Issue

Vol 36 No 3 (2021): September

Date Log

Submitted
Apr 22, 2021
Accepted
Sep 13, 2021
Published
Sep 29, 2021
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright

Upon acceptance of an article, authors transfer copyright to the JIEB as part of a journal publishing agreement, but authors still have the right to share their article for personal use, internal institutional use, and for any use permitted under the CC BY-SA license

Open Access

Articles are freely available to the public without any subscription with permitted reuse. For open access articles, permitted third party (re)use is defined by the following Creative Commons user licenses: Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-SA).

The Role of University-Based Incubators in Social Entrepreneurship’s Development: The Capability Approach as an Evaluative Framework

https://doi.org/10.22146/jieb.v36i3.1741
Matahari Farransahat
matahari.farransahat@ugm.ac.id
Departemen Pembangunan Sosial dan Kesejahteraan, Fakultas Isipol, UGM
Risa Bhinekawati
Sekolah Tinggi Ekonomi & Perbankan Islam Mr Sjafruddin Prawiranegara, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5955-8146
Evelyn Hendriana
Business Management, Management Department, Binus Business School Master Program, Bina Nusantara University, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6421-812X

Corresponding Author(s) : Matahari Farransahat

matahari.farransahat@ugm.ac.id

Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business, Vol 36 No 3 (2021): September

Abstract

Introduction/Main Objectives: This study evaluates the role of a large university in developing the social entrepreneurship capabilities of its students and fresh graduates through its business incubator; and investigates why tenants choose to be or not to be social entrepreneurs after their incubation process. Background Problems: There are many discussions about university-based incubators for developing entrepreneurship, but the actual mechanism of how these incubators develop social entrepreneurs is still unknown. Novelty: This research explores the development of social entrepreneurship through the university-based incubator program. Hence, it can be used to provide best practices for the program, especially for developing the tenants’ capacity. Research Methods: This study applies a case study approach and adopts Amartya Sen’s capability approach as an evaluative framework. The C-Hub UGM was chosen as a case since it was selected as a good example of a social entrepreneurship incubator by the British Council. This research used three sources of evidence: documents, interviews, and focus group discussions to collect information from 14 of the incubator’s tenants. Finding/Results: The results reveal that the incubator serves as a hub for the resources that enhance the tenants’ personal conversion factors and their performance as agents for change. Subsequently, the incubator improves the tenants’ social entrepreneurship capabilities set; however, it is up to the tenants to choose whether they want to continue as social entrepreneurs or work in other roles as their functioning. Conclusion: This study illuminates the linkages among the concepts of the capability approach, the university-based incubator and social entrepreneurship. It reveals that the university-based incubator serves as a hub for the resources that enhance the tenants’ personal conversion factors; thereby they can be effective social entrepreneurs.

