Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120876

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Digital entrepreneurship in developing countries: The role of

institutional voids
Jonas Soluk a, b, *, Nadine Kammerlander a, Solomon Darwin c
a
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Group, WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, 56179 Vallendar, Germany
b
Department of Business Administration, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
c
Garwood Center for Corporate Innovation, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Entrepreneurship is often considered a key means to tackling the ongoing challenge of poverty among the rural
Entrepreneurship populations in developing countries. We study how drawing on the support of various stakeholders—specifically
Institutions family, community, and business partners—helps overcome institutional voids and foster entrepreneurship in
Microenterprises
Indian microenterprises. We also examine how the adoption of digital technologies—e.g., in the form of
Developing countries
Digital technology
smartphone apps—can strengthen those relationships. By surveying more than 1,000 microentrepreneurs in rural
Openness India, we find that both the families and communities (in particular self-help groups) of entrepreneurs have a
positive and significant effect on entrepreneurship that is strengthened when digital technologies are used.
Support from business partners, however, is negatively associated with entrepreneurship.

1. Introduction agencies), quality certification firms (e.g., ISO equivalents in developed

Entrepreneurship has been identified as one of the key drivers of
economic prosperity and is therefore considered a reasonable vehicle
with which to help emerging economies grow (Christensen et al., 2010;
Kimmitt, Muñoz, and Newbery, 2019) and overcome the major chal­
lenges posed by poverty in developing countries (Sutter, Bruton, and
Chen, 2019; Si et al., 2020). Indeed, previous research has shown that
the creation of ventures by itself does not contribute to economic growth
(Valliere and Peterson, 2009). To achieve a substantial and long-lasting
positive impact on future society and the economy, small businesses
need to act in an entrepreneurial way (Wong, Ho, and Autio, 2005).
However, engaging in entrepreneurship is often a challenge in devel­
oping countries (Govindarajan and Ramamurti, 2011). First, as a study
by Gupta et al. (2014) emphasized, the word ‘entrepreneur’ (in its
various translations to local languages) is not esteemed very highly in
developing countries such as India or Brazil; thus, business owners have
decreased motivation to engage in such endeavors. Second, to be suc­
cessful, entrepreneurs must rely on various important resources and
infrastructures (Audretsch, Heger, and Veith, 2015) that are likely
lacking in emerging economies characterized by institutional voids
(Goel and Karri, 2020). Examples of these voids include the absence of
financial service institutions (e.g., banks, capital providers, insurance
countries), institutional infrastructure enabling data processing (e.g.,
with fiber optic networks), public economic development agencies,
employment agencies, and arbitration mechanisms (Khanna and
Palepu, 2010).
Research on institutions has repeatedly claimed that institutional
voids can be filled with informal institutions (Scott, 1995; Bruton,
Ahlstrom, and Li, 2010; McAdam, Crowley, and Harrison, 2019).
However, to date, we know surprisingly little about what drives entre­
preneurship in developing countries and what might foster entrepre­
neurship in the future (Bruton, Ahlstrom, and Obłój, 2008; Chatterjee,
Dutta Gupta, and Upadhyay, 2018). Research focused on Western
developed economies has revealed that an open exchange with an
ecosystem, including the receipt and provision of support to private and
professional network partners, can foster innovativeness and might
stimulate prospective entrepreneurial behavior (Vrande et al., 2009;
Huggins and Thompson, 2017; Elia, Margherita, and Passiante, 2020).
However, we lack an understanding of whether such relationships also
hold in emerging economies. Specifically, given the institutional voids in
developing countries, relying on the support of network partners could
be even more valuable for the abovementioned parties. In addition, the
effectiveness of relying on trusted network partners is certainly contin­
gent on the cultural norms of a given country (Lyon, 2000). Thus, the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jonas.soluk@whu.edu (J. Soluk), nadine.kammerlander@whu.edu (N. Kammerlander), darwin@haas.berkeley.edu (S. Darwin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120876
Received 6 June 2020; Received in revised form 22 January 2021; Accepted 7 May 2021
Available online 28 May 2021
0040-1625/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
J. Soluk et al.
effect of utilizing network partners might be different in developing
countries than it is in developed countries due to differences with regard
to cultural norms. Moreover, the existing research on emerging econo­
mies has shown that specific network ties can provide small business
owners with the required resources to scale up their businesses (Arregle
et al., 2015), but this research does not focus on entrepreneurial
behavior.
Given this research gap, we ask the following questions: 1) How does
the support of network partners—specifically that of family members, com­
munity, and business partners—affect the entrepreneurial behavior of
microentrepreneurs in an emerging economy? 2) How are those relationships
affected by the use of digital technologies? The second question is impor­
tant, as most businesses worldwide are currently, and will continue to
be, affected by digitalization (Nambisan, 2017; Kammerlander, König,
and Richards, 2018; Soluk and Kammerlander, 2021), which does not
halt in emerging economies (Thukral et al., 2008). The adoption of
digital technologies could substantially impact entrepreneurial en­
deavors, as digital tools allow firms to leverage business opportunities
(Bharadwaj, 2000; Yoo, Henfridsson, and Lyytinen, 2010); thus, they
could help entrepreneurs overcome some of the challenges imposed by
institutional voids, especially for the many entrepreneurs situated in
rural settings (Grimes and Lyons, 1994; Amankwah-Amoah, 2018;
Sohns and Revilla Diez, 2018) that lack appropriate physical
infrastructure.
To contribute to closing this research gap, we study the effect of
network partners (i.e., family, community, and business partners, see
Aldrich and Cliff, 2003; Zahra, Hayton, and Salvato, 2004; Ribeir­
o-Soriano and Galindo-Martín, 2012) and their interactions with tech­
nology adoption on entrepreneurship in an emerging country. Our
specific research setting consists of microenterprises in rural Indian
areas, which are the backbone of the rural economy in emerging markets
(Valliere and Peterson, 2009; Otoo et al., 2012; Darwin, 2018; Sohns and
Revilla Diez, 2018; Zhou, Gao, and Chimhowu, 2019). We test our hy­
potheses with primary data from more than 1,000 entrepreneurs in
microenterprises across the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. The
survey-based data include the entrepreneurs’ responses to questions
regarding different sectors, firm ages, and ownership structures. To
capture the variety in the adoption of digital technologies, we worked
with an international initiative that has aimed to roll out digital tech­
nologies in some of the surveyed villages during recent years. We find a
positive effect of family support and community support on entrepre­
neurship and a negative effect of support from business partners.
Additionally, we find that digital technology adoption strengthens the
positive effects of family and community support but does not interact
with the effect of business partners.
This study makes several contributions to theory and practice. First
and foremost, we contribute to a better understanding of entrepre­
neurship in developing countries. Specifically, we argue and empirically
reveal that embeddedness in family and community fosters entrepre­
neurship. Additional insights into the surveyed businesses, which are
gained from interviews with some of the owner-managers, show that in
particular self-help groups, which are voluntary and informal associa­
tions of entrepreneurs who often have similar socioeconomic back­
grounds and which are very common in rural India, provide
entrepreneurs with valuable input and feedback for their entrepre­
neurial ideas (Chatterjee et al., 2018). Second, we contribute to the
research on the emerging relevance of digital technologies (Nambisan,
2017; Soluk et al., 2021), specifically in the context of developing
countries, which is scarce thus far. In addition to providing large-scale
evidence for the theorized positive direct effect, we contribute to this
stream of research by revealing how the adoption of digital technologies
helps to use the support received from family and community members
for entrepreneurial initiatives.
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120876
2. Theoretical background, conceptual model, and hypotheses
2.1. Entrepreneurship in microenterprises within emerging economies
Entrepreneurship, which is defined as the ‘discovery and exploitation
of profitable opportunities’ (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; p. 217), is
often exhibited within smaller enterprises (Kassicieh et al., 2002; Katila,
Chen, and Piezunka, 2012). A microbusiness is a special type of small
enterprise, and they are the predominant form of organization present in
the rural areas of developing countries around the world (Babalola and
Agbenyegah, 2016; Sohns and Revilla Diez, 2018). Although different
definitions exist (e.g., Kabecha, 1998; Corsini, Appio, and Frey, 2019),
most researchers agree that microenterprises are defined as those with
no more than ten employees (Kushnir, 2010; Hazarika, Bezbaruah, and
Goswami, 2016; López-Ortega et al., 2016). While their small size sub­
stantially constrains their available resources for competition, it can also
be seen as an advantage, as microenterprises can have structural ad­
vantages over larger companies due to their greater flexibility and their
ability to react quickly (Hatch and Zweig, 2001; Nartisa, 2012),
particularly in times of change (Katila et al., 2012).
More so than they do in developed countries, microenterprises play
an important role in the rural economies of emerging markets. They
contribute a large portion of the gross domestic product of many
emerging economies (Walsh, 2014; Babalola and Agbenyegah, 2016),
thus playing a major role in employment and income generation in rural
areas (van Stel, Carree, and Thurik, 2005; Otoo et al., 2012). Re­
searchers have started to investigate how economic prosperity can be
generated through microenterprises (Bruton et al., 2008; Vial, 2011;
Vial and Hanoteau, 2015), and there is evidence showing that micro­
enterprises might be able to fight poverty and increase social welfare
(Sutter, Bruton, and Chen, 2019; Si et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the
existing knowledge of entrepreneurship in developing countries is very
limited (Govindarajan and Ramamurti, 2011; Kiss, Danis, and Cavusgil,
2012). However, researchers agree that the institutional environment
has a substantial effect on the ‘how’ and ‘how much’ aspects of entre­
preneurial activities in a given country (Chiles, Bluedorn, and Gupta,
2007; Gupta et al., 2014).
For some time, researchers have claimed that to generate firm value,
firms need to engage in exchanges with their stakeholders and other
partners (Zahra, Wright, and Abdelgawad, 2014), internalize external
ideas, and externalize internal knowledge (Chesbrough, 2003; 2006;
Gassmann, Enkel, and Chesbrough, 2010). While the majority of
scholars in this field have focused on studying openness to cooperation
in larger companies, a growing number of studies investigate related
concepts in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Rothwell,
1991; Boiugrain and Haudeville, 2002; Narula, 2004; Wincent, Anokhin,
and Boter, 2009; Chesbrough, 2010; Lee et al., 2010). Openness to
external partners respectively open innovation are considered essential
management principles (Chesbrough, 2003; 2006; Bogers, Chesbrough,
and Moedas, 2018). According to the research on both large corpora­
tions and SMEs, an enterprise’s willingness to cooperate with external
stakeholders in knowledge and resource exchanges can enable the
business to dynamize its innovativeness, drive strategic renewal, and
further advance entrepreneurial processes and outcomes (Rothwell,
1991; Classen et al., 2012; Chesbrough and Bogers, 2014; Ren, Eisin­
gerich, and Tsai, 2015).
The existing research assumes that building upon social contacts is
even more important for small businesses in emerging countries (Danis,
De Clercq, and Petricevic, 2011) than it is for those in developed
countries. In particular, the research on small- and medium-sized firms,
independent of their embeddedness in emerging or developed countries,
agrees that entrepreneurs often face knowledge and research con­
straints, which can hinder their entrepreneurial efforts (Classen et al.,
2012; Ren et al., 2015). The institutional voids in developing countries
tend to reinforce this effect for SMEs due to their lack of knowledge and
support from external partners (Scott, 1995; Bruton, Ahlstrom, and Li,
J. Soluk et al.
