Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine the drivers of social entrepreneurship in a developing country. Institutional theory is applied to check the impact of different institutions on social entrepreneurship intentions in Pakistan. For this purpose, three independent variables: coercive environment, normative environment, and cognitive environment have been used, and the dependent variable is social entrepreneurship intention. Perceived feasibility has been taken as a mediating variable. A sample of 357 is selected, and data has been collected through questionnaires surveys from different university students of Pakistan. Data analysis is done through descriptive analysis. Nvivo 20 is used to explore the future paradigms of social entrepreneurship in Pakistan.  The results of his study indicated that cognitive environment and perceived feasibility have direct and significant relation with social entrepreneurship intentions, perceived feasibility doesn’t mediate the relationship between dependent and independent variables.

Key Words

Intentions, Institutions, Social Entrepreneurship.

Introduction

In the previous year’s entrepreneurship has been studied from different perspectives. The interest of academic bodies raised in entrepreneurship as it stimulates economic growth inclined by several factors. The main focus remains to apprehend the imminent entrepreneurship influence of on economic growth, predominantly in respects to its higher impact on the social well-being of the community and employment (Nissan, Galindo, & Mendez, 2012; Doran, McCarthy, & O'Connor, 2018; Stoica, Roman, & Rusu, 2020). Entrepreneurship is perceived as a vital force that drives economic growth, job creation, and financial steadiness in any nation (Urban, & Kujinga, 2017; Kim et al., 2018).  According to Bruton et al. (2008), the developed countries entrepreneurial activities were the primary focus of various studies in the recent decade. Lately, the academic and social application has grown value in entrepreneurship exploration (Urban, 2015).

Social entrepreneurship is the most rapidly developing field in the current time.  Picking up its popularity in developed countries, it might be relatively innovative in many developing countries (Yamakawa et al., 2010). As specified by the ‘Commission on Social Entrepreneurship & Innovation’, "An activity encouraging social entrepreneurs around the world regardless of the nation's political and social unrest, it offers chances and opportunities for Investment and Innovations". Moreover I-genius, ‘Commission Director’, Mr. Patel Shaving stated that "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a place where there are fresh chances to succeed for innovation and social entrepreneurship, in spite of media consideration in the west on everything awful in the district we found a nation advancing through moderate yet huge positive changes” (Genius, 2016).  

According to the IMF report in 2019, Pakistan a low-income country with US$1,463 per Capita and an emerging market, has a population of 207.8 million with a 29.5 percent poverty rate (2016/17; provisional). In The Global Entrepreneurship Index 2019, Pakistan ranked 109th, which is indicated at the bottom of entrepreneurial activities and environment. This shows a low entrepreneurial performance in this particular geography left out with immense room for new opportunities to be explored. Thus, in an emerging economy like the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, social entrepreneurship can play a fundamental role in to open a corridor to monetary growth and employment. 

Meanwhile, three main explanations can be drawn for the rising interest towards entrepreneurship in developing countries, i.e., the rapid growth in entrepreneurial activities (Bosma et al., 2007); the contribution of developing economies towards the progress of international monetary expansion (Thoumrungroje, 2010); institutional environment helps in shaping entrepreneurial activities (Busenitz et al., 2000). Institutional forces can be categorized into three main types: coercive, normative, and cognitive (Urban, & Kujinga, 2017).  Hence the institutions are a fundamental component of entrepreneurial environment and performance. In contrast, an individual’s capacity towards innovative ventures can be disturbed by desirability and feasibility (Ajzen, 1991). 

To this backdrop, social entrepreneurship contribution is another new driving force to monetary and sustainable growth (Johnson & Sschaltegger, 2019; Schaltegger, Horisch, & loorbach, 2020). Thus, to avoid staking the future of the current generation in Pakistan, in this paper, we intend to explore and determine the driving forces and new paradigms to social entrepreneurship in the light of perceptions, particularly feasibility

Literature Review

Intentions to Social Entrepreneurial 

In the current global changing economy and environment business leaders need to develop the surge to adopt services, tactics, and goods that raise social value along with the monetary value of a community. Social entrepreneurship is an emerging concept in developing countries. It is a crucial element in business education setup and plays an important role in the general well-being of people.  Resolving business challenges for scarce resource communities depends upon the services and performance of their business leaders and how well they comprehend its impacts. 