Keywords

capability approach personal conversion factors C-Hub Gadjah Mada University social entrepreneurship university-based business incubator
Farransahat, M., Bhinekawati, R., & Hendriana, E. (2021). The Role of University-Based Incubators in Social Entrepreneurship’s Development: The Capability Approach as an Evaluative Framework. Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business, 36(3), 215-233. https://doi.org/10.22146/jieb.v36i3.1741
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. Albort-Morant, G., & Pejvak, O. (2016). How useful are incubators for new entrepre-neurs?. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2125–29.
  2. Alkire, S. (2002). The capability approach and human development.Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, 9, 1–60.
  3. Alkire, S. (2005). Why the capability approach?. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 115–35.
  4. Audretsch, D.B. (2017). Entrepreneurship and universities. Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 31(1), 4-11.
  5. Ayatse, F.A., Nguwasen, K., & Akuraun S. I. (2017). Business incubation process and firm performance: An empirical review. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 7(1), 1–17.
  6. Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(5), 373–403.
  7. BAPPENAS. (2016). Penguatan UKM untuk pertumbuhan ekonomi yang berkualitas. Warta KUKM, 5(1), 4–8.
  8. Bennett, D., Yábar, D.P.B., & Saura, J. R. (2017). University incubators maybe social¬ly valuable, but how effective are they? A case study on business incubators at universities.In J.A. Peris-Ortiz et al. (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Universities Exploring the Academic and Innovative Dimensions of Entrepreneurship in Higher Education
  9. (pp.165–177), Springer International Publishing.
  10. Bhardwaj, R., & Christie, R. (2018).Start-up assistance organizations in Indonesia: Performance, challenges and solutions special focus on gender inclusion.Retrieved from https://www.spf.org/en/global-data/ SAO-Performance-Challenges-Solutions.pdf.
  11. Bornstein, D., & Susan D. (2010).Social entrepreneurship: What everyone needs to know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Briggs, R. A. (2019). Normative theories of rational choice: Expected utility. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/rationality-normative-utility/.
  13. British Council. (2018).Building an inclusive and creative economy: The state of social enterprise in Indonesia. Retrieved from https://www.unescap.org/news/british-council-and-united-nations-escap-launch-landmark-indonesia-social-enterprise-landscape.
  14. Bruneel, J., Tiago, R., Bart, C., & Groen, A. (2012). The evolution of business incubators: Comparing demand and supply of business incubation services across different incubator generations.Technovation, 32(2), 110–21.
  15. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
  16. Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of ‘social entrepreneurship’. Stanford: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
  17. Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletins, 51(4), 380-417.
  18. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 14(4), 532–550.
  19. Eisenhardt, K., & Graebner, M. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
  20. Fowler, A. (2000). NGDOS as a moment in history: Beyond aid to social entrepreneur¬ship or civic innovation? Third World Quarterly, 21(4), 637–54.
  21. Hair Jr, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2018). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education.
  22. Howorth, C., Smith, S.M., & Parkinson, C. (2012). Social learning and social entrepre¬neurship education. Academy of Manage¬ment Learning and Education, 11(3), 371–89.
  23. Lasrado, V., Sivo, A., Ford, C., O’Neal, R., & Garibay, I. (2016). Do graduated university incubator firms benefit from their relation¬ship with university incubators?. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(2), 205–19.
  24. Luc, P.T. (2020). The influence of personality traits on social entrepreneurial intention among owners of civil society organisations in Vietnam. Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 40(3), 291–308.
  25. Mas-Verdú, F., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2015). Firm survival: The role of incubators and business characteristics. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 793–96.
  26. Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
  27. Morgan, D. (2014). The focus group guidebook.London: Sage.
  28. Nga, J. K. H., & Shamuganathan, G. (2010). The influence of personality traits and demo¬graphic factors on social entrepreneurship start up intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 259–82.
  29. O.Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C.J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conser¬vation.Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 20–32.
  30. Pache, A., & Chowdhury, I. (2012). Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education.Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(3), 494–510.
  31. Prabhu, G. N. (1999). Social entrepreneurial leadership. Career Development Interna-tional, 4(3), 40–45.
  32. Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63(4), 655–60.
  33. Ristekdikti. (2017). Buku panduan inkubasi bisnis teknologi 2017.Retrieved from https://ristekdikti.go.id/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ACFrOgDjvOcoVm_3eiqb8qXuy4wSFvaYxZ9CxVNImvRQI1Np_S0lue8NfZxk3NNKv5qqGikVqV08K1cKXqyPS4ubFD-MqVExtqAB4iEDaOvjqgKz0lw5B2ODyCuXkN4.pdf.
  34. Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–117.
  35. Robeyns, I. (2006). The capability approach in practice. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(3), 351-376.
  36. Robeyns, I. (2017).Wellbeing, freedom, and social justice: The capability approach re-examined. Cambridge: UK Open Book Publishers.
  37. Salamzadeh, A., Azimi, M.A., & Kirby, D.A. (2013). Social entrepreneurship education in higher education: Insights from a develop¬ing country. Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 20(1), 17–34.
  38. Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1982). The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evident, and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, 20(2), 529-563.
  39. Sen, A. (1977). Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6, 317-344.
  40. Sen, A. (1985). Well-being, agency, and freedom. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 169–221.
  41. Sen, A. (1990). More than 100 million women are missing by Amartya Sen.New York, NY: The New York Review of Books.
  42. Sen, A. (1992).Functionings and capability: Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Clerendon Press.
  43. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom: Development as freedom. New York, NY: Knopf.
  44. Shaw, E., & Carter, S. (2007). Social entrepre-neurship: Theoretical antecedents and empi¬rical analyses of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(3), 418–34.
  45. Sinthupundaja, J., Kohda, Y., & Chiadamrong, N. (2020). Examining capabilities of social entrepreneurship for shared value creation. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 1–22.
  46. Stake, R.E. (2000). Case studies. In I.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  47. UNDP. (2017).Women’s entrepreneurship and access to finance: Challenges and opportu¬nities of women-led social enterprises in Indonesia. Retrieved from https://www.id.undp.org/content/dam/indonesia/2017/doc/INS-Gender Report Revisi.pdf.
  48. Urban, B. (2008). Social entrepreneurship in South Africa. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 14(5), 346–64.
  49. Voisey, P., Gornall, L., Jones, P., & Thomas, B. (2006). The measurement of success in a business incubation project. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13(3), 454–68.
  50. Weaver, R.L. (2018). Re-conceptualizing social value: Applying the capability approach in social enterprise research. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 79-93.
  51. Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
  52. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). London: Sage.
Read More

Author Biographies

Risa Bhinekawati, Sekolah Tinggi Ekonomi & Perbankan Islam Mr Sjafruddin Prawiranegara, Indonesia

Risa Bhinekawati is a Senior Lecturer at STEBANK Islam Mr Sjafruddin Prawiranegara, and a Senior Researcher of Presisi Indonesia.  She is also the Founder/Owner of PT Bhineka Belitung Lestari, a social enterprise at Belitung Island, Indonesia. She has more than 30 years of professional experience as an academic and a management practitioner in various organizations such as Unilever Indonesia, Ericsson Indonesia, Indonesian Telecommunications Society, and Indonesian Synthetic Fiber Makers Association. Risa earns her PhD in Management from the Australian National University (2015), an MBA from the Australian National University (1998); an MIPP in International Policy from the George Washington University (2006). She is the recipient of three Australian government awards: the Australian Leadership Award (2009), the Allison Sudradjat Award (2009), and the Indonesia-Australia Merdeka Fellowship (1998). She also receives the Merriman Fellowship (2005) from the George Washington University, USA.

Evelyn Hendriana, Business Management, Management Department, Binus Business School Master Program, Bina Nusantara University, Indonesia

Evelyn Hendriana is a senior faculty member at Binus Business School Master Program, Bina Nusantara University in Jakarta, Indonesia. She is also a member and Indonesia’s ambassador of Marketing in Asia Group (MAG) Scholar. She earned her BSc in Management from University of Pelita Harapan (Indonesia), MSc in Accounting from University of Indonesia (Indonesia), and PhD in Marketing from Putra Business School, University Putra Malaysia (Malaysia). She has authored and co-authored some research papers, particularly in consumer behavior, tourism marketing, and international marketing. She received young service researcher award at the 5th International Research Symposium in Service Management (IRSSM). Her main research interests are in the scope of consumer behavior, international marketing, service marketing, social media marketing, and tourism marketing

Download this PDF file
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 755 Download : 819