Search results

This paper aims to analyze how different experts in entrepreneurship perceive their surrounding environment and business opportunities. The authors suggest that people act the way they do not only because of different interpretations of the environment but also because of the relative importance they give to the context and themselves in their mental scripts.

A Mann–Whitney U non-parametric test and principal component analysis were conducted to examine the national expert survey from the global entrepreneurship monitor database of Chilean exports.

When experts in entrepreneurship are compared, entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs differ in their use of certain cognitive resources about past or current events, but they map out future situations similarly, suggesting that their mental simulations may converge into similar patterns.

This study provides useful insights regarding the impact that mental representation has on experts’ perception, by discussing how experts who are entrepreneurs perceive the entrepreneurial ecosystem and current opportunities differently than experts who are not entrepreneurs. The specific context plays a key role in the way entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs analyze their surrounding environment but not necessarily opportunities.

Social entrepreneurs engage in action because social entrepreneurs want to solve social problems. Consequently, to see more social entrepreneurship in contexts with the most severe social problems is expected. This paper argues that this is an oversimplification of the problem-action nexus in social entrepreneurship and that action does not necessarily correspond to the observed scale of social problems. Drawing on the theoretical framing of crescive conditions, this relationship is affected by forms of public investment as institutions that distinctively promote engagement and public interest amongst social entrepreneurs. Thus, this paper assesses the relationship between varying levels of social problems and social entrepreneurship action (SEA) and how and to what extent public investment types – as more and less locally anchored crescive conditions – affect this relationship.

The hypotheses are tested with a series of random-effects regression models. The data stem from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor's (GEM) 2015 social entrepreneurship survey and Chile's 2015 National Socioeconomic Characterisation Survey (CASEN). The authors combined both data sets and cross-matched individual-level data (action and investment) with commune-level data (social problem scale) resulting in unique contextualised observations for 1,124 social entrepreneurs.

Contrary to current understanding, this study finds that SEA is positively associated with low-social problem scale. This means that high levels of deprivation do not immediately lead to action. The study also finds that locally anchored forms of investment positively moderate this relationship, stimulating action in the most deprived contexts. On the contrary, centralised public investment leads to increased social entrepreneurial action in wealthier communities where it is arguably less needed.

The findings contribute to the literature on SEA in deprived contexts, social and public investment as well as policy-level discussion and broader issues of entrepreneurship and social problems.