Until the mid-twentieth century, Southeast Asia and North America were the predominant destinations for Chinese emigrants. Amid the Voyage to Nanyang exodus, the California Gold Rush and the Transcontinental Railroad construction, millions of Chinese migrants, overwhelmingly from Guangdong and Fujian provinces in southern China, ventured to Southeast Asia and North America for better opportunities (Godley, 2002). When these early Chinese immigrants first arrived in the host countries, they were in effect sojourners aiming to remit sums of money to their families in China (Dana, 2014: 259). They also intended to return to China in their old age to enjoy the fruits of their ‘arduous labours in exile’ (Willmott, 1966: 254). For example, Loewen (1971: 27) argues that the early Chinese people in Mississippi were not true immigrants, but were sojourners and planning to return to China when ‘their task was accomplished’. These Chinese immigrants were faced with different levels of hostility from local residents, who saw them as greedy individuals, exploiting their advantageous economic position (for example, Chinese in Thailand; Coughlin, 1960). Members of the Chinese community often were excluded from many formal occupations, which led them to focus on the trade and commerce sectors and act as intermediaries between customers and producers. For example, Willmott’s (1966) study found that 84 per cent of Chinese immigrants in Cambodia were engaged in the commercial sector, which is significantly higher than the Cambodian average of 6.5 per cent. Appleton (1960) found that in the Philippines, ethnic Chinese held 23 per cent of the total commercial investment and nearly 30 per cent of the total investment in retail and import–export trade, despite only making up 1 to 2 per cent of the national population. Loewen (1971) found that 97 per cent of the Chinese immigrants in Mississippi, USA, were operating grocery stores.
Browse by title
Tenghao Zhang, Pi-Shen Seet, Janice Redmond, Jalleh Sharafizad and Wee-Liang Tan
Entrepreneurship has become a nearly universal synonym for proactive development and initiative worldwide, it generates considerable interest, thousands of professors teaching tens of thousands of classes worldwide, and generates a wealth of research (Aldrich, 2012) of which this encyclopedia is emblematic. For example, all the chapters are fundamentally encouraging and supportive of continuing and expanding entrepreneurship promotion and all its associated activities. Social media and entertainment are saturated with success stories of unicorns, that is, anomalies that fail to reflect the actual entrepreneurial environment (Aldrich and Ruef, 2018). However, from a purely social science perspective, no intervention is without weaknesses, and there are unanticipated consequences of nearly every attempt to advance one group over another (Doane, 2013; Koopmans, 2003; Levy, 2010). The discussion of entrepreneurial failure seems to have been swept under the proverbial rug, as we enthusiastically march on to promote solutions to problems often only poorly understood, such as inequality, lack of mobility and weak economic development. The field’s enthusiasm is effusive, as the noted scholar Don Kuratko (2005: 578) enthusiastically reports: ‘The revolution has begun in an economic sense, and the entrepreneurial perspective is the dominant force!’ Perhaps the most ubiquitous factor promoting entrepreneurship is the education sector, where interventions occur throughout the world, from kindergarten through postgraduate training and on to faculty and research scholars. Yet, despite the enthusiasm for training and preparing individuals, entrepreneurship support is a poorly understood and weakly researched domain. A recent systematic review reported that: Despite considerable enthusiasm in the public policy sphere, our review clearly demonstrates that research in the field provides only limited and highly idiosyncratic findings designed to help general and technology-based entrepreneurs to effectively succeed. Studies rarely utilize control populations and are based on weak theoretical backgrounds. They fail to incorporate state of the art methods and are typically cross sectional or of a case study nature. (Ratinho et al., 2020)
James M. Crick and David Crick
Coopetition is a fundamental entrepreneurial marketing strategy (Bouncken and Kraus, 2013; Bengtsson and Johansson, 2014; Granata et al., 2018; Crick, 2020a; Crick and Crick, 2020). It is the interplay between cooperation and competition, whereby competing firms share resources (for example, equipment and hardware) and capabilities (such as knowledge and experience) for mutually beneficial outcomes (Ritala and Hurmelinna- Laukkanen, 2013; Bengtsson and Raza-Ullah, 2016; Hannah and Eisenhardt, 2018). Since coopetition strategies are intended to provide companies with new resources, capabilities and opportunities that would not exist under individualistic business models, it is not surprising that an existing body of research surrounds the link between coopetition and company performance (Ang, 2008; Ritala, 2012; Gnyawali and Charleton, 2018; Crick, 2019a). A common theme throughout the broader cross-disciplinary literature is that higher-levels of coopetition lead to increased company performance (Bengtsson and Kock, 2014; Shu et al., 2017; Hoffmann et al., 2018; Crick et al., 2020a). Coopetition has been examined in various empirical contexts; for example, automotive manufacturers (Akpinar and Vincze, 2016), high-technology firms (Gnyawali and Park, 2011), airline carriers (Czakon and Dana, 2013), tourism service providers (Czakon and Czernek, 2016), agricultural markets (Felzensztein and Deans, 2013), craft breweries (Mathias et al., 2018) and sporting organisations (Crick and Crick, 2016a). However, entrepreneurs owning wine-producing businesses within various countries have been active in implementing coopetition strategies. Specifically, various countries’ wine sectors host high degrees of cooperativeness and competitiveness – ideal forces (industry dynamics) for studying coopetition (see, for example, Telfer, 2001; Dana and Winstone, 2008; Dana et al., 2013; Crick, 2018a; Felzensztein et al., 2019; Granata et al., 2019). Consequently, the purpose of this chapter is to highlight the benefits and drawbacks of coopetition strategies by utilising published work from the global wine industry. This is important, so that scholarly and practical recommendations can follow regarding the effective implementation of coopetition strategies by owner-managers in competitive business environments. In addition, this investigation emphasises certain under-researched issues that academics can pursue to strengthen the existing body of knowledge.
