until recently, parallel with entrepreneurship, there is
no single comprehensive definition of culture because it is also a multidimensional concept.
Williams190 admits that culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the
English language. Further complications with the concept of culture arise from the slippage of
meaning between the academic usages and the popular usages of the term, and largely depend
on experiences and trends that shape it. Culture both as an individual and a social
phenomenon, connects individual behavior to community attitudes and values vice versa. It
characterizes the way of shaping society, consisting of rules for structuring and guiding societys
behavior. Hodgetts et al.191, outlines the definition of culture into six main characteristics.
First, culture is learned, not genetically or biologically inherited. Second, culture is
transgenerational or passed on through learning processes from generation to generation.
Third, culture is shared because it is shaped by groups, organizations, or entire societies.
Fourth, culture is symbolic because it defines how the world is perceived and how life is
organized. Fifth, culture is patterned, or in other words, it is integrated within a structure.
Finally, as it is based on human who are able to change and adapt, culture is dynamic and
adaptive. According to Hofstede, culture, or in his own word mental program, is intangible
and largely unobservable192. It is acquired only through the expression of variousmanifestations, which comprise of features that may well be learned. Hall193 dichotomized
culture into context, the lower and higher context respectively. In the lower context of culture,
most of the meanings of communication are embedded in explicit verbal expressions, whereas
in the higher context of culture, the meanings of communication depend heavily on the context
or non-verbal aspects of communications. Peterson clarifies this by noting that observable
cultural manifestations or the lower context194 of culture can be recognized very quickly,
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
20/69
because they contain anything that can be perceived by human senses. He portrays culture as
an iceberg, puts the observable manifestations of culture above and the unobservable below
the water line of the iceberg (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 (will be inserted here) Culture as an Iceberg
Peterson argues that to understand all manifestations of culture, a researcher has to look
beyond the unperceived, studying the unobservable. He claims that the unobservable
manifestations are in fact the foundation of the observable, because they contain the hidden
origins of culture and act as the core of
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
21/69
it. Brett195 supports Petersons argument by declaring that there is more to culture below
the surface. She furthermore claims that just like an iceberg, culture is not static, it drifts
and shifts 196. Wederspahn197 explains that the deep manifestations of culture however will
not drift rapidly overnight, even when the surface factors of culture shift over time due to
either modernization or trend. Hofstede et al.198 describes that the shifting of modern worldwill only affect the level of practices, not values. They are visible to outside observers and are
subsumed under the manifestations of symbols (words, gestures, pictures, or objects that carry
a particular meaning), heroes (persons, dead or alive, actual or imaginary, who serve as models
for behaviour in a particular community), and rituals (collective activities that are considered
socially essential by a community) (see Figure 3). Hofstede199 places value in the core of his
onion model of culture, which he holds as a critical feature that distinguishes one culture from
another. He believes that changes in values will still make it invisible and not converging,
because values lies only in the interpretation of the insider. Hofstede200 augmented that
changes in values are only due to four different kinds of effects: the maturation effects
(changes in personal values as a person grows older); the seniority effects (changes in personal
values because of greater responsibility); the generation effects (fixed personal values that
were built when adolescence); and the zeitgeist effects (changes in values that occur widely in a
society, regardless of age, due to drastic global changes or external shocks, such as political
revolution, war or recession).
Figure 3 (will be inserted here) Hofstedes Onion Diagram of Cultural Manifestations at
Different Level of depth
There are many different ways in analysing then subsequently measuring cultural
manifestations and differences. Especially for researches on entrepreneurship, Lalonde202
suggests the use of naturalistic method as a powerful tool to infer the complexity of culture.
Rituals, symbols, and heroes can be studied through content analysis of any recorded materials.
Values can be studied through direct observations, informal interviews, participation in the life
of the cultural group, collective discussions, analysing personal documents, self-analysis, and
life histories. Additionally, since cultural values affect the perception of an individual through
cognitive scheme, interpretation, and sense making, it is important to distinguish between how
people think the world should be or the desirable-values and what people want for
themselves or the desired-values when analysing statements on values obtained from
interviews203. The desirable-values maintain what is right or best. They relate more to
absolute, deontological, and ideological matters. Alternatively, the desired-values indicate the
choices actually made by the majority. They relate more to statistical, phenomenological, as
well as practical matters. Furthermore, cultural differences can be analysed using
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
22/69
Rijamampianina and Maxwells204 framework of culture that takes into account the visibility
and centrality of values (see Figure 4).
