Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:47:21.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adopting Bricolage to Overcome Resource Constraints: The Case of Social Enterprises in Rural India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2019

Pradeep Kumar Hota Open the ORCID record for Pradeep Kumar Hota [Opens in a new window] ,
Sumit Mitra  and
Israr Qureshi
Pradeep Kumar Hota*
Affiliation:
LM Thapar School of Management, TIET, India
Sumit Mitra
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, India
Israr Qureshi
Affiliation:
The Australian National University, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Pradeep Kumar Hota (Pradeep.hota@gmail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Social enterprises (SEs) primarily aim to create social value, that is, to generate benefits or reduce costs for society, while maintaining financial sustainability. Owing to their unique operating conditions and organizational characteristics, SEs face more severe resource challenges than their commercial counterparts. These challenges are exacerbated for SEs operating in emerging economies with complex social contexts. Overcoming these resource constraints and social challenges is vital for SEs to achieve their mission. Using an inductive multiple case-study approach, we identify a unique bricolage solution for achieving the dual objectives of SEs. Our findings suggest that identifying locally embedded village level entrepreneurs is a bricolage activity that social entrepreneurs leverage in the resource constrained environment of emerging economies, especially for the social enterprises that are active in the villages but were founded by social entrepreneurs who are not from these villages. This article therefore contributes to both social entrepreneurship literature as well as entrepreneurial bricolage literature and has important implications for future research and practice.

摘要

社会企业的主要目标在于创造社会价值，即在维持财务可续性的同时，为社会创造利润或减少成本。由于社会企业独特的运营条件和组织特征，它们比商业企业遇到更为严峻的资源挑战。而在复杂社会环境下的新兴经济体中运营的社会企业，这些挑战更为严重。克服这些资源和社会挑战对社会企业实现使命至关重要。我们采用归纳性的多案例方法发现，社会企业在实现双重目标的过程中采用了一种独特的拼贴方案。我们的发现表明，找出嵌入在当地的乡村水平的企业家，是社会企业家在新兴经济的资源约束环境下可以利用的一种拼贴活动，尤其对于那些活跃在乡村但创立者又不是来自这些乡村的社会企业而言更是如此。这篇文章既对于社会企业创业和创业拼贴的文献做出了贡献，也对于未来的研究和实践具有重要意义。

Аннотация

Социальные предприятия (СП) в первую очередь стремятся создавать социальные блага, а именно получать выгоду или снижать затраты для общества, сохраняя при этом финансовую устойчивость. Ввиду этих уникальных условий работы и организационных особенностей, СП сталкиваются с более серьезным недостатком ресурсов, чем коммерческие предприятия. Эти проблемы усугубляются для СП, которые работают в странах с развивающейся экономикой в сложных социальных условиях. Преодоление этих ресурсных ограничений и социальных проблем жизненно необходимо для выполнения миссии СП. Используя индуктивный подход, основанный на множественных тематических исследованиях, мы находим уникальное решение бриколажа для достижения двуединых целей СП. Наши результаты показывают, что идентификация местных предпринимателей на уровне села является бриколажной деятельностью, которую социальные предприниматели используют в развивающихся странах в условиях нехватки ресурсов, особенно в случае социальных предприятий, которые работают в деревнях, но были основаны социальными предпринимателями, которые не являются выходцами из этих деревень. Таким образом, данная статья вносит свой вклад как в литературу по социальному предпринимательству, так и в литературу по бриколажу предпринимателей, а также делает важные выводы для будущих научных исследований и практической деятельности.

