Creating Livelihoods: Indian Women Entrepreneur Networks in the Context of Poverty

by Smita K. Trivedi

B.A. in Public Policy Studies, May 2001, Duke University

Master of Education Policy, June 2004, Harvard University

A Dissertation submitted to

The Faculty of

The School of Business

of The George Washington University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

August 31, 2014

Dissertation directed by

Timothy L. Fort

Eveleigh Professor of Business Ethics, Indiana University Kelley School of Business

Jennifer J. Griffin

Professor of Strategic Management and Public Policy

ii

The School of Business of The George Washington University certifies that Smita K.

Trivedi has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy or

Doctor of Science as of April 25, 2014. This is the final and approved form of the

dissertation.

Creating Livelihoods: Indian Women Entrepreneur Networks in the Context of Poverty

Smita K. Trivedi

Dissertation Research Committee:

Timothy L. Fort, Eveleigh Professor of Business Ethics, Indiana University Kelley

School of Business, Dissertation Co-Director

Jennifer J. Griffin, Professor of Strategic Management and Public Policy, Dissertation

Co-Director

Stuart L. Hart, Professor Emeritus of Management, Cornell University Johnson Graduate

School of Management, Committee Member

Vanessa G. Perry, Associate Professor of Marketing, Committee Member

Shaista E. Khilji, Professor of Human and Organizational Learning & International

Affairs, Committee Member

Alex V. Krasnikov, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Committee Member

iii

© Copyright 2014 Smita K. Trivedi

All rights reserved

iv

Dedications – Micro and Macro

I would like to micro-dedicate this dissertation to my grandmothers. Jayaben Trivedi is

approximately 100 years old (DOB unknown) and with only a 5th

grade education, she

did everything she could to ensure that the generations after her got an education. I am

the second generation in her family to attend a higher educational insitution.

Shardaben Oza was able to complete school, but due to societal norms, she was neither

able to pursue a career nor make even the smallest financial decisions in her home. I will

be the first woman in both of their families to receive a Ph.D., and I am only able to

pursue my dream because of them and their legacies.

I would like to macro-dedicate this dissertation to the special women who were willing to

share their hopes and dreams in order for me to complete my dream dissertation research.

I hope with all my heart that women everywhere who live in patriarchal societies –

whether overt in the social structure as in India or undercover via pay wages and the glass

ceiling as in the United States – are able to achieve their dreams as well.

v

Acknowledgements

While writing about networks, it was difficult not to think of all the support I got

from my network during this process. I wish to thank the many people without whom this

dissertation would have never come to fruition.

First and foremost, I’d like to thank my chair. Tim Fort was the first person I

spoke with applying to GW and so it was so fitting that he be the one who carried me

throughout the process. He has always given me positive feedback and encouraged me to

shoot for the “stars,” and I owe him my career as well as my dissertation. Jennifer Griffin

impressed me from the first day we met at my GW interview and has helped with my

development as a scholar like no one else – encouraging me and challenging me very step

of the way. Her tenure juggling department chair, SIM president, pursuing her own

research, and teaching while maintaining a life outside of work, has taught me more than

she will ever know as a role model. The person who ignited my curiosity and interest in

research and even encouraged me to pursue what I cared about most from the very

beginning of my PhD program was Jorge Rivera, and I can’t thank him enough for his

support. He invests so much in doctoral students, and protects us from doing work that

wouldn’t eventually help our own research or teaching. I only hope that he can influence

more doctoral professors to teach the way he teaches.

I still cannot believe Stuart Hart is on my committee, except for the fact that his

wisdom and words helped me hone the paper so much towards the end, and understand

its potential contribution from the start. I want to especially thank Vanessa Perry, Shaista

Khilji, and Alex Krasnikov for being consistent doctoral student advocates, cheerleaders

and supporters and specifically for being on my committee and giving me such

vi

thoughtful feedback and support. Without you, my incredible professors, this dissertation

never would have been possible.

I would like to thank my family: My husband, Akash Jain, to begin with (who

married me even though I was a disoriented PhD student who then proceeded to move to

India to collect data just after our wedding); my parents Kalpana and Kishor Trivedi

without whose pushing, prodding, encouragement and funding I would not have been

able to attempt to earn three more letters; my sister Kavita Trivedi and brother-in-law

Sanjay Ranchod whose endless help with re-writes and wedding planning when I had to

concentrate on work will never be forgotten. Very importantly, I’d like to thank my

family in India (especially Masi, Nanumama, Mami, Kadam and Kunal) who stood by me

through translations, frequent visits and disruptions to their lives in order for me to

complete this project.

I also want to thank the professors who were instrumental in helping me tease out

what it was that I was truly interested in studying: Jorge Walter, Shivraj Kanungo, Mark

Starik, Shawn Berman, Kathy Rehbein, Harry Van Buren, and Michelle Westermann-

Behaylo. I want to thank my colleagues for their support and suggestions: Wachindra

Bandara, Crystal Tsai, Mary Schoonmaker, Tony Canizzaro, Pete Tashman, Juan

Roeschmann, Alyson Latham, Andrew Bryant, Kweku Ndoum, Yoona Youm, Jennifer

deBoer, Viviane Clement, Lili Yan, Li Fang, Kuo-Liang Chen, Gastón de los Reyes, &

Alberto Willi.

Two people who I can’t thank enough are: Elizabeth Huff for putting up with my

gazillion questions with patience and grace, as well as Rochelle Rediang whose priceless

vii

smile and “good morning” fixes everything and encourages me even from across the

world.

I wish to thank my sister-in-law Jyoti Jain for her unending love and supportive

texts, as well as my friends who have been patiently waiting for me to be done with this

dissertation and finally get a job so I can pay for their dinners for once: Laura Feiveson,

Nupur Mehta, Sheeba Jacob, Sujal Shah, Monica Patel, Genevieve Daftary, Rhonda

Binda, Christie Wrightson, Saurabh Singh, Tushar Ranchod, Bijal Parikh, Faith Scriven,

Krista Hermawan, and Puja Singh Patel.

Finally I would like to thank the wonderful welcoming research community in

India I was incredibly fortunate to be a part of: Professors Jerome Joseph and Anil K.

Gupta at IIM-Ahmedabad, Dr. Malavika Subramanium of IIT-Gandhinagar, Krishna

Gajjar of GSEHD, as well as the SEWA employees who made all of this possible:

Savitaben Patel, Heenaben Dave, Ushaben Ganatra, Ushaben Solanki, Chandubhai,

Sairaben, Rashidaben, Manjulaben, Savitaben and Reemaben Nanavaty. Your work

inspires and reverberates throughout my entire network, and I hope you celebrate that

because of you, women everywhere are able to change their lives and fulfill their dreams.

viii

Statement of Purpose

I was 16 when a friend of mine asked me not to use the word “poor” again. She

said I didn’t understand the meaning of that word because I had money. I spent days

trying to understand why she was so offended by my comments, and thereafter spent

years working to understand the world’s poorest people. Ultimately, I taught at a

government-run school outside of Bangalore, India where most children had no running

water, electricity or bathrooms in their homes. We spoke no language in common, but I

would constantly get phone calls from my students where they would say my name,

giggle, and hang up. I would even be invited to join them in cricket matches played with

sticks on garbage mounds. I enjoyed my time with them and understood that they were

not just dramatic Hollywood portrayals of lives gone wrong or statistics in an academic

paper; they were people who changed my life and were seeking to change their own.

Years later, I found an academic community that was able to help me understand

these children better, through researching exactly what it means to be “poor.” The people

in the world who are living on meager means share many similarities with those of us

who don’t, and they have some differences as well. To be able to attack this problem of

poverty, I found it was integral to involve myself in the communities I wished to

understand such that I could view them as knowledge-holders and not just as “poor”

people. I chose to look into community-based enterprises that were successful, and how

the entrepreneurs that started them got where they are today. The overall purpose of this

dissertation is to understand the context of poverty, and demonstrate its richness.

ix

Abstract

Creating Livelihoods: Indian Women Entrepreneur Networks in the Context of Poverty

This dissertation seeks to examine poverty alleviation from the ground-up. First it

conceptually introduces and develops the concept of livelihood entrepreneurship. I argue

that livelihood entrepreneurship differs from other forms of entrepreneurship, due to the

entrepreneur’s goals in the context of poverty. I ask research questions using network

theory and stakeholder theory explaining how livelihood entrepreneurs may find success

and lift themselves out of poverty. Second, the dissertation delves into a qualitative study

of female livelihood entrepreneurs associated with SEWA (Self-Employed Women’s

Association), in the context of impoverished communities in and around Ahmedabad,

Gujarat, India. I look at what types of skills the entrepreneurs gain by the SEWA

intervention and how the women build their networks in order to succeed and sustain

their enterprises in the Indian context. Third, I propose hypotheses, set up a quantitative

demonstration via social network analysis and test my model by looking at how specific

social capital resources of an Indian woman entrepreneur living in poverty relate to

change in her family’s livelihood.

x

Table of Contents

Dedications – Micro and Macro .............................................................................................. iv

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... v

Statement of Purpose ............................................................................................................ viii

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ix

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... x

List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... xiii

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... xiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1

What is Poverty ......................................................................................................................... 2

Framework for poverty ............................................................................................................. 2

Why Poverty Matters ................................................................................................................ 3

The End of Poverty (Solutions) ................................................................................................ 4

Why Poverty Alleviation from the ground up.......................................................................... 6

Livelihood Creation .................................................................................................................. 7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 9

Entrepreneurship Literature ...................................................................................................... 9

The Purpose of Entrepreneurship in the Context of Poverty ................................................. 11

The Context of Poverty ........................................................................................................... 15

Social Capital Resources ........................................................................................................ 18

Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 22

Expected Contribution ............................................................................................................ 23

Audience .................................................................................................................................. 24

xi

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN – METHODOLOGY AND SETTING .................... 25

Research Setting ...................................................................................................................... 25

Data .......................................................................................................................................... 29

Research Design ...................................................................................................................... 31

Measurement ........................................................................................................................... 32

CHAPTER 4: QUALITATIVE STUDY ON LIVELIHOOD CREATION ........................ 35

Research Question................................................................................................................... 35

BoP 2.0: the New Commons Approach ................................................................................. 35

Research Procedure ................................................................................................................. 36

Results ..................................................................................................................................... 37

Beginnings (examples from Fabric workers) .........................................................37

Survival to Stability (Examples from Animal Husbandry) ....................................39

Organizing (Examples from Street Vendors) ........................................................40

Strength of a Network (Examples of Salt workers and Farmers) ..........................42

Success stories (Examples from Farmers and Salt Workers) ................................44

Discussion of Qualitative Study ............................................................................................. 45

Implications ............................................................................................................................. 46

Position Generator: Social Capital ......................................................................................... 46

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 48

CHAPTER 5: TESTING A THEORETICAL MODEL OF LIVELIHOOD CREATION . 50

Research Model ....................................................................................................................... 50

Hypotheses Development ....................................................................................................... 51

Entrepreneurs in Uncertainty .................................................................................................. 51

xii

Quantitative Test of Hypotheses............................................................................................. 60

Variables and Indicators ......................................................................................................... 60

Research Methods ................................................................................................................... 61

Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 64

Measurement ........................................................................................................................... 64

Results ..................................................................................................................................... 67

Results Explained .................................................................................................................... 69

CHAPTER 6: INTERPRETATION, ANALYSIS and CONCLUSIONS ........................... 72

Discussion: Implications, Limitations, Conclusion ............................................................... 72

Overall Research Contribution ............................................................................................... 75

Further Research ..................................................................................................................... 77

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 80

Appendix A: Summary of Figures ......................................................................................... 81

Appendix B: Summary of Tables ........................................................................................... 83

Appendix C: IRB-approved Questionnaire ............................................................................ 88

Appendix D: References ....................................................................................................... 100

xiii

List of Figures

Figure 1 ..............................................................................................................................21

Figure 2 ..............................................................................................................................51

Figure 3 ..............................................................................................................................53

Figure 4 ..............................................................................................................................56

Figure 5 ..............................................................................................................................57

Figure 6 ..............................................................................................................................58

Figure 7 ..............................................................................................................................59

Figure 8 ..............................................................................................................................59

xiv

List of Tables

Table 1 ...............................................................................................................................30

Table 2 ...............................................................................................................................47

Table 3 ...............................................................................................................................67

Table 4 ...............................................................................................................................86

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

At 18, Palak had been betrothed to a man in a different village she had never met

for over two years, already had to leave school because her father believed it was just

taking money from educational opportunities for her brothers, and had been working as

an embroider for many years. When I asked her about her dreams, she asked me first

why she should have them when they were not going to come true. After some prodding,

Palak said her dream was to go back to school, become a model and never get married.

But she said she knew none of that would ever happen so she was content and proud to be

putting her brother through school with the money she made as an embroiderer.

Palak’s world may seem foreign and distant enough that it does not concern you,

such that you may neglect to think about her ever again. But Palak’s story does matter to

you and me; in fact, this dissertation attempts to demonstrate why her story matters to the

world.

The world is interconnected like it has never been before, and the global economy

is truly just that – global. Poverty, because of its effects on population, disease, and

pollution, affects us all whether we choose to think about it or not. While there may not

be consensus on the best way to handle it, the fact that poverty is a grave, vast problem is

not really under debate (Karlan & Appel, 2011). Scholars as well as society need to

figure out how to address poverty and create a sustainable world for us all (Karlan &

Appel, 2011: 3).

2

What is Poverty

There are many definitions of both poverty and poverty alleviation. While most

believe poverty is only about economic means, some believe it is more than that – it is “a

deprivation of basic capabilities” (Anand, Peter, & Sen, 2006; Drèze & Sen, 1997; Sen,

2011; Sen, 1999; Sen, 1997). The United Nations High Commission on Human Rights

(UNHCHR) has a comprehensive definition: "Poverty: a human condition characterized

by the sustained or chronic deprivation of the resources, capabilities, choices, security

and power necessary for the enjoyment of an adequate standard of living and other civil,

cultural, economic, political and social rights" (UNHCHR, 2001). As of the 21st century,

over 2 billion people cannot meet their basic needs of: food, shelter, clothing, access to

health care, clean water, and sanitation, and education (Sachs, 2005). To humanize it

further, approximately 27000 children die every day from poverty – from absolutely

preventable disease and starvation (Singer, 2009).

Framework for poverty

The most widely accepted framework for poverty separates poverty into extreme,

moderate and relative forms (Sachs, 2005; UN Millennium Project, 2006; UNDP, 2012).

Extreme poverty is when one lives off of less than US $1 per day - purchasing power

parity (ppp) (Sachs, 2005). Purchasing power parity means it is reflecting the kinds of

things we would actually be able to buy for $1 in the United States – not items that a

dollar can buy in the developing world (Sachs, 2005). Individuals who have an income of

between US $1-2 per day (ppp) are considered to live in moderate poverty (Sachs, 2005).

Those with a household income less than the national average in their country and lack

3

resources that the average income in their country take for granted are considered to be

living in relative poverty (Sachs, 2005).

Finally, in order to understand motivation for business creation in the context of

poverty, Maslow's hierarchy of human needs would seemingly be useful as a metaphor.

Maslow explains that basic needs such as food, water, shelter, are the lowest-level needs

and self-actualization is the highest-order of human needs (Maslow, 1943). Thus, if

lower-order (basic) needs such as finding enough food for oneself or one’s family are not

met, higher order needs such as self-actualization - cannot be met either. This dissertation

proposes that different hierarchical needs call for different types of entrepreneurs – and

that the difference is explained by the level of poverty in which the entrepreneurs live.

However, the dissertation does not apply Maslow’s hierarchy of needs because of

a distinct difference in the definition of poverty (or the hierarchy itself). In other words,

what Maslow (and perhaps many in the Western world) presumes to be lowest-level

needs for someone living in poverty is not necessarily what the impoverished person

perceives to be their first-level of needs. In fact, this dissertation challenges Maslow’s

theory and considers poverty to be varied and even a multidimensional deprivation which

includes access to basic needs, income, dignity, well-being and social capital (Sen, 2011).

Different people take different opportunities and make different choices in order to

overcome it.

Why Poverty Matters

It is important to explain the reason this problem of poverty is one that scholars,

as well as the global community, should care about. For reasons to care about any topic,

I turn first to philosophy.

4

Deontological scholars who encourage the normative perspective state that we

ought to address poverty because it not only is the right thing to do, but also because we

as a larger global society have chosen to write rules of basic human rights which we are

obligated to adhere to (Waller, 2005). If there are people in the world who do not have

these basic rights, it is our duty to help them have at least these basic necessities (Abbott

& Kant, 2009).

Another philosophy to note while discussing why one should care about poverty

is that of utilitarianism or consequentialism: where one should always choose the option

that maximizes utility or reduces suffering most (which would be to reduce poverty)

(Mill, 1906). The idea is that the greatest number of people should be happy if it is

possible (Burns, Hart & Bentham, 1977).

Some would go so far to argue that if the world does not pursue the issue of

poverty, we are all headed to ruin. Prahalad & Hart (2002) say that if the gap between

the rich and poor continues to increase, “social decay, political chaos, terrorism and

environmental meltdown [ ] is certain” (Prahalad & Hart, 2002: 3). Sustainability

scholars will say that if we do not pursue the issue soon, our own destruction will occur

because of climate change we bring about ourselves because of industrialization and

pollution (which is advanced by poverty) but there are many (maybe most) who do not

believe it is their responsibility.

The End of Poverty (Solutions)

Poverty is clearly a problem, that needs to be addressed, but there are extremely

different points of view as to who should take on the responsibility to end it, and how.

5

The conventional yet short-term solution was through basic needs assistance and foreign

aid, such as in the Peace Corps.

Empowerment. While basic needs are certainly necessary in the direst conditions,

the endless amount of money that has been sent down the “aid” tube has not ended the

problem of poverty (Karlan & Appel, 2011). Global humanitarian aid agencies began to

get used to the idea of empowerment and “teaching to fish” so as to create longer-term

solutions.

Academic definitions of empowerment are varied, meaning: the freedom to spend,

and ability to share household responsibilities (Devi, 1982), taking responsibility,

achieving self-confidence (Gielnik & Warren, 1995), enhancing power to make decisions

((Devi, 1982; Gielnik & Warren, 1995), to achieve recognition, involvement and a sense

of worth in jobs (Vogt & Murrell, 1990).

It is rare that those empowered would give back to their own communities of

poverty because education may be viewed as a “way out,” not a way to continue to build

and create value, yet it still did produce the result of poverty alleviation within a

community (Trivedi, 2005). In order to have a more macro poverty alleviation result, I

surmise that there needs to be a feedback loop of empowerment which would filter into

the communities that need poverty alleviation most. For this dissertation, I wanted to find

a proven intervention that did just that.