Lately, during the global recession crises, social entrepreneurship emerged and became the centre of focus for many scholars and rapidly introduced in business segments (Anderson et al. 2006). Social entrepreneurship provides a vital platform to engage in understanding the social value and human needs (Nicholls, 2010). Previous work on entrepreneurship highlighted its significance in monetary development and progress. (Schumpter, 1934; 2009; Kirchhoff et al., 2013). A variety of worthwhile techniques has been applied in an attempt to define nature and critically study entrepreneurship (Austin et al., 2006). Kania et al. in 2017 presented entrepreneurial capabilities and trade performance inference model that can have implication theoretically and practically shows evident impact by social business. 

The key to perceive and understand the acts that people are engaged believed to be the intentions (Norris, 2000). Meanwhile, person entrepreneurial intentions can distinct practically as the individual self-acknowledge force by which individual plans to seek a fresh venture in the forthcoming era (Tran et al., 2016). Additionally, the force and intensity of intentions may differ in actual from one individual to another (Thompson, 2009). 

In current times exploring ‘The entrepreneurial intentions of students’ have created curiosity among many scholars due to the recession has raised social awareness vividly in youngsters. It can also be taken as a peaceful social movement that reflects the current community challenges such as high property values and earning gap between rich and poor. To this backdrop, career opportunities may reduce in the future, and hopelessness may increase among youth (Tran et al., 2016). Consequently, society can be improved by embedding social awareness among youth, further exploring the pathways to engage youth in societal entrepreneurship (Chan et al., 2011). Recently many scholars invested time to study the student intentions and perspectives of social entrepreneurship (Entrialgo & Iglesias, 2016; Tiwari et al., 2017). Thus, this paper seeks to validate previous study’s outcomes and may inspire youth by providing the latest perspectives of social entrepreneurship by exploring institutional environment profile.  

Entrepreneurship and Social Entrepreneurship

Presented in the below tables are the similarities and differences between Social and Business entrepreneurship.

 

Table 1.

Similarities
Social and Professional Entrepreneurship	Risk-taking
	Organization creator
	Visionary
	Relationship builder
	Innovative

Adopted from: Youth Engagement Services (YES) Network Pakistan

 

The most common question rose for what purpose social, and business entrepreneurs are not taken as same although they both provide jobs, pay taxes, salaries, and benefits. Two are similar in certain aspects; however, the stark difference needed on what entrepreneurs need to strengthen. The central difference is the pre-requisite intentions like why they do it rather than what they do.

 

Table 2.

Elements	Social Entrepreneurship	Professional Entrepreneurship
Market Environment	Low or no market environment for financial and social impact	The favourable market environment for profit
Environment purpose	Works in crisis or unstable/ risky environment	Operate in risk free and comparatively stable environment
Ideal practices	Collaboration, empathy, encouragement	Rules and regulations
Use of funds	Re-invest in the purpose	Distribution among partners
Success Measurement	Social revolution	Money making

Adopted from: Youth Engagement Services (YES) Network Pakistan

 

Institutional Environment and Developing Economies

In 2000, Busenitz et al. carried out the initial study on the national institutional environment for entrepreneurship. Researchers carried out a study on developed countries, and their work indicated that entrepreneurship is significantly influenced by three institutional dimensions. In addition, the outcomes were varying due to economic and geographic variation (Busenitz et al., 2000).

Some researches’ have authenticated the tool further by selecting and conducting research on developing countries. In 2008, Manolova et al. carried out the same instrument in emerging European countries, and results indicated differences in the three institutional forces in the same region. However, the instrument is validated and tested via studies in developed countries. However, they are dedicated only to European countries.