2010; McAdam, Crowley, and Harrison, 2019). The research on how
social networks contribute to entrepreneurship in the context of small
businesses in developing countries is, however, inconclusive to date (e.
g., Nartisa, 2012; Walsh, 2014). Arregle and colleagues (2015) empha­
size that new ventures in developing countries are influenced by the
related entrepreneur’s social ties, such as those involving family, which
provide them with ‘unique and valuable resources with lower costs and
risks’ (p. 314) but also introduce the potential drawback of over
embeddedness in a network of redundant ties. A study by Tu, Hwang,
and Wong (2014) reveals that supplier cooperation has a positive effect
on innovativeness but not on customer cooperation.
2.2. Digital technology adoption in enterprises
The adoption of digital technologies—defined as the business-related
use of computer-based solutions (Bharadwaj, 2000; Urbinati et al.,
2020) such as smartphone apps—can benefit an enterprise in multiple
ways, for instance, through lower costs, increased revenues, competitive
advantages, and the opportunity to build new business models (Bhar­
adwaj, 2000; Yoo et al., 2010; Remane et al., 2017; Soluk et al., 2021). In
general, the adoption of digital technologies is becoming increasingly
important for organizations regardless of their age, size, location, or
industry (Gupta and Jain, 2012; Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Matt, Hess, and
Benlian, 2015; Sorescu, 2017).
By using digital technologies, companies can create firm value and
build competitive advantages (Yoo et al., 2010; Kammerlander, König,
and Richards, 2018; Soluk and Kammerlander, 2021), which might help
them become entrepreneurial (Nambisan, 2017; Autio et al., 2018).
Thus, the adoption of digital technologies might be particularly relevant
for developing countries. However, previous research lacks empirical
evidence on the consequences of adopting digital technologies (Nam­
bisan, 2017).
Although the adoption of digital technologies can create value for
firms of any size (Darbyshire, 2008), previous literature has noted the
idiosyncrasies of small- and medium-sized businesses in their adoption
and commercialization of digital technologies (Martin and Matlay,
2001; Soluk and Kammerlander, 2021; Soluk, Kammerlander, and De
Massis, 2021). For instance, factors such as relative advantage (i.e., an
enterprise’s degree of superiority over its competition), uncertainty (i.e.,
a situation involving limited knowledge where it seems difficult to
predict future outcomes), or georestrictions (i.e., (limited) access to
certain technologies) influence the adoption of digital technologies in
smaller enterprises (Alshamaila, Papagiannidis, and Li, 2013).
Because only a few studies have investigated the role of digital
technologies in increasing entrepreneurship (Sánchez-Oro and Fernán­
dez Sánchez, 2017; Martin-Rojas, Garcia-Morales, and
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
3
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120876
Gonzales-Alvarez, 2019), the previous research in this field lacks
empirical evidence on the effects of digital technology in this regard;
thus, it is necessary to increase the amount of research in this field of
interest (Nambisan, 2017; Briel, Davidsson, and Recker, 2018). More­
over, most of the extant research on digital technology adoption has
focused on developed Western countries, where the infrastructure and
availability of technology are substantially different from those of
developing countries, for instance, in terms of broadband expansion,
mobile networks, and the availability of affordable devices (Soluk and
Kammerlander, 2021). The few existing studies dealing with digital
technologies in developing countries have mostly focused on urban
areas (Javalgi et al., 2012), leaving rural areas, which are characterized
by village structures and strong family bonds, largely unstudied (Nir­
anjan, Nair, and Roy, 2005; Ndemo and Weiss, 2016; Asongu, Nwa­
chukwu, and Orim, 2018).
2.3. Conceptual model and hypotheses development
The conceptual model shown in Figure 1 illustrates our hypotheses,
which we will develop in the following section.
2.3.1. The effect of family support on entrepreneurship
An entrepreneur’s family is one of the most important stakeholders
in the ecosystem of his or her business (Aldrich and Cliff, 2003; Duran
et al., 2016; Hatak et al., 2016; Bruque and Moyano, 2007). While
‘entrepreneurship is implicitly a highly individualistic pursuit’ (Samb­
harya and Musteen, 2014; p. 321), previous research has shown that an
entrepreneur’s family can substantially influence how his or her firm is
managed, including decisions on the firm’s strategic renewal (Miller
et al., 2015; Brinkerink and Bammens, 2018; Adjei et al., 2019) and
innovativeness (König, Kammerlander, and Enders, 2013; Craig, Dibrell,
and Garrett, 2014; Holt and Daspit, 2015; Miroshnychenko, Barontini,
and De Massis, 2020). Family is particularly important for businesses in
settings such as rural emerging markets, which are known for their
strong family culture with powerful family bonds (D’Cruz and Bharat,
2001; Khavul, Bruton, and Wood, 2009). Indeed, a study by Arregle and
colleagues (2015) shows that reliance on family ties can affect the
growth of a business in such contexts.
We argue that exchanges with family members, i.e., the receipt of
support from family and the provision of support to family (Powell and
Eddleston, 2013), foster entrepreneurship in microenterprises. First,
families consist of a diverse set of individuals, particularly in developing
countries where extended family members such as cousins are also
considered family members (Dasgupta, Hennessey, and Mukhopadhyay,
1999; Niranjan et al., 2005). Exchanges with individuals of varying ages,
genders, professions, and personalities might provide entrepreneurs
J. Soluk et al.
with valuable input for their businesses. For instance, by interacting
with family members, entrepreneurs might receive new ideas for prod­
uct improvements and services or receive valuable feedback on their
business ideas. While entrepreneurs and managers in larger companies
and those in more developed settings might consider family members to
be insufficiently educated to judge their often complex product and
business model ideas, the organization and proposed entrepreneurial
advancements of rural enterprises in developing countries might be less
complex and able to be well understood by family members. Addition­
ally, diverse family members might represent diverse potential customer
groups, particularly for companies active in the B2C sector; thus, they
might be able to provide authentic customer feedback. In summary,
diverse family members can help overcome issues related to the market
research challenges often observed in less-developed countries (Manrai
and Manrai, 2001).
Moreover, the input and feedback of family members might be
considered very helpful for entrepreneurial endeavors because entre­
preneurs might interact frequently with their family members, and these
interactions are characterized by high levels of trust and mutual un­
derstanding. This ‘closeness,’ as well as the trust-based interactions
among family, might be particularly helpful in settings such as devel­
oping countries due to the existing institutional voids, e.g., due to the
lack of reliable infrastructure enabling easy long-distance travel and
communication as well as the lack of reliable information systems and
legal procedures, which often hinder entrepreneurship in such countries
(van Stel, Storey, and Thurik, 2007; Stenholm, Acs, and Wuebker, 2013).
Indeed, Welter and Smallbone (2011, p. 117) explain that ‘[t]rust can be
a key factor influencing entrepreneurial behavior in challenging envi­
ronments.’ Hence, entrepreneurs might employ their family members as
‘available test persons,’ and they might use their frank feedback to
improve their business ideas and ultimately develop new entrepre­
neurial outcomes. In addition to this input and feedback, entrepreneurs
might also ask their relatives to dedicate time and effort to work in their
firm or to contribute resources such as physical assets (e.g., vehicles and
computers) or financial resources to it. Given the lack of reliable infra­
structure, including financing opportunities (Desai and Joshi, 2014),
and institutional voids in emerging economies, we expect that such
family support might help entrepreneurs in microenterprises overcome
the challenges related to entrepreneurship. In this regard, an entrepre­
neur’s family can provide him or her with an array of financial and
nonfinancial resources, support, and expertise that often comes from
institutional providers (e.g., banks, regional economic development
agencies, market researchers, and rental services) in other contexts, thus
filling the prevailing institutional voids and helping the entrepreneur
(Scott, 1995; Bruton, Ahlstrom, and Li, 2010). In other words, family
support fills the voids left by a lack of established institutions and mit­
igates the potential impeding effects of this issue through its own sup­
port mechanisms for entrepreneurs.
Finally, family members not only provide content-related support to
entrepreneurs but also might support them emotionally. The research on
entrepreneurship frequently highlights the high risk of failure associated
with entrepreneurial projects (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000) as well
as the need for and difficulty of coping with such (temporary) setbacks
(McGrath, 1999). In developed countries, specific educational events
(‘failure nights’) exist, which are, however, not (yet) available in
developing countries; indeed, we see this as another example of voids in
the context of educational institutions. Moreover, many successful en­
trepreneurs in developed countries emphasize their earlier failures and
clarify that these failures are part of the learning process (Cope, 2011);
however, partly due to the more negative connotation of entrepre­
neurship in many developing countries, fewer such role models might
exist in developing countries. Hence, an entrepreneur’s family members
might take over the role of analyzing past failures with him or her,
discussing potential pathways for future entrepreneurship and providing
the entrepreneur with feelings of confidence. Hence, we propose the
following:
4
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120876
Hypothesis 1. The level of family support for rural microenterprises in
developing countries is positively related to the level of entrepreneurship
exhibited by these enterprises.
2.3.2. The effect of support from the local community on entrepreneurship
We continue to argue that in addition to the family of an entrepre­
neur, his/her wider social environment—specifically the local commu­
nity—might foster entrepreneurship, especially in the rural settings of
an emerging market. Such communities in rural India are defined as an
entrepreneur’s local village, where typically not only a major portion of
a person’s family life but also his or her business life takes place (Gar­
trell, 1981). Hindle (2010) suggests that the contextual factors of a
community—i.e., the three institutional components (physical re­
sources, human resources, and property rights) and the three human
factors (human resources, social networks, and the ability to span
boundaries)—act as a basis of the implementation and outcome of
entrepreneurial processes; however, the extant research—especially
studies with a focus on the idiosyncrasies of developing coun­
tries—hardly provides any insights beyond these glimpses into the
relationship between community embeddedness and
microentrepreneurship.
Similar to our argumentation above with regard to family members,
through the close interactions of local actors, a community can have a
substantial influence on the activities of an enterprise (Pret and Carter,
2017) especially in rural, developing environments (Torri, 2010). While
in developed countries as well as in urban areas, there is a natural
separation between family and professional life, there are no such
boundaries in the rural villages of emerging economies. In particular,
these settings are characterized by specific, hybrid associations that link
individuals’ private and professional lives, i.e., self-help groups (Desai
and Joshi, 2014). Self-help groups, in which 10-20 members ‘come
together to find solution[s] to their common problems,’ have flourished
in the poorer parts of India since the early 1990s, and they primarily aim
to address challenges in the business-related context of micro­
entrepreneurs (Chatterjee et al., 2018, p. 161). As a result, self-help
groups have become an important pillar enabling local entrepreneurial
processes to be discussed among villagers (Torri, 2010; Desai and Joshi,
2014). In this way, these community-based initiatives fill the institu­
tional voids that are pervasive in rural settings, for instance, due to their
lack of educational institutions, economic development agencies, and
institutional advisory services that generally have functions similar to
that of local self-help groups (Scott, 1995; Desai and Joshi, 2014;
McAdam, Crowley, and Harrison, 2019).
Communities in general and self-help groups in particular are
composed of entrepreneurs who are active in different sectors and who
possess the willingness to share their experience and knowledge with
their peers. In developed countries, specific types of entrepreneurial and
managerial knowledge, e.g., how to best attract customers, how to
