Collaborative entrepreneurship and the fostering of entrepreneurialism in developing countries

Collaborative entrepreneurship and the fostering of entrepreneurialism in developing countries
Vanessa Ratten
International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2014) pp. 137 – 149
The purpose of this paper is to consider collaborative entrepreneurship and its relevance to entrepreneurialism in developing countries. The paper provides some background to the role of collaboration in society including how individuals, businesses and organisations interact with governments to encourage economic and society activity in developing country economies. Read more

m4s0n501
Tags: , , ,

Impact of Demographic Factors on Technological Orientations of BOP Entrepreneurs in Ghana

International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, Ahead of Print.

The study explores relationship between technological orientations and demographics of bottom of the pyramid (BOP) entrepreneurs in Ghana. The study reviewed literature on the BOP concept. Based on the reviewed literature, hypotheses were developed for testing. Data was collected from 287 micro-entrepreneurs using a structured questionnaire. The data collected was analyzed using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression analysis. The study found some relationships between technology acceptance, connectivity to networks and entrepreneurial demographics. This provides the information necessary for information communications technology (ICT) and technology companies seeking to expand to these new markets as top of the pyramid markets saturate.
Go to Source

Tags: , , ,

The invisible hand in entrepreneurial process: bricolage in emerging economies

The entrepreneurial process in emerging economies is receiving more interests but the critical role of bricolage is still in dearth. Entrepreneurs in these highly uncertain and dynamic environments discover, develop, and exploit opportunities with limited and idiosyncratic resources. They also navigate the entrepreneurial process within restrictive and unsupportive institutional environments. In this dynamic and often restrictive setting, entrepreneurs wanting to capitalise on opportunities must be able to manage with novel combinations of existing resources. Bricolage is therefore a relevant process in this entrepreneurial environment. This article argues that bricolage is a key mechanism to explore and explain entrepreneurship in emerging economies.
Go to Source

Tags: , , ,

Women to learn coding and business skills free of charge through Google’s supported #40forward initiative

Outbox hub Kampla, this month, is launching the Women Passion program (WOPA), an experiential based learning program, supported by Google for Entrepreneurs under the #40Forward initiative.

The initiative seeks to train up-to 100 women in programming and entrepreneurship skills. The mission is to foster the creation of women entrepreneurs that address the intersection of opportunities/problems in community with their passions and interests.

For the past one year and eight months that the initiative has been operational, they have been trying to find various ways on how to increase the number of female participants in their programs. To this end, Outbox founder Richard Zulu then worked together with a number of interested individuals to startup the Girl-geek kampala initiative, an independent initiative to celebrate and promote women and girls in science and technology in Uganda with its home at Outbox.

Under Girl-geek Kampala,  a number of trainings and networking sessions were hosted. However, what stood out during the trainings was the high number of girls that dropped out. Ampaire Christine, a co-founder of the Girl geek kampala initiative, was at the helm of organising and overseeing these trainings and shared these as the learnings.

This has since inspired WOPA in rethinking it’s approach from previous experiences.

Lesson 1: Setting expectations for the participants and from the participants is very important. In our first training, the expectations from both ends were not stressed enough hence girls came and went as they pleased.

Lesson 2:  Let all trainings be personal and highly involving. One way trainings led to a high number of dropouts.

Lesson 3: Patient (and diligent)  trainers who can also demonstrate clearly as well as inspire participants.

Lesson 4: Let the girls see their goals come a step closer to reality every week. If they do not see this, they will leave early.

WOPA has partnered with WOUGNET and are looking more partners to support this initiative. We are joining 39 other Google for Entrepreneurs partners to rethink the gender gap and build more inclusive networks. Follow and participate in the conversation using the hashtag #WOPAUG #4OForward on twitter and Google+

H/T: Outbox hub blog

The post Women to learn coding and business skills free of charge through Google’s supported #40forward initiative appeared first on TechPost.

Go to Source

Tags: , ,

Entrepreneurship Always Leads to Inequality

“Inequality is bad.” “Inequality is dangerous.” “Our system is at risk due to increasing inequality.”

Wealth inequality is on everyone’s minds these days: citizens, political leaders, economists, policymakers and yes, business leaders. Unfortunately, simpleminded thinking and insensitivity are often clouding the conversation. Deservedly vaunted venture capitalist Tom Perkins’ callous, arrogant and elitist recent comments should not serve as an expedient excuse to overlook an important “dirty little secret” about entrepreneurship, the acknowledged engine of economic growth: successful entrepreneurship always exacerbates local inequality, at least in the short run.

The $19 billion sale of WhatsApp’s to Facebook made Koum and Acton, overnight, vastly wealthier than their next door neighbors. The Boston Innovation District’s meteoric real estate prices are pushing the very entrepreneurs who made the district sexy towards neighboring districts where rents have not tripled since 2010. Tel Aviv’s “Cottage Cheese Protests” in 2011 stemmed in part from the entrance of newly-exited wealthy entrepreneurs into the city making it too expensive for “normal folk” to live in, with its nouvelle cuisine restaurants and ten million dollar Mediterranean penthouses blocking the views of the grandmothers whose parents settled the city a century before.  The brand new Google Buses protest movement is fueled by similar fears. Seniors and the disabled worry they’ll be evicted to make room for well-paid and well-paying urbanizing tech workers cum stock-optionees with Tesla parking spaces worth more than a room in a public retirement home. In Seattle, home of Amazon and Microsoft, a protestor waved a sign, “Gentrification Stops Here.”

