Southeast Asian capitalism: History,institutions, states,and firms

This paper examines the structures of capitalism in Southeast Asia. Following the lead of Gordon Redding and others, it argues that parallel to varieties of capitalism elsewhere, there are distinctive features to the Southeast Asian business system, but that institutions play a relatively large role compared to firm specific resources or industry structures. Historically, with the exception of Thailand all the countries in the region are former colonies. All including Thailand share a distinctive style of nationalism, and partly as a result of this, all are governed by states that claim to be strong and lay wide claims but whose capacities are low. Typical features of the region, particularly the roles of large business groups and the Chinese minority, also can be interpreted as a result of this history. One of the outcomes of the analysis is an extension of the varieties of capitalism approach along the dimensions of state capacity and state direction, and of the approach to the internationalizing firm along the dimensions of dynamic capacity and control of subsidiaries. A further outcome is a questioning of the traditional picture of indigenous Southeast Asian business people as lacking in entrepreneurial skills, or more broadly of Southeast Asian nations as lacking in entrepreneurial values. Rather, the past history of these countries has resulted in a set of structures that militate against successful entrepreneurial activity.

Only the Brave: Product Innovation,Service Business Model Innovation,and Their Impact on Performance

Recent empirical findings concerning the performance effects of service business model innovation (servitization) and its interplay with product innovation are mixed. Using the lenses of the demand‐based view on value creation and complementarity, the performance impact of two key service business models is examined: the product‐oriented model and the customer‐oriented model, implemented jointly with product innovation. Results indicate that the interplay between service business model innovation and product innovation results in long‐term performance benefits coupled with a degree of short‐term performance sacrifice. Service business model innovation in isolation from product innovation results in short‐term profit gains but long‐term knowledge loss and, thus, market performance decline. Our study suggests that firms need to look beyond the evidence on short‐term effects in order to achieve superior performance in the long run.     

Linking organizational learning and customer capital through an ambidexterity context: an empirical investigation in SMEs1

Ambidexterity is an organization's context to achieve alignment and adaptability simultaneously within the organization learning processes. This paper examines the relationship between and significance of two key factors of organization learning (exploration and exploitation of knowledge) and two possible control factors (company size and sector) on the ambidexterity context, and their effects on the creation of customer capital. These relationships are examined through an empirical investigation of 269 Spanish SMEs from two different sectors (Optometry and Telecommunications), using structural equation modelling validated by factor analysis. The results indicate that the effects of exploration and exploitation of knowledge on customer capital are mediated through an ambidexterity context, which in this study is not affected by the size of SMEs but might be related to the sector in which they operate.     

Firm heterogeneity, productivity and spatially bounded knowledge externalities

In this paper, we argue that conceptually disentangling the ‘context versus composition’ aspects of regional growth is a multilevel issue. By applying multilevel models (also called random-effects models), we show (1) the importance of considering firm-specific characteristics simultaneously with region-specific characteristics, as we find that a large part of what is traditionally assigned to the impact of the region should be assigned to firm-specific characteristics and (2) that existing single-level methodologies can be problematic, as they are vulnerable to the charge of estimating significance levels that are too liberally assigned and promote exaggerations. This is illustrated empirically by showing that single-level approaches would lead to the conclusion that innovation spillovers are highly significant in a setting of Dutch urban growth differentials, while multilevel analyses shows less liberally assigned significance levels. We conclude that multilevel-effect models better fit research questions that combine firm and spatial characteristics simultaneously, especially because they allow firm-specific characteristics to be differently linked to their regional contexts.     

Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A Convergent Process Model

Sustainable entrepreneurship pursues a triple bottom line approach of economic, social and ecological goals. The main aim of this paper is to add to our understanding of the process of sustainable entrepreneurship. Since the field of sustainable entrepreneurship is in a nascent stage, we conduct a qualitative study. We employ a multiple case study design to build theory. Based on four case studies we develop a model, which describes the process of sustainable entrepreneurship, including six phases: 1) recognizing a social or ecological problem; 2) recognizing a social or ecological opportunity; 3) developing a double bottom line solution; 4) developing a triple bottom line solution; 5) funding and forming of a sustainable enterprise; 6) creating or entering a sustainable market. By developing a convergent process model with two pathways, we make theoretical contributions to the emerging fields of sustainable entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship. A key finding is that the triple bottom line of ecological, social and economic goals is integrated sequentially, not simultaneously. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.     

May business mentors act as opportunity brokers and enablers among university students?

Networks are recognized as a central component of the entrepreneurial process, in particular with regard to opportunity identification and exploitation. In this study, we specifically analyze the role of mentors who are in business as opportunity brokers and enablers among university students with entrepreneurial intentions. Our investigation on 1022 students from 13 French-language universities based in Canada, France, Belgium and Algeria indicates that mentors in business, contrary to other mentors, support opportunity identification and exploitation among university students. Although student gender, entrepreneurial experience and education have a more pronounced effect, mentoring is the only element that can be controlled for through the creation of formal support programs. These results call on public authorities, and universities in particular, to implement formal mentoring programs to support students who are interested in starting their own business, and who would not otherwise have access to business mentors in their environment.     

A note on interactions-driven business cycles

Within the standard Keynesian multiplier framework, extended by a micro-model of interactive formation of individual consumption propensities, we demonstrate that socioeconomic interactions can lead to cyclical fluctuations in aggregate economic activity. The underlying micro-model of direct interactions is a version of Alan Kirman’s generic opinion formation model, with an additional feedback effect from macroscopic variables on the transition probabilities. Our model engenders cyclical fluctuations of economic variables, despite the fact that neither the Keynesian multiplier model nor Kirman’s model does so on its own.