Good option or only option? Poverty, disability, health and enterprise

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to explore experiences of poverty in the enterprise amongst people with a disability or long-term health challenges. This paper departs somewhat from established wisdom about economic or financial drivers of enterprise by exploring why a disabled individual would start and continue to operate in a business where that business is providing income-poverty. In so doing, it subscribes to the idea that the enterprise involves reflexive engagement of an agent in context where value(s) of the enterprise other than financial may be prioritised.Design/methodology/approachThe research draws from a larger qualitative study of self-employment and poverty in which half the sample (21 individuals) identified as experiencing disability or poor health. Semi-structured interviews were conducted these participants and a thematic analysis with specific reference to Theory of Venturing, which proposes that the value of enterprise is reflexively and idiosyncratically understood and morphogenetic, was used to explore itinerant issues, experiences and challenges.FindingsIn line with the theory, findings include that disability and poor health are observed to be both prompters and shapers of an enterprise and that the value of enterprise is not always primarily associated with financial wealth for the participants in the sample. Flexibility and autonomy are attractive features of self-employment for some in the face of an inflexible and sometimes hostile labour market.Originality/valueThis paper demonstrates that engaging in enterprise is motivated by an agent's reflexive evaluation of value(s) and how that enables them to navigate their structural condition(s); this contribution enhances theoretical approaches to enterprise and business creation by illuminating some of its diversity. This paper also contributes some much needed data about a group who are under-represented in the enterprise literature despite being over-represented in practice. There are implications and recommendations for policy and practice in the exposure and analysis of the issues emerging.

The lived experience of freedom among entrepreneurs with disabilities

“…From a heterotopian perspective, entrepreneurship has a liberating effect on PWD, providing new means of coping – entrepreneurial skills, self-organisation and -reflection (Shir and Ryff, 2021) – to overcome material and discursive barriers (Jammaers and Zanoni, 2020). The level of economic freedom is balanced by the dynamics of mutually extinguishing financial dependencies from the state and the business in line with the recent work of Jackman et al. (2021).…”

“…From a heterotopian perspective, entrepreneurship has a liberating effect on PWD, providing new means of copingentrepreneurial skills, self-organisation and -reflection (Shir and Ryff, 2021) to overcome material and discursive barriers (Jammaers and Zanoni, 2020). The level of economic freedom is balanced by the dynamics of mutually extinguishing financial dependencies from the state and the business in line with the recent work of Jackman et al (2021). However, findings add a further layer extending the literature on entrepreneurial autonomy (Aulet and Murray, 2013;Croson and Minniti, 2012;Van Gelderen, 2016) by highlighting that the negative freedom achievable through entrepreneurship contributes to living an independent life in a double sense: being able to afford personal assistance and assistive technologies provides independence both from families or partners and from the constraints of standard employment relationships.…”

The value of entrepreneuring in the context of multidimensional poverty

“…Thus, these views increase the challenge of coming up with a comprehensive definition of poverty as both a term and a concept. Based on our review of poverty dimensions, we decided to include income (Jackman et al, 2021); a lack of access to resources and opportunities (Philip and Rayhan, 2004); a lack of education (Philip and Rayhan, 2004); gender inequality (Lustig and Stern, 2000); social exclusion (Blackburn andRam, 2006, Mair et al, 2012;Smith et al, 2019a); and a person's right to engage in decision making (Kabeer, 2000). Our inclusion of these dimensions of poverty was empirically grounded; the six dimensions above were encountered in our review of the empirical material.…”