Figure 4 (will be inserted here) Values Visibility and Centrality Framework
The most famous systematic attempt to study culture and cultural differences is made by
Hofstede. He aims to measure cultural difference between nations by utilizing national culture.
His work is based on the largest survey of work value at IBM subsidiaries that was held twice, in
1963 and in 1967 respectively, comprising of 116,000 questionnaires, from which over 60,000
people responded from over 40 countries206. Through these cross-cultural studies, overall he
identifies six main dimensions of cultural values, which he claims to affect human thinking,
organizations, and institutions in predictable ways. Those dimensions are power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity, longterm orientation, and indulgence versus
restraint. Although dimensions are hypothetical construct
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
23/69
*and+ not directly accessible to observation207, Hofstede208 argues that they are the
aspect of a culture that can be measured relative to other culture. His pioneering study of
character based on a huge amount of data was taken up enthusiastically by many researchers.
It has been accepted and adopted quickly within academic and organizational environment
ever since. In addition to Hofstede, there is also a wide range of cross-national empirical studiesconducted by various other researchers (for a complete catalogue of these studies and their
measurement tools, see Taras209), such as Lynn210 who studied different national attitudes to
competitiveness and money; Mcgrath, Macmillan, and Scheinberg211 who examined cultural
values shared by entrepreneurs across the globe; or Tan212 who studied the impact of culture
and national context on entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs. Compared to those
researchers, Hofstedes research has a more remarkable effect on academics and
practitioners213. He is the most cited Dutch author and the ninth most cited European author
according to the Social Science Citation Index made in 2001214. His model is taught in
classrooms and has been instrumental in the implementation of various social contexts,
including cross-cultural issues of entrepreneurship215,216,217. Since his first publication in
1980, Hofstedes influence has become so pervasive and successively developed so many
offshoots. Even those who reject his theory or conclusions must at least acknowledge his work.
However, by assuming that there is a large degree of homogeneity within nation states as
opposed to large differences between nation states, and by considering that national culture is
a common component of a wider culture that contains both its global and sub-national
constituents218, Hofstede and his supporters overlooked cultural differences between regions
within countries219,220,221,222. Hofstede also tends to ignore the importance and variations
of the community influence223,224,225. Magala226 heavily criticizes Hofstedes theoretical
framework by denoting it as an in-built western bias. He concludes that all of Hofstedes
cultural dimensions are highly influenced by western perspectives because the entire research
process (particularly the empirical data gathering and processing) was conducted by western
scientists chosen exclusively. Hence, if there was at all any local culture containing dimension,
which were salient for individuals to identify but invisible to those unacquainted with the
local communitys tacit knowledge, or nonlinear with the six dimensions, they were deemed
as unnoticed or were labelled as aspects within the six dimensions, not as independent factors.
Child and Kieser227 admit that the boundaries in which culture is being shared are problematic,
thus according to them it may make as much sense to refer to a class or regional culture as
to a national culture. Since cultures are not necessarily bounded by borders and indeed
fragmented across groups and national lines, nations are not the proper units of
analysis228,229. McSweeney230 argues that the limited characterization of culture in
Hofstedes work, its confinement within the territory of states, and its methodological flaws
mean that it is a restrictor, not an enhancer, in understanding particularities. He claims that the
identification of allegations is fundamentally flawed and the attribution of national level to
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
24/69
national cultures is an easy but impoverishing move. He regards Singular theories, such as
Hofstedes national culture, as profoundly problematic. The combination and single-level
analysis of these theories precludes considerations on the interaction between macroscopic
and microscopic cultural levels, or between the cultural and the non-cultural factors.
McSweeney suggests that to understand national culture, a researcher needs to know moreabout the richness and diversity of national practices and institutions, not by assuming their
homogeneity. This is why, searches for culture-fit models, which provide understanding of
how cultural variable explains the effect of different practices in different cultures, are
desirable231.