Poverty Alleviation as Consumption. In the last century, there have been some

ideas about viewing the “aspiring poor” as a lucrative emerging market (Prahalad & Hart,

2002). Since two-thirds of the world’s population is poor, it does seem that in numbers

there are many who would be able to consume more. But since the majority of those

6

people have less than $1 (ppp) a day (Prahalad & Hart, 2002), the only types of product

for which multinationals could view them as potential consumers would be those that are

necessary to fulfill their basic needs, such as laundry detergent (Chandon & Guimaraes,

2007). While some scholars still assert that consumption can also alleviate poverty

(Prahalad, 2006), there is skepticism as to whether or not viewing them as consumers is

the way to “alleviate poverty” or whether it is just shifting the definition of poverty and

alleviate our guilt (Karnani, 2006).

Why Poverty Alleviation from the ground up

There is a new surge to view these emerging markets not just as consumers, but as

potential producers as well (Prahalad, 2006). C.K. Prahalad would argue that poverty

alleviation is about improving access (both consumption and production) more

specifically: “Poverty alleviation is, simply, improving the disposable income for

families- by reducing the costs of services, improving its quality, and releasing their time

to do work that is productive” (Prahalad, 2006). Karnani posits that instead of selling to

the poor, to alleviate poverty, we must view them as business to buy from and “raise the

real income of the poor” (2006).

Recently, these ideas of improving consumption and production have progressed

to be viewed as ground-up solutions to ending the poverty problem. “Enabling local

communities and individuals to convert their ideas into products and services - by

blending modern science and technology, design and risk capital – constitutes the heart of

grassroots innovation” (Gupta, 2013: 18). A laudable example of grassroots innovation is

the HoneyBee Network: where innovators at the base of the economic pyramid can

harness their ideas and make them accessible to others (Gupta, 2013).

7

Even William Easterly, a well-known anti-aid economist, has praised the ground-

up solutions to poverty problems via “searchers” who find the reality at the “bottom” and

find things that work (Easterly, 2006). I hope this dissertation will serve as a “searcher,”

by explaining some realities in this context, finding things that work, and highlighting

them. I wish to demonstrate when people find solutions from the bottom-up. For my own

process, the first place to look was when a person living in poverty is able to create a

livelihood for herself and her family.

Livelihood Creation

While studying poverty alleviation in more depth, I began working on a global

humanitarian project of my own. I sat with my students in India who would be classified

as “street or slum kids” discussing power when someone stated I should be taking care of

my family instead of doing things for other people. Through further discussion, my

students explained that for their families (who are living in poverty), family livelihood is

the goal. This means that making sure that their families had a steady stream of basic

needs (not just for today and tomorrow) was most important, and also prioritized above

all else. Furthermore, poverty alleviation became about people who were trying to make

changes in their lives on a daily basis – it was not a theoretical notion any longer. It was

not about me thinking of solutions to the world’s problems anymore; it was about real

individuals, their families, and their daily lives.

In this dissertation I introduce and develop a concept of livelihood

entrepreneurship as a means to alleviate poverty that creates value by empowering and

creating livelihoods for and by the very people who need it most. I study entrepreneurs

8

living in poverty who create value for the world by sustaining their own family

livelihoods, and I call them livelihood entrepreneurs.

Overall Structure of Dissertation

As this concludes the introduction, I would like to provide an outline of the

structure of the remainder of the dissertation. In the second chapter, I develop the

concept of the livelihood entrepreneur with a detailed literature review. At the end, I

discuss the research questions that will drive the next chapters. The third chapter is

devoted to explaining the research methodology and setting. Since this is a mixed-method

study, it is important to understand the overall data collection method and how the

research was conducted overall. The fourth chapter is a review of the results of the

qualitative study. The fifth chapter develops the hypotheses and proposes a conceptual

model as well as a quantitative test for the model. Finally, the sixth and final chapter

analyzes the data collected and offers interpretations of the results as well as an overall

conclusion for the entire study.

9

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Business in the 21st century is not just about making profit but also creating

shared value, innovation, and social cooperation (Freeman, Harrison, & Wicks, 2007;

Porter, Jan/Feb 2011). Value may be created in many ways, but this dissertation is most

concerned with co-creating value for mutual benefit for both entrepreneurs living in

poverty and thus society through poverty alleviation (Griffin, Forthcoming; Prahalad &

Ramaswamy, 2004; Simanis, Hart, & Duke, 2008). However, to understand how

entrepreneurs can help to alleviate poverty, we must first understand the context of

poverty (Peredo & Chrisman, 2006; Peterson, 1988). This dissertation explores

entrepreneurship in the context of extreme and moderate poverty in India.

This section examines entrepreneurship and the definition of poverty, and how

social capital relates to poverty. It explores the uniqueness of operating a business in the

context of poverty, and identifies the gap in this research to which I intend to contribute.

Entrepreneurship Literature

Entrepreneurship, in its common form, is “the combination of a context in which

an opportunity is situated, a set of personal characteristics required to identify and pursue

this opportunity and the creation of a particular outcome” (Martin & Osberg, 2007).

Social entrepreneurship, on the other hand, is loosely defined as entrepreneurship with

the explicit intent of improving society or pooling resources to address a social need

(Martin & Osberg, 2007; Ratten & Welpe, 2011).

Current entrepreneurship literature neglects most failed business enterprise, and

tends to focus on enterprises that are successful only, because they are easier to measure.

This is especially true in the context of poverty. If the study of entrepreneurship is to

10

“explain and facilitate the role of new enterprise in furthering economic progress” (Low

& MacMillan, 1988), then it is imperative that we study how to further the economic

progress of all parts of society, especially the most downtrodden. The new concept of

livelihood entrepreneurship could fill the gap in the literature about entrepreneurs who

are themselves living in poverty and lifting themselves out of it, because it integrates

social capital and economics.

The entrepreneurship literature has distinguished between necessity-based and

opportunity-based nascent entrepreneurship (Wennekers, Van Wennekers, Thurik, &

Reynolds, 2005). Most would imagine that those living in poverty are all necessity-based

entrepreneurs are those individuals who create businesses primarily because of involuntary

job loss and the scarcity of vacancies (Thompson, 2003). There is also an emerging

theory of community-based enterprise (CBE) that may lead to sustainable local

development. This dissertation seeks to distinguish livelihood entrepreneurship from

these concepts. Livelihood entrepreneurship does not have to do with the beginning of

the initial entrepreneurial activity – so it may have begun as necessity-based (a last resort

where there are no other options left), or opportunity-based forms of nascent

entrepreneurship (where they have many options and they choose this one) (Thurik &

Wennekers, 2008; Wennekers, Van Wennekers, Thurik, & Reynolds, 2005; Wennekers,

Van Stel, & Carree, 2010). Nor does livelihood entrepreneurship deal with the macro-

level sustainable development issue, as CBEs do. While livelihood entrepreneurship is

about survival, it is not just about subsistence either (Viswanathan & Rosa, 2007;

Viswanathan et al., 2010), livelihood entrepreneurship is about sustainability on many

11

levels – sustaining the venture that an entrepreneur has already created, as well as

sustaining their own lives and the lives of their families as well.

Livelihood entrepreneurship is most basic form of entrepreneurship that has to

occur first for those living in poverty - before the traditional “expansive”

entrepreneurship, or social entrepreneurship - can occur. Social entrepreneurship, in

particular, goes beyond the initial stages and thus sets itself apart because it is where the

basic needs of that entrepreneur most likely have already been met.

The Purpose of Entrepreneurship in the Context of Poverty

Insights from the entrepreneurship literature is lacking when it comes to uncertain

environments, and more specifically in the context of poverty. Since uncertainty is at the

heart of entrepreneurship, there are studies on how and when entrepreneurs bear

uncertainty (McMullen & Sheperd, 2006) but these disregard those who have lack basic

needs such as food security and choice. Entrepreneurs are defined as those who create

value by identifying and seizing opportunities in a particular context, and also hold

certain personal attributes such as entrepreneurial spirit, are inspired, creative,

courageous, possess fortitude, and take direct action (Dees, Emerson, & Economy, 2001;

Drucker, 1995; Low & MacMillan, 1988; Martin & Osberg, 2007; Schumpeter, 1975).

Early entrepreneurship literature focused on entrepreneur characteristics to

explain outcomes (Aldrich & Wiedenmayer, 1993; Gartner, 1988; Tolbert, David, &

Sine, 2011) and assumed the main goal of new venture (value) creation was profit

(Chrisman, Bauerschmidt, & Hofer, 1998; Peredo & Chrisman, 2006). Eventually there

was a lot more on social entrepreneurship (Desa & Basu, 2013; Spear, 2006) and

literature began to look at the top-down microcredit policies which would fund

12

entrepreneurs in the developing world (Schreiner & Woller, 2003; Dowla, 2006). More

recently there has begun to be more literature on bottom-up approaches to microcredit, in

(Imai et al., 2012; Khandker, 2005), where the idea is to help livelihood entrepreneurs

comes up with their own goals and approaches to how they may life themselves out of

poverty.

Still, in the entrepreneurship literature currently there is a disconnection between

looking at the micro (the individual) and the macro (overall societal betterment), and thus

I propose looking at the individual entrepreneur herself as the unit of analysis. While

entrepreneurship literature increasingly recognizes that entrepreneurs are embedded in

social structures as they make decisions (Greve & Salaff, 2003; Borch, 1994; Hansen,

1995; Larson & Starr, 1993; Reynolds, 1991; Starr & MacMillan, 1990), there has yet to

be a study exploring entrepreneurs living in poverty and how they build their networks.

The following, therefore, is a unique study that attempts to fill the gap in

entrepreneurship literature about entrepreneur networks in the context of poverty.

Where there is more uncertainty because of lack of access and resources, these

same assumptions may not apply, but it is imperative that we study this area in order to

continue our pursuit of economic progress. Finally, social entrepreneurship literature may

not apply either because only a person who has met their most basic needs chooses to

explicitly help society with their mission (Martin & Osberg, 2007; Maslow, 1943).

An emerging theory on entrepreneurship that is closely related to the new concept

of livelihood entrepreneurship is called the community-based enterprise (CBE) –

proposed to be a way to attain sustainable local development (Peredo & Chrisman, 2006).

In this case, the meaning of sustainable local development is to improve the quality of life

13

and meet the needs of those in the local community – which includes poverty reduction –

while still preserving the environment (Rees, 1998; Smith, 1994). The characteristics of a

CBE include basing new ventures on local community skills, dependence on community

participation, and a multiplicity of goals (Peredo & Chrisman, 2006). The latter is also

present in the concept of livelihood entrepreneurship, and is therefore a good place to

begin. Finally, CBEs “treat the entrepreneur and the enterprise as embedded in a network

of relationships… [and] the community [i]s [] endogenous to the enterprise and the

entrepreneurial process” (Peredo & Chrisman, 2006: 310).

However, there are clear differences between CBEs and livelihood entrepreneurs

as well. While CBEs offer a multiplicity of goals for the entrepreneur, livelihood

entrepreneurship is more specific: stability and survival of the family; creation of a

livelihood for the family is the goal. It is a CBE, but specific to subsistence marketplaces

(Sridharan & Viswanathan, 2008; Viswanathan & Rosa, 2007; Viswanathan, Rosa, &

Ruth, 2010). There have been qualitative studies to further differentiate the contexts and

cultures of subsistence consumer-merchants (SCMs) in South India that give some

insight in unstable environments (Viswanathan et al., 2010).

In this dissertation, I propose that the livelihood entrepreneur herself has the

opportunity to participate in the actions that affect her life and the lives of her family and

community; and in this context it means being able to bring herself and her community

out of poverty. I am making assumptions about the types of relationships she already has

and the type of social capital she has access to, currently. Thus, this dissertation is a study

of entrepreneurship in the context of poverty, and it is therefore necessary to look at how

social capital and networks work in poverty.

14

However, because the CBE is so deeply connected to the livelihood entrepreneur,

I will attempt to explain livelihood entrepreneurship through a well-established CBE. In

this particular dissertation study, I will not be looking at the specific CBEs (micro-

enterprises) of the livelihood entrepreneurs themselves, but rather an overarching CBE

that has intervened to help these livelihood entrepreneurs establish their own micro-

enterprises. In this way, my dissertation is an intervention study.

15

The Context of Poverty

Twenty years ago the middle and upper classes in the free world were the only

consumers to which businesses in the Western world were marketing. But there are many

more free markets now (such as the former Soviet Republics), and China and India are

predicted to become large (if not larger) economies than the United States within 40 years

(Sheth, 2008).

There is debate about whether the people who live in poverty - the “aspiring poor”

– also make up a lucrative emerging market (Karnani, 2005; Karnani, 2007; Prahalad &

Hart, 2002; Prahalad, 2006). Since two-thirds of the world’s population is poor, it does

seem that in numbers there are many who would be able to consume more. But the

majority of those people have less than $1 (ppp) a day to live (Prahalad & Hart, 2002).

Still, many argue that at the base of the economic pyramid (BoP) lies profit as well, and

that multinational corporations seeking to sustain themselves will need to reconsider this

stakeholder in order to excel (Prahalad & Hart, 2002). Multinational corporations that can

make products for the BoP are giving them choices, and improving their access to

services. Giving choices to impoverished people is what some scholars say is the very

definition of poverty alleviation (Sen, 1999).

Thus, most of the BoP literature is focused on multinational corporations, what

types of products the BoP could be viewed as potential consumers (those that are

necessary to fulfill their basic needs, such as laundry detergent) (Chandon & Guimaraes,

2007), and the challenge of entering these emerging markets (Prahalad & Hart, 2002). A

conclusion that is often reached in this literature is that businesses must understand the

culture and context and the needs of its potential consumers before they can begin to

16

compete (Chandon & Guimaraes, 2007). Next I will explore how the context of poverty

can be considered to be an uncertain environment, and how that affects the livelihood

entrepreneur and his/her networks.

Uncertainty. An uncertain environment is one where predicting what will happen

in the future is difficult or impossible. This changing nature of environmental factors

have many different names in organizational literature: turbulence (Ansoff, 1979),

velocity (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988), dynamism (Mintzberg, 1979), and uncertainty

(Galbraith, 1973). In this paper, the political and economic environment of poverty are

qualified as uncertain since the path from entrepreneur action to performance outcomes

change unpredictably (Terreberry, 1968), in fundamental ways, and often (Siggelkow &

Rivkin, 2005). In other words, poverty is classified as uncertain because environmental

forces are often making new and unpredictable changes (Prahalad & Hamel, 1994). Many

government policies in developing countries make for an uncertain environment for

storeowners, small business managers, and entrepreneurs because of their lack of

insurance and general political instability, and people who live in poverty cannot predict

where their next meal is coming from and thus lead uncertain lives as well.

Most of the existing literature on uncertainty is based on internal organizational

changes, whereas research on uncertainty in organizations’ environments is still

underdeveloped (Emery & Trist, 1965). In this paper I attempt to tackle this paucity

because the context of poverty in the developing world can be qualified as uncertain. In

the past managers have managed for certainty, but with the globalization of business, it is

imperative that they understand uncertainty and rapidly changing environments as well if

they wish to survive (Thompson, 1967).

17

Relational Social Capital and Uncertainty. Thus throughout this dissertation

uncertainty is assumed to be an attribute of living in poverty, since uncertainty is when

environmental forces are often making new and unpredictable changes, and poverty fits

this description (Prahalad & Hamel, 1994). In environments where there is policy

uncertainty such as storeowner insurance policies (for vandalism or robbery), it can be

difficult for organizations (specifically small stores) to build and maintain trust with

stakeholders because it is a stable government’s implicit role to protect society

(Friedman, 1970). When there is uncertainty in the environment, there is more

opportunism and it is difficult to trust from both perspectives (Jones, 1995).

In fact, Trivedi (2011) suggests that only stronger levels of trust exist in uncertain

environments. A qualitative BoP study in South India explains that relationships of

entrepreneurs in that context are interdependent, and primarily with their vendors,

customers and family (Viswanathan, Rosa, & Ruth, 2010). This study reveals that those

relationships are “closed-loop and self-sustaining” – meaning there are strong

commitments between those in the relationships, but they are closed to others

(Viswanathan, Rosa, & Ruth, 2010).

If the organization (in this case the entrepreneur) is the nexus of relationships

(Fort, 2007; Levinthal & Fichman, 1988), the positive impact the entrepreneur’s actions

can have on key stakeholders in uncertain environments must be greater with higher

levels of trust (Levinthal & Fichman, 1988). In other words strong interpersonal trust is

the most relevant level of trust in an uncertain environment, and trust is thus contingent

upon the environment (Trivedi, 2011). When the government is unpredictable and there is

uncertainty around everyday life because of terrorism and poverty, Trivedi propose

18

strong interpersonal relationships are the way that the new enterprises survive (Trivedi,

2011).

As entrepreneurs try to build their businesses in environments where the

governments are not failed but not strong either, this dissertation proposes entrepreneurs

must build trust amongst weak ties and gain legitimacy with broad customer networks in

order to create value. In fact, I argue that these strong ties are there to fill institutional

voids that exist in the infrastructure in emerging markets (Palepu, Bullock, & Khanna,

2010). Through building upon and expanding weak ties instead, and turning them into

broader networks (larger numbers), the communities will prosper as the entrepreneurs’

businesses prosper (Oetzel, Westermann-Behaylo, Koerber, Fort, & Rivera, 2010).

Social Capital Resources

Before exploring how the context of poverty changes business research, it is

important to anchor this dissertation in social capital theory. Social capital is the ability to

mobilize a non-financial set of resources from one’s relationships as well as the network

of relationships itself (Granovetter, 1985; Levin, 2008; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). It is a

combination of individual action and context, and therefore it is important to study how

people in the contexts of extreme and moderate poverty are able to overcome it via their

actions (Coleman, 1988). There are three dimensions of social capital: relational,

structural, and cognitive (Levin, 2008; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Uphoff, 2000).

Dimensions of Social Capital. Relational social capital is how people interact

based on their feelings for one another. In the literature, the operationalization of the

relational dimension of social capital is trust or trustworthiness: the willingness to be

vulnerable, with a positive expectation that trust is reciprocated (Levin, 2008; Levin,

19

2008; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Trust is defined

as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the

expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor,

irrespective of the ability to monitor or control the other party” (Mayer, Davis, &

Schoorman, 1995: 712). Trust varies within person and across all relationships

(Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). Organizations need trust to exist (Lewicki,

McAllister, & Bies, 1998) because trustors believe that all trustees adhere to a set of

principles he or she finds acceptable in order to function (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman,

1995). External stakeholders (in this case, customers) have to trust businesses, and

businesses have to trust them. Trust is important to the business transaction because they

can build on the relationships between the business and stakeholders (customers) which

are essential and can give the organization competitive advantage (Jones, 1995).