Resumen

Las empresas sociales (ES) tienen como objetivo principal crear valor social, o sea, generar beneficios o reducir los costos para la sociedad, al mismo tiempo que mantienen la sostenibilidad financiera. Debido a sus condiciones únicas de operación y características de organización, las empresas sociales enfrentan desafíos de recursos más severos que sus contrapartes comerciales. Estos desafíos son exacerbados para las empresas sociales que operan en economías emergentes con contextos sociales complejos. Superar estas limitaciones de recursos y desafíos sociales es vital para que las empresas sociales logren su misión. Usando un enfoque de estudio de caso múltiple inductivo, identificamos una solución de bricolaje única para lograr los objetivos duales de las empresas sociales. Nuestros hallazgos sugieren que la identificación de emprendedores a nivel de aldea localmente insertados es una actividad de bricolaje que los emprendedores sociales apalancan en el entorno de recursos limitados de las economías emergentes, especialmente para las empresas sociales que están activas en las aldeas pero que fueron fundadas por emprendedores sociales que no son de estas aldeas. Este artículo por lo tanto contribuye tanto a la literatura de emprendimiento social como a la literatura de bricolaje empresarial y tiene implicaciones importantes para la investigación y la práctica futuras.

Keywords

bricolageemerging economiesqualitative researchresource mobilizationsocial enterprise拼贴新兴经济定性研究资源调动社会企业бриколажразвивающиеся экономикикачественные исследованиямобилизация ресурсовсоциальное предприятиеbricolajeeconomías emergentesinvestigación cualitativamovilización de recursosempresa social
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 15 , Special Issue 2: Doing Qualitative Research in Emerging Markets , June 2019 , pp. 371 - 402
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Accepted by: Senior Editor Shameen Prashantham