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
25/69
2.2.2 Debates on their relationship
Various cross-national empirical studies underline the point that entrepreneurship in fact exists
in every country. However, while the economic and institutional characteristics discrepancies
among those countries are relatively low, the levels of entrepreneurship vary significantly232.
Since extensive research on culture has showed a link between values and practices, it is
plausible that differences in culture in which these values are imbedded, may influence a wide
range of practices including entrepreneurial decision233. Using this logic, several studies
explore the relationship between various aspects of culture and entrepreneurship across
cultures234,235,236. Weber237,238 started this exploration through his famous theory on how
religious doctrine provided the cultural legitimation needed to shape the economic behaviour
of individuals that led to the rise of capitalism. His theory eventually endorses the individual
and the structural traditions to develop research programs on the relationship between culture
and entrepreneurship. The individual tradition has demonstrated how culture and personality
guide entrepreneurship239, while the structural tradition has shown how entrepreneurial
opportunities are determined by the structure of various institutional networks240. As
mentioned in section 2.1, the central argument of the individual tradition and its trait oriented
approach is that special types of individuals pull entrepreneurship. To advance economically,
societies need an adequate supply of these special individuals. According to this tradition,
differences in the rate, form, and location of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship are
attributed to differences in culture that creates effective characteristics of individuals engaged
in entrepreneurial activity. The individual tradition affirms that differences in entrepreneurship
can be predicted by differences found in individuals241. Yet, the influence of culture explained
by the individual tradition is difficult to establish and remains rather speculative242. The
tradition underplays the influences of external structure, illustrating economic activity merely
as a function of individuals243. In contrast, the structural tradition enhances the study of
entrepreneurship by concentrating on the prevalence of entrepreneurial values within the
realm of government and politics. These values may influence the scope of the private versus
the social sector to push entrepreneurship, particularly the utilities and personal services, the
degree of entry regulation of new business start-ups, and the extent to which innovative
regional clusters are fostered through private-public partnerships. Davidsson244 identifies two
different perspectives within the individual tradition, which contribute to a pull
entrepreneurial behaviour explanation on the relationship between culture andentrepreneurship. They are the aggregate psychological trait perspective and the social
legitimation perspective. The psychological trait perspective built its theory based on the idea
that if a society contains more people with entrepreneurial values, more people will be
entrepreneurs. It argues that the prevailing values and beliefs among others may make a
person more or less inclined towards new venture formation. Davidsson notes that this is
essentially the perspective taken by McClelland and other proponents of the individualistic view
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
26/69
of culture, in which higher entrepreneurial activity is explained by aggregate effects of
individual characteristics. Alternatively, the social legitimation perspective views the impact of
social norms and institutions as the conduct of the society as a whole. It argues that the
relationship between culture and entrepreneurship may occur only if a region has a larger pool
of potential entrepreneurs245. In this perspective, higher entrepreneurial activity within somecountries can be explained by the general occurrence of culture and institutions favourable to
entrepreneurship. Thurik and Dejardin246 recognize a push explanation within the structural
tradition that contrasts with Davidsons perspectives in viewing the relational nature between
culture and entrepreneurship. The dissatisfaction perspective, as they call it, contends that
cross regional and national differences on
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
27/69
entrepreneurial activity is due to differences in values and beliefs between individuals and the
populations as a whole. It assumed that clashes of values or dissatisfactions between groups
within a predominantly non-entrepreneurial culture may drive entrepreneurship to flourish247.
Huisman and de Ridder248 notice this clash of values can lead to frustration or personal crises.