However, when there is uncertainty in the environment, there is more opportunism and it

is difficult to trust from both perspectives – which I will address in the next section on the

context of poverty (Jones, 1995).

The cognitive, least tangible, dimension of social capital includes generally

accepted attitudes and norms of behavior, which can be the source of trust judgments and

behaviors (Cicourel, 1973; Levin, 2008; Uphoff, 2000). They are shared languages and

codes, which have a lot to do with the context or culture which is being studied (which I

will address in the next portion of this section). Cognitive social capital helps people

think about mutually beneficial collective action, which is what structural social capital is

about (Krishna & Uphoff, 2002; Uphoff, 2000). It is clear that trust is interwoven

throughout social capital literature.

20

Thus cognitive social capital reinforces structural social capital (Uphoff &

Wijayaratna, 2000), which is “the relatively objective and externally observable social

structures such as networks, associations and institutions, and the rules and procedures

they embody” (Grootaert & van Bastelaer, 2002: 3). Structural social capital is extremely

important to this study because the context of poverty may facilitate collective action that

can be good both for society and the entrepreneur, through social networks (Hitt, Lee, &

Yucel, 2002). In this way, formal and informal networks that exist in the community may

be instruments of community development (Bain & Hicks, 1998; Krishna & Shrader,

1999).

All of these dimensions of social capital are parts of life that enable people to

work together and pursue common goals (Putnam, 1995). The key point to stress is that

these relationships are a resource for productive collective action and value creation

(Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).

Social capital theory provides a way to explain both the resources and capabilities

found in firms (Pearson, Carr, & Shaw, 2008), and borrows from the resource-based view

of the firm (RBV), where the firm itself as a pool of resources that can sustain a firm

(Priem & Butler, 2001). It thus also provides a more holistic view of the resources needed

for the context of poverty, and especially for women in this context.

Structural social capital, or more specifically social networks, can help firms build

their resource bases through transference of tacit knowledge (McEvily & Marcus, 2005)

and access to valuable external resources that could help the firm sustain itself (Chisholm

& Nielsen, 2009). In these ways the external ties can be viewed as the resource base of

the firm, and the lesser the extent that firms are embedded within their networks, the

21

lesser they acquire new competitive capabilities to sustain themselves (McEvily &

Zaheer, 1999).

Figure 1

Poverty Level and Social Capital. A basic assumption about social capital is that

it works to attain status (Lin, 1999). However, acquiring those resources is an unequal

journey (Lin, 2000). The reason this happens is based on two main principles: societal

structure and homophily (Lin, 2000). The first is a process of clustering disadvantaged

people in a society (Lin, 2000), and homophily is the tendency for individuals to form

networks with those who possess similar attributes or characteristics as themselves

(Laumann, 1966; Lin, 1982). Additionally, this structure of disadvantaged people and

their insular networks reproduce themselves over and over again in society, and change

does not occur (Bourdieu, 1977; Doob, 2013). The latter is called social reproduction,

and most of the current literature on this topic has been from an education perspective.

Entrepreneurs living in poverty seeking to broaden their social capital (measured

via networks) to sustain their families’ livelihoods may give insights as to how social

22

reproduction occurs from a different perspective. Additionally, as the definition for

poverty used in this dissertation is multidimensional (Sen, 2011), so should the evaluation

of the community or the entrepreneur’s social capital: “any business initiative in the BoP

ought to be evaluated on the basis of whether it advances capability transfer and retention

by (a) enhancing the social capital between a particular community and other more

resource rich networks, and (b) preserving the existing social capital in the community”

(Ansari et. al., 2012: 813).

Research Questions

The world’s population has grown exponentially in the past 50 years, and with

that comes a larger poverty problem (Hart, 2010). Poverty is one of the world’s leading

issues, yet there have been few advances to address it in a sustainable way. For many it is

difficult to study, to maintain a life working to fight it, and has yielded few productive

results (Trivedi, 2005). Poverty not only means less money, but also less social capital, or

access to social capital. This dissertation aims to explain how entrepreneurs living in low

levels of poverty build their livelihoods and also their social capital.

Specifically, I will look at Indian women entrepreneurs’ social capital and how

social capital affects their livelihoods. Social capital is the ability to mobilize a nonsocial

set of resources from one’s relationships as well as the network of the relationships itself

(Granovetter, 1985; Levin, 2008; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). This paper addresses how

social capital resources may lead to sustained livelihoods for entrepreneurs and their

families. Assuming weak ties - part of those social capital resources - are critical to

building a network that can sustain new enterprises I propose that the strength of weak

ties in livelihood entrepreneur networks may lead to sustained livelihoods (Granovetter,

23

1973). The strength of weak ties is a key component to building social capital, and this is

where entrepreneurs living in poverty lack the most (Granovetter, 1973). Thus, in my

dissertation I also propose a poverty moderator between the strength of weak ties in the

livelihood entrepreneurs’ networks and livelihood creation.

The research questions driving this study are: What distinguishes entrepreneurs

living in the context of poverty from other entrepreneurs? How do social network

resources help to create livelihoods for entrepreneurs and their families in the context of

poverty? Do specific ties within an entrepreneur’s social capital resources lead to

livelihood creation? Does this relationship between an entrepreneur’s ties and livelihood

creation change at different levels of poverty?

Expected Contribution

I intend to address the research questions in different ways. I conceptually look at

the first question, and develop a theoretical model to explain the concept of “livelihood

creation”- which has a dual purpose of both achieving poverty reduction (for the

entrepreneur herself and her family) as well as build broader opportunities in their

communities for the future. I intend to contribute a new definition of entrepreneur which

has been largely overlooked in the current literature – which is focused on social

entrepreneurship and “promotional” entrepreneurship. I explain how an entrepreneur

must first meet her family’s basic needs before she can dream about expansion or helping

others. But because livelihood entrepreneurs are living in poverty themselves, they are

helping the world just by helping themselves.

A qualitative study will attempt to shed light on the second question – how social

capital affects those entrepreneurs in the context of poverty, specifically how it helps

24

them succeed in livelihood creation. The qualitative portion will delve into what types of

skills and networks are necessary for Gujarati entrepreneurs to succeed, and how

interventions may help these entrepreneurs. I tell the stories of the livelihood

entrepreneurs I met who are achieving their goals and dreams, and hope to help explain

why these particular women may have been successful (Griffin, Forthcoming; Prahalad &

Ramaswamy, 2004; Simanis, Hart, & Duke, 2008).

Finally, the empirical test of the theoretical model will attempt to answer the third

and fourth research questions – what specific ties in an entrepreneur’s social network

leads to livelihood creation, and whether or not this relationship is different at moderate

and extreme levels of poverty. I look closely at the ego networks at the entrepreneurs

themselves and analyze their relationships and ties.

Audience

My primary audiences are academics who study Social Issues in Management

(both at the Academy of International Business and the Academy of Management). My

overarching goal is to contribute to the entrepreneurship literature to produce a unique

multi-method database of Indian entrepreneur networks that will shed some light on

sustainable poverty alleviation at an individual level. I first ground my dissertation in

theory, describe the particular women I met whose lives and stories will hopefully inspire

others to follow suit, test my hypotheses and model, and then finally explain my results.

25

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN – METHODOLOGY AND SETTING

As a foreigner traveling the world from the United States, poverty always seems

shocking and apparent when first seen in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. For many,

poverty is particularly overwhelming in India, due to the concentration of poverty as well

as dense overpopulation throughout the country.

For this reason, this study is based in India. Additionally, this research focuses on

women because in general there are more men who are active entrepreneurs than women

in all countries (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2004: 27), however the ratio of female

to male entrepreneurs is higher in the cases of low-income countries Ecuador, Hungary,

Peru and South Africa (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2004: 28). The type of

entrepreneurship that exists in these countries must be significantly different for this to

occur. Since India is not evaluated in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor study, it

would make sense to do a study of women entrepreneurs with low incomes in India.

The respondents were all accessed through Self-Employed Women’s Association

(SEWA), a trade union network of female workers and entrepreneurs living in poverty.

Within the research design, I attempt to test a theoretical model on the influence of social

capital on the dependent variable I develop in my first question – livelihood creation. I

will test the model using empirical data I collect via SEWA’s network in Gujarat and I

attempt to explain which women entrepreneurs are particularly successful in their

particular contexts.

Research Setting

India. Over the past few years foreign investors have become disillusioned with

India’s policy paralysis. However, on September 15, 2012 the Indian government took a

26

big step forward to allow for up to 51% of foreign direct investment in lucrative

industries such as supermarkets, aviation, and power (Vyas, 2012). In recent years,

market-based and empowering women through door-to-door business approaches to

alleviating poverty have begun to rise (Dolan & Johnstone-Louis, 2012; Dolan &

Johnstone-Louis, 2011; Dolan & Johnstone-Louis, 2009).

Additionally, using India as a setting affords a multitude of opportunities for

research, business, and poverty alleviation. This dissertation seeks to demonstrate the

potential for new entrepreneurial activity in India that would strengthen the world’s

largest democracy for both poverty alleviation and profit.

Ethnic Entrepreneurship and Social Networks. If we explore the theory of CBE

and those of ethnic entrepreneurship (Aldrich & Waldinger, 1990; Bonacich, 1973; Light

& Rosenstein, 1995; Waldinger, Ward, Aldrich, & Stanfield, 1990), it is found that there

are some culturally embedded institutions that shape the founding of new enterprises

(Brandl & Bullinger, 2008; Tolbert, David, & Sine, 2011). This indicates that we must

not just look at new enterprises creating livelihoods in the context of poverty, but also

those which may have cultures that nurture entrepreneurship – thus the necessity to

specify a cultural group or ethnicity arises. This dissertation explores livelihood

entrepreneurship in the context of India, a country that has been label BRIC and has been

an emerging markets of interest over the last several decades (Palepu, Bullock, &

Khanna, 2010). However, India has many different states with different cultures and

economic and social policies, so it is necessary to narrow down further. I chose Gujarat

as my research setting because of its liberal economic policies, and because it is the state

27

in India where many entrepreneurs have originated (Kalnins & Chung, 2006; Tsui-Auch,

2005).

When ethnic groups have emigrated and become successful entrepreneurs,

unpacking how their ties have been useful to their business outcomes has been a topic of

research (Kalnins & Chung, 2006; Tsui-Auch, 2005). In India, researchers have

demonstrated that community ties have a strong influence on business behavior (Iyer &

Schoar, 2010). One group in particular fits this criteria in India: the Gujaratis.

Gujarat. The history of India’s economy – even before the colonial period -

begins with small businesses. In fact, in modern South Asian history, Gujarati and

Marwadi merchants, entrepreneurs and bankers (Hindu, Jain, and Muslim) traded and

established businesses throughout India, and they without a doubt helped India’s

economy extensively (Leonard, 2011). Gujarat or Rajasthan would therefore be an ideal

place to start when beginning a research study on Indian entrepreneurship.

Women. Using women as the primary participants is justified because in other

developing countries, there is a proportionately higher number of female than male

necessity-based entrepreneurs (specifically in Ecuador, Hungary, Peru and South Africa)

(Acs, Arenius, Hay, & Minniti, 2004). Historically research has demonstrated that

women have not had equal access to financial resources (Brush, Carter, Greene, Hart, &

Gatewood, 2002).

While this inequality is also historically accurate for Indian women, there is in

addition a distinct history of resilience and civil disobedience as well (e.g. the Chipko

movement). Hindus worship female forms of their Ultimate Being and the Indian

government has had female prime ministers and heads of party. There are parts of India

28

where a matriarchal society existed and still does (e.g. Hindus in Kerala). For all of these

reasons, Indian women would be a unique and interesting set of respondents for this

particular entrepreneurship study.

SEWA. In Indian women’s studies literature, it is discussed that the best strategy

to empower women is through organizing and strengthening their roles in community-

based women’s groups (Gulati, 1993). In fact, in the particular case of women living in

poverty, the group approach has proven to be most effective for income generation (Nair,

1996). Thus I study female livelihood entrepreneurs, using the Self-Employed Women’s

Association (SEWA) network intervention located in and around Ahmedabad, Gujarat.

SEWA is made of poor women who are laborers or have started their own

businesses (SEWA, 2012). They are a well-known constrained network to begin with.

The women who are a part of the SEWA union are receiving trainings, subsidies and

loans from SEWA. There are special circumstances where SEWA also gives the women

goods and even amenities such as shelter or bathrooms. SEWA field workers are mostly

women and men from the local communities themselves, so the trust is built-in from the

very beginning. Women in the SEWA network do have equal access to the financial

resources that have historically not been available to them (SEWA, 2012).

The Researcher. As a researcher, I have the language skills to communicate and

research Gujarati entrepreneurs living in poverty, and I also have multiple family

connections in Gujarat. While these are clearly assets especially in a context where many

of the respondents are illiterate, I should also be clear about my biases as well (Creswell,

2003; Creswell & Clark, 2007).

29

Many years ago I began to work toward empowering people through education,

and started my own non-profit education empowerment venture in India thus I must be as

objective as possible because of my partiality to SEWA and its goals. I am an American-

born Gujarati married woman without children pursuing a career in business research. I

speak Gujarati and Hindi proficiently and was raised within Vedic (Hindu) brahmin

traditions, which may be noted by any observer or participant in India through my last

name. Because of my background, I will attempt to prevent anyone from knowing my last

name and I will not wear any adornments that demonstrate my marital or socio-economic

status. I will begin my surveys by declaring that my Gujarati is not perfect so they should

not feel shy to speak with me. Additionally, I will affiliate myself with The Indian

Institute of Management (IIM) in Ahmedabad, which is a familiar institution to most

Indians, and use their campus as a base. This way, during my fieldwork, I will have

another connection to my respondents rather than being from a foreign institution.

Finally, in order to preclude myself from my own biases, I will not ask about religion or

caste of any of my respondents.

Data

The targets of the survey are female adults, currently or previous a part of the

SEWA network or trade union. At the initial stage, I chose five jobs to study from the

many different jobs that SEWA participated in at random, and the desired sample size of

participants was determined to be 125, so naturally I pre-determined 25 participants per

job. A personal interview was conducted with each participant between October 2013 and

December 2013. During that time there was also participant observation that occurred for

some of the measurement of the variables.

30

The total sample size for this study was 134 respondents in the SEWA network.

The sample was approximately evenly distributed between the 5 different jobs. The

education level was a mean of 2 years of school, and 68% of the population sampled had

no schooling at all.

The mean family income for all of the respondents at the time of the survey was

166 rupees per day, which is approximately 2.75 USD. The mean income for all

respondents before they joined SEWA was 61.4 rupees per day, which is approximately 1

USD. The number of people living under one roof with the respondent was an average

and median of 6 people, and the maximum was 15 people while the minimum was 1

person.

The following table displays some of the characteristics of the study sample. Also

it is important to note that 80% of the participants were from rural geographic areas, and

only 20% were from urban areas.

Table 1

Table 1 Summary of Sample Characteristics (Percent or

Mean)

Characteristic Mean (from 134

total)

Median Max Min %

Age 41.9 40 65 18

Education 2.07 years 0 11 0

None 67.9

1-4 years 6.59

5-6 years 8.95

7-8 years 10.4

9-12 years 5.97

Tenure at SEWA 11.22 12 26 1

Work Tenure 21.27 20 60 2

Single 2.2

Married but not living with

husband yet

0.75

Married 86

31

Widow 11.1

Number living under one

roof

6.044 6 15 1

Family income per day 226.4 166.66 2000 0

Income before SEWA 61.444 41.666 555.

567

0

Rural 79.85

Urban 20.15

Street Vendors 20

Animal husbandry 20

Fabric Workers 20

Salt Workers 18.66

Farmers 19.4

Retired 1.5

Research Design

To analyze the entrepreneur networks in the context of poverty, I will conduct a

mixed-method study based on the research questions above. Mixed-method research is

based on the philosophical assumption that both qualitative and quantitative methods of

inquiry together will provide a better understanding than either method alone. It allows

for the researcher to mix both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study, and

“provides strengths that offset the weaknesses” of both types of research (Creswell &

Clark, 2007: 9). Additionally, mixed methods research allows the researcher to use

multiple worldview paradigms rather than typical ones used in his or her field (Creswell

& Clark, 2007). For this dissertation, it is important to emphasize that the mixed methods

design allowed the researcher more freedom to examine the context closely and in

atypical ways.

The qualitative portion of the dissertation will be the primary mode of inquiry via

entrepreneur experiences, and the quantitative portion will supplement research results

with empirical data. This chapter elaborates on the research design for both portions of

32

the study. Both quantitative and qualitative have the same research setting and data

sample, and therefore the same characteristics as stated in Table 1.

Measurement

Instruments. I primarily use previously validated social network survey

instruments to collect my data. I adapt each question to the context, and even create my

own instrument for participants to rate extensity because most of the respondents were

illiterate (I ask them to rate on a bag of lentils instead of scale of 1-10). The social capital

position generator was used as an alternate way to measure social capital (Lin & Dumin,

1986; Lin, Fu, & Hsung, 2001). First I asked each respondent “Do you know anyone

among your relatives, friends, or acquaintances that has one of the following jobs?” (Lin,

Ao, & Song, 2009). If the respondent replied yes, I asked about the relationship and

whether or not she knew the person before joining SEWA. If the respondent replied

“No”, I asked if she knew someone who did know that person. I asked for more

information in both cases. I asked this same series of questions for a list of 16 jobs, all of

which had very different prestige levels based on the Standard International Occupational

Prestige Scale (Hauser & Warren, 1996; Ganzeboom et al., 1992). It should be noted that

there were a few translation differences with the Prestige scale – specifically, “Team

Leader” was defined differently in the original instrument than in my translated

instrument modified for the Gujarati language. This modification is justified because of

the setting difference (the original instrument was referencing the Communist party in

China).

Procedure. I propose a multi-instrument, multi-method approach to shedding

light on the gap in the literature about entrepreneurship networks in the context of

33

poverty. I develop hypotheses about how entrepreneur’s networks and level of poverty

influence livelihood creation. I use survey method, participant observation, and interview

methods to conduct my research.

I received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval after creating a set of

questions that indicate my constructs and then translated the questions into Gujarati and

back to English to cross-check. The first set of questions was about attributes of the

participant. The second set of questions was composed of social network instruments

such as advice, friendship, trust, etc. The third set was an open-ended set of questions

focused on what they had gained from being a part of SEWA. Finally, I asked the

questions outlined before from the Social Capital Position Generator.