Parallel to this, Urban (2013) implements the same model in the African countries, and results indicated a potential effect of institutions on intentions of social entrepreneurship. There is yet a need to examine and validate the current instrument in emerging economies to evaluate the influence of changing institutional impact in the social entrepreneurship context.

Meanwhile, the impact of external ecosystem on oneself, the whole procedure and the company have gained little importance in the social entrepreneur literature (Bacq and Janssen, 2011). Research on institutions majorly carried case-based that majorly focused on the formal business ecosystem (Manolova et al., 2008). Social entrepreneurship aspects academic discussions are on western developed forums, on its understanding, practices and experiences drawing largely upon understandings and exposures that required attention to study the dynamic features of state entrepreneurial process (Marcotte, 2014). There are only a few quantitative researches; thus, there is a need for a quantitative study to examine entrepreneurial activities to bring broader understanding. Pakistan contains strong local institutions that are coexisting with formal institutions making a complex institutional environment, providing a context to study social entrepreneurship and influence of institutional forces.

 

The Regulatory, Institutional Environment

In developing countries like Pakistan that are influenced by developed neighbouring countries experiencing rapid changes in the institutional environment, rapidly evolving economies and entrepreneurs are negatively impacted by the government (Peng et al. 2009). It is the responsibility of the government to implement such policies and legal leverages in the state for new ventures (Thoumrungroje, 2010). It is evident that social entrepreneurial activities are influenced by regulatory aspects (Seelos et al., 2011).

Whilst it is found that institutional contexts are supportive of successful social entrepreneurial ventures (Estrin et al., 2013).  Parallel, a wide-ranged framework for social entrepreneurship is influenced by the regulatory environment (Spencer et al., 2004; Bernardino et al., 2015). Urban (2013) also suggested that favorable regulatory, institutional context positively impacts on entrepreneurial activities in South Africa. Therefore, the first hypothesis is formulated on the base of this literature. 

 

The Cognitive Institutional Environment

Baron (2008) and Krueger et al. (2000), presented that entrepreneurial thinking is associated with entrepreneurial choices.  Moreover, Scott (2007) stated: “cognitive dimension denotes an individual’s beliefs, knowledge, and skills, which are necessary for creating new business initiatives in the country”.  Notably, cognitive factors drive entrepreneurial events explaining the increase in the rising figure of entrepreneurship events (Shapero and Sokol, 1982). In regards to TBP (Ajzen, 1991), the key driver that can nurture entrepreneurial intention prolifically is the cognitive dimension. Urban (2008) briefed “accepting social criticism on creativity, innovation, trustworthiness, and the ability to satisfy customers’ needs are considered as cognitive and behavioral attributes linked with social entrepreneurial intentions”. Parallel to this, Schultz (1959), who acquired cognitive perceptions by demonstrating ‘human capital theory’ is likewise dependable by the institutional element.

To this backdrop, to attain the maximum promising entrepreneurship, the cognitive institutional dimension is reflected as a crucial instrument that is positively influenced to the establishment of upcoming ventures (Urban and Kujinga, 2017; Thoumrungroje, 2010; Manolova, 2008; Spencer et al., 2004). Keeping in view all these points, we propose our second hypothesis.

 

The Normative Institutional Environment

Social Structures that arise from the normative environment in the country play a vital role in determining entrepreneurial behaviors (Seelos et al. 2011). Busenitz et al. (2000) stated that “a normative environment is actually the levels to which country’s residents admire entrepreneurial activity, creativity, and innovation”. Accordingly, the normative environment can also be rooted in the community norms and values with entrepreneurial (Thoumrungroje, 2010; Tatiana, 2008; Spencer et al., 2004). Likewise, some other studies suggested that change in people’s normative status can reproduce improvement in the social entrepreneurship mindset (Manolova, 2008; Thoumrungroje, 2010; Karanda and Toledano, 2012). Hence, we produce our third hypothesis to validate this reasoning.