According to Wennekers et al.249, this situation will drive potential entrepreneurs away fromthe average organization into selfemployment. Furthermore, the expected relationship
between cultural indicators and entrepreneurship described by this perspective may highly
conflict the expected relationship referred by the aggregate psychological trait perspective and
the social legitimation perspective250. For instance, Wennekers et al. 251 found higher self-
employment in countries with less prosperity (low GDP per capita), greater disappointment
with society, and lower life contentment. Another perspective within the structural tradition
that also attempts to explain the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship, is the
post-materialism concept introduced by Inglehart252. This perspective tries to describe
entrepreneurship within the transformation of a culturally materialisticoriented society into a
non-materialistic society who prefers life-goals beyond material purposes253. Post-materialism
based its value orientation on two hypotheses, the scarcity hypothesis and the socialization
hypothesis respectively. The first assumes that priorities of an individual reflect their
socioeconomic circumstances, where goods with a shortage of supply will have a subjectively
higher value. While, the second assumes that peoples basic values reflect the circumstances of
their childhood. The combination of these two hypotheses imply that younger birth cohorts by
means of intergenerational replacement will place lower degree of importance to materialistic
values (economic and physical security), and give higher priorities to post-materialistic values
(self-esteem and life satisfaction), compared to older birth cohorts who may have experienced
poverty in their early years. Although it supports the idea that culture affects entrepreneurial
activities and the state of post-materialism in the society negatively influences the rate of
entrepreneurship254, post-materialism sets a rather appalling conclusion that economic
conditions drive change in cultural values, rather than the reverse255. Bygrave and Minniti256,
who focus on the embeddedness of entrepreneurship in social and structural relationships,
suggest a combination of all of the perspectives above to link the individual and structural
traditions. They argue that entrepreneurship is a self-reinforcing process. They also give an
emphasis that entrepreneurs act as the catalysts of economic activity. Hence, they believe that
entrepreneurship leads to more entrepreneurship, and the degree of entrepreneurial activities
is the outcome of that dynamic process in which cultural habits are as important as legal and
economic incentives257. Bygrave and Minniti view entrepreneurial activity within a
community as an unintended consequence of many individual choices, and they claim that
entrepreneurship is an interdependent act. They foothold their argument on the concept of
collective behaviour, where the decision made by individuals does not depend on their
preferences alone, but is highly influenced by what others choose. Bygrave and Minnitis
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
28/69
suggestion reaffirms Cooper and Denners258 portrayal on culture as capital, a theory of social
capital that refers to the relationships and networks from which individuals are able to derive
institutional support. Social capital is cumulative, leads to benefits in the social world, and can
be converted into other forms of capital. Nevertheless, regardless of various perspectives
offered by both traditions, this research will view culture as a crucial determinant of any socialsystem and human behaviours as functions of a specific socio-cultural system in which cultural
institutions may affect individual behaviours259,260. Entrepreneurs social actions, which are
fundamentally shaped by value system, are meaningful human behaviours that cannot be
separated from their social and cultural context261,262. Although human attitudes, beliefs, and
values are neither measurable nor precise, it will be more useful for this research to think of
them as
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
29/69
meaningful in the world. Their meanings are multiple, changing, and contextual. They can only
be explored through the form of multiple mental constructions, socially and experientially, from
the actors point of view. This is why an interpretative procedure will be very essential in
reaching an understanding of how people describe things and experience them from their
socio-cultural standpoint263. A sociocultural analysis of entrepreneurial activity is ethical.Therefore, unlike traditional models and theories that focus solely on economic reality or
personality traits of individual entrepreneurs (see Covin and Slevin264), this research will
acquire holism that has the potential to lead to a satisfactory alternative paradigm for
entrepreneurship.
2.3 Portraying Entrepreneurship in Developing Countries
Most academics nowadays tend to agree that economies which discourage SMEs in any
common sense are therefore likely to discourage newer dynamic industries from putting down
the roots they may otherwise do265. Zimmerer and Scarborough266 even predicted in their
book that the 21st century would dawn with the greatest number of small businesses ever.
Their prediction turned out to be true and over the past two decades, new SMEs have been
identified by many governments as significant components of economic strategies for job
creation and wealth accumulation267,268,269,270. Still, these achievements would be
impossible without the presence of David Birch271. In the mid-1970s, he received a grant from
the Economic Development Administration of the United States to study how the movement of
enterprises across state boundaries state employment growth. He found and reported that
inter-state movement of enterprises was a minor part of the overall job changes, and that 82%
of the new jobs created came from SMEs272. Birchs systematic studies and empirical results
gave SMEs a place on the research map. His report not only opened up the research field, but
also received considerable attention from politicians and media, which placed a spotlight on the
situation and the importance of SME273. Beside all of the recognitions given to them, SMEs are
one of those things that is recognized when seen but difficult to define 274. Up until today,
there is no single, uniformly acceptable definition of SME275, because it varies significantly in
line with the scale of the economy concerned, the degree of development and the economic
structures that are present276. Early definitions of SME were often quite vague. Normally, the
dominant principle behind those definitions, such as adopted by the US (Small Business
Mobilization Act of 1942 and Small Business Act of 1953) or the UK (1971 Bolton Committees
definition), was on defining a disadvantaged enterprise that need to be supported in terms of
market share or bargaining power277. However, because small business policy has always
attracted direct and indirect subsidies to businesses identified as sufficiently small278,
definitions have gradually shifted towards a more objective sized thresholds that can be
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
30/69
unambiguously enforced. Currently, almost all definitions on SME adopted by governments
worldwide employ a small number of thresholds against variables accepted as proxies for size,
which is ultimately a political decision, even though technical arguments for different
treatments abound (see Table 4).
