High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Prof. Randy M. Ataide
~~For Private Use Only~~No Unauthorized Distribution or Publication without permission of author
A Thorny and Unresolved Issue:Are Religious Entrepreneurs Social Entrepreneurs?Abstract
This paper seeks to address the existing boundaries that effectively separate twodistinct but related fields: Religious entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship. Therole of religion and entrepreneurship has been called “a thorny and unresolved issue” andwhile religion and entrepreneurship are important global social and cultural forcesindividually, there has been little research done on the combination. While the definitionsand frameworks of social entrepreneurship have been quite dynamic and inclusive,Martin and Osberg have observed that this breadth threatens the existence and validity of social entrepreneurship. Drawing deeply from a various sources and research, the author demonstrates that religious entrepreneurship meets at least the threshold definitions of social entrepreneurship in that they advance a social mission; they apply innovative processes and technologies; they have a measurable and scalable impact; and theyintegrate financial sustainability. In establishing religious entrepreneurship as a hybridform of social entrepreneurship, the two forms and their advocates and practitioners arethen encouraged to engage in positive and constructive conversations and efforts tofurther their similar missions and visions.
Introduction
One of the leading social entrepreneurs, Bill Drayton of Ashoka, has writtenextensively of the results-based transformational power of the citizen sector, and thatthere is a rapidly expanding pool of social entrepreneurs. “This virtuous cycle catalyzed by leading social entrepreneurs and local changemakers is the chief engine now movingthe world towards an ‘everyone a changemaker’ future.” (Drayton, 2006, p. 1)But are Drayton’s changemakers necessarily social entrepreneurs? Drayton doesnot directly answer this question with “It was, however, only quite recently that Ashokarealized that its ultimate purpose, an ‘everyone a changemaker’ world, is an unreachablefantasy unless the youth years become years of practicing being powerful and acquiringthe required underlying skills: applied empathy, teamwork and leadership.”
(Drayton,2006, p. 9) Looking to this future, he concludes with “A generation hence, probably 20to 30 percent of the world’s people, and later 50 to 70 percent, will be changemakers andentrepreneurs. That world will be fundamentally different and a far safer, happier, moreequal, and more successful place.”
(Drayton, 2006, p. 25) A somewhat more temperateview of the future for social entrepreneurs than Drayton’s is offered by Bornstein. Whilenoting that the future holds boundless opportunities, options and capacity for entrepreneurial experimentation, and that “We need to be prepared to take full advantageof these changes,” he continues with “I don’t mean to imply that everyone should becomea social entrepreneur. We don’t want that. If everyone were an entrepreneur, societywould be a terrible mess.”
(Bornstein, 2005, p. 28)Bornstein and Drayton’s comments seem to underscore the need for some sort of definitional boundaries for the field of social entrepreneurship. On the one hand, if we1
recognize a very broad and inclusive boundary, the more opportunities there are for newstakeholders, opportunities, alliances and resources to emerge. On the other hand, it is possible that the understanding of social entrepreneurship will become too broad andtherefore functionally unidentifiable. This can occur if social entrepreneur type activitiesremain on a micro-level and vulnerable and do not present opportunity for imitation andexpansion, or if there are activities that are influential on society in a positive way but nottransformational,The issue of definition is complicated when the variable of personal values, faithor religion is interjected into entrepreneurship has been properly identified as a “thornyand unresolved issue” and that “although the entrepreneurship literature suggest thatvalue structures may form an important construct in a theory of entrepreneurship behavior, their magnitude and overall importance is still relatively unknown.”
(Dodd andSeaman, 1998, p. 71) But how should we classify those individuals and organizations,that just as readily identifiable social entrepreneur have accomplished, createdorganizations operating with a direct nature of action and are moving towards asustainable new equilibrium but are doing so at least in part from a personal religiousmotivation, foundation or framework? While there is little doubt that they are authenticchangemakers and activists, does their religious connection preclude them from beingauthentic social entrepreneurs?Certainly, few would deny that religious leaders such as Mother Teresa, the DalaiLama, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and others have been recognized as transformationalfigures of society with unmistakable religious connections, albeit with varying levels of religiosity. But little is actually known by both social entrepreneur academics and practitioners about how religious beliefs impact the ordinary entrepreneur, social or otherwise, or conversely how entrepreneurship impacts the religious community. There iseven less information on the relationship between religious entrepreneurs and non-religious entrepreneurs, including social entrepreneurs. While religion is obviously acomponent of the private religious universities throughout the world and even many public universities devote curriculum and research to religion in their history, archeology,sociology and literature departments, business schools and entrepreneur programs,conferences, and events generally ignore religion as an important component of one’sentrepreneurial activities. Contemporary business textbooks on entrepreneurship aredevoid of information on religion and its relationship to entrepreneurship and this lack of understanding likely extends to the business practitioner as well.