Next I empirically test my hypotheses in the context of an emerging market using

the survey method and analyze it using social network analysis. Finally, I will use the

entrepreneur trust and information networks as well as the diagrams I can draw from the

quantitative research as the existing network to draw conclusions about livelihood

entrepreneurship and networks in poverty.

Note about Institutional Review Board. After I had received preliminary

approval from our Institutional Review Board (IRB), the Board asked me to make sure

with an institution in India that I was following protocol there as well. IRBs in the

United States are particular about confidentiality more than anything else. Ironically, the

Indian Institute of Management was just forming their IRB and the professor in charge

just told me to do one thing for sure: Identify my participants because they should be

recognized and respected for their contributions. Needless to say, the names in this paper

are anonymized, but I do want to state that my goal is not to objectify them or treat them

34

as statistics and nothing else. Therefore, I start with the qualitative portion of the study:

to demonstrate experience and recognize the knowledge-holders and change-makers that

these women are.

35

CHAPTER 4: QUALITATIVE STUDY ON LIVELIHOOD CREATION

While quantitative studies help to demonstrate theoretical models, a qualitative

study can give deeper insight as to what is necessary for the particular groups I studied to

succeed. This qualitative study will address how the entrepreneurs who have been

successful in the context of poverty have done so. The SEWA intervention may or may

not be directly involved in this success, but I asking livelihood entrepreneurs to explain it

in their own words was insightful. From the sample characteristics (See Table 1), we see

that the mean income of the sample data respondents went from ~1 USD a day to ~2.75

USD per day after joining SEWA, so participation in their union seems to possibly have

some effect on their success.

Research Question

The New Commons approach to development (Hawken, 2007) provides that since

people who live at base of the pyramid do not have the resources to lift themselves out of

poverty, the “top of the pyramid,” with those with the resources, can improve BoP access

both through consumption and production. However, the top of the pyramid does not

know exactly how to help. Social capital is an aspect of that poverty and so it is important

to explore how to build social capital and so this qualitative study will attempt to shed

light on the research question “How do social capital resources help to create livelihoods

for entrepreneurs and their families in the context of poverty?”

BoP 2.0: the New Commons Approach

In this chapter I make the assumption that improving the quality of livelihood by

giving people access to choices and opportunity is the essence of poverty alleviation

36

(Sen, 1985). New approaches in BoP strategy are appealing, which include business co-

ventures, which creates shared value for those in poverty and those who are at the “top of

the pyramid” as well (Porter, 2011; Simanis, Hart, & Duke, 2008). These new business

co-ventures are when the BoP is not just consumers or producers, but partners in the co-

creation of value (Griffin, Forthcoming; Hawken, 2007; Simanis, Hart, & Duke, 2008).

However, in order to do this, the “top of the pyramid” must understand the context of

poverty and how there have been successes, to expand entrepreneur networks to sustain

livelihoods. My intention for this qualitative study is to aid that understanding – of

livelihood entrepreneurs’ experiences better – and to help explain what social capital

resources and access to new networks has given these entrepreneurs (in their own

opinions).

Research Procedure

I conducted semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions. I hoped to

enhance understanding on how Indian livelihood entrepreneurs’ networks help them build

new skills. My research setting was the same as for the quantitative section, but the

difference in the method was that in the qualitative study I allowed for emergent patterns.

The entrepreneurs I interviewed were those who had expanded their networks

through SEWA and had successfully built businesses in the context of poverty. First I

started with the “aagevaan,” or the organizer of the group – usually the first woman to

join SEWA in the village. I focused on how the “aagevaan” was able to build her

network, looking at the first question. In the results section her story will be the first.

Then I met with the women she had called to her home to meet with me. I asked each of

these women how their lives had changed because of SEWA, and coded what skills they

37

have developed because of these networks and opportunities in order to explore the

second question. In the results section I have indicated the frequency of skills for each

village. After the separate villages are explored, I have indicated general patterns of

frequency and codes and compared the different villages and different types of work.

Insights from this qualitative study may set the stage for a longitudinal experiment where

I study a community before and after the SEWA intervention which has trained and

helped these entrepreneurs expand and broaden their networks and skills.

Results

Beginnings (examples from Fabric workers)

In one village called Santalpur, I met women who belonged to a group called the

Rabaris. I learned that Rabari women, once married, were never allowed to leave their

homes. The Rabari aagevaan whose home I was invited to was named Jaiba. Jaiba

explained that her husband, who had recently passed away, was a forward thinker.

Twenty years earlier, when the SEWA organization came to her home and suggested that

she and her neighbors learn patchwork in order to earn a living so the families would be

more food secure, she and her husband both understood the benefits for their village.

Together, they built a network of women in the village who would learn this patchwork

and then work from home (so they could still subscribe to their culture). Many Rabari

families were now able to install bathrooms in their homes and have food on the table

every day without fail, because of this added income.

In the above example of Jaiba and her neighbors, the SEWA intervention helped

create livelihoods for all of these women who were living in extreme poverty before it.

Many of the Rabari women interviewed described how different their lives were because

38

of the intervention, citing mainly the fact that they can now leave their homes, and some

even mentioned their husbands treat them better. In this particular example, Jaiba and her

husband were crucial to the entire village’s progress. Four of the fifteen women

interviewed in this network said they had learned “how to talk” because of this new work,

and more than half recognized SEWA for their training and education. Jaiba’s daughter-

in-law mentioned that from SEWA she learned “what the power of women can be.”

Twenty-six years ago, a SEWA field worker stumbled across beautiful embroidery

work in a village called Bakutra. She asked the woman wearing the embroidery where it

was from, and the woman said that she had stitched it herself. The field worker asked if

the woman (named Wagriben) would be willing to make a similar piece for her and she’d

pay her. Wagriben agreed, and still remembers feeling she got when she received the bill

with the “old man with the small round glasses” (Gandhiji), because she had never seen

such a large bill (100 rupee note ~$2). With the help of the field worker, she got her

friends involved and started a small business because they all made this type of

embroidery work. She feels like a true artist now, because she has even been able to go to

an artisan fair in the United States and display her embroidery work.

Wagriben’s story was told so eloquently that you would never guess she was the

person who had never seen a small bill years ago. Every woman in her village respected

Wagriben deeply and attributed her to their success. Some of the women had begun to

lose their sight and could not stitch any longer, but Wagriben still offered them retired

benefits from SEWA. Over half of the women in Bakutra credited SEWA with their

embroidery skills, even though most of them had been doing embroidery since they were

39

young. They explained that they learned about color combinations, fashion trends, and

what the market was looking for and this helped their business. Four of the eleven women

interviewed in Bakutra mentioned that SEWA had helped to improve the lives of their

family members.

Survival to Stability (Examples from Animal Husbandry)

On January 26, 2001 there was a 7.7 magnitude earthquake that shook the entire

state of Gujarat. It was during the second year of a major drought in the Surendranagar

district, it was considered one of the four worst-affected areas according to the UN

Disaster Assessment and Coordination team. Families that survived off land via animal

husbandry or farming suffered tremendously, as do most people living in poverty when

disasters occur. The town of Savlas was no exception, and SEWA built homes for over

half of the women interviewed.

Eleven of the thirteen women surveyed in Savlas credit SEWA with their

education and training. Ten of thirteen Savlas women mentioned that SEWA gives them

food. Nine of the thirteen women mentioned subsidies they receive on products they buy

from SEWA, and five of the thirteen women mentioned other tangible items they got

from SEWA such as blankets and buckets which they needed desperately after the

earthquake as well. Thirteen years after the earthquake, these women of Savlas have a lot

to thank SEWA for but also have built livelihoods as survivors of a major disaster.

Sukhiben says her family has been in the business of animal husbandry for

hundreds of years. She knows her ancestors did it, and she always assumed her children

40

would too. But things were never stable, and at 100 rupees a day she never knew if she

would make enough money to even feed her children every day. She had heard tales that

people from SEWA would take you and sell you as a slave so she had never agreed to

meet with a fieldworker before. But nine years ago, a SEWA fieldworker named Ushaben

came to her home and her life changed forever. Ushaben helped her to understand how

she could cultivate the stability she currently lacked in her life, and possibly give her

children a better future than the ones she and her ancestors had had. Today Sukhiben

makes 5 times the amount she used to make before SEWA, and her son is going to school

to be a medical doctor. She still has to walk one kilometer to get clean water, but she

knows she is on her way to a life she never dared to dream she could have.

There were thirteen women interviewed in Naagvaada. None of them had ever

gone to school, and none of them had clean water or bathrooms accessible in their homes.

Seven of those women mentioned the food that SEWA had given them, and also the

trainings and education that SEWA had offered. Three of the women mentioned that

SEWA had built the well in their village, which was so desperately needed. Two of the

women mentioned that SEWA had built bathrooms in the village common area, and two

also mentioned that they felt they had been empowered by SEWA.

Organizing (Examples from Street Vendors)

Remaben was working with her father selling wood from when she was very

young. She got married at age 20, and she immediately began selling vegetables

alongside her husband on the street. In her mid-20’s, she remembers the situation was

getting really bad where the neighboring residents forced all the street vendors to leave

their established space. She and her husband moved their cart around for almost ten

41

years when she met a lawyer and organizers from SEWA. She realized from their

trainings that if she spoke differently with police officers and even argued with the

government, they could eventually secure space for themselves. She has encouraged all of

the neighboring street vendors to join her in the fight for secured space, and in the

meantime has learned about so many things, including how to hold a pen, and has been

fortunate to see the world outside of vegetable vending. She shares her knowledge from

SEWA with anyone who will listen, including her husband, neighbors, family members,

daughters, sisters, mother, and daughter-in-law. Today she feels secure in her space and

feels she has a good relationship with residents, police officers, and neighboring street

vendors.

There were 13 respondents in Remaben’s street vending network. Of the 12

others, 11 said they joined SEWA because of Remaben. 6 of the 13 attribute their

knowledge about how to keep a cart clean and safe to SEWA, and 5 of 13 have learned

the skill of organizing from SEWA. 5 of 13 said they believed SEWA had taught them

skills which included learning how to sign their own name, and also how not to be afraid.

Four of the 13 women interviewed had taken loans from SEWA at the time of this

survey. They each told stories about how they did not feel safe before and now they feel

that because of SEWA they can stand up for themselves.

Pachaben was a vegetable vendor herself before she became a SEWA field

worker. She learned about SEWA over thirty years earlier, and had become an aagevaan

and then eventually a field worker. The other aagevaans and street vendors truly respect

what she has to say because she knows what they go through. She has not lost touch with

42

her own community and has in fact built a larger community of street vendors and

empowers a larger number of women because of her new job.

One of the many urban areas that Pachaben monitors was Khodialnagar in the

middle of old Ahmedabad. Madhuben is the aagevaan there, and she has a very loud

commanding voice that all the vendors hear right away if the police officers ask

something of her. In Khodialnagar, half of the women street vendors mentioned that they

feel solidarity with other women vendors because of SEWA. Four of the thirteen women

vendors mentioned learning to organize because of SEWA, and four also mentioned their

training and education because of SEWA. Finally, four of the thirteen mentioned that

SEWA helped them learn how to create a business from the work they did. While I

visited Khodialnagar, the police asked the vendors to move their carts further from the

main road and they were quite aggressive. They yelled at me when I stopped in the

middle of the street and I was clearly only a buyer.

Strength of a Network (Examples of Salt workers and Farmers)

Khasuben joined SEWA after the earthquake of 2001, when her village was

devastated. Before it, she felt very isolated and only spoke with her husband about their

work, and he sold the salt they mined to the shopkeeper in the village. SEWA taught her

that if she joined a network of other salt workers, she could form a union and request

higher prices. Also, she was taught that mining residential salt was less lucrative than

industrial salt, so she and her network learned how to mine a different type of salt and

they would sell directly to big companies. When I went to her home she was having a

43

party where the entire village visited her to eat at her home. Clearly she had benefited

from the solidarity of working with other women and was isolated no longer.

According to the Natural Hazards Research and Implications Center report in

2001, 70 % of the housing in the village of Kidi was destroyed in the 2001 earthquake.

All of the women interviewed joined after the earthquake, in search of stability. Of the

nine women interviewed in the village of Kidi, seven have taken loans from SEWA. Four

mentioned things such as solar lights, tents and cement they received after earthquake

that made their work easier, and four others mentioned food and subsidies they got from

SEWA.

Jasmeetben was the ultimate bridge and networker of the women interviewed. She

was the only woman named in more than one network. She attends 4-5 trainings a month

at SEWA, and she has been a part of the organization for over ten years. She is the

aagevaan for the Ajitgarh village, and she credits SEWA with giving her the ability to go

outside and experience the world. Jasmeetben has a new home that she is able to make

the choice to keep as she pleases instead of working in the fields every day because of the

trainings that SEWA has given her and thus her family. She has cotton growing and it is a

very lucrative crop – and she says she only learned about cotton because of SEWA as

well.

Of the 14 other women interviewed in Ajitgarh, 13 mentioned that they learned

about SEWA through Jasmeetben. Twelve of the 15 women interviewed have taken loans

from SEWA and thirteen of the 15 mentioned that SEWA taught them about cotton and

how to sow a new crop which has benefitted them greatly. 9 of the 15 mentioned the

44

trainings and education they have received from SEWA. 6 women mentioned subsidies

they received from SEWA, 5 mentioned food and 4 mentioned feeling empowered and

feeling confident/strong because of SEWA.

Success stories (Examples from Farmers and Salt Workers)

In the village of Ranmalpur, Hemaben welcomed us into her home and sat us on a

recently renovated floor after showing us her brand new kitchen. Just eight years ago,

she was making less than 125 rupees a day and wondering how her education had been

lost on such hard labor on the farm daily. But now she has renovated her home, built a

bathroom, and learned how to develop her farming business because of SEWA.

Hemaben learned how to create a sustainable livelihood for her family of almost 200

rupees a day, and is close to achieving her dream of starting her own stitching business.

After dark the entire village of Ranmalpur goes outside into the main plaza and

chat with one another. They are a very close-knit group and the women interviewed were

extremely excited to show me their newly renovated homes and particularly their newly

installed bathrooms. They all had potable water in their homes. All of the seven women

had experienced at least a 50% increase in their income since they joined SEWA. Five of

the seven women interviewed credited SEWA with trainings on how to properly harvest

different crops throughout the year, and three of the seven talked about specific work-

related things that SEWA had helped them with, such as seeds and solar lights. Finally,

three of the women also discussed how SEWA had given them knowledge about how to

run their business of farming better and this is why they were doing so well.

45

Chandanbhai began working as a salt worker at a very young age, and then his

foi (paternal aunt) got him connected to SEWA. He began training with SEWA as a

young boy (first they sent him to school, then they got him to train in

computers). Eventually, he passed enough grades to be hired as a surveyor for the

government. He wasn’t extremely happy with the job until SEWA contacted him again

unexpectedly and said they had a job for him if he was interested. Chandanbhai became a

field worker, and he is now able to apply his knowledge of salt farming to trainings that

he does with women throughout the communities he lived in growing up. He feels

fulfilled and now his children are going to school full-time and one of them hopes to be a

police officer one day.

Chandanbhai was the field worker who guided me through many interviews in

villages where salt workers were finally able to save money for the first time after being a

part of the SEWA union (before at least seven of the 25 women interviewed were not

able to save money at all). Additionally, almost 3/4 of the women in this group were

making less than 60 rupees per day before they joined SEWA, and now fourteen of the 25

women interviewed were making over 100 rupees per day. This means many of these

women had successfully moved from extreme poverty to moderate poverty because of

SEWA.

Discussion of Qualitative Study

65 of 135 participants in this study credited SEWA for their education or training

for work. 45 said that SEWA gave them work-related skills or items and 44 stated that

SEWA had given them food. While the majority focused on items and things that SEWA

had given them, some were able to articulate the skills that SEWA had helped them build:

46

16 emphasized the ability to talk to others, 21 stated something related to union,

solidarity or friendship, 11 explained how they understand their own power now, 10

talked about the knowledge of how to organize, and 6 talked about strength that they now

had because of SEWA, 4 spoke about support, 2 talked about confidence and 2 others

spoke about autonomy or independence. Because so many of these skills are attributed to

the solidarity of women working together, it is of note that livelihood entrepreneurs may

benefit from a support structure of other livelihood entrepreneurs when receiving loans or

other types of interventions in order to succeed.

While there were rare cases where women compared themselves to others and

claimed they did not receive the same types of goods that some other women had from

SEWA, it is of note that this type of competition was rare to me as an observer.

Implications

Through careful examination of a few networks that SEWA has been an

intervention in, it seem that women have gained skills and social capital because of

SEWA. In order to validate these results further, it is important to look at individual

social capital through the position generator, which will demonstrate just how much

access these women have gotten.

Position Generator: Social Capital

It is important that social capital be measured by different instruments because

there is a loss of information if it is only measured by one (van der Gaag & Webber,

2008). Because of the problems of illiteracy, social capital was examined by a well-

known instrument called the position generator in addition to the social network analysis

demonstrated in the following chapter (Lin & Dumin, 1986; van der Gaag et al., 2008).

47

Through the position generator, three indices were generated from different prestige-rated

occupations: extensity (the diversity of occupations a respondent had access to), upper

reachability (the highest occupational prestige the respondent had access to) and range

(the difference between highest and lowest prestige levels of occupations accessed by the

respondent. Table 2 displays the differential access to general social capital as created by

the position generator:

Table 2

Position (Standard International

Occupational Prestige Scale)

Respondent Access (out of 122

respondents)

Professor (91) 24.6 %

Sarpanch – Village Chief/Head (83) 98.4 %

Lawyer (73) 52.5 %

State Government Leader (70) 32 %

Journalist (68) 13.9 %

Bank Manager (67) 68.9 %

Company Manager (67) 30.3 %

School Leader (60) 90.2 %

Team Leader (50) 96.7 %

Store Owner (46) 99.2 %

Worker (45) 96.7 %

Administrative Personnel (45) 30.3 %

Electrician (44) 84.4 %

Police Officer (40) 52.5 %

Farmer (38) 93.4 %

Housemaid (23) 81.1 %

SUMMARY INDICES

Extensity (out of 16 possible)

------------Mean 10.45

------------Standard Deviation 2.399

------------Range of Scores 3-16

Range

------------Mean 58.828

------------Standard Deviation 6.855

------------Range of Scores 37-68

Upper Reachability

------------Mean 84.836

------------Standard Deviation 3.803

------------Range of Scores 67-91

48

The results of the position generator as an indicator demonstrate a few different aspects

of social capital. First, the upper reachability and the percentages displayed for the

skilled occupations such as lawyer, journalist, state government leader and university

professor indicates high prestige social capital. Because most of the respondents in the

survey had access to the village sarpanch, they have access to fairly high prestige levels.