 

Perceived Feasibility as a Mediating Role

In this paper, the conceptual approach is rooted in the elements of TPB that undertake, “the intention to act entrepreneurially is determined by other factors” (Dodd et al., 2009). Therefore, intentions to entrepreneurial activities are influenced by desirability to feasibility rooted with the idea of new ventures.  According to Dodd et al. (2009), “desirability is the degree to which a person intends to start a new business, which is perceived as a desirable career option”. This show with desirability individual generally intends to ask them the need of doing business. 

Despite institutional forces, there are other factors that determine the entrepreneurial intentions of an individual. Krueger and Brazeal (1994) mentioned feasibility could remarkably influence the entrepreneurial intentions to start up a new business (Dodd et al., 2009). Therefore, feasibility is “the degree to which starting a new business is perceived as a feasible career option”. It can be measured by using noticeable scales, i.e. convenience to initiate, confidence to the degree of success, proficiency to handle the workload, self-assurance about the new venture, sufficient start-up information (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994). Congruently, Mair and Noboa (2003) stated that in the light of social entrepreneurship the key to perceived desirability and feasibility is motivation to take along a chance to build new ventures

According to Krueger and Brazeal (1994), “feasibility can be measured by these scales: ease of start-up, the certainty of start-up success, ability to cope with start-up workload, the sureness of themselves about start-up, and adequate start-up knowledge”. Congruently, according to Mair and Noboa (2003), “in the social entrepreneurship sense, the perceived desirability and feasibility are key motivations to pursue an opportunity and create a new venture, and such perception of feasibility to entrepreneurial activities can be taken as fundamental pre-requisites of entrepreneurial intentions”. The same scale of desirability and feasibility has been used to measure entrepreneurial intentions (Dodd et al., 2009; Dissanayake, 2013) in different setups.

In contrast, the regulatory, institutional setting is likewise favorable and positively linked to perceived desirability and feasibility in developing countries (Urban, 2013). Similarly, Bernardino et al. (2015) recommended that may inculcate a broader context for social entrepreneurship. Subsequently, socially acceptable and attractive norms support the individuals of a community towards social entrepreneurship (Bygrave and Minniti, 2000). Lastly, social entrepreneurial intentions are positively associated with cognitive characteristics (Urban, 2008).

As a consequence, institutional environment capacities derived by desirability and feasibility empower the businessperson to identify social entrepreneurship opportunities. Ultimately feasibility significantly converts to imperative components in social entrepreneurship practices. Hence, the following hypothesis is suggested.

 

Research Objective

·         To investigate the impact of the coercive environment on Social Entrepreneurship intentions.

·         To investigate the impact of the normative environment on Social Entrepreneurship intentions.

·         To determine the impact of the cognitive environment on Social Entrepreneurship intention.

·         To determine the influence of perceived feasibility on Social Entrepreneurship intention.

·         To explore the future paradigms of social entrepreneurship in Pakistan.

 

Theoretical Framework

Figure 1



Hypothesis Development 

H1: The Coercive environments of a country have a positive impact on Social Entrepreneurship intention.

H2: The Normative environments of a country have a positive impact on Social Entrepreneurship intention.

H3: The Cognitive environments of a country have a positive impact on social entrepreneurship intentions.

H4a: Perceived Feasibility mediates the relationship between the coercive environment and Social Entrepreneurship intentions.

H4b: Perceived Feasibility mediates the relationship between the normative environment and social entrepreneurship intentions.

H4c: Perceived Feasibility mediates the relationship between the cognitive environment and social entrepreneurship intentions.

H5: Perceived Feasibility influences social entrepreneurship intentions. 

Data Collection Methodology

Data is collected from 357 university students of different cities in Pakistan using a snowball sampling technique. 




Scale Measures 

Coercive Environment 

To measure the coercive environment, the scale is adopted from literature (Busentiz er al, 2000). The scale for measuring coercive environment comprises of two items, i.e., Govt. companies support social venture creation (GS), government organizations offer tax relief for social enterprises (GTR). The questionnaire scale was designed for respondents ranging from “1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree”.