References

REFERENCES

Andersen, O. J. 2008. A bottom-up perspective on innovations: Mobilizing knowledge and social capital through innovative processes of bricolage. Administration & Society, 40(1): 54–78.10.1177/0095399707311775Google Scholar
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. 2006. Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Baker, T. 2007. Resources in play: Bricolage in the Toy Store (y). Journal of Business Venturing, 22(5): 694–711.Google Scholar
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. 2005. Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3): 329–366.Google Scholar
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. 2009. How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1): 65–107.Google Scholar
Behera, U. K., Sharma, A. R., & Mahapatra, I. C. 2007. Crop diversification for efficient resource management in India: Problems, prospects and policy. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 30(3): 97–127.Google Scholar
Bhatt, B., Qureshi, I., & Riaz, S. 2017. Social entrepreneurship in non-munificent institutional environments and implications for institutional work: Insights from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–26.Google Scholar
Bristow, G. 2010. Resilient regions: Re-‘place'ing regional competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1): 153–167.Google Scholar
Burgers, H., Stuetzer, M., & Senyard, J. M. 2014. Antecedents, consequences, and the mediating role of bricolage in corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1): 13473.10.5465/ambpp.2014.13473abstractGoogle Scholar
Cai, Y., & Cheng, Y. 2014. Pension reform in China: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Economic Surveys, 28(4): 636–651.10.1111/joes.12082Google Scholar
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. 2013. Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3): 294–320.10.1177/0049124113500475Google Scholar
Census Data. 2011. Population Data. [Cited 10 February 2018]. Retrieved from URL: http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-Common/CensusData2011.htmlGoogle Scholar
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Christopherson, S., Michie, J., & Tyler, P. 2010. Regional resilience: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1): 3–10.Google Scholar
Collier, P. 2007. The bottom billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. 2017. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Andersson, U., Brannen, M. Y., Nielsen, B. B., & Reuber, A. R. 2016. From the Editors: Can I trust your findings? Ruling out alternative explanations in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(8): 881–897.10.1057/s41267-016-0005-4Google Scholar
Dart, R. 2004. The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(4): 411–424.Google Scholar
Desa, G. 2012. Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: Bricolage as a mechanism of institutional transformation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4): 727–751.Google Scholar
Desa, G., & Basu, S. 2013. Optimization or bricolage? Overcoming resource constraints in global social entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(1): 26–49.Google Scholar
Desa, G., & Koch, J. L. 2014. Scaling social impact: Building sustainable social ventures at the base-of-the-pyramid. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(2): 146–174.Google Scholar
Di Domenico, M., Tracey, P., & Haugh, H. 2009. Social economy involvement in public service delivery: Community engagement and accountability. Regional Studies, 43(7): 981–992.Google Scholar
Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. 2010. Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4): 681–703.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W.W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.Google Scholar
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. 2014. Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4): 417–436.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. 1986. How institutions think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Duymedjian, R., & Rüling, C. C. 2010. Towards a foundation of bricolage in organization and management theory. Organization Studies, 31(2): 133–151.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.10.5465/amr.1989.4308385Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 25–32.10.5465/amj.2007.24160888Google Scholar
Farmer, J., Steinerowski, A., & Jack, S. 2008. Starting social enterprises in remote and rural Scotland: Best or worst of circumstances? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 6(3): 450–464.Google Scholar
Ferneley, E., & Bell, F. 2006. Using bricolage to integrate business and information technology innovation in SMEs. Technovation, 26(2): 232–241.10.1016/j.technovation.2005.03.005Google Scholar
Fletcher, M., & Prashantham, S. 2011. Knowledge assimilation processes of rapidly internationalising firms: Longitudinal case studies of Scottish SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 18(3): 475–501.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. 1997. Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4): 397–405.10.1177/0002764297040004003Google Scholar
Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., Kor, Y. Y., & Mahoney, J. T. 2008. Entrepreneurship, subjectivism, and the resource based view: Toward a new synthesis. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1): 73–94.Google Scholar
Friese, S. 2014. Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS. ti. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. 2006. Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(1): 1–8.Google Scholar
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2): 277–300.10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00100-2Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. 2017. Theoretical sampling. In Denzin, N. K. (Ed.), Sociological methods: A sourcebook: 105–114. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315129945-10Google Scholar