This relationship was largely accessed before the respondents joined SEWA. However,

the bank manager access was through SEWA as a broker. Low prestige level is indicated

by access to unskilled workers and laborers such as the housemaids. It is a cumulative

scale and is presumed to be accessed if one accesses higher prestige levels (van der Gaag

et. al, 2008).

Second, extensity indicates how diverse the number of occupations the respondent

have access to. This average is also high, and so it indicates that the quality of these

networks is high as well. It indicates the level of the presence of resources the respondent

has accessible to her. Third, when the range that is calculated is large, it indicates larger

networks which may be accessed by the respondent.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the position generator demonstrates that the networks these women

have built are large, have high quality, and have high prestige. Via the stories of the

women displayed earlier in the chapter, the women attribute their networks and

connections to SEWA. If this is all true, then SEWA is truly building women’s social

capital in India. For poverty policymakers or those interested in the New Commons

Approach to Base of the Pyramid strategies, I would recommend that the model of

49

networks and group meetings that SEWA implements be an inherent part of future

livelihood entrepreneurship interventions.

The research question I was attempting to address in this section was “How do

social capital resources help to create livelihoods for entrepreneurs and their families in

the context of poverty?” And it seems SEWA is helping to create livelihoods for

entrepreneurs and their families in the context of poverty via networks and skills. In the

next section I will look at the specific ways that SEWA may be building these networks.

Through my research model, I look one specific aspect of social capital resources – weak

ties – and how livelihoods are created and basic necessities are met through them.

50

CHAPTER 5: TESTING A THEORETICAL MODEL OF LIVELIHOOD

CREATION

In the previous chapter, I look at how livelihood creation can be sustained in the

context of poverty. In this chapter, I focus poverty alleviation and livelihood creation at

the individual level. Through all of this, I am attempting to answer the research questions:

“Do specific ties within an entrepreneur’s social capital resources lead to livelihood

creation? Does this relationship between an entrepreneur’s ties and livelihood creation

change at different levels of poverty?”

Research Model

The research model is proposed as follows. The dependent variable is livelihood

creation, and the primary independent variable is social capital resources of the

entrepreneur. A second independent variable is poverty level of the entrepreneur, and a

second dependent variable is basic necessities of the entrepreneur.

Figure 8

Basic

necessities

Livelihood creation

Level of poverty

Entrepreneur’s

Social Capital

Resources: Number of

weak ties in

consumer trust

network (+)

Density of trust

network ties (-)

Embeddedness

of entrepreneur

in information

network (-)

51

First I develop each of the individual hypotheses, which will explain the model bit

by bit, and then I return to the overall model.

Hypotheses Development

Entrepreneurs create value, and in this case livelihood entrepreneurs create

livelihoods. Social networks allow us to delve deeper into the social context of

organizational behavior in poverty (Coleman, 1988; Kogut & Zander, 1996). One of the

“classic” questions researched in social theory is how behavior and organizations are

shaped by social relationships (Granovetter, 1985). Since organizations are made up of

individuals, there is an underlying assumption that individual behavior matters, and

organizational behavior is collective behavior (Coleman, 1994). This paper explores the

relationships that form the entrepreneurs’ networks, and how these networks of

relationships – social capital – influence entrepreneur actions and livelihood creation.

Figure 2

Entrepreneurs in Uncertainty

While most entrepreneurs deal with uncertainty to some extent, entrepreneurs

who live in poverty do not know where food is coming from on a daily basis, and this

level of uncertainty affects all parts of their lives. When a person in this context is

searching for a livelihood and they delve into a business that may or may not succeed,

they are taking large risks. In this context, they must have a supportive network around

them to catch them if they cannot succeed (Trivedi, 2011).

Entrepreneur’s

Social Capital

Resources

Livelihood

creation

52

According to the entrepreneurship literature, one of the main starting points that

entrepreneurs rely upon are their social and professional networks (Sarasvathy, 2001).

“Entrepreneurial knowledge ultimately derives from a mix of individual experience,

connections within networks, learning from others, and blind variation,” (Aldrich &

Martinez, 2001). In this dissertation I focus on the entrepreneurs’ networks mostly

because of my assumption that when the political and economic environment is

uncertain, people have to trust and find certainty in their interpersonal relationships

(Trivedi, 2011). Thus, the environment of poverty (which is uncertain) at the base of the

pyramid is the driving force that makes networks important to entrepreneurs living in this

context.

Density of Networks in context of Poverty. Describing relational phenomena as a

network flow model allows a researcher to see the structure that allows or limits the

information which flows through a network (Borgatti & Lopez-Kidwell, Forthcoming).

Researchers can look at four different types of these network flow models, which make

up attributes of the connections in the networks: similarities, social relations, interactions

and flows between people (Borgatti & Lopez-Kidwell, Forthcoming). The density of ties

is the strength of all possible ties that actually exist (Hanneman, 2001). Because of my

assumption that impoverished communities have to rely on each other quite a bit (without

other social structures to help them), I hypothesize that the density of ties will predict

increased livelihood creation. In other words, the communities that have strong ties

between them will succeed more in creating livelihoods for themselves because of the

support network around them.

53

Hypothesis 1a: An increased level in the density of ties in the entrepreneur’s

network decreases livelihood creation.

Figure 3

_

The notion of a theoretical relationship that exists for social or economic reasons

is abstract and difficult to measure. However, the idea of embeddedness makes these

relationships tangible: that economic relationships are actually embedded in real social

networks or structures that facilitate some action (Granovetter, 1985).

Embeddedness is based on the understanding that people are not hermits and do

not act completely independent of the social structures or networks in which they are

immersed (Coleman, 1994; Granovetter, 1985). Instead, people act in concert with the

networks of which they are a part, and the extent of their embeddedness may influence

their actions (Granovetter, 1985). The actions or behaviors that result may generate trust,

establish expectations, create or enforce norms, or discourage malfeasance (Granovetter,

1985).

Embeddedness is split into three types: the same as the three dimensions of social

capital (Granovetter, 1992). Cognitive embeddedness is more difficult to measure

because it is about collective norms and behaviors (mental maps of a large number of

people). Structural embeddedness is about the system as a whole, and is measured by the

network of ties between nodes (Scott, 1991; Wasserman & Faust, 1994) through density,

connectivity, and hierarchy (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Relational embeddedness is

Density of ties

in

Entrepreneur’s

trust network

Livelihood

creation

54

about the personal relationships in the network (Granovetter, 1992). Respect, friendship,

influence, trust, and identity can measure relational embeddedness (Nahapiet & Ghoshal,

1998).

All three dimensions of social capital constitute parts of the social structure of

relationships and facilitate the actions of those in the structure (Coleman, 1990; Nahapiet

& Ghoshal, 1998). Thus, the entrepreneur action is the primary independent variable of

interest.

Measuring Embeddedness. Network literature identifies network centrality,

density, and distance as key characteristics of an employee’s network embeddedness

(Krackhardt, 1992). While some researchers have used trust as a proxy for social capital

(Daniel, 2009), I will use embeddedness of the trust network for structural social capital

in order to combine both constructs and look at the network relationships as a whole, and

the level of dyadic trust as an indicator of relational trust between nodes.

The difficulty with two such constructs that are so interrelated is that there is no

way to avoid covariance when measuring them empirically. Thus, testing for dyadic trust

levels between one entrepreneur and his/customer would not be completely separate from

the trust network embeddedness of one of the two (because the dyadic trust level is

already a partly measured in the trust network embeddedness of that individual). Thus in

this paper, I start with the assumption that social capital and trust overlap and thus I

combine them instead of testing them separately.

A recent study finds that managers’ social capital impacts managerial

performance (Moran, 2005). Moran only measures social capital via structural and

relational embeddedness (cognitive embeddedness is much more difficult to measure)

55

and finds that structural embeddedness plays a larger role in routine tasks and relational

embeddedness plays a larger role in innovative tasks (Moran, 2005). This study

postulates that there is a positive level of relational social capital in an entrepreneur’s

network (as measured by trust network structural embeddedness) and livelihood creation.

Social relations are either role-based - which are generally symmetric and public

knowledge - or attitudinal, which are not necessarily symmetric or public. Interactions

refer to events and flows refer to movement from node to node. Finally, weaker

relationships can build stronger community, but stronger relationships do not divulge

much information because the network has the same information circulating within in

(Granovetter, 1983). This is interesting when contemplating the relationship between

entrepreneur actions and livelihood creation. I propose that when there are stronger trust

ties, the ability to create livelihood is lessened because the entrepreneur doesn’t look

outside to acquaintances or broad network ties, and thus does not have new information.

Whereas in weaker relationships with customers (perhaps relationships of influence

nonetheless), or even dormant relationships, there may be an ability to influence

trustworthy behavior as well (Levin, Walter, & Murnighan, 2011). However, when there

is a strong relationship, loyalty may override typical actions taken because of trust.

However, because I cannot put trust on a continuum (the opposite of trust is not

necessarily distrust) (Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998), I must explain the other end of

this continuum. The simplest way of looking at this is that weak trust ties may actually

lead to higher livelihood creation, because those acquaintances, or people with whom

there are no strong relationships, may be the future of your transactions and thus those

who will help to sustain the livelihoods of the entrepreneurs and their families.

56

Hypothesis 1b: An increased level of embeddedness of an entrepreneur in his or

her trust network decreases the probability of livelihood creation (in the context

of poverty).

Figure 4

_

It is important to note the role of information in one’s network. When a network

to which one belongs (his or her structural social capital) gives the entrepreneur

information, he/she automatically deems it trustworthy (Granovetter, 1985). After time

and more interactions, trust builds in a relationship and thus information from this source

is more and more reliable (Granovetter, 1985). In other words, after several transactions,

a storeowner is economically motivated to continue to build trust with customers so that

they may have future transactions as well (Granovetter, 1985). However, if the

entrepreneur is more embedded in this information network, they will be less likely to

learn new things, gain new customers, and thus less likely to sustain their own livelihoods

for their families. Novel information can help create a livelihood (there is a lot of

anecdotal evidence for this concept in the qualitative section). Here, I will examine ties

in the information network and hypothesize that the more weak ties an entrepreneur has

in that network, the more likely they are to have a higher level of livelihood creation.

Hypothesis 1c: An increased number of weak ties in the entrepreneur’s

information network increases the probability of livelihood creation.

Embeddedness

of entrepreneur

in trust network

Livelihood

creation

57

Figure 5

+

Because there are so many different definitions of poverty, it is important to take

this study one step further, on to the next research question about livelihood creation

leading to social mobility. Does livelihood creation (if measured by income alone)

actually lead to a lifestyle change where the entrepreneur and her family are able to meet

basic needs?

Networks in the Context of Poverty. Companies that have successfully entered

BoP markets have done so mostly through networks (London & Hart, 2010). For

example, Unilever was successful in India through network marketing (Chandon &

Guimaraes, 2007). However, many of these companies hit a roadblock when they had

saturated the networks to which their contacts in the communities belonged. For example,

VisionSpring hit a point where they could not move forward because the people they

trained as their Vision Entrepreneurs did not know how to expand their networks after

they had saturated their own (London & Hart, 2010).

In this study, I will test this theory in the context of moderate and extreme poverty

(the relative poverty line in India is debated and most likely lies under the extreme

poverty line of the entire world). Since the relationship is not yet established in the

literature, I will first test the main effect of livelihood creation on basic needs.

Number of weak

ties in

entrepreneur’s

information

network

Livelihood

creation

58

Hypothesis 2a: An increased level of livelihood creation leads to an increase in

basic necessities.

Figure 6

+

The relationship in Hypothesis 2a is proposed in this way in light of the

aforementioned relationships – that entrepreneurs living in poverty have smaller trust

network ties, but they are stronger – and a smaller number of weak ties. There have been

social capital resources studies on inequality, socioeconomic status, and poverty, but the

context of poverty was only relative poverty (Lin, 1999; Lin, 2000; Lin, Vaughn, &

Ensel, 1981; Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn, 1981; Lin, 2001; Lin, Cook, & Burt, 2001). In these

studies, the consensus is that status attainment really depends on what the socioeconomic

status was of the person to begin with. Thus in this study, I wish to look at the

relationship of livelihood creation and social mobility with regard to level of poverty

(extreme or moderate). In other words, I hypothesize that the relationship between

livelihood creation and basic necessities is contingent on the beginning level of poverty at

which the respondent began, such that the relationship is strengthened at higher levels of

poverty (since the change in income will have a larger effect on those living in extreme

poverty) and weakened at lower levels of poverty (since the change in income will be less

dramatic at lower levels of poverty).

Basic necessities Livelihood

creation

59

Hypothesis 2b: The relationship between livelihood creation and basic

necessities is moderated by the level of poverty such that higher levels of poverty

strengthens the relationship and lower levels of poverty weakens it.

Figure 7

+

Overall, the theoretical model I wish to test can be seen below. It builds upon

existing research has the potential to reveal insights about the context of poverty and how

social capital resources, poverty, livelihood creation, and basic necessities affect one

another.

Figure 8

Basic necessities Livelihood creation

Level of poverty

Livelihood creation

Entrepreneur’s

Social Capital

Resources: Number of

weak ties in

consumer trust

network (+)

Density of trust

network ties (-)

Embeddedness

of entrepreneur

in information

network (-)

Basic

necessities

Level of

poverty

60

Quantitative Test of Hypotheses

Variables and Indicators

In this section I will explain how I measure the constructs from my model.

Dependent Variable. Livelihood creation is measured by two variables: income

and basic necessities. I obtained this data from the SEWA organization’s field worker

and measured it by family income at the present time, entrepreneur income over the

course of the entrepreneur’s tenure at SEWA as well as family’s access to basic needs

(clean water, toilets, food). Ideally this data would have been available from an outside

source such as the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), but the only way this

survey (or any other that I could find) measures family or household-level income is

through consumer expenditure, and that is still on the village-level, not further. In order

to avoid common method bias, then, I also observed the basic necessities myself and so

this construct is measured via participant observation. The variable measuring basic

necessities were a combination of bathroom at home (Yes/No), distance in kilometers to

potable water, and total family income divided by number living under the same roof. I

was able to capture these measures as I visited homes and villages myself.

Independent Variables. I measure both density and number of weak ties in the

entrepreneur networks (Granovetter, 1982; Marsden & Campbell, 1984). Additionally, I

created my own information networks for each entrepreneur by asking where they each

got most of their information from. I coded the answers and gave higher levels to more

distant ties. Level of poverty is classified as moderate, relative, or extreme poverty

(Sachs, 2005) according to the world measurement.

61

Control Variables. I collect entrepreneur attributes as controls: expertise (what

job they have) (Read & Sarasvathy, 2005), geographic community, SEWA tenure, work

tenure, education level, rural/urban classification, and education level.

Research Methods

Social Network Analysis. Social network analysis is based on network theory,

where nodes are individual actors within the networks, ties are the relationships between

the actors, and dyads are ties between two actors. It is a way to approach social

phenomena, because it is true that individuals make choices influenced by their

relationships, not in a vacuum. The assumptions about social behavior that network

analysis makes includes the fact that actors typically participate in social systems

involving many other actors, and that it can be revealing to look at different levels of

structure within a social system (Knoke & Kuklinski, 1982).

There are two basic approaches to classify any type of social interaction:

relationships and attributes. In social network analysis, data is classified through

relationships as not an intrinsic isolated characteristic of either actor, but as a

characteristic of the connection or linkage between the two actors (Knoke & Kuklinski,

1982). Thus the relations are context specific and can change or go away if an actor or an

interaction with another actor goes away (Knoke & Kuklinski, 1982). In other words,

with network theory I am enabled to study relationships, how the context affects these

relationships, and how the context is in turn affected by the relationships.

While measuring relationships, I can measure emergent properties that cannot be

measured just from adding up the attributes that each person has. So, for measuring

62

entrepreneur actions and strength of network ties, it is important to conduct social

network analysis because it will measure the emergent behavior of entrepreneurs in

relation to their peers and boss, not just aggregated behaviors of the people who surround

him or her.

Data Collection. I looked at individual entrepreneurs as my basic units of

analysis. I created a survey with relational content based on trust, advice, and information

networks, pertinent to my study. I had to translate these questionnaires for my official

data collection in villages via the SEWA organization.

I use the emic approach to bind my networks: an anthropological concept, that as

an outside observer I allow my subjects to define their own boundaries, rather than

defining them myself (Knoke & Kuklinski, 1982). Thus, this study is done from the

perspective of the unit of analysis him/herself.

First, I met with the SEWA head office to explain my project. Then I talked with

the district managers, who introduced me to field workers who would serve as my

“translators.” I had a translator myself who would be able to help me in case there were

any Gujarati words I did not understand. The field worker was there to translate what the

villagers were saying in case my translator or I did not understand their accents.

I held meetings with the entrepreneurs individually. In every village, there was an

“aagevaan,” or the first organizer to join SEWA from that particular village or network. I

generally stayed at the home of the “aagevaan” and the entrepreneurs came to meet me at

her home. At each meeting with an entrepreneur, I would first ask for her permission to

proceed and explain that I would de-brief the purpose of the questionnaire and questions

after they completed them. I had to verbally ask all of the questions to each participant

63

because they were not literate. First, I went through questions on an attribute

questionnaire, an open-ended questionnaire that reflects their perceptions of their

networks at large, and finally a social network questionnaire regarding the trust, advice,

influence, resources, and information they receive and give from their communities. I

follow up with interview questions to further understand their relationships, how they

plan to build and expand their networks, and what skills they feel they lack to do so. In

order to avoid common method bias, I asked the field worker for the information on their

incomes. I also hoped to double-check livelihood creation (income) from data I receive

from secondary sources.

A unique methodological change I made to the existing questionnaire was that

because my respondents were largely illiterate, asking for a number to rate their trust

levels did not make a lot of sense. Eventually, I spoke to people who have conducted

research in these areas and I decided to give a visual baseline for my respondents. So I

ended up using the packet of daal (dry beans) which I gave every respondent at the end of

the interview, and I asked them to show me on the packet how much they trusted their

networks. They understood it much better, hopefully because daal is something they use

on a daily basis.

64

Data Analysis

Measurement

Scale reliability assessment. Because I adapted some of the constructs that had

been previously validated in network literature (Knoke & Kuklinski, 1982), I create a

correlation matrix using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to validate which terms in

my questionnaire are measuring the same construct with the dataset provided, and the

model seemed plausible (see Appendix B: Table 4, the correlation matrix).