Normative Environment 

To calculate the Normative environment, the scale is adopted from literature (Busentiz er al, 2000). The scale for measuring normative environment comprises of two parts, i.e., people of our country admire new ideas into social entrepreneurship (AI), the possibility of social entrepreneurship in our country is possible through if people cognitive reproduced with normative change (NC). The questionnaire scale was designed for respondents ranging from “1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree”.




Cognitive Environment

To measure the cognitive environment, the scale is adopted from literature (Busentiz er al, 2000). The scale for measuring the cognitive environment consists of two items, i.e. People who start social entrepreneurship know how to deal with risk (RD), I think I am capable of starting and managing future social entrepreneurship (CS). The questionnaire scale was designed for respondents ranging from “1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree”.




Perceived Feasibility

To measure the Perceived feasibility, the scale is adopted from literature (Linan and Chen, 2009). The scale for measuring perceived feasibility consists of two items, i.e. I have enough knowledge and skills to start social entrepreneurship (KS). I have the ability to cope up with startup workload (SW). The questionnaire scale was designed for respondents ranging from “1= Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree”.




Social Entrepreneurship Intention 

To measure the Social Entrepreneurship intentions, the scale is adopted from literature (Linan and Chen, 2009). The scale for measuring social entrepreneurship intention consists of one item, i.e. in the future, I have a very serious plan of starting social entrepreneurship (SEI). The questionnaire scale was designed for respondents ranging from “1= Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree”.

Data Analysis

To measure the relationship of dependent and independent variable multiple regression and correlation are used with SPSS 26. To explore the future paradigms of social entrepreneurship in Pakistan, Nvivo 20 is used.

Results & Discussion

Regression

The standard error of an estimate is actually an unbiased estimate of Sy.x, the population, standard deviation, about the regression, line. The standard error of an estimate will be zero when all, the observed values, fall on the regression line.

·         In table 1, our data results state the value of R square is .363 and adjusted R square .348, which is very close.

·         In table 1, the standard error of an estimate is 0.815, which means all the observed values in this study fall on the regression line.

 

Table 3.

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
					R Square Change	F Change	df1	df2	Sig. F Change
1	.602	.363	.348	0.815	.363	23.999	8	337	.000

 

The value of significance in the ANOVA table should be equal or below 0.05. In table 2, the value of significance in the ANOVA table is .000, which indicates data, statistically significant.

 

Table 4.

Model		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	127.588	8	15.948	23.999	.000
	Residual	223.953	337	.665
	Total	351.540	345

 

Results without Mediator

Table 5.

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	1.440	.304		4.738	.000
	GS	-.013	.049	-.013	-.254	.799
	GTR	-.036	.046	-.038	-.770	.442
	AI	-.004	.016	-.011	-.252	.801
	NC	-.073	.052	-.064	-1.409	.160
	RD	.102	.048	.100	2.109	.036
	CS	.611	.053	.545	11.462	.000

 

In table 3, coercive forces were measured through government support (GS) and government tax relief (GTR). Table 1 shows the weak inverse relationship of these two variables with social entrepreneurship intentions with beta value -0.13 and -0.38 and t value -2.54, -.770, respectively. The first variable of cognitive forces was measured with AI, which has an inverse and insignificant relationship with SEI, with a beta value of -.011 and beta value -2.52. The second item of normative change was measured with NC, which has a weak inverse relationship with SEI, with beta value -.064 and t value -1.409. The cognitive environment was measured through RD and CS, it shows a strong and significant relationship with beta value -100,,545, and t value 2.109, 11.462, and significant at 0.036 and 0.000 respectively.

 

Results with Mediator

Table 6.