Goll, I., & Rasheed, A. A. 2004. The moderating effect of environmental munificence and dynamism on the relationship between discretionary social responsibility and firm performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1): 41–54.Google Scholar
Gras, D., & Lumpkin, G. T. 2012. Strategic foci in social and commercial entrepreneurship: A comparative analysis. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 3(1): 6–23.Google Scholar
Gundry, L. K., Kickul, J. R., Griffiths, M. D., & Bacq, S. C. 2011. Creating social change out of nothing: The role of entrepreneurial bricolage in social entrepreneurs' catalytic innovations. In Lumpkin, G. T. & Katz, J. A. (Eds.), Social and sustainable entrepreneurship: Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth (Vol. 13): 1–24. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Haugh, H. 2005. The role of social enterprise in regional development. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 2(4): 346–357.10.1504/IJESB.2005.007085Google Scholar
Haugh, H. 2007. Community led social venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(2): 161–182.Google Scholar
Jha, S. K., Pinsonneault, A., & Dubé, L., 2016. The evolution of an ICT platform-enabled ecosystem for poverty alleviation: The case of eKutir. MIS Quarterly, 40(2):431–445.Google Scholar
Johannisson, B. 2000. Networking and entrepreneurial growth. In Sexton, D. L. & Landstrom, H. (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of entrepreneurship: 348–386. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Karat, B. 2016. Justice continues to elude Kandhamal. [Cited 16 September 2018]. Retrieved from URL: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/justice-continues-to-elude-kandhamal/article7612329.eceGoogle Scholar
Karnani, A. 2007. The mirage of marketing to the bottom of the pyramid: How the private sector can help alleviate poverty. California Management Review, 49(4): 90–111.Google Scholar
Kistruck, G. M., Beamish, P. W., Qureshi, I., & Sutter, C. J. 2013. Social intermediation in base of the pyramid markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1): 31–66.Google Scholar
Kistruck, G. M., Webb, J. W., Sutter, C. J., & Ireland, R. D. 2011. Microfranchising in base of the pyramid markets: Institutional challenges and adaptations to the franchise model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(3): 503–531.Google Scholar
Kitchen, L., & Marsden, T. 2009. Creating sustainable rural development through stimulating the eco-economy: Beyond the eco-economic paradox? Sociologia Ruralis, 49(3): 273–294.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, S., Müller, S., & Tanvig, H. W. 2015. Rural entrepreneurship or entrepreneurship in the rural–between place and space. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21(1): 5–26.Google Scholar
Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 64–81.Google Scholar
Kvale, S. 1996. InterViewing. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Langley, A. N. N., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 1–13.10.5465/amj.2013.4001Google Scholar
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. 1985. Establishing trustworthiness. In Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (Eds.), Naturalistic Inquiry: 289–331. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Linna, P. 2013. Bricolage as a means of innovating in a resource-scarce environment: A study of innovator-entrepreneurs at the BOP. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 18(03): 1–23.Google Scholar
Locke, K. 2001. Grounded theory in management research. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Loiwal, M. 2017. Odisha: SOG jawan killed, 10 injured in Maoist ambush in Kandhamal. [Cited 16 September 2018]. Retrieved from URL: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/odisha-maoist-ambush-sog-jawan-killed-several-injured-981004-2017-06-05Google Scholar
Mair, J., & Marti, I. 2006. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1): 36–44.Google Scholar
Mair, J., & Marti, I. 2007. Entrepreneurship for social impact: Encouraging market access in rural Bangladesh. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 7(4): 493–501.Google Scholar
Mair, J., & Marti, I. 2009. Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5): 419–435.10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.006Google Scholar
Mair, J., & Schoen, O. 2007. Successful social entrepreneurial business models in the context of developing economies: An explorative study. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2(1): 54–68.Google Scholar
Mair, J., Martí, I., & Ventresca, M. J. 2012. Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 819–850.Google Scholar
Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. 2007. Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2): 28–39.Google Scholar
Mehta, A., & Bhattacharya, J. 2016. The role of household-level characteristics in predicting the unbanked in rural India: A comparison of Eastern and Western regions. IUP Journal of Applied Economics, 15(4): 48–73.Google Scholar
Meyskens, M., Robb-Post, C., Stamp, J. A., Carsrud, A. L., & Reynolds, P. D. 2010. Social ventures from a resource based perspective: An exploratory study assessing global ashoka fellows. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4): 661–680.Google Scholar
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: A method sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Mir, R., & Watson, A. 2001. Critical realism and constructivism in strategy research: Toward a synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 22(12): 1169–1173.Google Scholar
Munoz, S. A., Steiner, A., & Farmer, J. 2014. Processes of community-led social enterprise development: Learning from the rural context. Community Development Journal, 50(3): 478–493.Google Scholar
NIC. 2018. Kandhamal district report . [Cited on 16 September 2018]. Retrieved from URL: https://kandhamal.nic.in/Google Scholar
Niti Aayog India report, 2017. Report on infant mortality rate. [Cited 12 February 2018]. Retrieved from URL: http://niti.gov.in/annual-reportsGoogle Scholar
Patton, M. Q. 2015. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1): 56–65.Google Scholar