Inter-item reliability is assessed when there are multiple items measuring the

same construct. The only construct that I measured via three indicators was Basic

Necesseties (via water, bathroom, and number of people at home). For these, when

assessed together, the raw score by calculating the coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951) is

almost zero (.006), and the standardized score is negative. This indicates that they are not

measuring the same construct. When I remove the indicator for numberathome,

Cronbach’s alpha is negative for water and number of bathrooms as well. All of this

indicates that these three basic necessities are not measuring the same construct.

Therefore, I should measure them separately in Hypotheses 4 and 5. Otherwise, there

were no other multiple indicators of the same construct. Thus for those I do not need to

assess scale reliability by calculating the coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951).

Indicators and Controls. The indicator for the dependent variable - livelihood

creation - is the change in income for the individual entrepreneur since the SEWA

intervention, but also to have a robust analysis, I double-checked the dependent variable

as current income level as well. For the independent variables, I looked at density of the

network, number of weak ties as an indicator of social mobility, and number of weighted

65

ties each entrepreneur had to receive novel information. For hypothesis 2, I looked at

number of people living at home, access to bathrooms, and access to potable water. The

controls included entrepreneur attributes such as community (or village), education level,

work tenure, SEWA tenure, and whether they lived in a rural or urban community. I

hoped to control for job as well in order to compare the different jobs that I viewed, but

the N proved too small between jobs so I did not use that as a control in the end.

Calculating strength of ties in relationships – density and structural holes. The

relational form has two basic aspects that can be measured: a) the link and intensity

strength between two actors, and b) the actors’ amount of involvement together in the

same activities (Knoke, 1996). Thus it is imperative to map out the relationships between

the participants. To do this social network analysis, I wanted to use UCINET to calculate

strengths of relationships and evidence of structural holes.

First, I created row-based data from each questionnaire, where each participant

will be asked about his/her network. Next, I drew the graphs in UCINET so as to analyze

the ties (their strength, their directions, and their closeness). Visualizing and surveying

the graphs is important to understanding the directed arcs and network as a whole. The

density of ties is the strength of all possible ties that actually exist (Hanneman, 2001). I

calculate the mean strength ignoring self-ties.

In order to do this, I analyze social networks is breaking down the data into

readable matrices. The first matrix I created was a simple association network. Each

entrepreneur listed the first ten women they thought of in their own network. Then they

told me in aggregate how much they trusted the different women in their network. I

created a matrix based on their associations and their trust of the entire network.

66

Second, I look for structural holes. Structural holes stem from social capital

theory and can be defined as the lack of ties among actors (Burt, 1992). It is important to

consider the absence of a relationship as well as the presence of one. Brass et al. propose

that when there is a lack of a relationship this is significant as well (Brass, Butterfield, &

Skaggs, 1998).

Actors who receive ties (in-degree) are “often said to be prominent, or to have

prestige. That is, many other actors seek to direct ties to them, and this may indicate their

importance” (Hanneman, 2001).

Trust. The trust networks were very difficult to obtain from this sample. With a

mostly illiterate population, survey fatigue set in quite quickly since I was verbally asking

all the questions. Additionally, privacy was very difficult to obtain in these communities.

I was able to get the concept of trust from each participant, but they came in aggregate for

the entire network rather than dyadic trust levels for each other person in the network.

Finally, the variability in the amount of trust was so small that I could not test this

hypothesis. In other words, 95% of the women who responded to the survey indicated

that she had 100% trust in her entire network and were not able to give me more nuanced

measures. I thus had to drop Hypothesis 1b because I was unable to calculate

embeddedness of each individual in their trust network without variability or dyadic

measures.

Information. For the information networks, I asked each woman to identify

where they got more of their information with regard to work, from. They responded

with 5 different replies, which I coded as 5 for SEWA office person, 4 for the aagevaan

67

in their village, 3 for women in their network, 2 for “other”, and 1 for family. Then I

totaled the number of replies to get the number of novel information ties.

Basic Necessities, Level of Poverty and Livelihood Creation. Because of the data

that I was able to collect, I was able to see if a change in income was able to predict a

change in the necessary family amenities that the entrepreneurs had now. I also looked at

this relationship with regard to level of poverty. In other words, I was looking at the

indicators of poverty in different ways to see if they were related, and if a rise in

livelihood (income) actually did lead to better amenities at home.

Regressions. In UCINET, each of the different relationships as well as the

strengths in a diagram can be viewed. To test my hypotheses, I calculate the variables

based on each of the different networks. Since it is difficult to obtain a full network, I

also collect dyadic information.

Once I get all of the information I need from UCINET, I run regressions in

STATA and SAS to test my hypotheses based on the weak ties, information network, and

poverty levels.

Results

The following is a list of the quantitative results. P-values were double-checked

using SAS and STATA.

Table 3

Table 3 P-value Results

H1: Density of network ->

decreased livelihood

.12 Not supported

H2: Not tested because of

lack of variance in

responses

N.A. (almost all were highest

level of trust so no

variance)

H3: # of weak ties -> .025 Supported

68

increased livelihood

H4: Increased livelihood

creation -> increased basic

needs (except for water)

.001 (a),

.16 (b),

.20 (c)

Supported for (a) number

living under one roof, but in

the opposite direction than

that which was proposed for

H4 and in the proposed

direction for H5. Not

supported for (b) water or

(c) bathroom access.

H5: Increased livelihood

creation -> increased basic

needs moderated by level of

poverty such that higher

levels of poverty weakens

the relationship and lower

levels of poverty

strengthens it.

.007 (a)

.36 (b)

.23 (c)

Density of the different networks. Density is the number of ties that do exist over

the number of ties that could exist. I found that the two salt worker communities were

the most dense (.639 and .548) which makes sense because their work depended on each

other (they combined salt mined and then distributed profit evenly, so they had incentive

to trust one another). To test hypothesis 1a, I run a simple regression with livelihood

creation (measured by income level today) as the dependent variable and density in the

network as the independent variable. I find not only that my theory in Hypothesis 1a was

partially supported, with a positive correlation. It seems that the more the dense networks,

the higher the livelihood creation. Support structures are important to ensure success at

the base of the pyramid.

Information network. Because of a p-value of .02, we can say with 98%

certainty that the number of weak ties in the information network predicts positive

livelihood creation. Hypothesis 1b is supported with 98% significance.

Level of Poverty and Livelihood Creation. I was able to see if a change in income

was able to predict a change in the amenities that the families had now. In other words,

does change in income predict a change in the way that the families are living? I found

69

that with 99.99% certainty, the change in income for the women entrepreneurs had an

effect on the number of people living at home. Additionally, the level of poverty did

moderate this relationship with 99.3% certainty such that higher levels of poverty

weakened the relationship and lower levels of poverty strengthened the relationship. In

other words, the less impoverished respondent would actually have a higher likelihood of

more people living at home as they got more income. For the poorest individuals living

at the lowest incomes, a change in income did not mean more people came to live in their

home or that they would have more children.

Secondly, I found no support that the change in income caused the family to have

a bathroom in their home. The level of poverty did not moderate this relationship, which

means that the level of poverty did not significantly change the likelihood that a family

would have a bathroom after the entrepreneur’s income had changed.

Thirdly, my hypothesis that a change in income for the entrepreneur would

positively change the number of kilometers she had to walk to get water was not

supported either. This relationship did not change when moderated by level of income

either.

Results Explained

Implications. Hypothesis 1 was partially supported, which indicates that when a

network has strong ties, there is an increased likelihood that there will be livelihood

creation for an entrepreneur who is part of that network. This makes logical sense.

Hypothesis 3 was strongly supported, and this also makes sense that the weak

information ties gives a higher likelihood of livelihood creation, because the theory is that

novel information will lead to greater performance or value creation.

70

Finally, Hypothesis 4 and 5 were only supported with regard to number living at

home. However, for Hypothesis 4, the number living at home increased significantly

rather than decreased significantly as livelihood creation increased (so the result was

significant, but in the opposite direction than that which was proposed). This is

interesting because it implies that as income increases, so does the number of people who

live at home. Additionally, since Hypothesis 5 was significant for number living at

home, at lower levels of poverty, instead of a positive change in income actually giving a

woman and her family more privacy or space, it would strengthen the relationship

meaning they would house even more people (perhaps in-laws, or other family members).

For higher levels of poverty, this relationship was weakened so that implies that the

poorer a family is, even with an increase in income, the number of people living in their

home would increase at a lower rate. Hypotheses 4 and 5 imply that having more people

to live in one’s home in this context is preferred to having more privacy or space.

Hypothesis 4 and 5 were not supported with regard to how far the entrepreneur

had to walk to get water, or whether or not there is a bathroom they have access. What

this indicates is actually quite interesting and probably reflects the fact that even though

these families may have access to more money, they were not able to make behavioral

change yet. Maybe they need more time to let stability catch up with them, or maybe it

has something to do with the government not having given them the infrastructure yet to

give them these amenities.

Another very important note to consider while reading into the results of

Hypotheses 4 and 5 is whether or not my own (based on Western literature) cultural

notions of “basic necessities” are just not the same as the ones Indians or perhaps just

71

Gujaratis have. It could also be generalizable to developing countries. In the ever-

changing world, it is possible they are prioritizing and spending their new income on

things that they believe are necessary that are not water, bathrooms, and less people in

their homes. In fact, the privacy/space that we value in the Western world is clearly not

valued in this context. Perhaps, as we mix the two methods used in this study, we can

hypothesize what other necessities they do spend their livelihoods on.

Correcting for Endogeneity Issues.

Endogeneity is a particular concern when predictor variables are endogenous. I

must be careful to infer association, via statistical correlation between my variables,

instead of causation. For my first two hypotheses, the only issue I could imagine was a

simultaneity problem. When it comes to trust or information levels, it could be that when

livelihood creation increases trust or that trust increases livelihood creation. However, if

we are only testing for association, it should not make a difference. For the last

hypothesis, there is some possibility that the level of poverty before the SEWA

intervention is endogenous to the creation of livelihood (income) after, because the

SEWA intervention could in fact be operating in locations which are creating livelihoods

more easily. In other words, does SEWA help to create livelihoods or do certain more

entrepreneurial communities invite SEWA to help them? In order to correct for self-

selection bias or unobservable variables, I could use instrumental variables approach to

tease out the specific unique relationship that I am trying to demonstrate. I would have to

get more information from SEWA to try to find the appropriate variable that would work

for this approach. For now, bypassing this step is justified due to the different methods

used to measure the different variables.

72

CHAPTER 6: INTERPRETATION, ANALYSIS and CONCLUSIONS

Discussion: Implications, Limitations, Conclusion

The original objective of this research was to study how entrepreneurs living in

extreme poverty may utilize networks to create livelihoods for themselves, which can

stimulate the economy and also reduce poverty. I believe I was able to demonstrate via a

mixed methods study that through interventions such as SEWA, this can be achieved. I

will review whether or not I was able to answer my original research questions, then

discuss the limitations of the study, move to overall contributions, list a number of future

projects and research that could emerge because of this work, and finally conclude with

what I perceive to be the overall impact of my research.

The first research question was primarily conceptualized in the first and second

chapters, but the distinguishing characteristics of a livelihood entrepreneur were further

clarified in the fourth (qualitative) chapter. The qualitative study clearly outlined how

respondents felt that SEWA had helped them build their livelihoods (4 of the respondents

even mentioned the translation for “livelihoods” when asked what SEWA had given

them). It was also very clear that the SEWA intervention was an education intervention,

due to the number of women who believed that SEWA gave them training and education.

The livelihood entrepreneur may need this type of intervention in order to succeed.

The second research question sought to understand how SEWA built the group’s

social capital, and the qualitative study demonstrated that they did so through an

education intervention which taught the women to be empowered, and to build their

networks and skills. In particular, the empowerment of the women was clear as they had

gained confidence and the power of decision-making in their homes (Devi, 1982). These

73

are incredibly important skills to learn in order to attain higher status (Lin, 1999) and also

for progress and development of the nation as a whole.

The fifth chapter of the dissertation sought to answer the third research question, a

quantitative demonstration of which ties lead to livelihood creation. While only some of

the hypotheses were supported, there were still many interesting findings that arose from

this study. The primary supported hypothesis was that weak ties lead to increased

income. So the study validates the idea that building bridges across villages (which

SEWA is doing) and to different information networks is beneficial to these women

entrepreneurs just as much as they are to those who live in the developed world.

Additionally, this chapter demonstrates that increased income in turn leads to access to

better facilities (a proxy for basic needs). However, based on the literature and my

Western notion of their basic needs, income did not lead to an increase in access to these

things. But there was a definite increase in education of children and especially

daughters. What this demonstrates is that while weak ties do lead to increased income,

we cannot be sure that the perception of what basic needs are is universal to all people.

This chapter therefore is quite intriguing, and seems to demonstrate that there needs to be

more literature on basic needs and consumption at the BoP.

Limitations

I was limited due to a number of factors: sample size, access, language, literacy,

privacy, common method bias, and my own biases entering the setting. I did not have a

choice as to what types of entrepreneurs or the number I could access, or whether or not

the entrepreneurs are willing to talk with me. I also had limited access to the

entrepreneurs’ networks, because there were days when everyone in a network would be

74

available and other days when they were not. I could only go to the villages when there

was a field worker present to go with me, so that limited my availability quite a bit.

I am a proficient Gujarati speaker, but I was at first concerned that because I am

very clearly an American when I speak Gujarati, I would be limited language-wise. In

fact, the opposite was actually true. In the end, many of the respondents in the study

outright said that I was intimidating to them at first because of my “educated” Gujarati,

and so many women did not want to speak with me for fear that they would “mess up” or

because they could not understand me. I was limited in that regard to a certain extent,

but most women ended up feeling quite open with me once they warmed up to me, and

trusted the field worker who was with me at all times.

Literacy became a problem for the method as well as for my results. The social

network analysis I wanted to conduct was one that was much more conducive to a written

survey, because the women would be able to give ratings for every relationship she had

with every other woman in her group. But that type of survey conducted orally is a very

different matter. For each question, I would have to ask a rating for each woman and

survey fatigue began right away. Instead, I had to aggregate the question for the group

and still women had a problem with the ratings because they were not literate and

numbers did not mean a lot to them. I realized I had to give a visual guide, and I also

realized that the answers were very literal rather than conceptual. For example, if I asked

what they had gotten from SEWA, their answers were mostly about items they had

received or not received, but rarely about knowledge or training unless I asked

specifically about that.

75

Privacy was a limitation which I tried my best to conquer, but to no avail. I had a

translator (Gujarati to English) in case there were critical words I didn’t understand, the

SEWA field worker, the participant, and myself in every interview. In addition, many of

the women did not have access to daycare so their children were present, or the women

whose home we were at was present as well. Often times other participants would come

early and sit in on the interviews. I tried my best to explain that it was better when the

women were alone, but it was difficult culturally to ban anyone from being in the room or

even talking (especially because in most of the homes, there was only one room anyway).

This of course could lead to skewed results.

Finally, measuring livelihood creation is difficult and I cannot be sure that the

families’ income is what the field worker said it was. I am still trying to find panel data

to verify the income (at least at the village-level) through the NSSO (National Sample

Survey Organization) but the villages I went to were quite remote so I do not yet have

that information. Regardless, I am currently and would still be dealing with Common

Method Bias since the dependent variable, while it comes from a different source, is still

via survey method as are the independent variables. I did observe the variables of the

basic necessities so participant observation is a different method, but it is not my only

dependent variable.

Overall Research Contribution

Through this dissertation, I contribute to entrepreneurship and development

literature and generate actionable knowledge. I aimed to demonstrate that there is

richness even at the base of the economic pyramid - through a unique study of

entrepreneur’s relationships in poverty. Additionally, this study demonstrates that

76

conventional (economic) definitions of poverty may not pertain to the actual basic needs

of those living in poverty.

With the qualitative study I believe I shed some light on what is working well in

India in alleviating poverty, how successful entrepreneurs have established themselves

through networks and skills-building, and possibly demonstrated that these community-

based interventions may lead to greater livelihood creation for entrepreneurs living in

poverty. I hope the research in this dissertation may inform policy decisions in the future

so that more countries and communities may benefit from the types of interventions

through networks that SEWA is building.

My primary contributions are: introducing the livelihood entrepreneurship

concept to the entrepreneurship literature, and empirically testing the new concept with a

unique dataset of entrepreneur networks in India. I hope that generating actionable

knowledge for the academic community will possibly provide a greater understanding of

how community-based interventions for empowerment and entrepreneurial ventures in

the context of poverty may actually benefit both the communities and the entrepreneurs

themselves. This is a unique contribution because data in the context of poverty in the

developing world is difficult to obtain, and has not yet become mainstream.

Theoretically, this dissertation will have an impact on entrepreneurship and social

capital literatures. It holds promise with regard to generalizability for a few reasons: 1)

Gujarati immigrant communities in many parts of the world are also entrepreneurial, so

some of these findings may be applied to them in Africa and the Western world, 2)

women entrepreneurs in the industrialized world still do not yield the same types of

success as men (Runyan, Huddleston, & Swinney, 2006), so these findings may shed

77

light even in the Western world, and 3) there are many communities in India and other

developing countries to which the findings on how to build networks in the context of

poverty could be quite useful. Additionally, the definitions of poverty and basic needs

are conceptually improved through this dissertation: perhaps the Western concept of

basic needs for those living in poverty are not the same as those who are living in poverty

perceive for themselves.

Finally, there will be implications for social policy and future business ventures in

the developing world as well as more insight about future business-co-venture

interventions aimed at sustaining enterprises in the context of poverty (Hart, 2010).

Because micro-enterprises across the developing world are helping to generate income,

build opportunities and also reduce poverty (Saidu et. al., 2013) they should be

encouraged and supported by those living abroad as well.

Further Research

Rungs of Entrepreneurship. Because of the conceptual introduction of livelihood

entrepreneurship, I may be able to further clarify the concept through future research. I

have begun discussions with the Emergent Institute, an institution in India that is helping

to pair successful entrepreneurs at the grassroots level with successful entrepreneurs who

have expanded their ventures tremendously after fruition (Emergent Institute, 2014).

There would be an interesting conceptual project to identify the different “rungs” of

emergent entrepreneurs, and whether or not they may be distinguished by the level of

poverty the entrepreneur hails from. The few women who did have aspirations for the

future of their enterprises in my study demonstrate that there is a ladder, and it could be

defined more clearly in the entrepreneurship literature.

78

Privacy at the BoP. The results of the final hypotheses indicated that people

living in extreme and moderate poverty in India value supporting their families (indicated

by number living at home) more than they did privacy or space. A qualitative study

delving deeper into an explanation of why this is the case would be fruitful, and a

comparing those answers to ones from those living in poverty in the Western world

would be fascinating. Based on my study and literature review on collectivist vs.

individualist cultures, I would be interested to know if collectivist cultures also value

closer proximity of community than individualist cultures.