organize marketing and sales, or how to set prices, are widely available.
Indeed, institutional providers that supply this knowledge are easily
accessible in developed countries, such as business development
agencies, research institutions, and market researchers. Moreover,
(prospective) entrepreneurs can obtain such knowledge through formal
education at universities, internships in large corporations, or various
forms of print and online media provided by the government and other
entities. In emerging economies, such information platforms are often
lacking. Thus, communities might fill these institutional voids (e.g., the
lack of academic institutions, large corporations, and public economic
development agencies) and provide entrepreneurs with technical
knowledge about how to engage in certain entrepreneurial steps. Spe­
cifically, such peer groups also encourage inside-out knowledge sharing
(from the entrepreneur to the community), which might in turn
encourage community members to engage in testing new products and
providing feedback, thus positively affecting entrepreneurship.
Moreover, communities, particularly self-help groups, are likely to
serve as a means for individuals to share their best practices, as well as
J. Soluk et al.
prior failures, with their peers. As many entrepreneurs who are active in
a community—often a local village—deal with different products,
technologies, and customers, the level of competition among them is
likely limited, which encourages an open and comprehensive exchange
of experience. This exchange not only helps educate entrepreneurs
(filling the existing educational institutional void and assuming the role
that is often filled by universities or official chambers of commerce in
developed countries) but also provides mental support for them
(Johannisson, 1987). In particular, communities that already incorpo­
rate successful entrepreneurs might counteract the attitude towards
entrepreneurship mentioned in the introduction (Gupta et al., 2014).
Indeed, we expect that successful entrepreneurs in communities act as
role models for other small business owner-managers who are active in
the same community and encourage them to follow their example, as
this can provide them with (relative) wealth and status.
Additionally, communities, particularly self-help groups, often as­
sume the role of banks or financing entities in developing countries
when financial burdens cannot be addressed by families (Lyons et al.,
2012). Hence, communities might serve as valuable providers of
knowledge and financial resources. In this way, they fill the above­
mentioned institutional void related to the lack of bank infrastructure
and might help entrepreneurs overcome the challenges associated with
entrepreneurship in emerging economies. We therefore propose that
community support has a positive impact on entrepreneurship as
follows:
Hypothesis 2. The level of community support for rural microenterprises
in developing countries is positively related to the level of entrepreneurship
exhibited by these enterprises.
2.3.3. The effect of business partner support on entrepreneurship
Studies conducted on private and public businesses in developed
economies often emphasize the role of business partners, such as cus­
tomers or suppliers, in innovation and entrepreneurship (Chesbrough,
2003; 2006; Gassmann et al., 2010). The underlying assumption in this
context is that these partners might pass on specific observations and
improvement ideas for products and services that can help the focal
enterprise entrepreneurially enhance their offerings. Thus, it is no sur­
prise that studies carried out in developed economies typically argue for
and confirm positive relationships between exchanges with business
partners and entrepreneurship (Gassmann et al., 2010; Huggins and
Thompson, 2017).
However, we argue that in the context of rural microenterprises in
emerging economies, the effect of exchanges with business partners is
negative rather than positive. The underlying rationale for our argument
is as follows. In developing countries, which are characterized by
institutional voids (e.g., a lack of public economic development
agencies, quality certification firms, competition authorities, legal in­
stitutions, and arbitration mechanisms), the relationships between
business partners are different than those found in developed countries.
Specifically, business partnerships in developing countries might be
affected by insufficient and unreliable legal processes as well as by the
lack of stability experienced in the rural areas of developing countries
suffering from institutional voids. For instance, in developed countries, a
supplier might propose a valuable idea for improving his customer’s
production, as the firm anticipates the continuation of their long-term
and ongoing business partnership (Johnsen, 2009). However, such
considerations build on the assumption that the business relationships
between suppliers and customers will remain intact over the coming
years or even decades. In emerging economies, in which the existing
legal systems are unstable due to institutional voids (Welter and
Smallbone, 2011), businesses might not trust such prospective long-term
relationships. Instead, business relationships, particularly those outside
a firm’s immediate local community, might be characterized by trans­
actional rather than long-term considerations. Thus, business partners
are less incentivized to share their entrepreneurial ideas.
5
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120876
In accordance with this reasoning, we expect that the decision-
makers in rural enterprises within developing countries are generally
unwilling to openly share their experiences, feedback, and ideas with
their business partners, as they fear that their mid- and long-term re­
lationships might be disrupted by, for instance, legal or economic
changes. As a consequence, the interactions among business partners in
this context might be more focused on day-to-day issues and tactical
considerations, while the sharing of entrepreneurial ideas remains
outside of the focus of their discussions. To put it differently, tactical
considerations between business partners and entrepreneurs could also
lead to a higher (perceived) level of competition between them and to
greater efforts to secure their respective economic bases. This in turn
could lead business partners to potentially exchange even damaging
information that might harm the entrepreneurs. Such a mechanism, in
which business partners might want to create information advantages
that secure their own business success, might lead to an exchange of
information that is not only neutral in its effect but even harmful for the
entrepreneur. Institutional voids (e.g., the absence of legal institutions,
arbitration mechanisms, and social security systems), which lead to a
lack of legal certainty and social protection, could further fuel this
phenomenon. More formally, we posit the following:
Hypothesis 3. The level of business partner support for rural micro­
enterprises in developing countries is negatively related to the level of entre­
preneurship exhibited by these enterprises.
2.3.4. The moderating effect of digital technology adoption
In the next step, we propose that the derived hypotheses are
moderated by the adoption of digital technologies, defined as the
business-related use of computer-based solutions (Bharadwaj, 2000;
Neumeyer et al., 2020; Urbinati et al., 2020) by entrepreneurs of
microenterprises. Specifically, we argue that digital technologies play a
supporting role in entrepreneurial processes (Nambisan, 2017; Sorescu,
2017; Raymond et al., 2018; Urbinati et al., 2020; Soluk and Kammer­
lander, 2021; Soluk, Kammerlander, and De Massis, 2021) by
strengthening the effects of family, community, and business partner
support.
In the above discussion, we argue that the support of family members
can provide entrepreneurs with entrepreneurial ideas and feedback.
Regarding the adoption of digital technologies, we argue that the related
positive effect is strengthened when entrepreneurs use digital technol­
ogies. If an entrepreneur uses digital technologies, he or she can quickly
implement or test the suggestions made by his or her family members,
for instance, through adaptations to social media channels and other
sales and marketing platforms (e.g., Hossain and Rahman, 2018); in this
way, he or she can compensate for the institutional voids in his or her
rural developing country. Thus, by deploying digital technologies, the
entrepreneur receives real-market feedback regarding his or her family
members’ suggestions more quickly. Hence, the use of digital technol­
ogies makes it more likely that entrepreneurs will experiment with their
family members’ suggestions, and it improves the speed and quality of
customer reactions to these suggestions. Additionally, as digital trans­
formation helps enterprises become more efficiently organized (Bhar­
adwaj, 2000; Yoo et al., 2012), the use of digital technologies allows
entrepreneurs in microenterprises to simultaneously test the various
entrepreneurial ideas proposed by different family members. This de­
creases entrepreneurs’ dependence on established institutions (e.g.,
economic development agencies or institutional advisory services), and
allows the existing voids to be overcome through the utilization of
digital technologies.
Moreover, digital tools might help entrepreneurs make use of the
recommendations and support received from their communities and in
particular from self-help groups. For instance, with computer-based
solutions, knowledge on basic marketing best practices received from
community members might be implemented in microenterprises more
easily, thoroughly, and sustainably than it could be via paper-based
J. Soluk et al.
implementation. In this way, digital technologies can help entrepreneurs
make the best out of received support. This will further mitigate the
(negative) effects caused by institutional voids, in particular those
related to the absence of institutions in the field of education, market
research organizations, and business development agencies. Addition­
ally, digital technologies can increase the frequency of interaction
among community members. Platforms such as WhatsApp and WeChat
allow entrepreneurs to ask for and provide support at any point in time
and to ‘document’ or save the recommendations that they receive from
others. Thus, the quality of such feedback (as well as that of the records
of information and input received) might be substantially increased if
communities make use of digital technologies. This development is
achieved without involving institutions such as established communi­
cation service providers or quality certification firms, which are often
absent in rural developing areas anyway.
With regard to the support of business partners, we argue above that
this factor has a negative effect on entrepreneurship, as we expect ex­
changes with customers and suppliers to be focused mostly on opera­
tional, day-to-day issues rather than on entrepreneurship. In addition,
economic self-preservation in uncertain environments with institutional
voids might lead business partners to share harmful information that is
detrimental to entrepreneurs. Furthermore, we argue that the use of
digital technologies can strengthen this effect. When using digital tools,
some business partners such as customers can complain about any issues
at any time and often expect answers in real time (Rauschnabel, Kam­
merlander, and Ivens, 2016). Thus, the use of digital technologies likely
distracts entrepreneurs’ attention away from answering entrepreneurial
questions and directs it towards firefighting in day-to-day business is­
sues. As a consequence, we expect the negative effect of business partner
support on entrepreneurship to be strengthened when entrepreneurs use
digital technologies. In summary, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 4. The relationships between (a) family support, (b) com­
munity support, and (c) business partner support and entrepreneurship in
microenterprises is strengthened by entrepreneurs’ digital technology
adoption.
3. Method
3.1. Sample and data collection
To test our hypotheses, we drew on survey data collected from
microentrepreneurs in the rural and developing areas of the south­
eastern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh during 2018. Andhra Pradesh is a
suitable setting to test our theory due to its predominantly rural regions
and large number of microbusinesses, making this state an appropriate
example of an emerging market (Gartrell, 1981; Mody, 2004; Andhra
Pradesh State Development Planning Society (APSDPS), 2018). The
participants of our study were physically approached by the staff of a
local network supporting a global nonprofit initiative that aimed to
develop Indian villages by introducing digital innovation. The staff
members encouraged microfirm entrepreneurs to participate in the
study. To increase the generalizability of the study, the staff members
were encouraged to approach entrepreneurs from different parts of the
state who were active in different industries and came from firms with
diverse ownership structures and ages; additionally, they were promp­
ted to approach entrepreneurs from villages where the adoption of
digital technologies had already been promoted by the initiative as well
as those where this had not yet happened. The staff of the nonprofit
initiative approached the microentrepreneurs in person and conducted
