Entrepreneurial activities in a developing country: an institutional theory perspective

Abstract

Purpose Entrepreneurship research in the context of developing countries has typically investigated the ways in which culture, politics or economic institutions prohibit or enable entrepreneurial activities using macro-level surveys and deductive designs. In contrast, the purpose of this paper is to take a micro-institutional perspective to study these three institutions influencing entrepreneurial activities in such a context. Design/methodology/approach The analysis is based on inductive, qualitative field data from a challenging institutional environment, Tanzania. This includes two focus groups, one with experts and one with entrepreneurs; and 24 individual interviews with entrepreneurs. Findings Entrepreneurial activities in Tanzania are not constrained only by bureaucracy and arbitrary enforcement, access to capital, competition and consumer spending, but also by language barriers, negative media portrayals and gender disparity. In their favour, recent trade policy, opening up of borders and changing gender relations, has led to more opportunities, but just as important are traditional festivals, marital gift-giving and familial support. Entrepreneurs respond to institutional constraints in many creative ways, including undertaking entrepreneurial strategies, developing inner strength, joining associations, giving back to communities and skilfully managing relations with authorities. Originality/value The fine-grained discussion of the findings of this study specifically contributes to theory by illustrating the constraining and enabling role of under-represented institutions, such as festivals and marriages, as well as entrepreneurial creative responses that define everyday entrepreneurial life in a developing country.

Entrepreneurial finance and new venture success ‐ the moderating role of government support

“…may be able to access rare resources at lower costs which in turn enhances its performance (Burt, 1997). Though traditionally, GS in terms of industrial growth was neglected, but recently, the government has shown a high interest in industrial growth by investing in R&D and technology (Eijdenberg, Thompson, Verduijn, & Essers, 2019). In this perspective, recent research has unleashed the importance of GS in SMEs’ success.…”

The Influence of Environmental Pollution and Drought on the Satisfaction With Life of Entrepreneurs in Zambia’s Mining Sector

“…However, the effects of a changing natural environment, viz., effects from climate change such as natural disasters to the entrepreneur— as a person —are largely overlooked. The focus on satisfaction with life is important because it defines well-being, and, hence, the performance of the entrepreneurs’ businesses ( Eijdenberg et al, 2019 , Lepeley et al, 2019 ) that, consequently, contributes to overall regional social and economic development ( Gries and Naudé, 2010 , Gries and Naudé, 2011 , Naudé, 2010 , Wennekers et al, 2005 ). The results of this study provide the detailed insights of what types of environmental pollution (e.g., water pollution, garbage) and drought (e.g., rising temperatures, dropping water levels of rivers) affect the entrepreneurs, in terms of their satisfaction with life and, additionally, their businesses’ profitability and decision-making.…”

“…Although constrained resources—especially skilled human capital rather than natural resources (e.g., minerals)—factor-driven economies contain more often than not heavy polluting industries such as mining and petroleum factories. Apart from the heavy polluting industries, such resource-constraints areas create low market entry and exit barriers ( Khavul, Bruton, & Wood, 2009 ) that pave the way for countless innovative entrepreneurs who find opportunities to start and manage businesses ( Eijdenberg et al, 2019 , Rivera-Santos et al, 2015 ).…”

Performance Analysis and Science Mapping of Institutional Entrepreneurship Research

“…Apart from the literature that explicitly addresses institutional entrepreneurship, another body of literature can be identified that deals with both institutions and entrepreneurship but does not explicitly refer to institutional entrepreneurship theory. Especially, this research stream not directly related to institutional entrepreneurship examines the favoring or inhibiting effects of existing institutions on entrepreneurial behavior (Bouncken et al 2020;Pacut 2020;Sobel 2008;Wang et al 2019;Welter and Smallbone 2011) and, more generally, on the emergence, flourishing, and success of entrepreneurship (Acs et al 2018;Aidis et al 2008;Ali et al 2020;Bouncken et al, 2020;Bowen and Clercq 2008;Dai and Si 2018;Eijdenberg et al 2019;Estrada-Robles et al 2018;Estrin et al 2013;Lv et al 2020;Galindo-Martín et al 2019;Manolova et al 2008;Queirós et al 2019;Urbano et al 2020), especially where institutional voids exist (Puffer et al 2010). Rather than institutional entrepreneurship's focus on institutional change, this body of research sees entrepreneurs as embedded in existing institutions.…”