Donald F. Kuratko, Michael H. Morris and Jeffrey G. Covin
Large firms, especially those in maturing industries, must continually restructure and reinvent themselves, learning to become more innovative, if they hope to sustain themselves for the future (Kuratko et al., 2019). As innovation has emerged as a key contributor to sustainable advantage, corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is being embraced by executives as a focal point for organizational success (Ireland et al., 2009). Firms that are more entrepreneurial (that is, more adaptable, flexible, aggressive and innovative) are better positioned to not only respond to a dynamic, threatening and complex external environment, but create change in that environment. They do not take the external environment as a given, instead defining themselves as agents of change, leading customers instead of following them, creating new markets and rewriting the rules of the competitive game. However, despite the espoused and observed positive effects of CE, theoretical and empirical knowledge about the domain of CE and the entrepreneurial behavior on which it is based are key areas warranting greater attention (Hornsby et al., 2002; Dess et al., 2003; Hornsby et al., 2009). A fundamental ambiguity exists in the literature concerning what it means to have CE as a corporate strategy (Meyer and Heppard, 2000). Further, much is unknown about how CE is enacted in organizational settings.
Olga Belousova, Aard Groen and Norris Krueger
Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is commonly understood as a process that allows established companies to extend and reorient profiles of their activities, entering new markets and creating new businesses. One of the most seminal definitions of CE describes it as a process whereby an individual or a group of individuals, in association with an existing organization, create a new organization or instigate renewal or innovation within that organization (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999). The CE process is believed to possess the following specific properties. First, CE is based on new resource combinations and extension of the existing competencies (Birkinshaw, 1997; Burgelman, 1983a; Covin and Miles, 1999). Second, it often requires a departure from the existing practices and the ability of a firm to acquire innovative skills and capabilities (Birkinshaw, 1997; Burgelman, 1983a; Covin and Slevin, 1991; Floyd and Wooldridge, 1999; Hornsby et al., 2002). Finally, while Vesper (1984), Carrier (1996) and Birkinshaw (1997) draw our attention to the role of employee’s initiative, Pinchot (1985) further introduces the notion of responsibility, and Chung and Gibbons (1997) suggest that CE activity is a collective action. Hence, the main characteristics of the process of CE are the use of internal resources (slack, saved or generated), enlargement of the competencies base of the company into new business areas, acquisition of new knowledge and skills to enter these areas, and the initiative of employees (individually or in group) who take responsibility for the project.
Garima Jha and Robert D. Hisrich
Starting and operating a new business even under a corporate umbrella includes considerable risks and effort to overcome the inertia of creating something new of value to the organization as well as to the market and the individuals. In creating and growing a new corporate venture the corporate entrepreneur assumes the responsibility and risks for its development and survival. The term ‘entrepreneurship’ means different things to different individuals. Here are several questions that are often asked: who is an entrepreneur? What is an entrepreneur? What is corporate entrepreneurship? What are corporate and social entrepreneurship? What is the entrepreneurial process? These frequently asked questions reflect the increased national and international interest in entrepreneurship by individuals, businesses, people, academics, students and government officials.