Inequality, in the broadest sense, is precisely, and perhaps paradoxically, what entrepreneurship is all about: entrepreneurs use their wit and grit to burst into new markets and generate extraordinary wealth, sometimes very quickly, more often over decades. Along the way, entrepreneurship rewards smart and risk-tolerant investors (who helped build the success) with wildly above-market (read: unequal) financial returns. The most successful entrepreneurship is disruptive — a term entrepreneurs these days have donned as a magic mantle: “We have a disruptive business model, a disruptive technology, and will disrupt the market” goes the startup pitch. Amazon has disrupted book stores and other retail chains, Zipcar disrupted car rentals, Netflix is disrupting cinemas and cable companies, Airbnb disrupts hotels, and Bitcoin may disrupt the payment industry. But the meaning of “disruptive” was never meant to be pure and all-positive: its synonyms include “troublemaking,” “disorderly,” “disturbing,” “unsettling,” and ”upsetting.” With all the buzz around disruptive innovation as a driver of business success in recent years, it’s important not to forget this original meaning.

Entrepreneurial success is intrinsically lopsided, a natural outcome of creating extraordinary value for customers. Entrepreneurship — if it succeeds — will always be, by definition, about the top one or two percent. It is about being the best of the best, about jumping over hurdle after hurdle on the way to the gold medal in the Olympics of enterprise, and leaving competitors in the dust.

Entrepreneurship, per se, can create many social goods. It can push innovation, can create dignified employment, can improve quality of life, can contribute to fiscal health through taxes, and does (at least in a few countries, including the US) dramatically boost philanthropy.

As I have argued in my book, successful entrepreneurship can also make housing unaffordable, increase taxes, and elevate the cost of personal services; it can deplete public goods such as education and health by giving the newly wealthy a simple and immediate work around public systems that don’t function well. Entrepreneurship can displace loyal legacy suppliers or products, along the way putting good people out of work, disorganizing and reorganizing supply chains and on the way down, depleting the wealth of the shareholders of deposed market leaders.

So is inequality, when it is directly created by entrepreneurs, good or bad?

For sure, without a system that ensures merit-based mobility, inequality can become a canker that infects and spreads. When the top 1% keep getting richer and the bottom 20% or so lose hope, inequality can become hardwired into a social structure and can keep people stuck, creating a vicious cycle of loss of ambition, loss of success, and loss of worth, both psychological and tangible.

But inequality can also be a great motivator, can fuel ambition, can bolster achievement, and can foster innovation. When my neighbor or friend or fellow citizen embarks on the entrepreneurial venture and is one of the fortunate few who succeed, this also may inspire, ignite my dreams, and shine a light on a new path to accomplishment and upward mobility that was previously obscured.

What should we do? I do not have all the answers, and I do not think there are panaceas. But I am sure that honest, clear-headed dialog will help. I am sure that whitewashing reality and sweeping entrepreneurship’s dirty little secrets under the rug will not help. Blindly ignoring the fact that entrepreneurship creates acute inequality will keep our society from benefiting from entrepreneurship’s positive spillovers and keep us from realistically mitigating its negative spillovers. I am also certain that measures which serve to dampen entrepreneurial ambition are not helpful. And I am equally certain that igniting aspiration — with appropriate education, support, role models, and encouragement — across the spectrum of society will improve our society and economy. If we want growth entrepreneurship, we will have to deal with its inequality as well.


Go to Source

Tags: , , , ,

Social e-entrepreneurship and technological innovations: the role of online communities, mobile communication and social networks

Social e-entrepreneurship and technological innovations: the role of online communities, mobile communication and social networks
Vanessa Ratten
International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 2, No. 5 (2013) pp. 476 – 483
Social entrepreneurship has been a growing area of interest for businesses that want to include a not-for-profit perspective in addition to their profit orientation as part of their overall strategy. The increasing integration of technology within a business’s strategy has lead to the development of social electronic enterprises (e-enterprises), which involve a business having a social purpose in the online environment. Social e-enterprises enable the use of technological innovations as a way for business to creatively solve social issues. The purpose of this paper is to explore how social e-enterprises are being used in order to facilitate better usage of mobile communication and online communities. This is helped by a focus on the opportunity recognition of social entrepreneurship made possible by technological innovations that have linked the global business environment. As more businesses utilise emerging technology, this has shaped the way that social e-enterprises are functioning. This paper will review the nascent literature on social entrepreneurship with a focus on how the e-entrepreneurship has emerged. Suggestions for practitioners involved in shaping social e-enterprises are stated with recommendations for future research.

Go to Source

Tags: , , , ,

Agricultural technology commercialisation: stakeholders, business models, and abiotic stressors – Part 1

Agricultural technology commercialisation: stakeholders, business models, and abiotic stressors – Part 1
Stephen Suffian; Arianna De Reus; Curtis Eckard; Amy Copley; Khanjan Mehta
International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 2, No. 5 (2013) pp. 415 – 437
A wide range of innovative technologies have emerged to facilitate the creation, expansion, and streamlining of food value chains (FVCs) in developing countries. These technologies target agricultural production, processing, storage, marketing, distribution, and consumption. Technology has the potential to bolster food security and make FVCs more efficient. Commercialisation of technologies requires sound business strategies for products to sustain. A typology of business models is presented to assist entrepreneurs in integrating their technologies into FVCs. The impacts of abiotic stressors like access to capital, supply chain resiliency, and ownership dynamics are discussed to help entrepreneurs develop strategies for their own agricultural ventures.

Go to Source

Tags: , , , ,