the surveys on mobile devices.
While most of the scales used for this survey were originally devel­
oped by researchers in the English language, we translated the ques­
tionnaire into the local language, Telugu, with the help of native
speakers. A back-translation of the scales ensured that all the translated
items were consistent with the originals (Dillman, 1991). We pretested
6
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120876
the survey with both academics and local entrepreneurs and made slight
adaptations to the wording to fit the targeted context. With the local
support of the initiative and the cooperation between one of the author’s
universities and the state government of Andhra Pradesh, we received a
total of 1,007 responses from entrepreneurs, all of whom were running
micro- or small-sized enterprises in the rural areas of Andhra Pradesh
(Kushnir, 2010).
During the course of this research, we followed the guidelines pro­
vided by the extant literature to avoid common method bias and social
desirability bias. In particular, we emphasized that all the data would be
analyzed anonymously and handled confidentially, and we underlined
that no wrong answers existed (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Additionally, we
checked for the potential problem of common method variance. In
addition to conducting the Harman single-factor test (Podsakoff and
Organ, 1986), which did not show any signs of common method bias, we
conducted the marker variable test (Lindell and Whitney, 2001) to
investigate the correlation between the dependent variable, namely,
entrepreneurship, and another variable (the marker variable; in our
case, idle time), ensuring that it was not significantly correlated with the
dependent variable (Homburg, Klarmann, and Schmitt, 2010).
Employing idle time—the time (in years) between an entrepreneur’s
graduation and the beginning of his/her occupation in the examined
enterprise—as a marker variable, we assessed the correlations between
the variables in the main model and this marker variable. These corre­
lations were not substantially different between the original model and
the altered model. These insights provide further evidence that the po­
tential concerns associated with common method bias were alleviated.
Based on the research design and the statistical tests, we concluded that
there was a low probability that common method variance had biased
the results of our study. Furthermore, as seen in Table 2, the variance
inflation factor (VIF) values of all the constructs did not exceed 2.305,
indicating that there were no multicollinearity problems (Jöreskog and
Sörbom, 1989).
3.2. Measurement
The questionnaire for this research was based on established con­
structs that were adapted, if necessary, to the context of micro­
entrepreneurship in rural India. The focal unit of this study was the
enterprise.
Family support was based on the construct introduced by Powell and
Eddleston (2013) and measured the four items with a five-point Likert
scale (1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 = ‘strongly agree’). The items were as
follows: ‘My family gives me useful feedback about my ideas concerning my
business,’ ‘When I’m frustrated by my business, someone in my family tries to
understand,’ ‘Family members often go above and beyond what is normally
expected in order to help my business succeed,’ and ‘Family members often
contribute to my business without expecting to be paid.’ With this oper­
ationalization, the construct focused on an outside-in perspective of the
family-enterprise relationship (Cronbach’s alpha = .87). Similar to all
the other constructs, we took the average of all the items included to
construct the final variable.
Community support was measured with a six-item Likert scale
(ranging from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 = ‘strongly agree’) from the
work of Niehm, Swinney, and Miller (2008). The items were as follows:
‘The people of this community truly care about the fate of this business,’ ‘If
given a chance you would brag about this community as a good place to locate
a business,’ ‘How satisfied are you with the amount of support your business
gets from your community?,’ ‘The business does not have much to gain by
remaining in the community’ (reverse coded), ‘As a business owner or
manager, are you willing to expend resources to help this town?,’ and ‘If you
feel like talking, you usually can find someone in the community to talk with’
(Cronbach’s alpha = .75).
Business partner support was measured with a four-item Likert scale
(ranging from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 = ‘strongly agree’) based on
the established openness construct (Stanko and Henard, 2017; Bogers,
J. Soluk et al.
Foss, and Lyngsie, 2018). Specifically, the entrepreneurs were asked to
rate the intensity of their interactions with customers and suppliers in
terms of exchanging business-related knowledge, information, and re­
sources. The entrepreneur had to rate his or her interactions with both
customers and suppliers on a four-point Likert scale. Then, we con­
structed a composite average measure and combined the ratings to
create the overall openness scale, which is in line with the previous
literature on this topic (Bogers, Foss, and Lyngsie, 2018) (Cronbach’s
alpha = .77).
The dependent variable entrepreneurship was measured with a nine-
item construct adapted from the work of Zahra (1996), which is
frequently used for studying entrepreneurial processes and outcomes in
different settings (e.g., Yuan, Bao, and Olson, 2017). The entrepreneurs
rated their enterprises’ actual entrepreneurial activities on a five-point
Likert scale. The construct included nine items concerning the innova­
tiveness, ventures, and strategic renewal of the enterprises1 and had a
Cronbach’s alpha of .87. Based on feedback from academics and prac­
titioners knowledgeable about the local context, we adapted the scales
to fit the context of micro- and small-sized enterprises in rural India,
deleting several nonrelevant entrepreneurial items. More specifically,
for our study, the original items dealing with running R&D facilities,
filing patents, developing breakthrough innovations in specific in­
dustries, running international operations, and addressing mergers and
acquisitions were omitted, as they are not relevant in the rural Indian
setting.
The moderating variable digital technology adoption was measured
with a four-item scale developed by Srinivasan, Lilien, and Rangasw­
amy (2002). The entrepreneurs were asked to indicate the degree to
which digital technologies had been adopted in their enterprises.
Because the abovementioned nonprofit initiative aimed to encourage
entrepreneurs to implement digital technologies in the form of, for
instance, smartphone apps, we expected a substantial amount of vari­
ance among the entrepreneurs regarding the use of digital technologies,
depending on whether they had been approached by the staff of the
initiative beforehand. On a five-point Likert scale (1 = ‘strongly
disagree’ to 5 = ‘strongly agree’), each entrepreneur was asked to assess
the following items: ‘We have implemented digital tools in all our business
processes,’ ‘Digital tools have had a very limited impact on our business op­
erations’ (reverse coded), ‘If there is great potential for digital tools in the
business, we implement digital tools a lot,’ and ‘Digital tools have substan­
tially changed our business processes’ (Cronbach’s alpha = .85). To
construct the variable, we again took the average of all four items. If an
entrepreneur did not use digital technologies at all in his or her enter­
prise, we set this variable to zero.
We controlled for important individual-, firm-, and industry-level
variables, namely, each entrepreneur’s age (in years), gender (‘0’ =
male and ‘1’ = female), level of education (measured as ‘0’ = less than
10th standard, ‘1’ = 10th standard, ‘2’ = intermediate, ‘3’ = graduate,
and ‘4’ = postgraduate), work experience (in years), marital status (‘0’
= unmarried/widowed and ‘1’ = married), and founder or successor
status (‘0’ = founder and ‘1’ successor), as well as each firm’s age (in
years) and size (number of paid employees in the enterprise, as sug­
gested by, e.g., Protogerou, Caloghirou, and Vonortas (2017)). In
addition, each firm’s previous business performance (measured with a
three-item construct adapted from the work of Zahra and Garvis (2000)
comprising sales growth, customer base growth, and overall
1 digital technology adoption positively moderates the relationship be­
‘Over the past three years, your business has spent much on efforts to develop new
ideas,’ ‘…has introduced a large number of new products or services to the market,’
‘…has entered into many new business opportunities,’ ‘…has established or financed
several new ventures,’ ‘…has focused on improving the performance of its current
business’ (reverse coded), ‘…has distanced itself from unprofitable parts of the
business,’ ‘…has changed its strategy for parts of the business,’ ‘…has initiated ac­
tions to improve the productivity of parts of the business,’ and ‘…has reorganized its
operations among different parts of the business’.
7
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120876
performance over the past three years), industry (dummy variable with
‘0’ = retail, services, and gastronomy and ‘1’ = agriculture, production,
and processing), and competitive intensity in the industry (measured
with a four-item construct adapted from the work of Jaworski and Kohli
(1993)) were included as control variables. Government support was
measured with a construct originally developed by Li and Atuahene-­
Gima (2001) and frequently applied by other scholars (Sheng, Zheng
Zhou, and Li, 2011; Shu et al., 2015); the three included items were ‘In
supporting your innovation activities, the central and local governments and
their agencies have implemented beneficial policies and programs,’ ‘…pro­
vided needed technology support,’ and ‘…played a significant role in
providing financial support’ (Cronbach’s alpha = .84).
4. Analysis and results
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations of
all the key variables. When the data collection was carried out (in 2018),
the surveyed entrepreneurs were on average 47 years old, had an
average of 2.1 paid employees in their enterprises, and had firms that
were, on average, 12.8 years old. A total of 68.2% of the surveyed firms
belonged to the retail, services, and gastronomy sectors, while 31.8%
belonged to the agriculture, production, and processing sectors. Slightly
fewer than half of the entrepreneurs (45.9%) stated that they currently
used digital technologies for business, while 54.1% stated that they did
not. A hierarchical regression analysis with entrepreneurship as the
dependent variable was conducted to test the aforementioned hypoth­
eses. The results of this hierarchical regression model are presented in
Table 2 with standardized beta values. In this regression, we scrutinized
the effect of several control and independent variables on the entre­
preneurship of the studied enterprises.
As shown in Table 2, regression Model 1 contains only the control
variables. As expected, government support (beta = .154 and p = .000),
competitive intensity (beta = .473 and p = .000), and prior firm per­
formance (beta = .111 and p = .000) all foster entrepreneurship in the
microenterprises. Moreover, we detect a positive and significant
decrease in entrepreneurship with an increase in an owner-manager’s
age (beta = -.072; p = .046) and a slight relationship between entre­
preneurship and the education of the owner-managers (beta = .067 and
p = .024). Prior work experience has a marginally significant effect on
entrepreneurship (beta = .069 and p = .078). Moreover, the founders of
businesses—in contrast to those who have taken over firms from pre­
vious owners—show (marginally significant) lower levels of entrepre­
neurship (beta = -.052 and p = .055).
In Model 2 of Table 2, the independent variables are added to our
regression analysis. The adjusted R2 increases from .329 to .356. Hy­
pothesis 1 predicts that family support has a positive impact on entre­
preneurship2. As shown in Table 2, the effect of family support on
entrepreneurship is significant (beta = .069 and p = .034), leading us to
accept Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 predicts a positive effect of commu­
nity support on entrepreneurship. We identify a strong significant rela­
tionship between community support and entrepreneurship in Model 2
(beta = .127 and p = .000), which provides empirical evidence sup­
porting Hypothesis 2. Model 2 also shows a negative and significant
relation between business partner support and entrepreneurship (beta =
-.052 and p = .049), thus supporting Hypothesis 3.
Model 3 includes the variable related to technology adoption, which
exerts a positive and significant effect on entrepreneurship (beta = .108
and p = .000). Model 4 is used to test Hypothesis 4a, which predicts that
tween family support and entrepreneurship. The interaction effect be­
tween digital technology adoption and family support is positive and
significant (beta = .654 and p = .000), thereby supporting Hypothesis
2
Considering the findings of prior studies, we also tested for a quadratic
effect of family support on entrepreneurship, but this effect was insignificant.
 J. Soluk et al.
Table 1
Means, standard deviations and correlations.
Avg. Std. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Dev.