Table 4 (will be inserted here) Quantitative Definitions Adopted by Several Southeast Asian
Nations and the European Union
Loecher280 categorized two groups of criteria in defining SME, the quantitative and qualitative
criteria respectively. For the first group, similarly to the above list, the term SME refers to
enterprises in different sectors with a given size of threshold that should not be exceeded. Due
to simplicity, compatibility, and practicality of the application, economists within the
quantitative group usually propose the number of employees and turnovers as the proxies to
define SME. Alternatively, the
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
31/69
second group provides information on the nature of SMEs. It commonly suggests that the
relationship between the owner and institution within the framework of personal principle
and leadershipcapital unity as the most appropriate qualitative tool to define SME, and
differentiate it from Large Enterprise (LE). The personal principle framework analyses SMEs
manager in performing the central role in business decision making. Typically, she or he has afundamental overview of all technical, administrative, and organizational procedures in the
company. On the other hand, the leadership-capital unity framework examines SMEs manager
as the proprietor, who is frequently much more selfsufficient and independent than the
contracted management of LEs. While a variety of qualitative literatures inextricably associate
entrepreneurship with SME281, scholars in developed countries insist on a clear definition to
distinguish both of them. Nevertheless, as the major share of enterprises in developing
countries are small in terms of assets and many of them operate informally using family labour,
a clear distinction, as formerly insisted, will be very difficult to be achieved. In these countries,
entrepreneurship and SMEs are used synonymously and interchangeably to describe
entrepreneurial activities that include the formal and informal sectors282,283. For example,
Fafchamps284 found that market intermediation in Africa is characterized by the excess of
small traders that employ less than ten employees or family helpers. Moreover, due to their
abundance, the World Bank has instead focused on SMEs in its effort to target
entrepreneurship in developing countries285. Even if SMEs are not truly entrepreneurial in
nature, it must be acknowledged that entrepreneurial start-ups are often a subset of SMEs. As
Schumpeter286 once pointed out that to see the phenomenon even in the humblest levels
of the business world is quite essential though it may be difficult to find the humble
entrepreneurs historically. SMEs indeed hold the added allure of being a key component of a
wider economic development and poverty alleviation in developing countries287. They provide
an avenue for entrepreneurship288, where their growth in these countries is often used as an
indicator of entrepreneurial development. As previously noted, SMEs tend to dominate their
corporate communities, at least in terms of enterprise registrations, if not always in terms of
aggregate size. Furthermore, since they are labour intensive, SMEs are also recognized as a
major and sustainable generator of employment, as well as income for their citizens working
outside the public sector289. For example, in Cambodia, Laos, and Nepal, SMEs represent the
vast bulk of the corporate sector, accounting for approximately 99% of all firms, over 70% of
total employment, and more than 50% of GDP output290. Additionally, SMEs in developing
countries also serve as a useful bridge between the informal economy of family enterprise and
the formalized corporate sector, balancing development among regions291. They act as inter-
industrial linkages, or as supporting industries producing components and parts for LEs, either
via market mechanisms, subcontracting systems, or other forms of production linkages292.
SMEs are in general much more selfsufficient and independent, because they finance their
operations overwhelmingly by personal savings of the proprietors, supplemented by gifts or
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
32/69
loans from relatives, from local informal moneylenders, traders, input suppliers, or payments in
advance from consumers. Similar to other developing countries, Indonesian SMEs have
historically been the main agent in domestic economic activities, especially as a large provider
of employment opportunities, thus a generator of primary or secondary source of income for
many households293. Moreover, because they are regionally dispersed, these enterprises alsoplay an important role as the engine for an equitable economic development by stimulating
economic growth, and enhancing income distribution at the rural and regional level294,295.
