Main Research Question
This paper draws on newly available data to re-assess Kerlin’s Macro-Institutional Social Enterprise Framework using advanced regression techniques to provide a more complete, theoretically-based analysis of the influence of national level institutions on cross-country social enterprise variation. As more data has become available, comparative quantitative research based on differences in institutional context has become a prominent method to explore variations in the shape and size of social enterprise sectors (Hoogendoorn & Hartog, 2011; Estrin et al., 2013; Hechavarría, 2015; Monroe-White et al., 2015). However, these studies fall short in terms of data limitations and/or strong theoretical connections. This paper addresses these shortcomings by providing a more comprehensive analysis of the influence of national-level institutions on social enterprise that is rooted in a solid theoretical foundation.
Main Arguments
Of various theories, the theory of historical institutionalism appears to offer the most potential to explain variation in the social enterprise sector. Indeed, previous studies of social enterprise that use institutional theory propose the current state and growth patterns of social enterprises are due in large part to the formal and informal institutional contexts in each country (Hoogendoorn & Hartog, 2011; Estrin et al., 2013; Kerlin, 2013; Puumalainen et al., 2015; Stephan et al., 2015; Monroe-White et al, 2015). Among these Kerlin’s Macro-Institutional Social Enterprise (MISE) framework proposes the most comprehensive theoretical explanation for inter-country differences in social enterprise (Kerlin, 2013). By drawing on the theory of historical institutionalism, the framework postulates connections between institutional settings such as culture, civil society, government and market, and social enterprise to develop a pilot typology of social enterprise country models (Kerlin, 2013).
An early quantitative analysis of the original MISE framework applied multi-level regression analysis to the 2009 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor dataset (Bosma and Levie, 2010) along with other large national data-sets to show that a significant part of the between-country variance in social enterprise could be attributed to macro-level national institutional factors (Monroe-White et al., 2015). However, the analysis had a major limitation as it failed to include the important macro-level institution of civil society due to the lack of sufficient civil society data and did not fully explore informal cultural variables.
Methods
In this paper we provide an updated quantitative test of the revised Macro-Institutional Social Enterprise (MISE) framework to explain inter-country differences in the social enterprise sector. Our paper employs multilevel regression analysis while supplementing the data for 53 countries used in the initial analysis of the original framework with newly available data for civil society from the V-Dem Institute’s civil society indicators (Bernhard et.al., 2015) and additional culture variables drawing on Hofstede’s indicators (2001).
Conclusion and Relevance for an International Audience
This analysis provides added support and insight for Kerlin’s revised MISE framework (Kerlin, forthcoming) which together provides the most comprehensive theoretically-grounded quantitative analysis of macro-level influences on social enterprise to date. As a result of the analysis, in the revised framework, the culture component becomes more prominent and finds individualism-collectivism as the primary cultural factor on the macro-level. The analysis also results in insights into the interaction between formal and informal institutions. This information is important for practitioners, policymakers and international development actors who seek to support the development of social enterprise.
References:
Bernhard, M., Tzelgov, E., Jung, D. J., Coppedge, M., & Lindberg, S. I. (2015). The Varieties of Democracy Core Civil Society Index. V-Dem Working Paper, 13.
Bosma, N., & Levie, J. (2010). Global entrepreneurship monitor 2009 global report. Retrieved from http://www.gemconsortium.org/a...
Estrin, Saul, Mickiewicz, Tomasz & Stephan, Ute (2013). Entrepreneurship, social capital, and institutions: Social and commercial entrepreneurship across nations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 479-504.
Hechavarría, D.M. (2015). The impact of culture on national prevalence rates of social and commercial entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. doi:10.1007/s11365-015-0376-1.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hoogendoorn, B., & Hartog, C. (2011). Prevalence and determinants of social entrepreneurship at the macro-level. Scales Research Reports H201022. EIM Business and Policy Research.
Kerlin, J. A. (2013). Defining social enterprise across different contexts: A conceptual framework based on institutional factors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 84-108.
Kerlin, J. A. (forthcoming). Chapter 11. Revising the MISE Framework. In J.A. Kerlin (Ed.) Shaping Social Enterprise: Understanding Institutional Context and Influence. London: Emerald.
Monroe-White, T., Kerlin, J.A. & Zook, S. (2015). A quantitative critique of Kerlin’s macro-institutional social enterprise framework. Social Enterprise Journal, 11(2), 178-201.
Puumalainen, K., Sjogren, H., Pasi, S. & Barraket, J. (2015). Comparing social entrepreneurship across nations: An exploratory study of institutional effects. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 32, 276-287.
Stephan, U., Uhlaner, L. M., & Stride, C. (2015). Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 308-331.
1. Concepts and models of social enterprise worldwide
Monroe_Coskun_QuantAnalysisKerlinsMISE_EMES.pdf 