1 Government 3.123 0.809 1

Support
2 Competitive 3.428 0.637 0.228** 1
Intensity
3 Business 3.097 0.384 0.159** 0.161** 1
Performance
4 Entr. Age 40.680 11.408 0.074* 0.075* 0.002 1
5 Entr. Gender 0.060 0.237 0.019 -0.030 -0.008 -0.058 1
6 Entr. 1.491 1.201 -0.021 0.049 0.072* -0.384** -0.075* 1
Education
7 Entr. Work 11.621 9.765 0.074* 0.101** 0.034 0.575** -0.108** -0.318** 1
Exper.
8 Marital Status 0.834 0.372 -0.020 0.046 -0.016 0.484** 0.034 -0.278** 0.289** 1
8

9 Firm Size 2.137 4.257 -0.015 0.067* 0.061 -0.022 -0.064* 0.016 0.003 -0.066* 1
10 Firm Age 12.775 12.860 0.155** 0.132** 0.076* 0.447** -0.092** -0.228** 0.663** 0.167** 0.043 1
11 Firm 1.398 0.776 0.006 -0.065* -0.075* -0.120** -0.005 0.057 -0.160** -0.117** 0.010 -0.149** 1
Ownership
12 Industry 10.368 6.488 -0.010 0.031 0.055 -0.061 0.038 0.204** -0.110** -0.014 -0.120** -0.123** -0.025 1
13 Founder 0.152 0.359 0.024 -0.038 0.026 -0.056 0.010 -0.033 -0.033 -0.098** 0.053 0.072* 0.169** -0.149** 1
Status
14 Family 3.832 0.655 0.120** 0.352** 0.155** 0.037 -0.034 0.035 0.100** 0.009 -0.010 0.134** -0.080* 0.042 -0.036 1
Support
15 Community 3.577 0.477 0.140** 0.317** 0.248** 0.032 -0.040 0.120** 0.078* -0.037 -0.010 0.127** -0.051 0.095** -0.014 0.572** 1

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120876

Support
16 Bus. Partner 2.778 0.635 -0.001 0.124** 0.171** 0.051 -0.064* 0.072* 0.039 0.063* 0.100** 0.070* -0.031 0.098** -0.071* 0.045 0.053 1
Support
17 Technology 1.537 1.693 0.210** 0.094** 0.173** -0.146** -0.081* 0.259** -0.160** -0.062 0.111** -0.034 0.013 0.079* 0.003 0.067* 0.050 0.077*
Adoption

*: p<.05 (two-sided. Pearson); **: p<.01 (two-sided. Pearson)

J. Soluk et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120876

Table 2
Regression models.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Beta Sig. Beta Sig. Beta Sig. Beta Sig. Beta Sig. Beta Sig. VIF

Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Government Support 0.154 0.000 0.145 0.000 0.138 0.000 0.124 0.000 0.127 0.000 0.138 0.000 1.160
Competitive Intensity 0.473 0.000 0.424 0.000 0.412 0.000 0.400 0.000 0.397 0.000 0.412 0.000 1.264
Business Performance 0.111 0.000 0.088 0.001 0.095 0.001 0.096 0.001 0.091 0.001 0.095 0.001 1.144
Entrepreneur Age -0.072 0.046 -0.070 0.046 -0.051 0.153 -0.048 0.179 -0.047 0.183 -0.051 0.153 1.873
Entrpreneur Gender 0.018 0.495 0.019 0.474 0.010 0.721 0.006 0.810 0.006 0.828 0.010 0.721 1.049
Entrepreneur Education 0.067 0.024 0.055 0.062 0.024 0.432 0.026 0.391 0.033 0.268 0.024 0.432 1.364
Entrepreneur Work Exper. 0.069 0.078 0.061 0.113 0.078 0.050 0.075 0.055 0.079 0.043 0.078 0.051 2.305
Founder Status -0.052 0.055 -0.053 0.047 -0.051 0.058 -0.042 0.119 -0.047 0.081 -0.051 0.059 1.083
Marital Status -0.044 0.146 -0.033 0.268 -0.048 0.116 -0.046 0.130 -0.043 0.151 -0.048 0.119 1.370
Firm Size -0.009 0.738 0.004 0.878 -0.033 0.220 -0.029 0.286 -0.021 0.434 -0.033 0.221 1.065
Firm Age 0.005 0.881 -0.007 0.854 -0.018 0.621 -0.027 0.464 -0.028 0.449 -0.018 0.625 1.989
Firm Ownership 0.004 0.875 0.006 0.810 0.011 0.693 0.013 0.633 0.011 0.669 0.011 0.693 1.064
Industry -0.011 0.677 -0.017 0.536 -0.034 0.210 -0.037 0.173 -0.037 0.172 -0.034 0.210 1.104
Family Support 0.069 0.034 0.057 0.088 -0.030 0.454 0.037 0.264 0.057 0.089 1.651
Community Support 0.127 0.000 0.129 0.000 0.117 0.001 0.024 0.552 0.129 0.000 1.679
Bus. Partner Support -0.052 0.049 -0.035 0.196 -0.046 0.090 -0.049 0.071 -0.035 0.334 1.080
Technology Adoption 0.108 0.000 -0.511 0.002 -0.910 0.000 0.110 0.373 1.206
Family Support x Technology Adoption 0.645 0.000
Community Support x Technology Adoption 1.043 0.000
Bus. Partner Support x Technology Adoption -0.003 0.982
N 985 985 932 932 932 932
Sig 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Adj R^2 0.329 0.356 0.366 0.375 0.382 0.366

4a. We also hypothesize that digital technology adoption has a positive
moderating effect on the relationship between community support and
entrepreneurship. Given the high level of correlation among our vari­
ables, we test this relationship in a separate model (Model 5), and the
regression analysis shows a significant and positive interaction between
digital technology adoption and community support (beta = 1.043 and
p = .000), thus supporting Hypothesis 4b. Hypothesis 4c addresses the
predicted strengthening moderating effect of digital technology adop­
tion on the relationship between business partner support and entre­
preneurship. Model 7 shows that this interaction term is insignificant
(beta = -.003 and p = .982), leading us to reject Hypothesis 4c.
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical implications
In our study, we theoretically argue and show that family and
community support help overcome the institutional voids in developing
countries and are thus positively related to entrepreneurship in rural
areas. In line with this prediction, our analysis shows that family and
community support have a positive and significant effect on entrepre­
neurship. Support from business partners exerts a negative effect. We
further argue that the positive effects of family and community support
are strengthened if entrepreneurs employ digital technologies. The
resulting empirical evidence regarding the positive interaction effects of
the variables “family support” and “community support” with technol­
ogy adoption supports these arguments.
Our study makes important contributions to the literature. First, we
contribute to the research on entrepreneurship in developing countries.
While the previous literature has mostly examined entrepreneurship and
the support of external partners in larger companies located in devel­
oped countries (Chesbrough, 2003; 2006), we shift the focus to micro­
enterprises in rural India, which have lacked sufficient scholarly
attention so far (Miller, Sharma, and Reeder, 1990; Mol, Stadler, and
Ariño, 2017; Sohns and Revilla Diez, 2018) despite their idiosyncrasies
and high relevance for their countries’ economies. While a growing
stream of research has started to study the role of families in knowledge
creation and entrepreneurship (Khavul et al., 2009; Ahluwalia, Mahto,
and Walsh, 2017), this discussion is still underdeveloped within the
research on openness and open innovation. Going beyond the previous
research that has focused on the role of embeddedness in family ties
(Ashwin, Krishnan, and George, 2015; Adjei et al., 2019), we show that
support from and to families is positively related to entrepreneurship in
the microenterprises of rural India. Moreover, in the specific context that
we study, community support plays an important role in entrepreneurs’
lives. Thus, our research provides examples of how entrepreneurs who
are active in the same or different industries might help each other
become more entrepreneurial in the future. This study contributes to the
emerging body of literature dealing with the investigation of specific
forms of community support in rural emerging areas (Desai and Joshi,
2014). Our theorizing also contributes to the literature on entrepre­
neurship in developing countries (Valliere and Peterson, 2009; Mol,
Stadler, and Ariño, 2017; Sohns and Revilla Diez, 2018) by revealing the
important role of family and community support, which, as we argue,
contribute to overcoming institutional voids by providing specific re­
sources, knowledge, and feedback to entrepreneurs. For instance, family
and community support can help provide helpful and authentic feed­
back on ideas for new products or on the feasibility of new applications
and input and feedback that in other contexts often comes from insti­
tutional advisors such as regional economic development agencies.
Additionally, we extend the previous research on entrepreneurship
in developing countries by revealing the negative effect of business
partner support in those countries. We theorize that due to the institu­
tional voids (e.g., the absence of quality certification firms, legal in­
stitutions, and arbitration mechanisms) in these countries (Asongu,
Nwachukwu, and Orim, 2018; Goel and Karri, 2020), entrepreneurs’
interactions with their business partners such as suppliers and customers
contributes less to their entrepreneurship than it would in developed
countries, where stability and trust-based relationships are dominant.
We postulate that in developing countries, a close interaction with
business partners leads to an excessive focus on day-to-day operational
business aspects and thus directs entrepreneurs’ attention away from
entrepreneurial activities. Our data support these arguments, showing a
negative and significant effect of supplier and customer support on
entrepreneurship. This contribution is important for research, as it
shows that collaboration with business partners might not always be
beneficial when pursuing entrepreneurial outcomes and thus shifts the
scholarly attention on the future relevance of business networks to a
much more nuanced assessment.
Second, we expand the existing understanding of digital technologies