Basic Needs Re-evaluation. The quanitative results of this study created many

questions needing to be answered. Firstly, if income was generally higher after the

intervention, why were basic needs still not being met? Some re-evaluation of the

definitions of basic needs would be a fruitful theoretical conversation. The Western

world assumes they understand what the basic needs are for any human being. But is it

possible that a person living in extreme or moderate poverty defines basic needs

differently? Or is it possible that this definition has changed as the world has changed? A

possible way to explore these questions is through another quantitative study, but the next

time looking at panel data on consumption. If we hypothesize that perhaps basic needs

are different at different levels of income, we could measure the varying consumption

patterns of different households. There is a National Sample Survey Organization

(NSSO), which has a comprehensive database of village-level income and consumption,

which would be the perfect dataset to use to conduct this research.

Grassroots to Global Innovations. Through the quantitative portion of my

dissertation I was able to map out what BoP entrepreneur networks SEWA was able to

79

help create through their intervention. There have been some innovations that have

started at the BoP and moved to the top of the pyramid. An example would be designs

for and from the “Other 90%” being used for Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy recovery.

Another example would be the mobile banking industry from Kenya (Empesa) moving

into Western market. Future research may include a model that aims to predict when and

why these innovations are successful (meaning sustained family livelihoods). I also have

access to the HoneyBee Network, which is a platform for grassroots innovations to

disseminate information from the ground-up. It is a great place to track network-building

and predict how an innovation may spread and become a success.

Before SEWA After SEWA. The data I collected mapped out the entrepreneur’s

business community prior to joining SEWA and after. Most of the earlier communities

were just families and neighbors. It would be interesting to compare social networks vs.

business networks and demonstrate (possibly through a virtual simulation) exactly how

the SEWA network was able to grow and expand each entrepreneur’s ties.

Global SEWA. With the qualitative portion of my study, I have set the stage for a

longitudinal experimental study with larger impact, through high external validity. It may

be generalizable to other developing countries, but this must be tested. While India may

be a country that is unique, it may be useful to see if the SEWA model does work in other

countries and whether their approach would be a broadly valid approach to development

and business profit. SEWA is expanding internationally and I have the opportunity to go

to communities that are untouched by SEWA but will join soon thereafter.

80

Conclusions

When a student attends business school in the Western world, many instructors

encourage them to build their networks, in order to secure contacts for future

employment. This dissertation demonstrates that social capital is just as important at the

base of the economic pyramid as well. In fact, if we want to reduce proverty (which

would benefit us all), we have to encourage interventions like SEWA to help build those

weak ties because people living in poverty do not have the same access to communication

and transportation.

This dissertation demonstrates that a way to alleviate poverty is through education

empowerment community-based interventions. Through education and empowerment of

women, livelihood entrepreneurs are created and they are able to lift themselves out of

poverty and stimulate their developing country economy. For this type of intervention –

through education of micro-enterprise skills and networks - to have so many positive

effects on the world, it would seem almost negligent not to encourage the establishment

of many more throughout the world.

81

Appendix A: Summary of Figures

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

-

Figure 4

_

Entrepreneur’s

Social Capital

Resources

Livelihood

creation

Embeddedness

of entrepreneur

in trust network

Livelihood

creation

Density of ties

in

Entrepreneur’s

trust network

Livelihood

creation

82

Figure 5

+

Figure 6

+

Figure 7

Figure 8

Livelihood creation

Entrepreneur’s

Social Capital

Resources: Number of

weak ties in

consumer trust

network (+)

Density of trust

network ties (-)

Embeddedness

of entrepreneur

in information

network (-)

Basic

necessities

Basic necessities Livelihood

creation

+ Basic necessities Livelihood creation

Level of poverty

Level of

poverty

Number of weak

ties in

entrepreneur’s

information

network

Livelihood

creation

83

Appendix B: Summary of Tables

Table 1 Summary of Sample Characteristics (Percent or Mean)

Mean (from 134 total) Median Max Min %

Age 41.9 40 65 18

Education 2.07 years 0 11 0

None 67.9

1-4 years 6.59

5-6 years 8.95

7-8 years 10.4

9-12 years 5.97

Tenure at

SEWA

11.22 12 26 1

Work Tenure 21.27 20 60 2

Single 2.2

Married but

not living

with husband

yet

0.75

Married 86

Widow 11.1

Number

living under

one roof

6.044 6 15 1

Family

income per

day

226.4 166.66 2000 0

Income before

SEWA

61.444 41.666 555.56

7

0

Rural 79.8

5

Urban 20.1

5

Street

Vendors

20

Animal

husbandry

20

Fabric

Workers

20

Salt Workers 18.6

6

Farmers 19.4

Retired 1.5

84

Table 2

Position (Standard International

Occupational Prestige Scale)

Respondent Access (out of 122

respondents)

Professor (91) 24.6 %

Sarpanch – Village Chief/Head (83) 98.4 %

Lawyer (73) 52.5 %

State Government Leader (70) 32 %

Journalist (68) 13.9 %

Bank Manager (67) 68.9 %

Company Manager (67) 30.3 %

School Leader (60) 90.2 %

Team Leader (50) 96.7 %

Store Owner (46) 99.2 %

Worker (45) 96.7 %

Administrative Personnel (45) 30.3 %

Electrician (44) 84.4 %

Police Officer (40) 52.5 %

Farmer (38) 93.4 %

Housemaid (23) 81.1 %

SUMMARY INDICES

Extensity (out of 16 possible)

------------Mean 10.45

------------Standard Deviation 2.399

------------Range of Scores 3-16

Range

------------Mean 58.828

------------Standard Deviation 6.855

------------Range of Scores 37-68

Upper Reachability

------------Mean 84.836

------------Standard Deviation 3.803

------------Range of Scores 67-91

Table 3

Table 3 P-value Results

H1: Density of network ->

decreased livelihood

.12 Not supported

H2: Not tested because of

lack of variance in

responses

N.A. (almost all were highest

level of trust so no

variance)

H3: # of weak ties -> .025 Supported

85

increased livelihood

H4: Increased livelihood

creation -> increased basic

needs (except for water)

.001 (a),

.16 (b),

.20 (c)

Supported for (a) number

living under one roof, but

not for (b) water or (c)

bathroom access H5: Increased livelihood

creation -> increased basic

needs moderated by level of

poverty such that higher

levels of poverty weakens

the relationship and lower

levels of poverty

strengthens it.

.007 (a)

.36 (b)

.23 (c)

86

Table 4

Mean

S.D. Age Water

BR Education

Vmarital

Numathome

Vfamilyincomeday

SEWAtenure

Worktenure

RuralUrb

Vfamincdaybynumath

ome

Age 43.8 11.51 1

Water 0.55 1.356 0.30085

1

BR 0.7 0.47 -0.4105

8

-0.63554

*

1

Education 2.5 3.56 -0.2042

2

-0.29964

0.47147*

1

Vmarital 2.15 0.489 0.67865**

0.18635

-0.022

88

0.0453

1

Numberathome

6.55 2.87 0.27089

0.37738

-0.299

91

-0.233

95

-0.1740

1

1

Vfamilyincomeday

230.3814

192.19

-0.0854

7

-0.21085

0.14895

0.32039

-0.1396

1

0.22329 1

SEWAtenure 12.9 6.31 0.5214*

0.13584

-0.170

22

-0.277

38

0.56729**

0.02785 -0.10469 1

Worktenure 22.325

12.85 0.54603*

-0.16482

-0.348

91

-0.248

13

0.03787

0.20012 0.30878 0.44549*

1

87

RuralUrb 1.05 0.22 0.08592

-0.09

54

0.15019

-0.165

2

-0.072 -0.1269 -0.07803 0.07829 0.23218

1

Vfamincdaybynumathom

37.58346

32.709

-0.2396

4

-0.29

64

0.2969

0.4586*

-0.12 -0.2 0.8804*** -0.16361

0.17266

-0.0305

8

1

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

88

Appendix C: IRB-approved Questionnaire

Attribute (and some open-ended) Questionnaire - Directions: Please be as truthful as is possible.

1. What is your age?

Tamari umar shu chhe?

ઉ ?

2. Are you single or married?

Tame kuvara chho ke parnela?

?

?

3. Do you have children? (YES/NO) If YES, please indicate ages of children.

Tamare baalko chhe? Jo “ha,” to ketla chhe? Ane temni umar shu chhe?

?

' ' ?

ઉ ?

4. Who lives with you?

Tamari sathe kaun kaun rehe chhe?

– ?

5. Do you have access to clean water, food, toilets?

Tamara gaam ma pivanu chhokhu pani male chhe? Tamara gaam ma sandaas ni

vyavastha chhe? Tame kevi rite khavanu male chhe?

? ?

6. What is your education level?

Tame kyaa sudhi bhanela chho?

?

89

PRIMARY HIGHER HIGHER SECONDARY COLLEGE

ઉ

7. How long have you been in a SEWA group?

Tame SEWA ni saathe ketala samay thhi jodaye lachho?

‘ ’ ?

8. How long have you been in your own business?

Aa kaam ketala samay thhi karo chho?

આ ?

9. How did you decide to start your own business?

Tame kevi rite tamaro dando karvanu naki karyoo?

10. Before you joined SEWA, who did you talk to about work? Who was in your

business community before SEWA?

SEWA pehla, kaam vise tame kauni sathe vaat karta hata? ' ' ?

11. How were your relationships with them? Do you still have them?

Temni sathe tamara sabandh keva hata? Haji chhe?

?

12. Are any of them your relatives? Yes or no?

Je koi tamara sabandhi chhe? Ha ke naa

, ?

13. Do you meet outside of work? Yes or no? If yes, then what do you do?

Bahaar malo chho? Ha ke naa? Ha tho kya, shu karo chho?

?

90

14. Do you get a chance to talk with your community about what is important to you

(e.g., your core values or principles as a businesswoman)? (Please choose:

Definitely Yes (DY or 5), Yes (or 4), Not sure (NS or 3), No (2), Definitely No

(DN or 1))

Tamne tamaro kaam ma samuday ma vaat karvani tak male che? (SEWA pehla,

SEWA pachi kay judu chhe?)

? ( , ?)

15. Who do you talk to at SEWA? Who is in your group? Please indicate name of

person in your SEWA group and relationship where appropriate: (roommate,

carpool partner, relative (if so, please indicate what kind), attends your religious

place of worship, has children of the same age)

SEWA ma tame kauni sathe vaat karo chho?

?

NAME

Relationship

(If any)

16. Of the sewa group, who are you required to interact with this person to get your

job done? How much?

Jo ho, tho ema thi, ek atvaadya ma ketli vaar kaam vise bolvu pade? , ? (1=less than once a week, 2=once or twice a week, 3=several times a week,

4=once or twice a day, 5= several times a day)

17. How are your relationships with other SEWA group members?

SEWA na tamara group ni sathe tamara sabandh keva chhe?

- ?

18. Are any of them relatives? Yes or no?

Je koi tamara sabandhi chhe? Ha ke naa?

91

, ?

19. Do your children study or work together? Yes or no?

Balko sathe bhane chhe? Ha ke naa?

?

20. Do you meet outside of work? Yes or no? If yes, then what do you do?

Bahaar malo chho? Ha ke naa? Ha tho kya, shu karo chho?

?

21. Do you get a chance to talk with your SEWA group about what is important to

you (e.g., your core values, principles or problems as a businesswoman)? (What is

your biggest problem at work now?) (Please choose: Definitely Yes (DY or 5),

Yes (or 4), Not sure (NS or 3), No (2), Definitely No (DN or 1)) SEWA ma tamne vaat karvani tak male chhe? Tak male tho, tame shene mahatva

aapochho? (Jemke kaam karti mahilao na siddhant ane tamara mulyo, ke

mushkeli?) (Tamara kaam ma sauthi moti mushkeli shu chhe?)

, આ ? ( ?) ( ?)

92

Social Network and Capital Questionnaire (open-ended as well)

: ' '

Directions: Please be as truthful as is possible.

22. On a scale of this bag of daal, lowest being totally don’t matter to us like people

we don’t know and totally full being total care like people in our families, how

much do you care about the people you mentioned before?

Aa daal na packet jena adhare dhyaan ane na dhyaan kesho, sauti neeche na

dhyaan mate, ane sauthi vadhaare dhyaan mate che. SEWA na tamara group ma

ketlu dhyaan aapo chho?

આ આ , , . આ ?

23. On a scale of this bag of daal, lowest being totally don’t matter to us like people

we don’t know and totally full being total care like people in our families, do you

think this person cares about the people you mentioned before?

Aa daal na packet jena adhare dhyaan ane na dhyaan kesho, sauti neeche na

dhyaan mate, ane sauthi vadhaare dhyaan mate che. Tame jemna naam aapyaa,

temathi lage chhe te loko ne tame dhyaan aape chhe?

આ આ , , . આ આ ?

24. On a scale of this bag of daal, lowest being total distrust and totally full being

complete trust, do you trust that the people in your SEWA group will do tasks

they have agreed to do?

SEWA na tamara group ma tamne te loko upar ketlu vishvas chhe ke tame sopelu

kaam barabar karse?

' '

?

25. What makes you trust or distrust them?

Kevi ritno tamne vishvas ke avishvas chhe? Story aapsho?

? આ ?

93

26. On a scale of this bag of daal, lowest being total distrust and totally full being

complete trust, do you think the people in your SEWA group trust you to do a

task you have agreed to do?

Tamne lagechhe te loko tamara upar vishvas kare chhe ke tamne sopelu kaam

barabar karsho?

ઉ

?

27. On a scale of this bag of daal, lowest being total disrespect and totally full being

complete respect, do you respect the people in your SEWA group for their

knowledge and competence?

Tamara group na vyukti na gnaan ane avdat mate maan chhe? Ketlu?

આ ? ?

28. On a scale of this bag of daal, lowest being total disrespect and totally full being

complete respect, do you think the people in your SEWA group respect you for

your knowledge and competence?

Tamne ewu lagechhe ke tamara SEWA na group ne tamara gnaan ane avdat mate

maan aape chhe? Ketlu?

આ આ ? ?

29. Do you consider the people in your SEWA group to be your friends? (YES/NO)

Define friend as someone who you choose to communicate with during your free

time (i.e. coffee break, lunch, other).

Tamara SEWAna group ma ________ mitra chhe? To tame free time ma temne

malo chho. Udaharan: chha-coffee, jamvano samay, vagere)

' ' ____ ? ? (ઉ .

- , , )

30. Do you get advice from the SEWA group? (Please choose: Definitely Yes (DY or

10), Yes (or 7), Not sure (NS or 5), No (3), Definitely No (DN or 1)) Anyone in

particular? Does the people in the SEWA group get advice from you? Anyone in

particular?

SEWA na tamara group ma te manas ni pase thi vepaar ma salaaha lo chho? Le

Chhe?

' ' ? ?

31. Would you feel comfortable telling these people about your personal problems

and difficulties? Do you have an example story? (Please choose: Definitely Yes

(DY or 10), Yes (or 7), Not sure (NS or 5), No (3), Definitely No (DN or 1))

94

Aa vyukti saathe thamari mushkeli ne vise vaat karvanu tamne saral lage chhe?

Story aapsho?

આ ?

આ ?

32. Would you feel comfortable telling these people about your hopes and dreams?

(Please choose: Definitely Yes (DY or 10), Yes (or 7), Not sure (NS or 5), No

(3), Definitely No (DN or 1))

Aa vyukti saathe thamara swapna ane aasha vise vaat karvanu tamne saral lage

chhe?

આ આ ?

33. What are your hopes and dreams for your life?

Tamara swapna ane aasha shu che?

આ ?

34. What are your goals for your business?

Tamara danda mate koi dheyay (hetu) chhe?

?

35. Where do you get most of your information? From people in your community or

from people you met at SEWA? Sauti vadhu mahiti tamne sewa mati malechhe ke tamari kaam na samuday mati

male chhe?

?

36. What do you learn, or get from SEWA?

Tamne SEWA mathi shu malyu che? Shu janva malyu che?

? ?

37. How many trainings have you taken at SEWA? How many from outside have

you taken?

Sewa ma ketli talim lidhi che? Bahaar ti ketla lo chho?

? ?

95

38. How did you find out about SEWA?

SEWA vise tamne kyaa thi kabar padi?

ખ ?

39. Of your friends, relatives, and acquaintances, is there anyone who has the jobs

listed? Tamara mitro, padosi, parijit, ane saga sabundi mathi, koi aa job karechhe?

, , , , આ ?

If yes, did you know them before SEWA? Jo ha, to SEWA pehla ke pachhi

olkhaan chhe?

, ખ ?

What is that relationship like? Sabandh keva chhe?

? If no, do you know anyone who knows a person with that job? Jo na, to tame koi

vyukti ne olkhochho je tene olkechhe?

, ખ ખ ?

1. University Professor- College ma je sikhvade che- ખ Yes / Story/ : Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ? Before or after Sewa? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/ ?

2. State government leader- Jilla panchayat na leader/

Yes / Story/ : Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ? Before or after Sewa? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/

3. Town council/Mayor- Sarpanch / OR Corporator/

Yes / Story/ :

96

Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ? Before or after Sewa? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/ ?

4. Police-

Yes / Story/ : Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ? Before or after Sewa? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/ ?

5. Lawyer- Vakil

Yes / Story/ : Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ? Before or after Sewa? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/ ?

6. Journalist- Patrakaar-

Yes / Story/ : Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ? Before or after Sewa? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/ ?

7. Store owner- Vehepaari- Yes / Story/ : Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ?

97

Before or after Sewa? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/ ?

8. Bank manager- -

Yes / Story/ : Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ? Before or after Sewa? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/ ?

9. Company manager-

Yes / Story/ : Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ? Before or after Sewa? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/ ?

10. Team leader-

Yes / Story/ : Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ? Before or after Sewa? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/ ?

11. School leader- Acharya- આ Yes / Story/ : Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ? Before or after Sewa? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/ ?

98

12. Worker- Kaamdaar-

Yes / Story/ : Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ? Before or after Sewa? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/ ?

13. Admin personnel- Vahivat adikaari – Yes / Story/ : Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ? Before or after Sewa? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/ ?

14. Electrician- bijli ke light karva wala –

Yes / Story/ : Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ? Before or after Sewa? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/ ?

15. Farmer- Khedut- ખ

Yes / Story/ : Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ? Before or after Sewa? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/ ?

16. Housemaid- Kaamvali - Yes / Story/ :

99

Na/ I know someone else who does/Bija koi ni olkhaan che/

ખ ? Before or after SEWA? SEWA pehla ke SEWA pachi/ ?

