Browse by title
Edward F. McQuarrie and Barbara J. Phillips
Malin Eriksson and Maria Emmelin
High levels of social capital in local communities, that is, strong civic engagement, reciprocity norms and trust between community members, are believed to constitute well- functioning, flourishing and healthy environments by promoting collective as well as individual goods. This chapter gives an overview of the relationship between social capital and health, reviews the literature on health effects of area-specific social capital and discusses the challenges and opportunities for local development initiatives to influence social capital for health promotion purposes. Our review indicates that there is strong theoretical and empirical support for a positive effect on health of area-specific social capital. However, a major challenge is the balancing between developments of bonding versus bridging social capital, since too much or ‘negative’ bonding social capital may result in increased social exclusion and distrust and have negative effects on health. For bridging and health-promoting social capital to become mobilized there is a need for strong political will and structural support. Local development initiatives must therefore strive for broad involvement of local people, organizations, politicians and authorities, in a combined top-down and bottom-up approach. The chapter also highlights opportunities for local development initiatives to influence area-level social capital. Investments in the physical environment that facilitate social interactions and safety among residents are essential. Planning and designing attractive meeting places and green areas may increase social capital, as will efforts to improve an area’s reputation. In addition, organizing community activities that are perceived as meaningful and attractive may promote development of supportive social networks. Local associations and activities with a conscious and clear inclusive strategy may specifically facilitate the development of bridging social capital. Such efforts will have the potential to increase participation, social interaction and social connections as well as trust and solidarity between people, and in the long run promote health at area level.
Bengt Johannisson, Marcela Ram'rez Pasillas and Malin Lindberg
This chapter conceptualizes and operationalizes the potential of social capital in the making of sustainable strategies for individual firms in localized clusters as well as for the clusters as collectives. Global competitiveness is created out of local collaboration between firms that to a varying degree are internationalized, thereby building generic ‘glocal’ strategies. These strategies are in turn energized by the individual and collective social capital that originates in the egocentric personal networks of the local firms and the sociocentric personal network that the overall cluster of firms constitutes. The personal ties between firms that build these networks concern business or social exchange or a combination of the two. We inform how these features of network ties can be operationalized to provide a database for comparative studies of localized clusters of firms. The overall localized social capital that the cluster contains is activated through spontaneous self-organizing as well as formal organizing. The interaction between the spontaneous and formal structures turns the cluster into an ‘organizing context’, that is, an enacted environment for the local firms that is co-constructed by themselves. To illustrate how clusters build organizing contexts that accommodate glocal strategies by accumulating and using social capital, we tell the story of a Swedish community (Lammhult) and its firm cluster. This is known as ‘The kingdom of furniture’. The proposed model of personal networking and the illustrated example together inform how local actors may successfully initiate a process that aims at the creation of viable glocal strategies anchored in personal relations and networks. A ‘first mover advantage’ enables the cluster representatives to define what further enforcements external private and public bodies may contribute with.
Edward F. McQuarrie and Barbara J. Phillips
Sandip Basu, Anu Wadhwa and Suresh Kotha
Basu, Wadhwa and Kotha note the importance of corporate venture capital (CVC) as the second largest source of funding for new ventures after independent venture capitalists (VCs), a factor that has stimulated considerable research on the topic. However, this research has been fragmented. To organize the literature, Basu et al. separate existing studies that adopt an investor perspective from those that take the new ventures’ perspective. Next, the authors review the studies under the investor stream, focusing on three themes: motivations and antecedents; financial and strategic outcomes; and the management of CVC. Likewise, the authors examine the literature from new ventures’ perspective along three dimensions: factors influencing acceptance of CVC investments, outcomes gained through CVC and management of the investment. Overall, their review highlights the progress made to date in studying these important issues; identifies gaps to be addressed; and suggests fruitful research avenues for future studies. The review underscores the various financial and non-financial gains for new ventures from CVC and the managerial challenges associated with creating and capturing value from these investments.