During the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, SMEs in Indonesia also proved to be more resilient than
LEs. In 1998, when the crisis reached its climax and the national economic growth was at minus
13%, SMEs output contribution to the formation of real GDP rose to almost 41%. In 1999, that
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
33/69
share increased to about 41.3%, but declined slightly in the next year to 40.4%296,297. Up Until
2008, the majority of Indonesian SMEs operate in the agriculture (including forestry and animal
husbandry, 52.48%), trading and hospitality (28.1%), production (6.32%), service (4.25%), and
transportation (6.25%) sectors of the economy. They employed approximately 94 million
people (97.15% of the total number of national employ) and in 2009, the number of IndonesianSMEs grew to roughly 52.76 million units, or approximately 99.99% of all business units298,299.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A study on the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship includes social actors
embedded within the cultural system. Social actors, both the entrepreneur or other groups of
people involved with her or him, are characterized by diverse minds, psyches, emotions,
thoughts, feelings, senses, attitudes, beliefs, views, self, individuals, ideas, motivations,
consciousness, experience, education, skills, training, and behavioural patterns300. These
characterizations are multiple realities because they contain frequent discontinuities and
change in the real life context, hence positivistic science can be rejected as being an
inappropriate framework for investigation301. Matza302 argues, In the empirical world, man
is subjective, not objective, except when he is likened to one by himself or by another subject.
According to him, naturalism must choose the subjective view, and must consequently combine
the methods with the distinctive tools of humanism, such as experience, intuition, and
empathy. Thus, the paradigmatic disposition chosen to consider entrepreneurial activity in this
research will encompass the subjective as well as the objective elements of entrepreneurs
actions (see Figure 5).
Figure 5 (will be inserted here) Paradigmatic Projection of the Research
Henceforth, all of the sections will discuss the research methodology that will be utilized by this
research (see Figure 6). Methodology refers to the overall approach to the research process,
from the theoretical underpinning to the collection and analysis of the data303. Since there
are several methods that can be used in social science, explicitly defining a methodological
choice of study is important. In order to justify the methodology that will be employed in thisresearch, the research philosophy that will be adopted first needs to be addressed.
Understanding philosophical issues helps to identify the research design and provide good
answers to the central research question being investigated304.
Figure 6 (will be inserted here) Methodological Structure of the Research
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
34/69
3.1 Choosing the Right Ism
A research philosophy is a set of basic beliefs and represents a worldview that defines, for its
holder, the nature of the world or the individuals place in it (ontology), also the range ofpossible relationships to that world or its part (epistemology)305. Ontology concerns with the
nature of the world or social reality, and what can be known about it306,307. Blanche,
Durrheim, and Painter308 define ontology as the nature of reality that is to be studied, and
what is to be known. Cohesively, epistemology refers to a general set of assumptions about
the best ways of inquiring into the nature of the world309, 310,311. Hussey and Hussey312
define epistemology as the study of knowledge and what we accept as valid knowledge.
The philosophy of social science as a whole can be classified into two main paradigms based on
its ontology, epistemology, and research design, namely positivism and interpretivism313.
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
35/69
Positivism rely on the basic belief that reality is objective and is driven by immutable natural
laws, whereas interpretivism stems from the view that reality is not objective and exterior, but
is socially constructed and given meaning by people (see Table 5).
