Management Article Review.

Anonymous
timer Asked: Feb 9th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $20

Question Description

Please select one of two articles that provided from me to write a review paper. It must include the SUMMARY and PERSONAL OPINION. I will upload the sample, please refer to its format and content !

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Journal of World Business 41 (2006) 56–65 www.socscinet.com/bam/jwb Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept Ana Marı́a Peredo a,*, Murdith McLean b,1 a Faculty of Business, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Drive, Victoria, BC, Canada V8P 5C2 b Centre for Studies in Religion and Society, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Drive, Victoria, BC, Canada V8P 5C2 Abstract This paper undertakes an analytical, critical and synthetic examination of ‘‘social entrepreneurship’’ in its common use, considering both the ‘‘social’’ and the ‘‘entrepreneurship’’ elements in the concept. On both points, there is a range of use with significant differences marked by such things as the prominence of social goals and what are thought of as the salient features of entrepreneurship. The paper concludes with the proposal of a suitably flexible explication of the concept: social entrepreneurship is exercised where some person or persons (1) aim either exclusively or in some prominent way to create social value of some kind, and pursue that goal through some combination of (2) recognizing and exploiting opportunities to create this value, (3) employing innovation, (4) tolerating risk and (5) declining to accept limitations in available resources. # 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The concept of social entrepreneurship has become well established in business. Popular as well as scholarly books and articles are written about the characteristics of organizations thought to engage in social entrepreneurship. It holds a place in the curriculum of leading business schools, and it is the subject of numerous professional and academic meetings. There are associations devoted to studying and implementing social entrepreneurship, and there are numerous web sites on which one may become acquainted with the concept and receive information and/or advice on putting into it practice. There are even special editions of prominent business journals, * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 250 472 4435; fax: +1 250 472 6067. E-mail addresses: aperedo@uvic.ca (A.M. Peredo), mmclean@uvic.ca (M. McLean). 1 Tel.: +1 250 472 4456; fax: +1 250 721 6234. 1090-9516/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2005.10.007 like this one, dedicated to the realm of social entrepreneurship. Anyone who samples this array of material may be left wondering exactly what social entrepreneurship is. Is it just the application of sound business practices to the operation of non-profit organizations as some seem to suggest (Reis, 1999), or is it a more radically different approach to the business of doing good? It is said that ‘‘social entrepreneurship is emerging as an innovative approach for dealing with complex social needs’’ (Johnson, 2000: 1), especially in the face of diminishing public funding. What is it that makes this approach so promising? Indeed part of answering these questions rests on understanding what the phenomenon is. Commentators, both scholarly and popular, and advocates of every kind, understand it in a variety of ways. The concept needs to be clarified just to make those comments and that advocacy intelligible. There are other and very practical reasons for wanting to be clear about what constitutes social entrepreneurship. For one thing, social entrepreneurship may call for quite different standards of evaluation A.M. Peredo, M. McLean / Journal of World Business 41 (2006) 56–65 when compared with standard forms of entrepreneurship. Second, if there is reason to believe that social entrepreneurship is a promising instrument for addressing social needs, it may call for added support in the form of legislation and other sorts of social policy. Third, it may well be that the mix of managerial competencies appropriate to successful pursuit of social entrepreneurship differs in significant ways from the mix relevant to success in entrepreneurship without the social component. This paper does not attempt to settle these important issues, which clearly point to further research questions. It is, however, meant to satisfy a necessary condition of addressing those matters. It is essential to begin by being clear what social entrepreneurship is. This paper undertakes this fundamental task. To begin with, the conceptual geography of ‘‘social entrepreneurship’’ is considered as that term is generally used. The paper therefore begins with an analytic and ‘‘reportive’’ enquiry. Scholarly proposals as to the content of the concept are considered, as well as less reflective uses of the idea, in many cases testing the former against the latter. The overall aim is to discover what characteristics of an activity are explicitly or implicitly considered relevant to applying the label ‘‘social entrepreneurship.’’ That investigation reveals, as mentioned, a variety of distinguishable uses ranged along two continua; one having to do with the social element in the concept, and the other concerning the entrepreneurial component. That leads to the addition of a critical and synthetic factor to this study. Reasons will be given for maintaining a degree of permissiveness in the definition while trimming off certain ranges of use that make the notion insufficiently discriminating. In the conclusion of the paper, accordingly, a suitably flexible explication of the concept is proposed; one that gathers together certain core elements implicit in common usage while omitting certain others that broaden its application to the point where it is hardly selective. The result, it is hoped, will assist in recognizing and evaluating what goes on in the real world of dealing with social problems. An assumption is made in this paper concerning the relationship between social entrepreneurship and what is called ‘‘social enterprise.’’ Social enterprise as an activity (normally represented by using the term without a definite or indefinite article) is commonly equated (as several quotations will illustrate) with social entrepreneurship. For purposes of this article, we will accept that similarity. It is assumed in what follows that elucidating the concept of social entrepreneurship amounts to elucidating the notion of social enterprise as an activity, 57 and the practice of other writers in using the terms interchangeably is followed here. The relation between social entrepreneurship and social enterprises, i.e. particular organizations or institutions, is more complex, but will be left at an intuitive level for purposes of this paper. One can ask fruitfully both what makes social entrepreneurship social, and what makes it entrepreneurship. On both points, there is a variety of perspectives. 2. What makes social entrepreneurship entrepreneurship? Dees (1998) speaks for many when he declares, ‘‘Social entrepreneurs are one species in the genus entrepreneur’’ (p. 3). One place to begin a review of social entrepreneurship is with a consideration of what constitutes the genus. In what follows, it is assumed that defining ‘‘entrepreneurship’’ is logically linked with defining ‘‘entrepreneur’’ in that entrepreneurship is what entrepreneurs do when they are being entrepreneurs. Defining either term defines the other by implication. There is no scholarly consensus on what it is that entrepreneurs do when they are being entrepreneurial. Venkataraman, editor of Journal of Business Venturing, has observed: ‘‘. . . there are fundamentally different conceptions and interpretations of the concept of entrepreneur and the entrepreneurial role, consensus on a definition of the field in terms of the entrepreneur is perhaps an impossibility’’ (Venkataraman, 1997: 120). The approach here will be, once again, to explore the range of common use and to argue for a ‘‘precising definition’’ (Salmon, 1995) drawn from that range. 2.1. The ‘‘minimalist’’ sense There is a relatively unsophisticated use of ‘‘entrepreneur’’ especially common in the popular press. An entrepreneur is simply one who starts up and/or runs a small business. Some dictionary definitions reflect this use. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, for instance, defines ‘‘entrepreneur’’ as ‘‘A person who starts or organizes a commercial enterprise, especially one involving financial risk’’ (Barber, 1998: 467). You could call this a ‘‘minimalist’’ understanding of entrepreneurship. On this reading, a social entrepreneur will simply be someone who organizes and/or operates a venture or corporation, which features social goals in one of the ways explicated later in this paper. 58 A.M. Peredo, M. McLean / Journal of World Business 41 (2006) 56–65 2.2. The ‘‘business methods’’ approach According to a somewhat enlarged, but still ‘‘popular’’ understanding of entrepreneurship, the entrepreneurial element in social entrepreneurship is linked closely with borrowing from the outlook and methods of market-driven enterprise. ‘‘The key to social enterprise,’’ writes Pomerantz (2003: 26), involves taking a business-like, innovative approach to the mission of delivering community services. Developing new social enterprise business ventures is only one facet of social entrepreneurship. Another facet is maximizing revenue generation from programs by applying principles from for-profit business without neglecting the core mission. Many accounts in the press, and in material used by not-for-profits and others for training, reflect this ‘‘business methods’’ emphasis. 2.3. In favor of a more developed sense Students of social entrepreneurship who concentrate on its entrepreneurial facet are, however, inclined to draw more specifically on the scholarly literature on entrepreneurship and apply it to the social sphere. The result is a more demanding definition of the entrepreneurial component of social entrepreneurship. This is arguably the more appropriate approach to take to understanding entrepreneurship in general and social entrepreneurship in particular. In outlining the existing range of use of the concept, it must recognized that social entrepreneurship is sometimes understood merely as the initiation and/or management of a social enterprise, perhaps with some explicit recognition of any risks involved in these activities. It seems that the more exacting definition brings into play features that make the notion of