9
J. Soluk et al.
in the context of entrepreneurship. By providing empirical evidence on
the role of digital technologies in entrepreneurship within developing
countries, we advance the extant research in the field of digital entre­
preneurship (Grimes and Lyons, 1994; Nambisan, 2017; Briel, Davids­
son, and Recker, 2018; Elia, Margherita, and Passiante, 2020). We show
that in addition to the direct effect of digital technology adoption on
entrepreneurship, this factor also has an interaction effect. Specifically,
we argue that the resources, knowledge, and feedback provided by
family members and community peers can be leveraged (e.g., to explore
other regional markets) when digital technologies are used (Soluk et al.,
2021; Soluk and Kammerlander, 2021; Soluk, Kammerlander, and De
Massis, 2021). In other words, we show that a combination of receiving
support from outside the business (from family and community) and
using digital technologies is extremely helpful for achieving entrepre­
neurial goals in microenterprises. Our insights into the consequences of
digital technologies can help to enhance the current theories on entre­
preneurial processes in rural emerging markets, thus enabling the
growth of microenterprises (Tu et al., 2014; Walsh, 2014; Sohns and
Revilla Diez, 2018) and fostering future economic prosperity (Valliere
and Peterson, 2009; Kimmitt, Muñoz, and Newbery, 2019).
5.2. Managerial and policy making implications
Our study has several important implications for management
practitioners. First, it provides insights for owner-managers of micro­
enterprises about which knowledge sources they can utilize to become
more entrepreneurial. We show that exchanges with entrepreneurs’
families and communities can foster their entrepreneurship, while
community groups with specific formats such as self-help groups war­
rant particular attention. These membership-based organizations aim to
strengthen the social cohesion in village communities through a com­
bination of actions that allow local villagers to access education,
financial help, or other development programs (Desai and Joshi, 2014).
While this applies to the specific context of entrepreneurs of rural
microenterprises, businesses located in other parts of the world might
also consider whether some adapted form of self-help group could help
them exchange ideas and foster entrepreneurship. Moreover, our find­
ings call for caution when interacting with business partners such as
suppliers and customers. While such interactions might positively in­
fluence the short-term outcomes of a firm, our study indicates that they
have a negative effect on entrepreneurship.
The findings provided in this article are important not only for en­
trepreneurs living and working in the rural areas of developing countries
but also for the decision-makers of larger enterprises in developed
countries (Chesbrough, 2006; Kale and Anand, 2006; Calof, Meissner,
and Razheva, 2018). The initiative associated with our study shows how
established Western companies can cooperate with rural Indian entre­
preneurs to the mutual and long-term benefit of all the involved parties.
For example, companies such as PayPal can bring their technology
expertise to rural areas, thereby enabling microentrepreneurs to use
digital payment tools and providing them with sustainable access to
these technologies in emerging markets that will become increasingly
relevant in the future.
Additionally, our findings point to the important role of digital
technology adoption. The adoption of digital technologies strengthens
the aforementioned positive impacts of family and community support
and thus fosters entrepreneurship. We have observed many different
techniques used by entrepreneurs of microbusinesses to broaden and
enhance their business models. For instance, some entrepreneurs have
started to use apps to sell their handmade saris abroad instead of being
limited to their villages as their only sales markets. Accessing new
profitable markets can help entrepreneurs in rural settings overcome the
poverty trap (Bruton, Ahlstrom, and Si, 2015). Another example of this
phenomenon involves shrimp farmers who learned in a local self-help
group about the critical role of the pH value of their shrimp basins in
increasing productivity. Digital sensor technology and an internet-based
10
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120876
app used to monitor the pH values of their shrimp basins support these
farmers in applying this knowledge and ultimately commercializing it in
the long run.
This study can also help policy makers gain a better understanding of
microentrepreneurship in rural emerging markets. While entrepre­
neurship has regularly been discussed as a prerequisite of future eco­
nomic prosperity in developing countries that helps to tackle the major
challenges posed by poverty, more detailed examinations of its ante­
cedents can help to develop strategies for sustainable economic growth.
Of particular importance in this context are results concerning the
embeddedness of microenterprises in family structures and local com­
munities. Knowing that families and local communities intensely sup­
port microentrepreneurs with their knowledge and resources should be a
reason to support them with appropriate future-oriented policies. Gov­
ernment interventions that help promote families and community
structures in this context can also benefit entrepreneurs; additionally,
our results confirm that government support has a positive effect on
entrepreneurship. Given our findings, policy makers should also
reconsider how they deal with digital technologies, which will become
increasingly relevant in the future. Our study provides insights into how
to enhance entrepreneurial outcomes with the use of digital tools, and
thus it seems reasonable that their use should increasingly find its way
into development policy. In other words, the digital transformation of
societies can help to take emerging markets to the next level.
5.3. Limitations and avenues for future research
As with any empirical research, this study has several limitations,
many of which open up interesting avenues for future research. First, our
data were sourced from cross-sectional surveys due to the lack of
adequate secondary data about microenterprises in emerging markets
(Webb et al., 2009; Sohns and Revilla Diez, 2018) and the difficulty of
accessing those entrepreneurs. To mitigate the related concerns, we built
our study on established, validated constructs and instructed the local
staff regarding how to conduct the data collection properly, including
for instance, guaranteeing full confidentiality to all participants. Second,
our study was limited to one state in rural India. While India is an
exemplary emerging economy, it would be interesting to replicate our
study in other developing countries to scrutinize the generalizability of
our findings. If possible, the proposed relationships could even be tested
in developed Eastern and Western countries to directly highlight the
different effects of openness in those settings.
Additional theorizing and empirical research are necessary to better
understand the relationships between digital technologies, entrepre­
neurship, and the support of external stakeholders. For example, one
could take a closer look at the specific capabilities that are needed to
make the best use of digital technologies in business settings. Future
research on this topic might also enrich our conceptual model by more
specifically exploring the concepts of family and community support.
Another aspect of future research on this subject could be related to the
fact that many microenterprises work informally and are not officially
registered. We encourage scholars to investigate the impact of this
informal status on technology adoption, entrepreneurship, and the
support of external stakeholders in more detail (Webb et al., 2009). In
terms of management practice, the questions of which precise technol­
ogies are used in microenterprises and which of these hold the greatest
benefits for entrepreneurs could be of particular interest.
To summarize our research, we provide a starting point for scholars,
practitioners, and policy makers who are seeking to understand digital
entrepreneurship in rural, emerging markets. Our study focuses on the
important principle of family and community support and contributes to
a better understanding of these markets. Many additional avenues of
inquiry remain for further discussion, and we hope that future research
will build upon this foundation.
J. Soluk et al.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge helpful comments on earlier versions of
this manuscript by Henry Chesbrough (University of California, Berke­
ley) and attendees as well as reviewers of the following research seminar
and conferences: Open Innovation Research Seminar at Haas School of
Business in Berkeley (2018); World Open Innovation Conference
(WOIC) 2018 in San Francisco; International Family Enterprise Research
Academy (IFERA) 2019 in Bergamo, Italy; and European Academy of
Management (EURAM) Annual Meeting 2019 in Lisbon, Portugal. We
would also like to thank the Smart Village Initiative for supporting the
data collection in Andhra Pradesh, India. In particular, we thank Werner
Fischer, Arun Sharma, Judah Darwin, Shreya Evani, Y.S. Shavan
Michael, over a hundred other associates of the Smart Village Initiative,
and twenty students from Malikipuram Degree College in Andhra Pra­
desh, India. Moreover, we express our sincere appreciation to Associate
Editor Steven Walsh and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable
suggestions.
Declarations of Competing Interest
None.
References
Adjei, E., Eriksson, R., Lindgren, U., Holm, E., 2019. Familial relationships and firm
performance: the impact of entrepreneurial family relationships. Entrep. Reg. Dev.
31 (5-6), 357–377.
Ahluwalia, S., Mahto, R.V., Walsh, S.T., 2017. Innovation in small firms: does family vs.
non-family matter? J. Small Bus. Strategy 27 (3), 39–49.
Aldrich, H.E., Cliff, J.E, 2003. The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship:
Toward a family embeddedness perspective. J. Bus. Ventur. 18 (5), 573–596.
Alshamaila, Y., Papagiannidis, S., Li, F., 2013. Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in the
north east of England. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 26 (3), 250–275.
Amankwah-Amoah, J., 2018. Revitalising serial entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa:
Insights from a newly emerging economy. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 30 (5),
499–511.
Andhra Pradesh State Development Planning Society (APSDPS), 2018. Andhra Pradesh
Socio Economic Survey 2017-18. Vijayawada, AP.
Arregle, J.L., Batjargal, B., Hitt, M.A., Webb, J.W., Miller, T., Tsui, A.S., 2015. Family ties
in entrepreneurs’ social networks and new venture growth. Entrep. Theory Pract. 39
(2), 313–344.
Ashwin, A.S., Krishnan, R.T., George, R, 2015. Family firms in India: family involvement,
innovation and agency and stewardship behaviors. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 32 (4),
869–900 pacific.
Asongu, S.A., Nwachukwu, J.C., Orim, S.-M.I., 2018. Mobile phones, institutional quality
and entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 131
(2018), 183–203.
Audretsch, D.B., Heger, D., Veith, T., 2015. Infrastructure and entrepreneurship. Small
Bus. Econ. 44 (2), 219–230.
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L.D.W., Wright, M, 2018. Digital affordances, spatial
affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strateg. Entrep. J. 12 (1),
72–95.
Babalola, S.S., Agbenyegah, A.T., 2016. Rural entrepreneurship: an insight into impeding
factors influencing micro-entrepreneurial growth. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 32 (6),
176–1751.
Bharadwaj, A.S., 2000. A resource-based perspective on information technology
capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Q. 24 (1), 169–196.
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O.A., Pavlou, P.A., Venkatraman, N., 2013. Digital business
strategy: toward a next generation of insights. MIS Q. 37 (2), 471–482.
Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., Moedas, C., 2018. Open innovation: research, practices, and
policies. Calif. Manag. Rev. 60 (2), 5–16.
Bogers, M., Foss, N.J., Lyngsie, J., 2018. The “human side” of open innovation: the role of