100

Appendix D: References

Abbott, T. K., & Kant, I. 2009. The metaphysical elements of ethics. Auckland: The

Floating Press.

Acs, Z. J., Arenius, P., Hay, M., & Minniti, M. 2004. Global entrepreneurship monitor.

Executive Report, London Business School, Babson.

Aldrich, H. E., & Martinez, M. A. 2001. Many are called, but few are chosen: An

evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 25(4): 41-56.

Aldrich, H. E., & Waldinger, R. 1990. Ethnicity and entrepreneurship. Annual Review of

Sociology: 111-135.

Aldrich, H. E., & Wiedenmayer, G. 1993. From traits to rates: An ecological perspective

on organizational foundings. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence,

and Growth, 1: 145-195.

Anand, S., Peter, F., & Sen, A. 2006. Public Health, Ethics, and Equity. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Ansari, S., Munir, K., & Gregg, T. 2012. Impact at the “Bottom of the Pyramid”: The

Role of Social Capital in Capability Development and Community

Empowerment. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4): 813-842.

Ansoff, H. I. 1979. Strategic Management. London, U.K.: MacMillan Press Ltd.

Babson College and London Business School. 2004. Global Report. Boston: Global

Entrepreneurship Monitor.

Bain, K., & Hicks, N. 1998. Building social capital and reaching out to excluded groups:

The challenge of partnerships. World Bank.

101

Banerjee, A. & Duflo, E. 2011. Poor Economics. Noida: Random House Publishers India

Private Limited.

Bonacich, E. 1973. A theory of middleman minorities. American Sociological Review:

583-594.

Borgatti, S., & Lopez-Kidwell, V. Forthcoming. Network theory. Working Paper.

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. Power and Ideology in

Education: 485.

Bourdieu, P. 1986. The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory

and Research for the Sociology of Education: 241-258. New York, NY:

Greenwood.

Bourgeois, L. J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1988. Strategic decision processes in high velocity

environments. Management Science, 34: 816-835.

Brandl, J., & Bullinger, B. 2008. Entrepreneurship als institution: Gesellschaftlicher

kontext und individuelle perspektiven. Sozialwissenschaftliche Aspekte des

Gründungsmanagements.

Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. 1998. Relationships and unethical

behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1):

14-31.

Brush, C. G., Carter, N. M., Greene, P. G., Hart, M. M., & Gatewood, E. 2002. The role

of social capital and gender in linking financial suppliers and entrepreneurial

firms: A framework for future research. Venture Capital: An International

Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 4(4): 305-323.

Burns, J. H., Hart, H. L. A. & Bentham, J., 1748-1832. 1977. A Fragment on

102

Government. New authoritative by J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart; with an

introduction by Ross Harrison. ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Chandon, P., & Guimaraes, P. P. 2007. Unilever in Brazil (1997-2007): Marketing

Strategies for Low-Income Consumers. Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD.

Chisholm, A. M., & Nielsen, K. 2009. Social capital and the resource-based view of the

firm. International Studies of Management & Organization, 39(2): 7-32.

Chrisman, J. J., Bauerschmidt, A., & Hofer, C. W. 1998. The determinants of new

venture performance: An extended model. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 23(1): 5-29.

Cicourel, A. V. 1973. Cognitive Sociology. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal

of Sociology, 94 (Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and

Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure): S95-S120.

Coleman, J. S. 1994. Foundations of Social Theory (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Cronbach, L. J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,

16: 297-334.

Creswell, J.W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J.W. and V.L. Plano Clark. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Method

Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

103

Daniel, B. K. 2009. Trust and social capital. In B. K. Daniel (Ed.), Social Capital

Modeling in Virtual Communities: 75-91. US; Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. 2001. Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for

Social Entrepreneurs. Wiley.

Devi, U. Lalitha. 1982. Status and Employment of Women in India. New Delhi:

B.R. Publishing Corp.

Doob, C. B. 2013. Social Inequality and Social Stratification in US Society. (1st ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Drèze, J., Sen, A. K., & World Institute for Development Economics Research. 1997.

Indian Development: Selected Regional Perspectives. Delhi; New York: Oxford

Univ. Press.

Drucker, P. 1995. Innovation & Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper Business.

Easterly, W. R. 2006. The white man's burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest

Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. New York: Penguin Press.

Emergent Institute. Emergent accelerator

program. http://www.emergentinstitute.net/flagship-program/ June 26, 2014.

Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. 1965. The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments.

Human Relations, 18(1): 21-32.

Fort, T. L. 2007. Business, Integrity, and Peace: Beyond Geopolitical and Disciplinary

Boundaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. 2007. Managing for Stakeholders:

Survival, Reputation, and Success. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

104

Friedman, M. 1970. Social responsibility of business. The New York Times Magazine.

September 13: 33, 122-26.

Galbraith, J. R. 1973. Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

Gartner, W. B. 1988. "Who is an entrepreneur?" is the wrong question. American

Journal of Small Business, 12(4): 11-32.

Gielnik, C. & Warren, S. 1995. Empowering Yourself: Self Development for Women.

New Delhi: Universities Press.

Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of

embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481-510.

Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6):

1360-1380.

Granovetter, M. 1982. The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. V.

Marsden & N. Lin (Ed.), Social Structure and Network Analysis: 105-129.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Granovetter, M. 1992. Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In N. Nohria &

R. G. Eccles (Ed.), Networks and Organizations: 25-56. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Griffin, J. J. Forthcoming. Managing Responsibly (by design) in a Global Economy: A

Focus on Corporate Impacts & Co-creating Value (Book ed.). Washington, DC:

George Washington University.

Grootaert, C., & van Bastelaer, T. 2002. How does social capital affect economic

development?. In Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A

105

Multidisciplinary Tool for Practitioners. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Gulati L. 1993. In the Absence of their Men: The Impact of Male Migration on

Women. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Gupta, A. K. 2013. Tapping the entrepreneurial potential of grassroots innovation.

Stanford Social Innovation Review, 11 (3): 18-20.

Hanneman, R. A. 2001. Introduction to Social Network Methods. Riverside: University

of California, Riverside.

Hart, S. L. 2010. Capitalism at the Crossroads: Next Generation Business Strategies for

a Post-Crisis World (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Wharton School Pub.

Hawken, P. 2007. Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into

Being, and Why No One Saw it Coming. New York: Viking.

Hitt, M. A., Lee, H. U., & Yucel, E. 2002. The importance of social capital to the

management of multinational enterprises: Relational networks among Asian and

Western firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2): 353-372.

Hofstede, G. H. 2001. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,

Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications.

Hofstede, Geert and Associates. 1998. Masculinity and Feminity: The Taboo

Dimensions of National Cultures. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

House, R. J., & Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research

Program. 2004. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE study of

62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

106

Iyer, R., & Schoar, A. 2010. Are there cultural determinants of entrepreneurship? In

International Differences in Entrepreneurship: 209-240. University of Chicago

Press.

Jones, T. M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics.

Academy of Management Review, 20: 404-437.

Kalnins, A., & Chung, W. 2006. Social capital, geography, and survival: Gujarati

immigrant entrepreneurs in the US lodging industry. Management Science,

52(2): 233-247.

Karlan, D. S. & Appel, J. 2011. More than Good Intentions: How a New Economics is

Helping to Solve Global Poverty. New York, NY: Dutton.

Karnani, A. 2005. Misfortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Greener Management

International, 51: 99-110.

Karnani, A. 2007. The mirage of marketing to the bottom of the pyramid: How the

private sector can help alleviate poverty. California Management Review, 49(4):

90-111.

Knoke, D. 1996. Comparing Policy Networks: Labor Politics in U.S., Germany, and

Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Knoke, D., & Kuklinski, J. H. 1982. Network Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1996. What firms do? coordination, identity, and learning.

Organization Science, 7(5): 502-518.

Krackhardt, D. 1992. The strength of strong ties: The importance of Philos in

organizations. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Ed.), Networks and Organizations:

107

216-239. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Krishna, A., & Shrader, E. 1999. Social capital assessment tool. Social Capital Initiative

Working Paper, 22.

Krishna, A., & Uphoff, N. 2002. Mapping and measuring social capital through

assessment of collective action to conserve and develop watersheds in Rajasthan,

India. The Role of Social Capital in Development: An Empirical Assessment:

85-124.

Laumann, E. O. 1966. Prestige and Association in an Urban Community. Indianapolis,

IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Leonard, K. I. 2011. Family firms in Hyderabad: Gujarati, Goswami, and Marwari

patterns of adoption, marriage, and inheritance. Comparative Studies in Society

and History, 53(4): 827-854.

Levin, D. Z. 2008. Trust. In S. R. Clegg & J. R. Bailey (Ed.), International Encyclopedia

of Organization Studies: 1573-1579. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Levin, D. Z., Walter, J., & Murnighan, J. K. 2011. Dormant ties: The value of

reconnecting. Organization Science, 22(4): 923-939.

Levinthal, D. A., & Fichman, M. 1988. Dynamics of interorganizational attachments:

Auditor-client relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33: 345-369.

Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. 1998. Trust and distrust: New relationships

and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3): 438-458.

Light, I. H., & Rosenstein, C. N. 1995. Race, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship in Urban

America. Aldine de Gruyter.

Lin, N. 1982. Social resources and instrumental action. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Ed.),

108

Social Structure and Network Analysis: 131-145. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications.

Lin, N. 1999. Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology: 467-

487.

Lin, N. 2000. Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6): 785-795.

Lin, N. 2001. Building a network theory of social capital. In N. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. S.

Burt (Ed.), Social Capital: Theory and Research: 3-30. New York: Aldine de

Gruyter.

Lin, N., Cook, K. S., & Burt, R. S. 2001. Social Capital: Theory and research. New

Brunswick, N.J.: Aldine Transaction.

Lin, N. & Dumin, M. 1986. Access to Occupations through Social Ties. Social Networks

8: 365-385.

Lin, N., Ensel, W. M., & Vaughn, J. C. 1981. Social resources and strength of ties:

Structural factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological

Review, 46(August): 393-405.

Lin, N., & Erickson, B. H. 2008. Social Capital: An International Research Program.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lin, N., 1938, Fu, Y., 1955, & Chen, C. J., 1966. 2014. Social Capital and its

Institutional Contingency: A Study of the United States, China, and Taiwan.

New York: Routledge.

Lin, N.; Fu, Y.; Hsung, R. 2001. The Position Generator: a measurement instrument for

social capital. 57-81 in: Lin, N.; Cook, K.; Burt, R. (eds.) Social Capital: Theory

and Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

109

Lin, N., Vaughn, J. C., & Ensel, W. M. 1981. Social resources and occupational status

attainment. Social Forces, 59(4): 1163-1181.

London, T., & Hart, S. 2010. Next Generation Business Strategies for the Base of the

Pyramid: New Approaches for Building Mutual Value (1st ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: FT Press.

Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. 1988. Entrepreneurship: Past research and future

challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2): 139-161.

Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. 1984. Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63(2):

482-501.

Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. 2007. Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition.

Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2): 28-39.

Maslow, A. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4): 370-396.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of

organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 709-734.

McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. 2005. Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive

capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26(11): 1033-1055.

McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. 1999. Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in

competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12): 1133-1156.

Mill, J. S. 1906. Utilitarianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mintzberg, H. 1979. The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Moran, P. 2005. Structural vs. relational embeddedness: Social capital and managerial

performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(12): 1129-1151.

110

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital and the

organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242-266.

Nair, T. S. 1996. “Entrepreneurship training for women in the Indian rural sector: A

review of approaches and strategies. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 5(1): 81-94.

Oetzel, J., Westermann-Behaylo, M., Koerber, C. P., Fort, T. L., & Rivera, J. 2010.

Business and peace: Sketching the terrain. Journal of Business Ethics, 89: 351-

373.

Palepu, K. G., 1954-, Bullock, R. J., & Khanna, T. 2010. Winning in Emerging

Markets: A Road Map for Strategy and Execution. Boston, Mass.: Harvard

Business Press.

Pearson, A. W., Carr, J. C., & Shaw, J. C. 2008. Toward a theory of familiness: A social

capital perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6): 949-969.

Peredo, A. M., & Chrisman, J. J. 2006. Toward a theory of community-based enterprise.

Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 309-328.

Peterson, R. 1988. Understanding and encouraging entrepreneurship internationally.

Journal of Small Business Management, 26(2): 1.

Porter, M. E. 2011. "Creating shared value". Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2): 62-77.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. 2004. The Future of Competition: Co-creating

Unique Value with Customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Prahalad, C. K. 2006. Response to Karnani. Working Paper.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. 1994. Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new

paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, 15 (Summer Special Issue): 5-16.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. L. 2002. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy +

111

Business, 26: 1-14.

Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. 2001. Tautology in the resource-based view and the

implications of externally determined resource value: Further comments.

Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 57-65.

Putnam, R. D. 1995. Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in

America. Political Science and Politics, 28(4): 664-683.

Ratten, V., & Welpe, I. M. 2011. Special issue: Community-based, social and societal

entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5-6): 283-286.

Read, S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. 2005. Knowing what to do and doing what you know. The

Journal of Private Equity, 9(1): 45-62.

Rees, G. 1998. Economic Development (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: MacMillan.

Runyan, R. C., Huddleston, P., & Swinney, J. 2006. Entrepreneurial orientation and

social capital as small firm strategies: A study of gender differences from a

resource-based view. International Entrepreneurship and Management

Journal, 2(4): 455-477.

Sachs, J. 2005. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York:

Penguin Press.

Saidu, M. B., Samah, A. A., Redzuan, M., & Ahmad, N. 2013. Leveraging

microenterprise products at the global market: A strategy to ensure sustainable

poverty alleviation. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science

Invention, 2(12): 29-34.

Sarasvathy, S. D. 2001. Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from

economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management

112

Review: 243-263.

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. 2007. An integrative model of

organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review,

32(2): 344-354.

Schumpeter, J. A. 1975. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.

Scott, J. 1991. Social Network Analysis. London: SAGE Publications.

Sen, A. 2011. On economic inequality. OUP Catalogue.

Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.

Sen, A. K. 1997. Resources, Values, and Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press.

SEWA. 2012. Ahmedabad, India. www.sewa.org.

Sheth, J. 2008. Chindia Rising: How China and India Will Benefit Your Business. New

Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Co. Ltd.

Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. 2005. Speed and search: Designing organizations for

turbulence and complexity. Organization Science, 16(2): 101-122.

Simanis, E., Hart, S., & Duke, D. 2008. Base of the pyramid protocol: Beyond "basic

needs" business strategies. Innovations, Winter: 57-84.

Smith, C. 1994. Economic Development, Growth, and Welfare. Basingstoke:

MacMillan.

Sridharan, S., & Viswanathan, M. 2008. Marketing in subsistence marketplaces:

Consumption and entrepreneurship in a south Indian context. Journal of

Consumer Marketing, 25(7): 455-462.

Terreberry, S. 1968. The evolution of organizational environments. Administrative

113

Science Quarterly: 590-613.

Thompson, J. D. 2003. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative

Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Thurik, R., & Wennekers, S. 2008. A note on entrepreneurship, small business and

economic growth. Small Business and Economic Growth (January 2001, 11).

ERIM Report Series Reference No.ERS-2001-60-STR.

Tolbert, P. S., David, R. J., & Sine, W. D. 2011. Studying choice and change: The

intersection of institutional theory and entrepreneurship research. Organization

Science, 22(5): 1332-1344.

Trivedi, S. 2005. “Smita in India.” Blog. sktrivedi.blogspot.com

Trivedi, S. 2010. “Ethical Employee Behavior through Social Network Analysis.”

Working Paper. Presented at the International Association for Business & Society

Annual Conference, Bath, England.

Trivedi, S. 2011. “Trust in Turbulence.” Working Paper. Presented at Society for

Business Ethics in San Antonio, Texas.

Tsui-Auch, L. S. 2005. Unpacking regional ethnicity and the strength of ties in shaping

ethnic entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 26(8): 1189.

UN Millennium Project. 2006. Investing in Development

(http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/reports/index.htm ed.). New York: UN

Secretary General and UN Development Group.

UNDP. 2012. Millennium development goals: Eight goals for 2015

(http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview.html ed.). Geneva:

United Nations Development Programme.

114

UNHCHR. 2001. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES ARISING IN THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND

CULTURAL RIGHTS: POVERTY AND THE INTERNATIONAL

COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

(http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/518e88bfb89822c9c1256a4e004df048?Open

document ed.). Geneva: COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND

CULTURAL RIGHTS.

Uphoff, N., & Wijayaratna, C. 2000. Demonstrated benefits from social capital: The

productivity of farmer organizations in gal oya, Sri Lanka. World Development,

28(11): 1875-1890.

Uphoff, N. 2000. Understanding social capital: Learning from the analysis and

experience of participation. In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Ed.), Social Capital:

A Multifaceted Perspective: 215-252. Washington, D.C.: World Bank

Publications.

Van der Gaag, M.P.J. & Webber, M. 2008. “Measurement of Individual Social Capital:

Questions, Instruments, and Measures.” In Kawachi, I; Subramanian S.V.; Kim ,

D. (eds.), Social Capital and Health. Boston: Springer.

Van der Gaag, M.P.J.; Snijders, T.A.B.; Flap, H.D. 2008. “Position Generator measures

and their relationship to other social capital measures.” In Lin, N.; Erickson, B.

(eds.) Social capital: An International Research Program. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Viswanathan, M., & Rosa, J. A. 2007. Product and market development for subsistence

marketplaces: Consumption and entrepreneurship beyond literacy and resource

115

barriers.

Viswanathan, M., Rosa, J. A., & Ruth, J. A. 2010. Exchanges in marketing systems: The

case of subsistence consumer-merchants in Chennai, India. Journal of

Marketing, 74(3): 1-17.

Vogt, J.F. & Murrell, K.L. 1990. Empowerment in Organizations. San Diego, Calif:

University Associates.

Vyas, S. 2012. FDI will bring inclusive growth. Mumbai: The Times of India.

Waldinger, R., Ward, R., Aldrich, H., & Stanfield, J. 1990. Ethnic entrepreneurs:

Immigrant business in industrial societies. University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research

Reference in Entrepreneurship.

Waller, B. N. 2005. Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues.

New York: Pearson Longman.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wennekers, S., Van Stel, A., & Carree, M. 2010. The Relationship between

Entrepreneurship and Economic Development: Is it U-shaped? Now Publishers

Inc.

Wennekers, S., Van Wennekers, A., Thurik, R., & Reynolds, P. 2005. Nascent

entrepreneurship and the level of economic development. Small Business

Economics, 24(3): 293-309.