entrepreneurship, including social entrepreneurship, a useful conceptual tool. The contention of this paper is that the more scholarly understanding of the concept allows for the recognition within the body of those who launch or administer (social) enterprises a set of individuals and groups who have the capacity to create significantly greater value, often in a shorter period of time, and thus make uncommon contributions to the world of enterprise in which they are engaged. We do not argue that a scholarly review produces a neat definition with a sharply-designated set of individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions. Instead, the investigation points in the direction of a number of features which may be variously combined or weighted, but are positively relevant to considering something an example of entrepreneurship. The result is somewhat flexible, but still enlarged and a more useful view of the entrepreneurial function. Researchers point to the derivation of the word ‘‘entrepreneur’’ from the French entreprendre and the German unternehmen, both of which mean literally ‘‘to undertake,’’ as in accepting a challenging task. They refer to the groundbreaking development of the concept by Cantillon (1680–1734) and Say (1767– 1832), and to the vital contribution of Schumpeter in the 20th Century (see, e.g. Dees, 1998: 2f). What emerges from examining the writings of these scholars is the picture of entrepreneur as risk-taker and innovator who, when successful, contributes fundamentally to creating economic value. Tan, William and Tan (2003) arrive at a similar understanding of the concept by considering ‘‘intuitively plausible examples’’ of entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs, and consulting the Oxford English Dictionary. ‘‘Entrepreneurship,’’ they conclude, ‘‘is the process of attempting . . . to make business profits by innovation in the face of risk’’ (2003: 10). Dees (1998), in pursuing his conviction that social entrepreneurs are one kind of entrepreneur (p. 3), draws on historical and current scholarship concerning entrepreneurship. From Say he adopts the element of value creation; from Schumpeter he takes up the notion of innovation and change. He supplements these on the basis of proposals made by current-day scholars such as Drucker (1985) and Stevenson (e.g. Stevenson, Roberts, & Grousbeck, 1989). Dees credits Drucker with amplifying Say’s concept to stress the entrepreneurial activity of recognizing and exploiting opportunities. He applauds Stevenson for adding the notion of resourcefulness; the refusal to be constrained by prevailing resource limitations. On this basis, Dees defines the entrepreneurial aspect of social entrepreneurship as including (1) the recognition and ‘‘relentless’’ pursuit of new opportunities to further the mission of creating social value, (2) continuous engagement in innovation and modification and (3) bold action undertaken without acceptance of exis- ting resource limitations. The suggestion that emerges is that the above three elements of recognizing opportunities, innovating in some way and displaying resourcefulness should be considered prime candidates for inclusion in the amplified notion of entrepreneurship. In addition, the capacity to endure risk, which Tan et al. (2003) represent many others in including, should be added to the list. A.M. Peredo, M. McLean / Journal of World Business 41 (2006) 56–65 2.4. Entrepreneurs as commendable Perhaps the most elaborate model of social entrepreneurship is that developed by Mort, Weerawardena and Carnegie (2003). They argue that social entrepreneurship is a ‘‘multidimensional’’ construct formed by the intersection of a number of defining characteristics. Referring to a variety of scholarly work on entrepreneurship (e.g. Gartner, 1988; Mintzberg, 1991; Singh, 2001; Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990; Stevenson et al., 1989), they state that social entrepreneurs first of all ‘‘exhibit a balanced judgment, a coherent unity of purpose and action in the face of complexity’’ (Mort et al., 2003: 82). This propensity, they argue, allows the social entrepreneur to balance the interests of multiple stakeholders and to maintain his/her sense of mission in the face of moral intricacy. Second, social entrepreneurs excel at recognizing and taking advantage of opportunities to deliver, in a superior way, the social value they aim to provide. Finally, social entrepreneurs exhibit in the social arena the risk-tolerance, innovativeness and ‘‘proactiveness’’ displayed by commercial entrepreneurs in their setting. At least one characteristic in this list goes beyond what is suggested in other applications of the concept of entrepreneurship to social enterprise. The notion of balanced judgment and steadiness of purpose is an addition to the ideas of opportunity-recognition, risktolerance, innovativeness and resourcefulness already encountered. This proposal raises a general issue in explicating the concept of entrepreneurship, perhaps especially when it is placed in the context of a social mission. It is arguable that with this suggestion, Mort et al. move from describing a social entrepreneur to describing a commendable or successful social entrepreneur. (In describing the ‘‘social’’ element of social entrepreneurship, they describe the social entrepreneur