Platteau, J. P., & Gaspart, F. 2003. The risk of resource misappropriation in community-driven development. World Development, 31(10): 1687–1703.Google Scholar
Poulis, K., Poulis, E., & Plakoyiannaki, E. 2013. The role of context in case study selection: An international business perspective. International Business Review, 22(1): 304–314.Google Scholar
Prahalad, C. K. 2006. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Qureshi, I., Kistruck, G. M., & Bhatt, B. 2016. The enabling and constraining effects of social ties in the process of institutional entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 37(3): 425–447.Google Scholar
Qureshi, I., Sutter, C., & Bhatt, B. 2018. The transformative power of knowledge sharing in settings of poverty and social inequality. Organization Studies, 39(11): 1575–1599.Google Scholar
RBI Report, 2015. Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy. [Cited 10 February 2018]. Retrieved from URL: https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/PublicationsView.aspx?id=16603Google Scholar
Riaz, S., & Qureshi, I. 2017. Emergence of a new institutional logic: Shaping the institutionally complex field of community radio in India. In Seidel, M.-D. L. & Greve, H. R. (Eds.), Emergence: 383–418. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Routray, P., Schmidt, W. P., Boisson, S., Clasen, T., & Jenkins, M. W. 2015. Socio-cultural and behavioural factors constraining latrine adoption in rural coastal Odisha: An exploratory qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 15(1): 880.Google Scholar
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. 2005. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Saebi, T., Foss, N. J., & Linder, S. 2019. Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. Journal of Management, 45(1): 70–95.Google Scholar
Saldana, J. 2013. The coding manual for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. 2008. Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Shaw, E., & Carter, S. 2007. Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(3): 418–434.Google Scholar
Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. 2009. Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2): 161–194.10.1002/sej.69Google Scholar
Sinha, L. N., Kaur, P., Gupta, R., Dalpath, S., Goyal, V., & Murhekar, M. 2014. Newborn care practices and home-based postnatal newborn care programme–Mewat, Haryana, India, 2013. Western Pacific Surveillance and Response Journal: WPSAR, 5(3): 22–29.10.5365/wpsar.2014.5.1.006Google Scholar
Smith, A., Fressoli, M., & Thomas, H. 2014. Grassroots innovation movements: Challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63: 114–124.Google Scholar
Stake, R. E. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Staw, B. M., & Szwajkowski, E. 1975. The scarcity-munificence component of organizational environments and the commission of illegal acts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(3): 345–354.Google Scholar
Steinerowski, A. A., & Steinerowska-Streb, I. 2012. Can social enterprise contribute to creating sustainable rural communities? Using the lens of structuration theory to analyse the emergence of rural social enterprise. Local Economy, 27(2): 167–182.Google Scholar
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1994. Grounded theory methodology . Handbook of qualitative research, 17: 273–285.Google Scholar
Suddaby, R. 2006. From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 633–642.Google Scholar
Sunduramurthy, C., Zheng, C., Musteen, M., Francis, J., & Rhyne, L. 2016. Doing more with less, systematically? Bricolage and engineering in successful social ventures. Journal of World Business, 51(5): 855–870.10.1016/j.jwb.2016.06.005Google Scholar
Sutter, C. J., Webb, J. W., Kistruck, G. M., & Bailey, A. V. 2013. Entrepreneurs' responses to semi-formal illegitimate institutional arrangements. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6): 743–758.Google Scholar
Teasdale, S. 2010. How can social enterprise address disadvantage? Evidence from an inner city community. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(2): 89–107.Google Scholar
Urban, B. 2013. Social entrepreneurship in an emerging economy: A focus on the institutional environment and social entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Managing Global Transitions, 11(1): 3–25.Google Scholar
Venkatesh, V., Rai, A., Sykes, T. A., & Aljafari, R. 2016. Combating infant mortality in rural India: Evidence from a field study of eHealth kiosk implementations. MIS Quarterly, 40(2): 353–380.10.25300/MISQ/2016/40.2.04Google Scholar
Viswanathan, M., & Sridharan, S. 2009. From subsistence marketplaces to sustainable marketplaces: A bottom-up perspective on the role of business in poverty alleviation. Ivey Business Journal, 73(2): 1–15.Google Scholar
Viswanathan, M., Gajendiran, S., & Venkatesan, R. 2008. Enabling consumer and entrepreneurial literacy in subsistence marketplaces (Vol. 12). Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Viswanathan, M., Sridharan, S., Ritchie, R., Venugopal, S., & Jung, K. 2012. Marketing interactions in subsistence marketplaces: A bottom-up approach to designing public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(2):159–177.Google Scholar
Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. 2017. How should we (not) judge the ‘quality’ of qualitative research? A re-assessment of current evaluative criteria in International Business. Journal of World Business, 52(5): 714–725.Google Scholar
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. 2011. Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 740–762.Google Scholar
West, G. P. III, Bamford, C. E., & Marsden, J. W. 2008. Contrasting entrepreneurial economic development in emerging Latin American economies: Applications and extensions of resource-based theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1): 15–36.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. 2010. Building social business models: Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3): 308–325.Google Scholar