Table 5 (will be inserted here) Positivism versus Interpretivism
Since this research seeks to understand the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship
by describing and analysing entrepreneurs social actions through the form of multiple mental
constructions, socially and experientially, from the entrepreneurs point of view, the research
will settle for the interpretivism paradigm, which will be based on the constructionist ontology
and the interpretivist epistemology (see Figure 6). Schwandt315 explains both ontological and
epistemological terms as sensitizing concepts that direct researchers toward a particular view:
Proponents of these persuasions share the goal of understanding the complex world of lived
experience from the point of view of those who live it. This goal is variously spoken of as an
abiding concern for the life world, for the emic point of view, for understanding meaning, for
grasping the actors definition of a situation, for Verstehen. The world of lived reality and
situation-specific meanings that constitute the general object of investigation is thought to be
constructed by social actors. Bryman316 defines the constructionist ontology as an ontological
position which implies that social phenomenon and categories are not only produced via
social interaction but that they are in a constant state of revision. It regards all knowledge,
and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human practices, being
constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world, and developed
and transmitted within an essentially social context317. The constructionist ontology is
coherent with the interpretivist epistemology that comprehends the social world through an
examination of the interpretation of that world by its participants318. It accentuates on the
interpretive nature of inquiry, which is used to understand a particular phenomenon, not to
generalize a population. However, according to Seale319, this ontological and epistemological
mixture has its own limitation. He argues that it can promote a relativist perspective, which is a
view that everyone makes their own meaning and all views are equal. Hence, as a result, this
perspective fails to provide a basis for decisionmaking. Such failures usually occur when a
researcher is oblivious to the value-laden position of her or his interpretations that shape the
understanding of meaning. Wimmer and Dominick320 propose that this limitation should be
first recognized in order for the ontological and epistemological mixture to be useful. Thus,
during the course of the research, data and methodological triangulations will be used to
minimize the researchers subjectivity. Furthermore, because studying people in their own
community yields better results and in order to create a natural flow of the study, this research
will also combine interpretivism with the method of inquiry used by naturalism. Weber321
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
36/69
suggested that this combination is important because they can mutually balance each other for
a more valid causal interpretation. According to him, verification of subjective interpretation
by comparison with the concrete course of events is indispensable322. In support of Weber,
Geertz323 supplemented that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself
has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not anexperimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning.
Bryman324 defines naturalism as a fusion of elements of interpretivist epistemology and
constructionist ontology. It is actually employed in social science to recognize that people are
not passive objects because they also
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
37/69
attribute meaning to their behaviour and act as authors of their social world. Naturalistic
inquiry can be characterized by its natural research setting (to keep realities in their contexts),
qualitative methods, purposive sampling, inductive analysis, grounded theory, case study
reporting mode, tentative application of findings, and special criteria of trustworthiness325.
3.2 Designing an Exploratory Multiple-case Study
Leedy326 postulates that research design is the strategy, the plan, and the structure of
conducting a research study. Research design deals with a logical problem and not a
logistical problem327. It provides the overall framework for data collection. Since the
relationship between culture and entrepreneurship has not been clearly defined, this research
will adopt the exploratory research design that emphasizes on naturalistic research inquiries.
This design was chosen in order to respond to the central research question and observing the
requirements of the research paradigm. Rather than aiming to verify pre-defined theoretical
constructs concerned with specific issues, this research aims to generate new theories and
concepts from the data collected in the field. Moreover, considering the fact that it is also
concerned with the underlying pursuit of contextual depth328,329, this research will use a
multiple-case study approach, consisting of communities as cases (macro-cases) and several
individual entrepreneurs within those communities as sub-cases (micro-cases), to contribute
the unique relation between particular situations and the phenomenon of interest. According
to Yin330, A case study is an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon
within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context
are not clearly evident and it relies on multiple sources of evidence. He also argues that
case study is the logical sequence that connects the empirical data to initial questions and
ultimately to its conclusions331. Sturman332 notes that while the techniques used in the
investigation may be varied, the distinguishing feature of case study is the belief that human
systems develop a characteristic wholeness or integrity and are not simply a loose collection of
traits. Glaser and Strauss333 even suggested that it could ideally buttress grounding theory,
which is the theory grounded from the data collected, in contrast to the theory generated from
logical deduction from a priori assumptions. Case study is indeed special because it focuses on
a bounded system, whether a single actor, a single classroom, a single institution, or a single
enterprise - usually under natural conditions 334. It involves the examination of a
phenomenon in natural settings. Even though researchers have no control over the