as ‘‘entrepreneurially virtuous’’ (Mort et al., 2003: 82), and expand on that notion using concepts from virtue theory in ethics.) There appear to be echoes of this inclination even in the more restrained list given by Dees (1998). For instance, he describes the social entrepreneur as one who ‘‘relentlessly’’ pursues new opportunities to pursue the social mission and engages in ‘‘continuous’’ innovation (p. 4). Suggestions of this kind are common in the literature aimed at elucidating the idea of social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs, especially social entrepreneurs, are described in terms that emphasize the value of their contributions. The aim of the description is often to celebrate their accomplishments and encourage others 59 to emulate and/or support them. It is natural enough in these circumstances that commentators extend their ‘‘definitions’’ of the phenomenon to include normative characteristics, but there are good reasons to resist the temptation. In offering their own account of social entrepreneurship, Tan et al. (2003) argue persuasively that any plausible definition of ‘‘entrepreneur’’ must allow for unsuccessful entrepreneurs, given that we would all agree there are many cases deserving that description. Similarly, we maintain that any explication of the idea of social entrepreneur must allow that some will have selfish motives behind their social mission, or be less than relentless, or be uneven in their performance, or be otherwise less than exemplary. Once again, it seems obvious that there are many examples of such things in the real world. Dees (1998) labels his own definition as ‘‘idealized’’ (p. 4), explicitly suggesting that actual cases will exemplify his list of characteristics unevenly and partially. A plausible conclusion is that a satisfactory definition of the entrepreneurship component of social entrepreneurship should avoid building in the notions of success or estimability and allow for social entrepreneurs who may be unsuccessful, inconsistent, and otherwise less than exemplary. 3. What makes social entrepreneurship social? There is broad agreement that social entrepreneurs and their undertakings are driven by social goals; that is, the desire to benefit society in some way or ways. This is another way of saying that the social entrepreneur aims in some way to increase ‘‘social value,’’ i.e. to contribute to the welfare or well being in a given human community. Disagreement takes place over the location social goals must have in the purposes of the entrepreneur or his/her undertaking. 3.1. Exclusively social goals and not-for-profit status At one extreme are those who hold that some social goal(s) must be the exclusive aim of the social entrepreneur. As social entrepreneurship scholar, Dees (1998) states ‘‘For social entrepreneurs, the social mission is explicit and central . . .. Mission-related impact becomes the central criterion, not wealth creation. Wealth is just a means to an end for social entrepreneurs [emphasis added]’’ (p. 3). The claim that any wealth generated is just a means to the social end suggests that financial benefit to the entrepreneur has no place among the goals of the undertaking. Accordingly, 60 A.M. Peredo, M. McLean / Journal of World Business 41 (2006) 56–65 a large body of literature (e.g. Dees, Emerson, & Economy, 2002) locates the concept of social entrepreneurship in the world of non-for-profit (NFP) organizations. This idea may even be taken to include associations aimed at delivering some social good or service without engaging in any form of exchange, i.e. with no ‘‘earned income’’ activities. Anderson and Dees (2002), for instance, ask the question whether earned income generation, resulting from some form of exchange of a product or service, is essential to social entrepreneurship. Their answer is emphatic: ‘‘No! It is not. Social entrepreneurship is about finding new and better ways to create and sustain social value’’ (p. 192). On ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

TutorLarra
School: UIUC

Attached.

Surname1
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date

Article Review


Introduction
Social entrepreneurship revolves about developing models to satisfy humans.



Summary
Social entrepreneurship is like the business entrepreneurship whose goal is to capture
what former or existing entities have missed. It, therefore, seizes the opportunities to
improve current systems, develop solutions and invent new ways of meeting human
needs.



Personal Opinion
The success of social entrepreneurship is facilitated by big organizations that are stable
enough to fund the implementation of sustainable development ideas.



Works cited
Seelos, Christian, and Johanna Mair. "Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business
models to serve the poor." Business horizons 48.3 (2005): 241-246.


Surname1
Student’s Name
Course Instructor
Course Name
Due Date
Article Review
Social entrepreneurship is the inception and accumulation of many sustainable ideas
whose principal goal is to develop models that aim at efficiently meeting primary and secondary
human wants running short in the existing markets. The concept of social entr...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
awesome work thanks

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors