本研究的起點為華人社會的文化傳統，家族主義與家文化，對於社會創業的發生提供什麼樣的影響。從福山的信任理論出發，以社會資本理論、社會創業研究和第三部門管理為理論基礎，提出以社會浮現觀點作為社會創業研究新典範，包含三個社會創業分析重點：社會創業行動依存的社會脈絡、社會創業行動主體，以及社會創業創造過程及其後續發展。
在社會浮現新典範下，論文的研究預設為：不同的社會提供不同的社會脈絡，引導社會創業行動的發生，並且形塑社會創業發展的方向。以身心障礙者社會照顧服務領域為例，本研究以臺灣與德國兩個社會創業個案為研究對象，探討研究問題如下：
第一， 在臺灣與德國兩個不同的社會脈絡下，由身心障礙者家長自發組成的社會創業行動主體，如何由自身家庭出發，逐漸擴展到家族之外，透過集體社會創業行動，創造新組織或新實務的生成？
第二， 隨著社會創業成果的出現，後續的社會創業發展在社會創業行動主體和其所依存的社會脈絡互動影響下，是否展現不同的形貌？對此社會創業發展的樣態，可能的理論解釋為何？
針對研究問題，在方法上發展三個分析概念作為個案研究的分析架構。首先針對社會創業行動依存的社會脈絡，以信任範疇和福利混合概念為理論基礎，前者界定社會信任發展，後者提供四部門分工分析架構，兩者之間的理論連接點是社會資本。繼而針對社會創業創造過程：新組織或新實務生成，以創業系統為分析圖式，將行動者、時間、地方和新價值創造之間的動態關係整合納入創業系統，分析社會創業組織或實務生成的過程。最後針對後續的社會創業發展，運用多元價值評價模式，討論不同的價值模式可能形塑社會創業行動主體的社會創業認同，牽引社會創業發展的未來方向。
以臺灣社會創業個案分析為主，借鏡德國個案的發展經驗，研究發現可以總結為：在兩個不同社會的個案中，身心障礙者家長自發興起的社會創業行動，展現出從家族信任，超越家族信任，再到建立制度信任的社會信任擴展過程，亦即從家庭的凝聚性社會資本出發，經由長期互助經驗，形成非正式的家長自助團體，累積集體社會創業的共同信任基礎：連結性社會資本，進而透過正式化和制度化過程，將信任範疇擴展到制度層面，藉由第三部門組織，逐步建構與政府、社區和企業其他部門共同治理、共同生產與共同管理身心障礙者社會照顧服務的制度信任，培育集體的公民性社會資本。
比較臺灣與德國兩個社會創業個案的研究意涵：德國的個案展現出從社會創業到社區再生，經由正式與非正式制度之間相容協作，從地方到聯邦層層協調，社會創業系列成果能夠整合進入集體的制度信任；臺灣的個案則表現出家園與組織兩種社會創業成果分立又交錯混雜，盡管能夠從家族信任進展到超越家族的共同信任，並走向第三部門組織正式建制的制度化過程，然而正式與非正式制度之間相互競合，社會創業行動主體在家園化與組織化兩種社會創業認同之間摸索，尋找適切的社會創業發展方向與定位。
從比較文化社會學的角度來看，臺灣與德國兩個社會創業個案的發展差異可以視為兩種價值模式：「家園價值」與「公民價值」之間的對話與再思考。家園價值重視傳統、地域觀念和個人關係紐帶，以個人聲譽和人際信任為評價基礎；公民價值則強調集體福祉，個人利益必須置於集體利益之後，以平等和公民團結為評價基礎。盡管臺灣的個案尚未發展出成熟的制度協作表現，經由集體社會創業，仍然實現了從家園價值到公民價值的初步擴展。至於更進一步地調合兩種價值模式使其相契於臺灣的社會脈絡，需要累積更多的實作經驗與反思，逐步建構臺灣社會身心障礙者社會照顧服務的制度信任。
作為結論，本研究提出一個規範性的社會創業論點：華人家族主義與家文化傳統作為社會創業行動依存的社會脈絡，提供臺灣身心障礙者家長投入社會創業行動的起點，藉由社會創業的集體性質、創造過程及其社會革新動能，社會創業或許能夠提供臺灣社會一個新的可能性：藉由集體社會創業歷程，擴展社會信任，累積集體公民性社會資本，為華人第三部門組織與管理和其所鑲嵌互動的社會脈絡挹注新的社會價值，超越華人家族主義與家文化傳統的文化約束。

Based on the insight from Fukuyama’s notion of trust, the main philosophy of the study is: How is it possible for societies characterized by traditional paradox of familism to move beyond the limited radius of trust (in-group collectivism) and reach to the wider and greater social trust (institutional collectivism)?
With family as a starting point, the study is based on three theoretical traditions: social capital theory, third sector research and social entrepreneurship studies. Drawing on two case studies in the specific area of social care services in Taiwan and Germany, research questions are addressed as: How does family-driven social entrepreneurship have emerged and developed in two different societies? If any, what is the main difference between the developments of two cases? And how this difference can be explained through social capital theory?

Following social emergence paradigm, three foci of analysis, namely social context, collective actors, and emergence process are discussed. Furthermore, three analytical tools for family-driven social entrepreneurship are developed, that is, four-sector-division framework (based on the concept of welfare mix), entrepreneurial system (based on Bruyat and Julien), and domestic versus civic orders of worth (based on Boltanski and Thevenot).

The findings suggest that with family as a starting point, social entrepreneurship is grounded, emerges and evolves in the distinctive social contexts. For the case of Taiwan, with the role of self-help group, family-driven social entreprenurship might provide the potential for social transformation from family tie to beyond family, creating a new organization in the third sector.

In contrast, for the case of Germany, social entrepreneurship development presents as from family-driven social entrepreneurship to community development. With multi-level associations and the functional coordination among the public administrations, third sector organizations and families as well as the surrounding communities, family-driven social entrepreneurship may reach at the institutional level. By integrating to and coordinating in the coherent interaction between formal institutions and informal cultures, the development of the German case can be related to institutional collectivism.

Based on the implications, a contextual Framework for family-driven social entrepreneurship is proposed, namely Family, beyond family, and institution: Developing family-driven social entrepreneurship in Context.

From my perspective, social entrepreneurship not only aims to make the isolates re-integrate into society, but also, with macro vision, to make institutions change for society. The direction of institutional change, echoing Fukuyama, is toward the development of an inclusive and vital society through social capital and trust, that is, not only cultivating personal and particularistic trust but also enriching generalized and institutionalized trust in society. With those aims, social entrepreneurship is context-sensitive. Both ends and means of social entrepreneurship are embedded in social context.

As a concluding thought, I stress that social entrepreneurship is contextual. With family as a starting point, social entrepreneurship is grounded, emerges, and evolves in distinctive contexts in different societies. Furthermore, in line with Fukuyama, but going further, it is possible for the societies traditionally characterized by the paradox of familism to move toward more inclusive and higher trust through social entrepreneurship. In its essence, social entrepreneurship reveals the ethic of economic life in modern society, that is, not only to accumulate material wealth, but rather to enrich trust for the wider-society as wide a society as possible.

Contents
Acknowledgement..…………………………………………………………………………...ii
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………iii
List of Figures …………………………………………..…………………………………….x
List of Tables …………..………………………………………………………………….….xi

Chapter 1 Introduction …......…………………………………….……………..……….1
1-1 Research Background and Motivation………………………………………...1
1-2 Research Purpose and Research Questions……………………………………2
1-3 Structure of the Study…………………….…………………………………....3

Chapter 2 Literature Review….…..………………………..…………………..………..6
2-1 Social Capital…………………………………………………………………..6
2-1-1 Family as a Starting Point: Fukuyama Revisited………………………..7
2-1-2 Chinese Familism and the Radius of Trust……………………………...8
2-1-3 In-Group Collectivism vs. Institutional Collectivism…………….……11
2-1-4 Synthesis: Radius of Trust and Its Development as Social Context for Social Entrepreneurship……………………………………….………12
2-2 Third Sector…………………………………………………………………..16
2-2-1 Defining the Third Sector……………………………………………...16
2-2-2 Welfare Mix and Welfare Regime ……………………..……………...18
2-2-3 Self-Help Group………………………………………..……………...22
2-2-4 Synthesis: Self-Help Group as Opportunities for Social Entrepreneurship……………………………………………………...23
2-3 Social Entrepreneurship………………………………………………………26
2-3-1 Defining Social Entrepreneurship……………………………………..26
2-3-2 Distinct Schools of Thought on Social Entrepreneurship.……………..33
2-3-3 Stage Views of Social Entrepreneurial Process …………………….…35
2-3-4 Synthesis: Social Entrepreneurship as an Organizational Emergence Process…………………………………………………..……………36
2-4 Synthesis: A Contextual View of Social Entrepreneurship: Social Context, Self-Help Group, and the Organizational Emergence Process……………….37

Chapter 3 Methodology………..………..…………………………………………........38
3-1 Rationale: Social Emergence Paradigm………………………………………38
3-2 Research Design……..……….……………………………………………....40
3-2-1 Social Context Analysis: Four-Sector-Division Framework…………..41
3-2-2 Process Analysis: Entrepreneurial System Scheme…………………....43
3-2-3 Social Entrepreneurship Development Analysis: Modes of Justification………...…………………………………………………..45
3-3 Research Sites and Data Collection……………………..……………............47
3-3-1 The Taiwan’s Case……………………………………………………..47
3-3-2 The German Case………………………………………………………48

Chapter 4 Case Studies………………………………………………………………….50
4-1 The Taiwan’s Case: Kanner Garden and Kanner Foundation………………..50
4-1-1 Social Context: Developmental Welfare Regime and Familistic Society…………………………………………………………………51
4-1-2 Entrepreneurial System: Time, Place, Actor and Process…………………………………………………..……………..51
4-1-3 Social Entrepreneurship Development………………………………...54
4-1-4 Summary: Family and Organization: Hybrid and Divergent Development of Social Entrepreneurship……….……………………..58
4-2 The German Case: Lebensgemeinschaft Rohrlack-Vichel................................58
4-2-1 Social Context: Corporatist Welfare Regime and Group-Oriented Society…………………………………………………………………58
4-2-2 Emergence and Coordination of Social Entrepreneurship among Various
Actors: Government, Third Sector and Parents………………………..59
4-2-3 Summary: From Social Entrepreneurship to Community Development: Coordination of Organizational Society………...……………………..63
4-3 Comparison: Two Societies, Two configurations of Social Entrepreneurship Development……………………………………...…………………………..63

Chapter 5 Conclusion…………………...……………………………………………….67
5-1 Findings and a Framework Proposed: Family, beyond Family, and Institution: Developing Family-Driven Social Entrepreneurship in Context…………………………………………………………….…………67
5-2 Research Limitation and Directions for Future Research…………………….70


References…………………………………………………………..………………….....…73

Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………..85
Appendix 1: Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship………………………………………...85
Appendix 2: Organizational Structure of the Taiwan’s Case………………………………...88
Appendix 3: Organizational Structure of the German Case………………………………….89
Appendix 4: Field Interview Outline………………………………………………………...90
Appendix 5: Social Entrepreneurship Development of the Taiwan’s Case………………….93

Adler, P. S. and Kwon, S.-W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27: 17-40.
Anheier, H. and Kendall, J. 2002. Interpersonal trust and voluntary associations: Examining three approaches. British Journal of Sociology, 53(3): 343-362.
Austin, J. E. 2006. Three avenues for social entrepreneurship research. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, and K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: 22-33. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Austin, J. E., Stevenson, H., and Wei-Skillern, J. 2006. Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1): 1-22.
Bacq, S. and 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.
Bagnasco, A. 2001. Trust and social capital. Translated by J. Irving. In K. Nash and A. Scott (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology: 230-239. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Banfield, E. C. 1958. The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Bellah, R. N. 1968. Reflections on the Protestant ethic analogy in Asia. In S. N. Eisenstadt (Ed.), The Protestant Ethic and Modernization: A Comparative View: 243-251. New York; London: Basic Books.
Berger, P. L., and Neuhaus, R. J. 1977. To Empower People. The Role of Mediating Structures in Public Policy. Washington, D.C.
Boltanski, L. and Thevenot, L. 1999. The sociology of critical capacity. European Journal of Social Theory, 2(3): 359-377.
Boschee, J. 1995. Social entrepreneurship. Across the Board, 32(3): 20-24.
Bourdieu, P. 2002 [1986]. The forms of capital. In N. W. Biggart (Ed.), Readings in Economic Sociology: 280-292. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Braun, H. and Caster, A. 2001. Civil commitment: The contribution of volunteering to community building. In B. Ferguson and L. W. Roberts (Eds.), Social Capital and Community in Canada and Germany: 53-66. Conference Proceedings, Winnipeg, Man.: St. John’s College Press.
Brearley, C. P. 1990. Working in Residential Homes for Elderly People. New York: Routledge.
Brouard, F. and Larivet, S. 2010. Essay of clarifications and definitions of the related concepts of social enterprise, social entrepreneur and social entrepreneurship. In A. Fayolle and H. Matlay (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Social Entrepreneurship: 29-56). Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Bruyat, C. and Julien, P.-A.. 2000. Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16: 165-180.
Burt, R. S. 2005. Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chen, D.-S. 2009. Changes in social organizational principles of Taiwan society. Journal of Zang-Geng Humanities and Social Science, 2(2): 247-274. (In Chinese)
Cohen, J. 1995. Interpreting the notion of civil society. In M. Walzer (Ed.), Toward a Global Civil Society: 35-40. New York: Berghahn Books.
Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95-S121.
Colletta, N. J. and Cullen, M. L. 2002. Social capital and social cohesion: case studies from Cambodia and Rwanda. In C. Grootaert and T. van Bastelare (Eds.), The Role of Social Capital in Development: An Empirical Assessment: 279-309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, B., Dodds, C., and Mitchell, W. 2003. Social entrepreneurship – False premises and dangerous forebodings. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 38(1): 57-72.
Cordes, J. J., Steuerle, C. E., and Twombly, E. 2004. Dimensions of nonprofit entrepreneurship: An exploratory essay. In D. Holtz-Eakin and H. S. Rosen (Eds.), Public policy and the economics of entrepreneurship: 115-152. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Corry, O. 2010. Defining and theorizing the third sector. In R. Taylor (Ed.), Third Sector Research: 11-20. New York: Springer.
Craig, J., Horne, M., and Mongon, D. 2009. The Engagement Ethic – The Potential of Co-operative and Mutual Governance for Public Services. London: The Innovation Unit.
Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., and Matear, M. 2010. Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here? Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3): 37-57.
Dees, J. G. 1998. The meaning of “social entrepreneurship” (revised May 2001). Accessed 13 November 2012, from http://www.se-forum.se/wp-content/uploads/
2008/11/social_entrepreneuship_dees1.pdf.
Defourny, J. and Nyssens, M. 2008. Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and development. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3): 202-228.
Defourny, J. and Pestoff, V. (Eds.) 2008. Images and concepts of the third sector in Europe. EMES Working Papers, no. 08/02. Assessed 2 July 2010, from http://www.emes.net/fileadmin/emes/PDF_files/Working_Papers/WP_08_02_TS_FINAL_WEB.pdf.
Ding, H.-B. and Abetti, P. A. 2003. The entrepreneurial success of Taiwan: Synergy between technology, social capital and institutional support. In G. D. Libecap (Ed.), Issues in Entrepreneurship: Contracts, Corporate Characteristics and Country Differences: 91-123. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Drayton, B. 2002. The citizen sector: Becoming as entrepreneurial and competitive as business. California Management Review, 44(3): 120-132.
Drucker, P. F. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Durkheim, E. 1997 [1893]. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Macmillan.
Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Etzioni, A. 1973. The third sector and domestic missions. Public Administration Review, 33(4): 314-323.
Evers, A. and Laville, J.-L. 2004. Defining the third sector in Europe. In A. Evers and J.-L. Laville (Eds.), The Third Sector in Europe: 11-42. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Fowler, A. 2000. NGOs as a moment in history: Beyond aid to social entrepreneurship or civic innovation? Third World Quarterly, 21(4): 637-654.
Frere, B. and Reinecke, J. 2011. A libertarian socialist response to the “Big Society”: The solidarity economy. In R. Huall, J. Gibbon, O. Branzei, and H. Haugh (Eds.), The Third Sector (Dialogues in Critical Management Studies, Volume 1): 117-137. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press.
Garbsch, A. Koch, A., Komm, G. and Wichmann-Erlen, A. (Eds.) 2004. Rohrlack: ein Dorf im Wandel. Berlin; Rohrlack: Interessengemeinschaft fur behinderte Menschen e.V. und des Kulturvereins Temnitztal e.V.
Gelfand, M J., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Nishii, L. H., and Bechtold, D. J. 2004. Individualism and collectivism. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The Global Study of 62 Societies: 438-512. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360-1380.
Granovetter, M. S., 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481-510.
Greenfield, S. M. and Strickon, A. 1981. A new paradigm for the study of entrepreneurship and social change. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 29(3): 469-499.
Greve, C., Flinders, M. V., and Van Thiel, S. 1999. Quangos: What’s in a name? Defining quangos from a comparative perspective. Governance, 12(1): 129-146.
Haugh, H. 2005. A research agenda for social entrepreneurship. Social Enterprise Journal, 1(1): 1-12.
Haugh, H. 2006. Nonprofit social entrepreneurship. In S. Parker (Ed.), The Life Cycle of Entrepreneurial Ventures: 401-436. New York: Springer.
Haugh, H. 2007. Community-led social venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(2): 161-182.
Helmke, G. and Levitsky, S. 2004. Informal institutions and comparative politics: A research agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4): 725-740.
Hjorth, D. 2007. Lessons from Iago: Narrating the event of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22: 712-732.
Hockerts, K. 2006. Entrepreneurial opportunity in social purpose business ventures. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, and K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: 142-154. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hofstede, G. 1993. Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7(1): 81-94.
Hofstede, G. 1994. The business of international business is culture. International Business Review, 3(1): 1-14.
Irwin, S. 2001. Repositioning disability and the life course: a social claiming perspective. In M. Priestley (Ed.), Disability and the Life Course: Global Perspectives: 15-25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jacob, R. 2001. Self-help-groups: Models of the future modern societies? In B. Ferguson and L. W. Roberts (Eds.), Social Capital and Community in Canada and Germany: 29-38. Conference Proceedings, Winnipeg, Man.: St. John’s College Press.
Jessen, R. and Roring, G. 1999. Behindertengerecht Wohnen und Arbeiten in Rohrlack. Accessed 6 February 2011, from http://www.paritaet.org/berlin/mos/archiv/0999_01k.htm.
Johannisson, B. 2004. Entrepreneurship in Scandinavia: Bridging individualism and collectivism. In G. Corbetta, M. Huse, and D. Ravasi (Eds.), Crossroads of Entrepreneurship: 225-242. New York: Springer.
Kanner Foundation. 2012. Organizational chart. Assessed 28 November 2012, from http://www.kanner.org.tw/ShowGoods.asp?category_id=60&parent_id=50.
Kanner Foundation and Qu, X. 2006. The Loving Story of Kanner Garden. Taipei: PsyGarden. (In Chinese)
Kasnitz, D. 2001. Life event histories and the US independent living movement. In M. Priestley (Ed.), Disability and the Life Course: Global Perspectives: 67-78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Katz, J. A. 1993. The dynamics of organizational emergence: A contemporary group formation perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(2): 97-102.
Katz, J. A. and Gartner, W. B. 1988. Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13(3): 429-441.
Kerlin, J. A. 2006. Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17: 247-263.
Koch, A. and Moller, K. fur den Rohrlackkreis (Eds.) 2007. Rohrlack: Unser Dorf hat Zukunft. Berlin; Rohrlack: Interessengemeinschaft fur behinderte Menschen e.V. und des Kulturvereins Temnitztal e.V.
Koroloff, N. M. and Friesen, B. J. 1991. Support groups for parents of children with emotional disorders: A comparison of members and non-members. Community Mental Health Journal, 27(4): 265-279.
Kovalainen, A. 2005. Social capital, trust and dependency. In S. M. Koniordos (Ed.), Networks, Trust and Social Capital: Theoretical and Empirical Investigation from Europe: 71-88. England: Ashgate.
Kulp, D. H. 1925. Country Life in South China: The Sociology of Familism. New York: Columbia University.
Lam, D. and Clark, C. 1994. Beyond the developmental state: The cultural roots of ‘guerrilla capitalism’ in Taiwan. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 7(4): 412-430.
Leadbetter, C. 1997. The Rise of Social Entrepreneurship. London: Demos.
Lee, S.-C. 1953. China’s traditional family: Its characteristics and disintegration. American Sociological Review, 18(3): 272-280.
Lee, Y.-J. and Ku, Y.-W. 2003. Another welfare world? A preliminary examination of the developmental welfare regime in East Asia. Taiwanese Journal of Sociology, 31: 189-241. (In Chinese)
Levitt, T. 1973. The Third Sector: New Tactics for a Responsive Society. New York: Amacom.
Levy, L. H. 1976. Self-help groups: Types and psychological processes. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12: 310-322.
Lewis, R., Hunt, R., and Carson, D. 2006. Social Enterprise and Community-based Care – Is There a Future for Mutually Owned Organizations in Community and Primary Care? London: King’s Fund.
Lichtenstein, G. A. and Lyons, T. S. 2006. Managing the community’s pipeline of entrepreneurs and enterprise: A new way of thinking about business assets. Economic Development Quarterly, 20(4): 377-386.
Lin, N. 1999. Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1): 28-51.
Lin, N. 2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lorentzen, H. 2010. Sector labels. In R. Taylor (Ed.), Third Sector Research: 11-35. New York: Springer.
Lyons, T. S. and Lichtenstein, G. A. 2010. A community-wide framework for encouraging social entrepreneurship using the pipeline of entrepreneurs and enterprises model. In A. Fayolle and H. Matlay (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Social Entrepreneurship: 252-270. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Mair, J. and Marti, I. 2006. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41: 36-44.
Mair, J. and Noboa, E. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: How intention to create a social venture are formed. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, and K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: 121-136. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mair, J., Robinson, J., and Hockerts, K. (Eds.) 2006. Social Entrepreneurship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Martin, R. L. and Osberg, S. 2007. Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring: 29-39.
Martinelli, A. 2004. The social and institutional context of entrepreneurship. In G. Corbetta, M. Huse, and D. Ravasi (Eds.), Crossroads of Entrepreneurship: 53-74. New York: Springer.
Maton, K. I. 1989. Towards an ecological understanding of mutual-help groups: The social ecology of “fit”. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17(6): 729-753.
Mort, G., Weerawardena, J., and Carnegie, K. 2002. Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualization and measurement. American Marketing Association Conference Proceedings, 13: 5.
Myers, J. and Cato, M. S. 2011. From ‘personal’ to ‘mutual’: Exploring the opportunities for co-operative and mutual forms of ownership and governance in the design and delivery of social and public services. In R. Huall, J. Gibbon, O. Branzei, and H. Haugh (Eds.), The Third Sector (Dialogues in Critical Management Studies, Volume 1): 33-51. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Nicholls, A. (Ed.) 2006. Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Peredo, A. M. and McLean, M. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41: 56-65.
Perrini, F. 2006. Social entrepreneurship domain: Setting boundaries. In F. Perrini (Ed.), The New Social Entrepreneurship: What Await Social Entrepreneurship Ventures?: 1-25. Cheltenham, MA: Edward Elgar.
Pestoff, V. 1992. Third sector and cooperative services - An alternative to privatization. Journal of Consumer Policy, 15: 21-45.
Portes, A. 1998. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 1-24.
Portes, A. and Landolt, P. 2000. Social capital: Premise and pitfalls of its role in development. Journal of Latin American Studies, 32: 529-547.
Putnam, R. D, 1993, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University press.
Putman, R. D. 1995. Bowling alone: American’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1): 65-78.
Realo, A., Allik, J., and Greenfield, B. 2008. Radius of trust: Social capital in relation to familism and institutional collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(4): 447-462.
Redding, G. 2005. The thick description and comparison of societal systems of capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, 36: 123-155.
Redding, G. and Witt, M. A. 2006. The ‘tray of loose sand’: A thick description of the state-owned enterprise sector of China as a business system. Asian Business and Management, 5: 87-112.
Rein, M. 1989. The social structure of institutions: Neither public nor private. In S. B. Kamerman and A. J. Kahn (Eds.), Privatization and the Welfare State: 49-72. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Ridley-Duff, R. and Bull, M. 2011. The third sector and the social economy. In R. Ridley-Duff and M. Bull, Understanding Social Enterprise: Theory and Practice: 11-37. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Roper, J. and Cheney, G. 2005. Leadership, learning and human resource management: The meaning of social entrepreneurship today. Corporate Governance, 5(3): 95-104.
Rose, R. 1989. Welfare: The public/private mix. In S. B. Kamerman and A. J. Kahn (Eds.), Privatization and the Welfare State: 73-96. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Salamon, L. M. and Anheier, H. K. 1997. Toward a common definition. In L. M. Salamon and H. K. Anheier (Eds.), Defining the Nonprofit Sector: A Cross-National Analysis: 29-50. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. 2005. Social Emergence: Societies as Complex Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schieffer, A and Lessem, R. 2009. Beyond social and private enterprise: Towards the integrated enterprise. Transition Studies Review, 15(4): 713-725.
Schumpeter, J. A. 2003 [1934]. The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profit, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Translated by U. Backhaus. In J. G. Backhaus (Ed.), Joseph Alois Schumpeter: Entrepreneurship, Style and Vision (European Heritage in Economics and the Social Sciences, Volume 1): 61-116. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Scott, W. R. 1987. The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 493-511.
Scott, W. R. 2002. The changing world of Chinese enterprise: An institutional perspective. In A. S. Tsui and C. M. Lau (Eds.), The Management of Enterprises in the People’s Republic of China: 59-78. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Scott, W. R. (2008). Approaching adulthood: The maturing of institutional theory. Theory and Society, 37(5): 427-442.
Shane, S. and Eckhardt, J. 2003. The individual-opportunity nexus. In Z. J. Acs and D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction: 161-191. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 217-226.
Shockley, G. E. and Frank, P. M. 2011. Schumpeter, Kirzner, and the field of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2(1): 6-26.
Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., and Lumpkin, G. T. 2009. Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3: 161-194.
Silverman, S. F. 1968. Agricultural organization, social structure, and value in Italy: Amoral familism reconsidered. American Anthropologist, 70: 1-20.
Skoll Foundation. 2005. Social entrepreneurship. Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Said Business School, University of Oxford, accessed April 2011, from http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/centres/skoll/Pages/default.aspx.
Steier, L. P. 2009. Familial capitalism in global institutional contexts: Implications for corporate governance and entrepreneurship in East Asia. Asian Pacific Journal of Management, 26: 513-535.
Stevenson, H. and Jarillo, J. 1990. A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 17-27.
Steyaert, C. and Hjorth, D. 2006. Introduction: What is social in social entrepreneurship? In C. Steyaert and D. Hjorth (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as Social Change: 1-20. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Stone, W. 2003. Towards building capacity and sustainable communities: Bonding, bridging and linking with social capital. Bulletin, 4 (Spring/summer): 13-16.
Streeck, W. and Schmitter, P. C. 1985. Community, market, state - and associations? The prospective contribution of interest governance to social order. In W. Streeck and P. C. Schmitter (Eds.), Private Interest Government: Beyond Market and State: 1-29. London: Sage.
Sullivan Mort, G., Weerawardena, J., and Carnegie, K. 2003. Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualization. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1): 76-88.
Schwab Foundation. 2005. Social entrepreneurship. Accessed June 2010, from http://www.schwabfound.org.
Stryjan, Y. 2006. The practice of social entrepreneurship: Theory and the Swedish experience. Journal of Rural Cooperative, 34(2): 195-224.
Tan, W.-L., Williams, J., and Tan, T. M. 2005. Defining the ‘social’ in ‘social entrepreneurship’: Altruism and entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1: 353-365.
Thompson, J. L. 2002. The world of the social entrepreneur. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(5): 412-431.
Thornton, P. H. 1999. The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 19-46.
Torri, M. C. 2010. Community gender entrepreneurship and self-help groups: A way forward to foster social capital and truly effective forms of participation among rural poor women? Community Development Journal, 47(1): 55-76.
Venkataraman, S. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 3: 119-138.
Verweij, M. 2007. Four wrongs can make a right: From stocks of social capital to competing ways of life. Politics & Policy, 35(3): 464-495.
Vidal, I. 2010. Social economy. In R. Taylor (Ed.), Third Sector Research: 61-71. New York: Springer.
Waters, M. 1994. Modern Sociology Theory. London: Sage Publications.
Weber, M. 1930 [1904-05]. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Allen & Unwin.
Weisbrod, B. A. 1988. The Nonprofit Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Welter, F. 2011. Contextualizing entrepreneurship – Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1): 165-184.
Werkgemeinschaft furBerlin-Brandenburg website. 2011. Accessed 6 February 2011, from http://werkgemeinschaft-bb.de/.
Whyte, M. K. 1996. The Chinese family and economic development: Obstacle or engine? Economic Development and Cultural Change, 45: 1-30.
Wolfenden, L. 1978. The Future of Voluntary Organizations: Report of the Wolfenden Committee. London: Croom Helm.
Wong, S.-L. 1985. The Chinese family firm: A model. British Journal of Sociology, 36: 58-72.
Wong, S.-L. 1996. Chinese entrepreneurs and business trust. In G. G. Hamilton (Ed.), Asian Business Networks: 13-26. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter.
Young, D. R. 1998. Commercialism in nonprofit social service associations: Its character, significance, and rationale. In B. A. Weisbrod (Ed.), To Profit or Not to Profit: The Commercial Transformation of the Nonprofit Sector: 195-216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Young, D. R. and Kerlin, J. A. 2010. Social entrepreneurship. In H. Anheier and S. Toepler (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Civil Society: 1415-1420. New York: Springer.
Zahra, S. A., Gedajilovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., and Shulman, J. M. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: Domain, Contributions and Ethical Dilemmas. University of Minnesota Conference on Ethics and Entrepreneurship.
Zahra, S. A., Gedajilovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., and Shulman, J. M. 2009. A typology of social entrepreneurship: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24: 519-532.
Zucker, L. G. 1986. Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8: 53-111.