Dianne H.B. Welsh
Since the dawn of the millennium, cross-disciplinary entrepreneurship education has taken hold in primarily US universities, colleges and even in two-year community colleges. It has evolved from being solely in business schools (Dana, 1992, 1993; Gorman et al., 1997). There are also a few examples of universities globally that have adopted this model. Crossdisciplinary entrepreneurship education, for the purposes of our study, refers to courses outside the discipline of entrepreneurship, almost solely located in business schools that have two or more learning objectives (goals) in entrepreneurship together with disciplinespecific learning objectives which are carried through in the assignments and exercises in the class and then measured (Welsh, 2014). Entrepreneurship is woven or blended in the subject and applied for better understanding and application to the discipline (Welsh, 2014). The role of faculty buy-in and participation cannot be over-emphasized when it comes to the success of cross-disciplinary programs (Schneider, 2015). Hynes (1996) developed an early model to integrate entrepreneurship education across campus, focusing on process based on the needs of different groups of students. Engineering has been the predominant discipline in which entrepreneurship has been integrated and achieved early on, but now entrepreneurship education has been integrated in all disciplines, from the arts to the sciences. Experiential education is a popular component of entrepreneurship curricula and is included as a vital component of cross-campus entrepreneurship programs. Internships often are included as either required or elective courses in entrepreneurship programs and may be in multiple departments across campus. Internships give students one-onone experience in entrepreneurial businesses, start-ups, and often include a modeling or shadowing component with an entrepreneur. Internships add experience to the résumé of students before graduating. Internships provide a reality check for students. Giacomin et al. (2016: 938), in a study comparing optimism and overconfidence in students from the US, Spain and India, concluded that ‘students may be unaware of the reality of being an entrepreneur, such as long hours, heavy work load, stress, financial risks, less job security, few benefits, greater vulnerability to market shifts and microeconomic downturns, challenges in balancing work and family, and . . . failure’.
Louis Jacques Filion
This chapter reflects on the notion of defining the entrepreneur. After presenting some background information on the various meanings associated with the term ‘entrepreneur’, we introduce the three main pioneers who dealt with this subject: Cantillon, Say and Schumpeter. Fifteen of the most frequently mentioned elements from definitions found in the literature were retained, along with 12 of the activities that best characterize what entrepreneurs do. Six main components are proposed for inclusion in a definition of the entrepreneur: (1) innovation, (2) opportunity recognition, (3) risk management, (4) action, (5) use of resources and (6) added value. Some sample definitions are proposed, and the conclusion suggests that there are different levels of innovation and of entrepreneurial expression. What is an entrepreneur? What characterizes entrepreneurs and distinguishes them from other organizational and social actors? How can the entrepreneur be defined? These are typical questions that most new entrepreneurship researchers ask, and to which a variety of answers can be found in the literature. As for why there is such a broad range of perspectives, the answer is far from simple.
Kerstin Wagner and Oliver Som
The long tradition of entrepreneurship research has mainly focused on ‘how, by whom and with what consequences opportunities to produce future goods and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited’ (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000: 218). In addition to the ongoing digital transformation of economies driven by the diffusion of digital technologies, a multitude of new entrepreneurial opportunities is emerging. Owing to new requirements for work in a digital economy, work values have evolved to constitute a greater appreciation of teamwork and connectedness. This entails new cognitive (for example, knowledge of digital technologies, and digital literacy) and behavioural capabilities of working in and with digital platforms (for example, co-creation, information seeking and sharing, tackling problems and seeing new opportunities, and managing virtual teams). Furthermore, accessibility to social capital (such as networks, business partners and mentors) and to formal and informal networks, the exploitation novel funding opportunities (for example, crowdfunding) and the unlocking of tacit knowledge (for example, online technical assistance, technical databases, and communities of users and experts) are gaining increasing relevance (Smith et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018). General management literature reveals findings on how digitalization affects the demand for new workplace skills (Sousa and Rocha, 2019) and competencies (Lobo and Whyte, 2017). However, little is known about how the characteristic context of digital transformation influences the nature of entrepreneurship.
Donato Cutolo and Jan Vang
Digital platforms have changed the conditions influencing entrepreneurship across the globe. Research has shown that context is critical in understanding how these platforms impact entrepreneurial endeavors. This chapter illustrates how context is critical in understanding and analyzing how digital platforms influence entrepreneurial opportunities. It suggests that digital platforms represent a new type of intersection between the global and the local, where global forces promote conditions of dependent entrepreneurship. In contrast, local forces shape entrepreneurs’ agency in relation to the global processes. We suggest that, to ensure fair competition and just working conditions for platform entrepreneurs and employees within the industry, there is a need for policies not being steered by techno-skeptical or techno-optimistic frameworks but by a balanced approach. Since Joseph Schumpeter at least, it has been recognized that entrepreneurs discover and create opportunities and build new independent firms (Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Audretsch, 2007). More recently, scholars such as Brynjolffson and McAfee (2016) have hailed entrepreneurship as a vital response to the increasing concerns about digitization’s impact on entrepreneurship and the future of work. The impact of digital platforms on entrepreneurship has emerged simultaneously with a recognition of the importance of context in generic entrepreneurship research. Researching context in relation to digital platforms provides a particular challenge to researchers owing to their simultaneous global and localized nature; the interplay between the global and the local is more complex than in most other industries given the high digital interconnectivity and limited footlessness for many types of transactions and activities. A request on, for example, Innocentive, the world’s leading problem-solving digital platform, can be promoted to potential problem-solvers across the globe at the same time.