Maryann P. Feldman and Ted Douglas Zoller
This chapter examines the internal anatomy of regional social capital and develops a role for dealmakers – individuals who provide active regional stewardship. An empirical analysis of 12 US regions finds great variation in the presence of dealmakers. The strong local presence of dealmakers is correlated with high start-up rates. Our empirical results suggest that the local presence of dealmakers is more important for successful entrepreneurship than aggregate measures of regional entrepreneurial and investor networks. Moreover, we find that the presence of dealmakers is a better predictor of the status of the regional entrepreneurial economy.
Michael Fritsch and Michael Wyrwich
Emerging literature shows that spatial differences in entrepreneurship tend to persist over longer periods of time. A potential mechanism underlying this pronounced persistence is that high levels of start-up activity lead to the emergence of a regional culture and a supporting environment in favor of entrepreneurship that particularly involves social capital. This chapter summarizes the available empirical evidence on the regional persistence of entrepreneurship and elaborates in detail how different elements of such a culture, such as social capital, can exert an influence on the level of new business formation and self-employment. As a demonstration for the relevance of a regional entrepreneurship culture for new business formation, we highlight the case of Germany where we find pronounced persistence of start-up activity despite radical structural and institutional shocks over the course of the twentieth century. The German case suggests that there is a long-lasting local culture of entrepreneurship that can survive disruptive changes. We discuss the relationship between place-specific social capital and a regional culture of entrepreneurship and draw policy conclusions.
Mathew Hughes, Deniz Ucbasaran and Miranda Lewis
Hughes, Ucbasaran and Lewis observe that, despite a plethora of prior studies, little systematic and careful attention has been given to internal variables in studying corporate entrepreneurship (CE). Rather, most research has focused on external variables, such as the environment. Given the paucity of research on internal variables, the authors focus on the role of human capital in promoting CE. In conceptualizing CE, Hughes et al. emphasize corporate opportunity identification—an issue that has not been well studied in the literature. They propose that companies with better skilled human capital would be better positioned to identify more opportunities than companies with lower quality human capital. Hughes et al. make a distinction between two types of human capital: firm-specific and entrepreneurial-specific. They further observe that the relationship with opportunity identification will be higher (stronger) for firm-specific and entrepreneurial-specific human capital. Moreover, they advance that the relationship between human capital and opportunity identification will be moderated by the firm’s systems and processes. Next, they propose that increases in corporate opportunity recognition can lead to increased and higher skilled human capital, thereby recognizing the importance of CE as an important mechanism for employee engagement that enhances firm capabilities.
Edward F. McQuarrie and Barbara J. Phillips
Thomas Keil, Shaker A. Zahra and Markku Maula
Keil, Zahra and Maula discuss the importance of corporate venture capital (CVC) as a learning mechanism, a theme that is consistent with some of the arguments presented by Basu et al. and Jelinek and Day. Specifically, they note that while there is consensus on the importance of learning as a strategic benefit of CVC, evidence is mixed. Existing studies highlight the contingent learning benefits of CVC, whereas others highlight barriers to such learning. Keil et al. use the organizational learning perspective to develop their arguments, adopting a “portfolio” perspective on CVC investment where the firm has a combination of different investments with different motives, goals and time horizons. Keil and colleagues propose that the characteristics of such a portfolio could influence the potential explorative and exploitative learning of incumbents who need to be adept at managing and balancing exploration and exploitation. A key point that the authors propose is that learning through CVC investments differs from other inter-organizational relationships. In managing this portfolio, there is a great need for knowledge integration as a means of making sense of what the firm learns through CVC. Their analysis and model indicate that the volume of CVC investments can significantly influence the explorative and exploitative learning an organization may experience. The extent of this learning depends greatly on the degree of core business relatedness, venture relatedness, dispersion and autonomy and the existence of knowledge transfer and integration mechanisms.