phenomenon, the scope and time of the examination can still be controlled. Case study
research does not require the researcher to pre-define all variables prior to the study, allowing
flexibility of variables emerging through the phases of data collection and analysis335. Such
strength will bring advantage to this research, which will be exploratory in nature. It is essential
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
38/69
to permit the emergence of new variables during the research process in order to grasp the
reality and the complexity of interactions between culture and the entrepreneurs social actions
in the particular context of a culturally diverse developing country, such as Indonesia. Despite
the fact that case study has certain fundamental defining characteristics, distinction referring to
the number of cases under investigation is often made. A single-case study is characterized byYin336 as a study that: 1) represents the critical case in testing a well-formulated theory; 2)
represents an extreme case or a unique case; 3) represents a revelatory case; or 4) is the
representative or typical case. Whereas, the study of particular issues in a number of settings is
referred to as multiple-site study by Sturman337, collective case study by Stake338, or
multiple-case studies by Yin339. Single-case study allows researchers to investigate
phenomenon in depth in order to provide rich description and
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
39/69
understanding340. Benbasat, Goldstein, and Mead341 nevertheless propose that a single case
used for exploration may be followed by a multiple-case study. Multiple cases are desirable if
the intention of the research is descriptive, theory building, or theory testing. Herriott and
Firestone342 saw multiple-case study as the emergence of a new form of qualitative
research, one intended to strengthen its ability to generalize while preserving in-depthdescription. It is noted by Sturman343 as a response to the perceived limitations of many
policies and an evaluative research for policy makers. According to Yin344, The evidence from
multiple cases is often considered more compelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded
as being more robust. Multiple-case study refers to multiple experiments - that is, to follow
a replication logic345, allowing cross-case analysis and comparison, and the investigation of a
particular phenomenon in diverse settings, which lead to more general results346. In this
research, the number of cases (communities) and sub-cases (individual entrepreneurs) to be
studied, however, will not be predetermined. The proper number will depend, first, on how
much is known about the phenomenon after studying a community, and second, how much
new information is likely to emerge from studying further Communities347. Multiple-case study
will help this research by producing literal and theoretical replication, which consequently will
increase the generalization of research findings348. Communities and individual entrepreneurs
will be carefully selected to produce similar or contrasting results for predictable reasons,
which will provide substantial support for the propositions349. Due to the fact that this
research also attempts to develop a theoretical framework in understanding the interface
between exogenous factors, the unique elements of the existing local culture, as well as
entrepreneurial activity within a country, multiple-case study will definitely improve the
likelihood of an accurate and reliable theory, in which the researcher may capture new findings
emerging from the data350. Multiple case studies enable the research to verify that findings
are not merely the result of peculiarities of the research setting351.
3.2.1 The need for a pilot study
In addition to a variety of information that has been mentioned previously in section 1.1,
Indonesia was selected as the research context because it will perfectly coagulate the research
objective in identifying the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship in a culturally
diverse developing country. Based on the concept of Orang, the contiguity of cultural
homogeneity and heterogeneity in Indonesia can be studied concurrently within a single
research site. Such situation will eventually deliver the most benefit in downplaying academic
interest in stable personality traits and broad contextual pressures, in favour of a more detailed
investigations and explanations of entrepreneurial action352. Nevertheless, as suggested by
Benbasat et al.353 and with the intention to familiarize the researcher with the phenomenon in
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
40/69
its context, this research will first use a pilot study before determining the actual communities
or the actual individual entrepreneurs that will be regarded as cases and sub-cases. The pilot
study will be considered as a drift stage of the multiple-case study to be proposed in this
proposal, in which the researcher will learn first-hand the relevant jargon and context where
the phenomenon takes place354. This will be the stage where the research context will beobserved in order to obtain a better perspective on modifications necessary for the central
research question, as well as to ensure fruitful investigation355. Yin356 emphasizes this by
claiming that the final preparation for data collection is the conduct of a pilot case study. In
this research, the format of the pilot study, whether it will include a complete case or not, will
depend on the time and financial constrains that may appear during the research process.
-
7/31/2019 The Relationship Between Culture and Entrepreneurship
41/69
The pilot study will consist of two phases, the pre-test and the pilot test respectively. Yin356
describes pre-test as a dress-rehearsal in which the intended data collection plans will be used
as faithfully as possible. Hence, the first phase of the pilot study in this research will be more
influential, assisting the researcher to provide some conceptual clarification for the research
design and to develop lines of subquestion that will back up the central question. It will beaimed to test and refine the research conceptual framework through various consultations with
various reputable academics, religious or cultural leaders, and related government or non-
government officials in Indonesia. The initial conceptual framework (the first version)
developed before the pilot study, will be refined by integr