employee diversity in firm-level openness. Res. Policy 47 (1), 218–231.
Boiugrain, F., Haudeville, B., 2002. Innovation, collaboration and SMEs internal research
capacities. Res. Policy 31 (5), 735–747.
Briel, F.v., Davidsson, P., Recker, J., 2018. Digital technologies as external enablers of
new venture creation in the IT hardware sector. Entrep. Theory Pract. 42 (1), 47–69.
Brinkerink, J., Bammens, Y., 2018. Family influence and R&D spending in Dutch
manufacturing SMEs: the role of identity and socioemotional decision
considerations. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 35 (4), 588–608.
Bruque, S., Moyano, J., 2007. Organisational determinants of information technology
adoption and implementation in SMEs: the case of family and cooperative firms.
Technovation 27 (5), 241–253.
Bruton, G.D., Ahlstrom, D., Obłój, K., 2008. Entrepreneurship in emerging economies:
where are we today and where should the research go in the future. Entrep. Theory
Pract. 32 (1), 1–14.
11
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120876
Bruton, G.D., Ahlstrom, D., Li, H.-L., 2010. Institutional theory and entrepreneurship:
Where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrep. Theory
Pract. 34 (3), 421–444.
Calof, J., Meissner, D., Razheva, A., 2018. Overcoming open innovation challenges: a
contribution from foresight and foresight networks. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag.
30 (6), 718–733.
Chatterjee, S., Dutta Gupta, S., Upadhyay, P., 2018. Empowering women and stimulating
development at bottom of pyramid through micro-entrepreneurship. Manag. Decis.
56 (1), 160–174.
Chesbrough, H., 2010. How Smaller Companies can Benefit from Open Innovation. Japan
Spotlight, pp. 13–15. January/February 2010.
Chesbrough, H.W., 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and
Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Chesbrough, H.W., 2006. The era of open innovation. Manag. Innov. Change 127 (3),
34–41.
Chesbrough, H.W., Bogers, M. (Eds.), 2014. Explicating Open Innovation. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Chiles, T.H., Bluedorn, A.C., Gupta, V.K., 2007. Beyond creative destruction and
entrepreneurial discovery: a radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Org.
Stud. 28 (4), 467–493.
Christensen, C.M., Hang, C., Chai, K., Subramanian, A.M., 2010. Managing innovation in
emerging economies: an introduction to the special issue. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.
57 (1), 4–8.
Classen, N., van Gils, A.E.J., Bammens, Y., Carree, M.A, 2012. Accessing resources from
innovation partners: the search breadth of family SMEs. J. Small Bus. Manag. 50 (2),
191–215.
Cope, J., 2011. Entrepreneurial learning from failure: an interpretative
phenomenological analysis. J. Bus. Ventur. 26 (6), 604–623.
Corsini, F., Appio, F.P., Frey, M., 2019. Exploring the antecedents and consequences of
environmental performance in micro-enterprises: the case of the Italian craft beer
industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 138 (2019), 340–350.
Craig, J.B., Dibrell, C., Garrett, R., 2014. Examining relationships among family
influence, family culture, flexible planning systems, innovativeness and firm
performance. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 5 (3), 229–238.
Danis, W.M., De Clercq, D., Petricevic, O., 2011. Are social networks more important for
new business activity in emerging than developed economies? An empirical
extension. Int. Bus. Rev. 20 (4), 394–408.
Darbyshire, P., 2008. Adding value to SMEs in the courier industry by adopting a web-
based service delivery model. J. Electron. Comm. Org. 6 (4), 47–76.
Darwin, S., 2018. The Road to Mori: Smart Villages of Tomorrow. Peaceful Evolution
Publishing, Berkeley, CA.
Dasgupta, S., Hennessey, S., Mukhopadhyay, R.S., 1999. Caste, class and family structure
in West Bengal villages. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 30 (4), 561–577.
D’Cruz, P., Bharat, S, 2001. Beyond joint and nuclear: the Indian family revisited.
J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 32 (2), 167–194.
Desai, R.M., Joshi, S., 2014. Collective action and community development: evidence
from self-help groups in rural India. World Bank Econ. Rev. 28 (3), 492–524.
Dillman, D.A., 1991. The design and administration of mail surveys. Annu. Rev. Sociol.
17 (1), 225–249.
Duran, P., Kammerlander, N., van Essen, M., Zellweger, T., 2016. Doing more with less:
Innovation input and output in family firms. Acad. Manag. J. 59 (4), 1224–1264.
Elia, G., Margherita, A., Passiante, G., 2020. Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: how
digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial
process. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 150 (2020), 119791.
Gartrell, J.W., 1981. Inequality within rural communities of India. Am. Sociol. Rev. 46
(6), 768–782.
Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., Chesbrough, H., 2010. The future of open innovation. R&D
Manag. 40 (3), 213–221.
Goel, S., Karri, R., 2020. Entrepreneurial aspirations and poverty reduction: the role of
institutional context. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 32 (1-2), 91–111.
Govindarajan, V., Ramamurti, R., 2011. Reverse innovation, emerging markets, and
global strategy. Glob. Strategy J. 1 (3-4), 191–205.
Grimes, S., Lyons, G., 1994. Information technology and rural development: unique
opportunity or potential threat? Entrep. Reg. Dev. 6 (3), 219–237.
Gupta, R., Jain, K., 2012. Diffusion of mobile telephony in India: an empirical study.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 79 (4), 709–715.
Gupta, V.K., Guo, C., Canever, M., Yim, H.R., Sraw, G.K., Liu, M., 2014. Institutional
environment for entrepreneurship in rapidly emerging major economies: the case of
Brazil, China, India, and Korea. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 10 (2), 367–384.
Hatak, I., Kautonen, T., Fink, M., Kansikas, J., 2016. Innovativeness and family-firm
performance: the moderating effect of family commitment. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 102 (2016), 120–131.
Hatch, J., Zweig, J., 2001. Strategic flexibility: the key to growth. Ivey Bus. J. 65 (4),
43–47.
Hazarika, B., Bezbaruah, M.P., Goswami, K., 2016. Adoption of modern weaving
technology in the handloom micro-enterprises in Assam: a Double Hurdle approach.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 102 (2016), 344–356.
Hindle, K., 2010. How community context affects entrepreneurial process: a diagnostic
framework. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 22 (7-8), 599–647.
Holt, D.T., Daspit, J.J., 2015. Diagnosing innovation readiness in family firms. Calif.
Manag. Rev. 58 (1), 82–96.
Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., Schmitt, J., 2010. Brand awareness in business markets:
when is it related to firm performance? Int. J. Res. Mark. 27 (3), 201–212.
Hossain, M., Rahman, M., 2018. Social media and the creation of entrepreneurial
opportunity for women. Management 8 (4), 99–108.
J. Soluk et al.
Huggins, R., Thompson, P., 2017. Entrepreneurial networks and open innovation: the
role of strategic and embedded ties. Ind. Innov. 24 (4), 403–435.
Javalgi, R.G., Todd, P.R., Johnston, W.J., Granot, E., 2012. Entrepreneurship, muddling
through, and Indian internet-enabled SMEs. J. Bus. Res. 65 (6), 740–744.
Jaworski, B.J., Kohli, A.K., 1993. Market orientation: antecedents and consequences.
J. Mark. 57 (3), 53–70.
Johannisson, B., 1987. Anarchists and organizers: entrepreneurs in a network
perspective. Int. Stud. Manag. Org. 17 (1), 49–63.
Johnsen, T.E., 2009. Supplier involvement in new product development and innovation:
Taking stock and looking to the future. J. Purch. Supp. Manag. 15 (3), 187–197.
Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D., 1989. LISREL-7 User’s Reference Guide. Scientific Software,
Mooresville, IN.
Kabecha, W.W., 1998. Technological capability of the micro-enterprises in Kenya’s
informal sector. Technovation 19 (2), 117–126.
Kale, P., Anand, J, 2006. The decline of emerging economy joint ventures: the case of
India. Calif. Manage. Rev. 48 (3), 62–76.
Kammerlander, N., König, A., Richards, M., 2018. Why do incumbents respond
heterogeneously to disruptive innovations? The interplay of domain identity and
role identity. J. Manag. Stud. 55 (7), 1122–1165.
Kassicieh, S.K., Kirchhoff, B.A., Walsh, S.T., McWhorter, P.J., 2002. The role of small
firms in the transfer of disruptive technologies. Technovation 22 (11), 667–674.
Katila, R., Chen, E.L., Piezunka, H., 2012. All the right moves: how entrepreneurial firms
compete effectively. Strateg. Entrep. Journal 6 (2), 116–132.
Khanna, T., Palepu, K.G., 2010. The nature of institutional voids in emerging markets. In:
Khanna, T., Palepu, K.G. (Eds.), Winning in Emerging Markets: A Road Map for
Strategy and Execution. Harvard Business Press, Boston, pp. 13–26.
Khavul, S., Bruton, G.D., Wood, E., 2009. Informal family business in Africa. Entrep.
Theory Pract. 33 (6), 1219–1238.
Kimmitt, J., Muñoz, P., and Newbery, R. 2019. Poverty and the varieties of
entrepreneurship in the pursuit of prosperity. J. Bus. Ventur., forthcoming.
Kiss, A.N., Danis, W.M., Cavusgil, S.T., 2012. International entrepreneurship research in
emerging economies: a critical review and research agenda. J. Bus. Ventur. 27 (2),
266–290.
König, A., Kammerlander, N., Enders, A., 2013. The family innovator’s dilemma: How
family influence affects the adoption of discontinuous technologies by incumbent
firms. Acad. Manage. Rev. 38 (3), 418–441.
Kushnir, K., 2010. How do Economies Define Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
(MSMEs)? World Bank, Washington, DC.
Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., Park, J., 2010. Open innovation in SMEs—an intermediated
network model. Res. Policy 39 (2), 290–300.
Li, H., Atuahene-Gima, K., 2001. Product innovation strategy and the performance of
new technology ventures in China. Acad. Manage. Rev. 44 (6), 1123–1134.
Lindell, M., Whitney, D., 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-
sectional research design. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 (1), 114–121.
López-Ortega, E., Canales-Sanchez, D., Bautista-Godinez, T., Macias-Herrera, S., 2016.
Classification of micro, small and medium enterprises (M-SME) based on their
available levels of knowledge. Technovation 47 (1), 59–69.
Lyon, F., 2000. Trust, networks and norms: The creation of social capital in agricultural
economies in Ghana. World Dev. 28 (4), 663–681.
Lyons, T.S., Alter, T.R., Audretsch, D., Augustine, D, 2012. Entrepreneurship and
community: the next frontier of entrepreneurship inquiry. Entrep. Res. J. 2 (1), 1–26.
Manrai, L.A., Manrai, A.K., 2001. Marketing opportunities and challenges in emerging
markets in the new millennium: a conceptual framework and analysis. Int. Bus. Rev.
10 (5), 493–504.
Martin, L.M., Matlay, H., 2001. ’Blanket’ approaches to promoting ICT in small firms:
some lessons from the DTI ladder adoption model in the UK. Int. Res. 11 (5),
399–410.
Martin-Rojas, R., Garcia-Morales, V.J., Gonzales-Alvarez, N., 2019. Technological
antecedents of entrepreneurship and its consequences for organizational
performance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 147 (2019), 22–35.
Matt, C., Hess, T., Benlian, A., 2015. Digital transformation strategies. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng.
57 (5), 339–343.
McAdam, M., Crowley, C., Harrison, R.T., 2019. To boldly go where no [man] has gone
before” - institutional voids and the development of women’s digital
entrepreneurship. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 146 (2019), 912–922.
McGrath, R.G., 1999. Falling forward: real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 (1), 13–30.
Miller, D., Wright, M., Le Breton-Miller, I., Scholes, L, 2015. Resources and innovation in
family businesses: the Janus-face of socioemotional preferences. Calif. Manage. Rev.
58 (1), 20–40.
Miller, H.G., Sharma, M., Reeder, R., 1990. Micro-enterprise growth: operational models
and implementation assistance in third and fourth world countries. J. Small Bus.
Manag. 28 (4), 9–21.
Miroshnychenko, I., Barontini, R., De Massis, A., 2020. Investment opportunities and
R&D investments in family and nonfamily firms. R&D Manag. 50 (4), 447–461.
Mody, A., 2004. What is an Emerging Market. International Monetary Fund, Washington,
DC.