Why is this issue important to the social entrepreneur? Simply stated, “Religion both shapes and is shaped by society” and that “Investigating the relationship between theindividual religion and enterprise shows that religion affects believer’s entrepreneurialactivity, influencing their decision to become an entrepreneur, enterprise management,and the entrepreneur’s contact network.”
(Dodd and Seamon, 1998, p. 71) It is alsolikely that in many situations the social and religious entrepreneur are doing very similar work and service, and the opportunity to partner and to develop new, enhanced or evenlarger value creation opportunities and alliances should not be overlooked. Further, in thecurrent era of economic uncertainty with escalating needs and opportunities and decliningresources, it is in the interests of both religious and social entrepreneurs alike to if notmutually support one another to at least mutually understand one another.2
This paper is an attempt to expand the discussion beyond Foster’s limited yetimportant observation: “For many of course the Church of England has long been of nosignificance and its fate does not matter. Yet despite the need to raise human and financialresources to keep the Church itself going, it still so often has human and financialcapacity over to offer for social objectives—it is only that it might do better withopportunities that it proactively encounters and otherwise seeks out.”
(Nichols, 2006, p.200) This insight applies well beyond the fairly limited confines of the Anglicanism toreligions, denominations and traditions of all sorts. Indeed, more contemporary research points to the conclusion that “In the context of a pluralistic moral basis for entrepreneurship, both mainstream and religious sects continue to motivate, and providestrong links to legitimacy and resources for social entrepreneurs.”
(Keynes, 2007)It is the thesis of this paper that while social entrepreneurship serves as anappropriate overall category for the field of religious entrepreneurship and that both sharemany of the same characteristics making them distinct from traditional for-profitentrepreneurship, that religious entrepreneurship is an appropriate and important sub-fieldto social entrepreneurship. Although not without some important distinctions, there isindeed a vibrant form of entrepreneurship that exists in current practice within religiouscommunities throughout the world and it is worth consideration and acceptance by socialentrepreneurs as a legitimate partner in this remarkable process of global transformationto “everyone a changemaker.”There is probably no more widely used contemporary term in socialentrepreneurship than the charge to “Think Globally and Act Locally.” Most users of thisinsightful phrase are unaware that it is widely attributed to the French Christiantheologian Jacques Ellul more than sixty years ago, and that he was speaking towardsissues of great concern to him such as the environment, technology and the destruction of a sense of community, yet clearly within his personally vibrant and engaging religiousfaith. Despite addressing many of the most important issues of the 20
th
century, Ellulalways remained firmly planted in his own deeply personal faith. Perhaps there is morekinship between social and religious entrepreneurs than is widely believed.
Points of Connection
Perhaps the most widely held stereotype of religion, primarily among the world’smajor religions of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam, is that each represents amonolithic group of people with a common belief, world outlook and ultimately identity.While at a very basic level of understanding there is often basic religious tenets with acommonly held set of beliefs, the applications of these beliefs vary greatly among manycategories including gender, socio-economic background, nationality, age, etc.
(Keynes,2007, pp. 186-198) Part of this stereotype is likely geographical in nature. In comparingthe differences between various regional religious practices, it has been observed that“Church buildings tend to claim a relatively central site in both settings, but with a crucialdifference. In the Eurasian instances, a single structure almost always dominates thescene, whereas in the United States we find multiple denominations and their quartersmanifested at or near the center, generally, inter alia, Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian,Baptist, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, and depending on the region, RomanCatholic.”
(Zelinksy, 2001, p. 566) One would also need to add to this diversity inunderstanding contemporary U.S. religious practices the rapid increase in the past decade3
Add a Comment
doyleyoungleft a comment