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	1.125	.324		3.472	.001
	GS	-.034	.049	-.034	-.698	.486
	GTR	-.038	.045	-.040	-.836	.404
	AI	-.001	.016	-.002	-.048	.961
	NC	-.049	.051	-.043	-.970	.333
	RD	.075	.048	.073	1.559	.120
	CS	.474	.064	.423	7.444	.000
	KS	.207	.059	.199	3.490	.001
	SW	.041	.066	.033	.628	.531

 

Table 4 shows the regression results with a mediator, in this study we found that the mediator (perceived feasibility) does not mediate the relationship between Coercive environment, normative environment, and the cognitive environment with social entrepreneurship intentions but it has a direct relation with social entrepreneurship intentions. The perceived feasibility was measured with KS and SW. KS has a strong significant relation with beta value .199 and t value 3.490 and significant at .001

Table 5 shows that a significant relationship is found among seven variables, there was a total of ten independent variables in this research.

 

Table 7.

		SEI	GS	GTR	AI	NC	RD	CS	KS	SW
Pearson Correlation	SEI	1.000
	GS	.009	1.000
	GTR	-.031	.433	1.000
	AI	-.049	.131	.069	1.000
	NC	.041	.017	.051	-.028	1.000
	RD	.269	.105	.059	-.041	.111	1.000
	CS	.566	.055	.019	-.056	.175	.329	1.000
	KS	.470	.135	.069	-.055	.011	.295	.570	1.000
	SW	.346	.116	.015	-.080	.072	.262	.476	.505	1.000

 

Table 5 shows the coercive environment (GS) has a positive correlation with Normative change (NC) and cognitive environment (CS) with the significance of .017 and .055, respectively. The Coercive environment (GTR) has a strong and positive correlation with the normative environment (NC) and cognitive environment (RD) and (CS) and perceived feasibility (SW) with significance at .051, .059, .019, .069, .015 respectively. The normative environment (AI) has an inverse correlation with the cognitive environment and perceived feasibility. The normative environment (NC) has a positive and strong correlation with perceived feasibility (KS) with significance at .011

Future Paradigms of Social Entrepreneurship in Pakistan

The project map in Nvivo tells us items involved in our project to explore the future paradigms of social entrepreneurship in Pakistan, we analyzed our open-ended responses in Nvivo, by doing thematic analysis and coding. In the following diagram, future paradigms of social entrepreneurship are shown.  

Figure 2



Hierarchy Chat 

The hierarchy diagram in Nvivo tells us the significance level of each theme or code. While exploring the future paradigms of social entrepreneurship in Pakistan, we discovered that most of the respondents are interested in education, after that we receive more responses for technical training and consultancy firms. Then we have online training, water, food, and event management business. We discovered fewer themes for agriculture, construction, energy, organizations for transgender, and biodegradable packings. 

Figure 3



Conclusion

In this study, an institutional theory is applied to check the impact of different institutions on social entrepreneurship intentions in Pakistan. For this purpose, three independent variables: the coercive environment, the normative environment, and the cognitive environment have been used, and the dependent variable is social entrepreneurship intention. Perceived feasibility has been taken as a mediating variable. In this study, the quantitative and qualitative research approach is used. Data has been collected through questionnaires surveys from different university students of Pakistan. The descriptive statistics has been used for data analysis by using correlation and multiple regression analysis. Nvivo 20 is used to explore the future paradigms of social entrepreneurship in Pakistan. In this study, two hypotheses are accepted that are, H3: Cognitive environment of a country has a positive influence on social entrepreneurship intentions, and H5: Perceived Feasibility affected the social entrepreneurship intentions. The results of his study indicated that cognitive environment and perceived feasibility has a direct and significant relation with social entrepreneurship intentions, perceived feasibility doesn’t mediate the relationship between dependent and independent variables. 

Suggestions

In the future, cross-cultural study can be conducted by taking the same variables. The researchers can also increase the measurement scale items. A comparative study can also be conducted in two regions.

Limitations

The current research has been conducted during the Pandemic (Covid-19) lockdown, due to mobility constraints data is collected by limited participants. Number of the sample can be increased. More variables can be added to gain a comprehensive view in future research.  

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Allen, I. E., Langowitz, N., & Minniti, M. (2007). Global entrepreneurship monitor. 2006 report on women and entrepreneurship, 3(1), 54-88.
• Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta‐analytic review. British journal of social psychology, 40(4), 471-499.
• Audia, P. G., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2000). The paradox of success: An archival and a laboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change. Academy of Management journal, 43(5), 837-853.
• Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373-403.
• Baierl, R., Grichnik, D., Spörrle, M., & Welpe, I. M. (2014). Antecedents of social entrepreneurial intentions: The role of an individual's general social appraisal. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 123-145.
• Baker, M.J. (2011),
• Baron, R. A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of management Review, 33(2), 328- 340.
• Bernardino, S., Santos, J.F. and Ribeiro, J.C. (2015),
• Bird, B. (1988),
• Bowen, H.P. and De Clercq, D. (2008),
• Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Obloj, K. (2008). Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Where are we today and where should the research go in the future. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 32(1), 1-14.
• Busenitz, L. W., Gomez, C., & Spencer, J. W. (2000). Country institutional profiles: Unlocking entrepreneurial phenomena. Academy of Management journal, 43(5), 994-1003.
• Bygrave, W.D. and Minniti, M. (2000),
• Davidsson, P. and Wiklund, J. (1997),
• Dees, J.G. and Economy, P. (2001), Social Entrepreneurship. Enterprising Non-Profits: A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
• DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
• Doran, J., McCarthy, N. and O'Connor, M. (2018). 'The role of entrepreneurship in stimulating economic growth in developed and developing countries', Cogent Economics & Finance, 6(1) 1442093, (12pp). doi: 10.1080/23322039.2018.1442093
• Drayton, B. (2012),
• Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T. and Stephan, U. (2013),
• Fitzsimmons, J.R. and Douglas, E.J. (2011),
• Fornell, C. and Larker, D.F. (1981),
• Genius, I., (2016). Opportunity Pakistan. Statement by the commission on social entrepreneurship & innovation. Available from https://www.i-genius.org/images/Opportunity-Pakistan-A-Policy-Paper.pdf.
• Greenberg, J. (1987). The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the record straight. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 157-159.
• Griffiths, M. D., Gundry, L. K., & Kickul, J. R. (2013). The socio-political, economic, and cultural determinants of social entrepreneurship activity: An empirical examination. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 20(2), 341-357.
• Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective 7: Pearson Upper Saddle River.
• Hallam, C., Zanella, G., Dosamantes, C.A.D. and Cardenas, C. (2016),
• Harding, R. (2007),
• Harding, R. and Cowling, M. (2006),
• Haugh, H. (2012),
• IMF Pakistan - International Monetary Fund, - Publications - 2019 - 1PAKEA2019002 (Accessed on 28, June 2020) www.imf.org
• Johnson, M. P., & Schaltegger, S. (2019). Entrepreneurship for sustainable development: A review and multilevel causal mechanism framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1042258719885368
• Kim, K.-C., A. ElTarabishy and Z.-T. Bae, 2018. Humane entrepreneurship: How focusing on people can drive a new era of wealth and quality job creation in a sustainable world. Journal of Small Business Management, 56: 10-29. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12431
• Marcotte, C. (2014),
• Manolova, T.S., Eunni, R.V. and Gyoshev, B.S. (2008),
• Nissan, E., Galindo, M. A., & Méndez, M. T. (2012). Innovation, progress, entrepreneurship and cultural aspects. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 8, 411-420.
• Ovidiu Stoica & Angela Roman & Valentina Diana Rusu, 2020.
• Schaltegger, S., Hörisch, J., & Loorbach, D. (2020). Corporate and entrepreneurial contributions to sustainability transitions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(1), 1617-1618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2454
• Thoumrungroje, A. (2010). Institutional drivers of entrepreneurial intentions in an emerging economy: an empirical investigation in Thailand. Journal of International Business and Economics. 10 (2)
• Urban, B. (2015),
• Urban, B., & Kujinga, L. (2017). The institutional environment and social entrepreneurship intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research.
• Urban, B., & Kujinga, L. (2017). The institutional environment and social entrepreneurship intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 23(4), 638- 655. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2016-0218
• Yamakawa, Yasuhiro and Lee, Seung-Hyun,