Mol, M.J., Stadler, C., Ariño, A, 2017. Africa: the new frontiers for global strategy
scholars. Glob. Strategy J. 7 (1), 3–9.
Nambisan, S., 2017. Digital entrepreneurship: toward a digital technology perspective of
entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 41 (6), 1029–1055.
Nartisa, I., 2012. Openness and knowledge as leading tendencies in development of
micro enterprises. Econ. Manag. 17 (4), 1579–1584.
Narula, R., 2004. R&D collaboration by SMEs: New opportunities and limitations in the
face of globalisation. Technovation 24 (2), 153–161.
12
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120876
Neumeyer, X., Santos, S. C., and Morris, M. H. 2020. Overcoming barriers to technology
adoption when fostering entrepreneurship among the poor: the role of technology
and digital literacy. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., forthcoming.
Ndemo, B., Weiss, T., 2016. Digital Kenya: An Entrepreneurial Revolution in the Making.
Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Niehm, L.S., Swinney, J., Miller, N.J., 2008. Community social responsibility and its
consequences for family business performance. J. Small Bus. Manag. 46 (3),
331–350.
Niranjan, S., Nair, S., Roy, T.K., 2005. A socio-demographic analysis of size and structure
of family in India. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 36 (4), 623–651.
Otoo, M., Obro, G., Fulton, J.R., Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., 2012. Micro-entrepreneurship in
Niger: factors affecting the success of women street food vendors. J. Afr. Bus. 13 (1/
3), 16–28.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.
Podsakoff, P., Organ, D., 1986. Self-report in organizational research. J. Manag. 12 (4),
531–544.
Powell, G.N., Eddleston, K.A., 2013. Linking family-to-business enrichment and support
to entrepreneurial success: do female and male entrepreneurs experience different
outcomes? J. Bus. Ventur. 28 (2), 261–280.
Pret, T., Carter, S., 2017. The importance of ‘fitting in’: collaboration and social value
creation in response to community norms and expectations. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 29 (7-
8), 639–667.
Protogerou, A., Caloghirou, Y., Vonortas, N.S., 2017. Determinants of young firms’
innovative performance: empirical evidence from Europe. Res. Policy 46 (7),
1312–1326.
Rauschnabel, P.A., Kammerlander, N., Ivens, B.S., 2016. Collaborative brand attacks in
social media: exploring the antecedents, characteristics, and consequences of a new
form of brand crises. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 24 (4), 381–410.
Raymond, L., Uwizeyemungu, S., Fabi, B., Saint Pierre, J., 2018. IT capabilities for
product innovation in SMEs: a configurational approach. Inf. Technol. Manag. 19
(1), 75–87.
Remane, G., Hanelt, A., Nickerson, R.C., Kolbe, L.M., 2017. Discovering digital business
models in traditional industries. J. Bus. Strategy 38 (2), 41–51.
Ren, S., Eisingerich, A.B., Tsai, H.-T., 2015. Search scope and innovation performance of
emerging-market firms. J. Bus. Res. 68 (1), 102–108.
Ribeiro-Soriano, D., Galindo-Martín, M.-Á., 2012. Government policies to support
entrepreneurship. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 24 (9-10), 861–864.
Rothwell, R., 1991. External networking and innovation in small and medium-sized
manufacturing firms in Europe. Technovation 11 (2), 93–112.
Sambharya, R., Musteen, M., 2014. Institutional environment and entrepreneurship: an
empirical study across countries. J. Int. Entrep. 12 (4), 314–330.
Sánchez-Oro, M., Fernández Sánchez, M.R., 2017. Digital technologies and
entrepreneurship of rural women. Rev. Prisma Soc. 18, 259–277.
Scott, W.R., 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Ideas, Interests, and Identities. SAGE
Publishing, Thousand Oaks.
Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of
research. Acad. Manage. Rev. 25 (1), 217–226.
Sheng, S., Zheng Zhou, K., Li, J.J., 2011. The effects of business and political ties on firm
performance: evidence from China. J. Mark. 75 (1), 1–15.
Shu, C., Wang, Q., Gao, S., Liu, C., 2015. Firm patenting, innovations, and government
institutional support as a double-edged sword. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 32 (2),
290–305.
Si, S., Ahlstrom, D., Wei, J., Cullen, J., 2020. Business, entrepreneurship and innovation
toward poverty reduction. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 32 (1-2), 1–20.
Smallbone, D., Welter, F., Voytovich, A., Egorov, I., 2011. Government and
entrepreneurship in transition economies: the case of small firms in business services
in Ukraine. Serv. Ind. J. 30 (5), 655–667.
Sohns, F., Revilla Diez, J., 2018. Explaining micro entrepreneurship in rural Vietnam—a
multilevel analysis. Small Bus. Econ. 50 (1), 219–237.
Soluk, J., and Kammerlander, N. 2021. Digital transformation in family-owned
Mittelstand firms: a dynamic capabilities perspective. Eur. J. Inf. Syst., forthcoming.
Soluk, Jonas, Kammerlander, Nadine, De Massis, Alfredo, 2021. Exogenous shocks and
the adaptive capacity of family firms: Exploring behavioral changes and digital
technologies in the COVID-19 pandemic. R&D Management. https://doi.org/
10.1111/radm.12471.
Soluk, Jonas, Miroshnychenko, Ivan, Kammerlander, Nadine, De Massis, Alfredo, 2021.
Family influence and digital business model innovation: The enabling role of
dynamic capabilities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1042258721998946.
Sorescu, A., 2017. Data-driven business model innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 34 (5),
691–696.
Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G.L., Rangaswamy, A., 2002. Technological opportunism and
radical technology adoption: an application to e-business. J. Mark. 66 (3), 47–60.
Stanko, M.A., Henard, D.H., 2017. Toward a better understanding of crowdfunding,
openness and the consequences for innovation. Res. Policy 46 (4), 784–798.
Stel, A.van, Carree, M., Thurik, R, 2005. The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national
economic growth. Small Bus. Econ. 24 (3), 311–321.
Stel, A.van, Storey, D.J., Thurik, A.R., 2007. The effect of business regulations on nascent
and young business entrepreneurship. Small Bus. Econ. 28 (2-3), 171–186.
Stenholm, P., Acs, Z., Wuebker, R., 2013. Exploring country-level institutional
arrangements on the rate and type of entrepreneurial activity. J. Bus. Ventur. 28 (1),
176–193.
Sutter, C., Bruton, G.D., Chen, J, 2019. Entrepreneurship as a solution to extreme
poverty: a review and future research directions. J. Bus. Ventur. 34 (1), 197–214.
J. Soluk et al.
Thukral, I.S., Von Ehr, J., Walsh, S., Groen, A.J., Van Der Sijde, P., Akmaliah Adham, K.,
2008. Entrepreneurship, emerging technologies, emerging markets. Int. Small Bus. J.
26 (1), 101–116.
Torri, M.-C., 2010. Community-based enterprises: a promising basis towards an
alternative entrepreneurial model for sustainability enhancing livelihoods and
promoting socio-economic development in rural India. J. Small Bus. Entrep. 23 (2),
237–248.
Tu, C., Hwang, S.-N., Wong, J.-Y., 2014. How does cooperation affect innovation in
micro-enterprises? Manag. Decis. 52 (8), 1390–1409.
Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., Frattini, F., 2020. The role of digital technologies in
open innovation processes: an exploratory multiple case study analysis. R&D Manag.
50 (1), 136–160.
Valliere, D., Peterson, R., 2009. Entrepreneurship and economic growth: evidence from
emerging and developed countries. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 21 (5-6), 459–480.
Vrande, V.van de, Jong, J.P.J.de, Vanhaverbeke, W., Rochemont, M.de, 2009. Open
innovation in SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation 29
(6-7), 423–437.
Vial, V., 2011. Micro-entrepreneurship in a hostile environment: evidence from
Indonesia. Bull. Indones. Econ. Stud. 47 (2), 233–262.
Vial, V., Hanoteau, J., 2015. Returns to micro-entrepreneurship in an emerging economy:
a quantile study of entrepreneurial Indonesian households’ welfare. World Dev. 74,
142–157.
Walsh, J., 2014. Business strategies used by micro-SMEs in a Bangkok street market.
J. Enterp. Communities 8 (2), 147–158.
Webb, J.W., Tihanyi, L., Ireland, R.D., Sirmon, D.G., 2009. You say illegal, I say
legitimate: entrepreneurship in the informal economy. Acad. Manage. Rev. 34 (3),
492–510.
Welter, F., Smallbone, D., 2011. Institutional perspectives on entrepreneurial behavior in
challenging environments. J. Small Bus. Manag. 49 (1), 107–125.
Wincent, J., Anokhin, S., Boter, H., 2009. Network board continuity and effectiveness of
open innovation in Swedish strategic small-firm networks. R&D Manag. 39 (1),
55–67.
Wong, P.K., Ho, Y.P., Autio, E, 2005. Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic
growth: evidence from GEM data. Small Bus. Econ. 24 (3), 335–350.
Yoo, Y., Boland, R.J., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., 2012. Organizing for innovation in the
digitized world. Org. Sci. 23 (5), 1398–1408.
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., Lyytinen, K., 2010. The new organizing logic of digital
innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Inf. Syst. Res. 21 (4),
724–735.
Yuan, W., Bao, Y., Olson, B.J., 2017. CEOs’ ambivalent interpretations, organizational
market capabilities, and corporate entrepreneurship as responses to strategic issues.
J. World Bus. 52 (2), 312–326.
13
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120876
Zahra, S.A., 1996. Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: The
moderating impact of industry technological opportunities. Acad. Manag. J. 39 (6),
1713–1735.
Zahra, S.A., Garvis, D.M., 2000. International corporate entrepreneurship and firm
performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 15 (5-6), 469–492.
Zahra, S.A., Hayton, J.C., Salvato, C., 2004. Entrepreneurship in family vs. non-family
firms: A resource-based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. Entrep.
Theory Pract. 28 (4), 363–381.
Zahra, S.A., Wright, M., Abdelgawad, S.G., 2014. Contextualization and the
advancement of entrepreneurship research. Int. Small Bus. J. 32 (5), 479–500.
Zhou, Q., Gao, P., Chimhowu, A., 2019. ICTs in the transformation of rural enterprises in
China: a multi-layer perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 145 (2019), 12–23.
Dr. Jonas Soluk is a postdoctoral researcher at WHU—Otto Beisheim School of Man­
agement, Germany, and University of Bern, Switzerland. Before that, he completed his
doctorate at WHU’s Entrepreneurship and Innovation Group with highest distinctions.
During his doctorate, he was a visiting scholar at the Garwood Center for Corporate
Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley. His research interests focus on digital
transformation, digital innovation, digital entrepreneurship, and family business. His
research won several renowned awards such as the “IFERA Best PhD Award”, was pre­
sented at leading international conferences (such as AoM, EURAM, WOIC, IFERA, and
FERC), and already appeared in peer-reviewed journals (such as Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, European Journal of Information Systems, R&D Management, and Techno­
logical Forecasting and Social Change).
Prof. Nadine Kammerlander is a full professor of family business at WHU—Otto Beish­
eim School of Management, Germany, where she heads the Institute of Family Business
and Mittelstand. Her research interests focus on innovation, governance, and succession in
family firms. Her award-winning research has been published in leading journals including
Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Management
Studies, Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, among others,
and has been featured in various media outlets and business magazines. She serves as an
associate editor at Family Business Review.
Prof. Solomon Darwin is the Executive Director of the Garwood Center Corporate
Innovation at University of California, Berkeley. Prior to joining Berkeley Haas in 2005, he
was an Associate Professor at University of Southern California. As an expert in “open
innovation” and “open business models,” he is an adviser to senior executives of multi­
nationals and government leaders in the emerging world. He is known as the visionary
leader of the Smart Village Movement and for developing “smart village frameworks” for
rural villages—particularly in India. He published the books “Smart Villages of Tomorrow:
The Road to Mori” and “The Untouchables”.