Category

To Evaluate the Role of Government in Promoting Social Entrepreneurship among Young Students: A Case Study of Indonesia

FINAL THESIS

 

[Your official name]

 

[Degree Title], [university], 20XX

 

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of

[Name of program]

 

 

[Name of University]

[Last month of quarter you plan to graduate] 20XX

ABSTRACT

The main aim of the research was intended towards assessing the role of the Indonesian government towards the promotion of social entrepreneurship in the country. The researcher was focused at assessing the level of awareness about the concept of social enterprise in Indonesia especially among the young students, as per the determination of the Indonesian governments. For achieving the aim of the research, the researcher selected quantitative research design for collecting the responses from the respondents. In this research, the researcher selected 100 respondents who were surveyed online from the questionnaire that reflected on the assessment of government role on the promotion of the social entrepreneurship in Indonesia. The research was comprised of three different tests which include descriptive statistics, correlation, and regression analysis. From the correlation and the regression analysis, it was identified that there is a significant relation between the dependent variable which was the promotion of social entrepreneurship and the independent variable which was the role of the Indonesian government. However, it is recommended to include the element of innovation in the promotion of the social businesses in the Indonesia so that it can contribute towards the development of the country.

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Social entrepreneurship is generally perceived as an alternative business model or economic system which applies innovative strategies to achieve social goals (Bull 2008; Dees 2006; Haugh 2005; Tan, Williams, and Tan 2005; Thompson 2008). Individuals such as Muhamad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank, and Jamie Oliver, owner of the Fifteen Restaurants, are considered to be social entrepreneurs because of their ability to apply entrepreneurial principles to improve literacy, create employment, alleviate poverty, et cetera, for the underprivileged. Because of its increasing contributions to the development of marginalised communities, social entrepreneurship has gained significance as an area of scholarly research since the early 2000s (Defourny and Nyssens 2008; Levander 2010). Much of the interest has been concerned with the underlying philosophies and theoretical underpinnings of which serve as the foundation of conceptual frameworks needed for future empirical research. In Indonesia, the modern concept of social entrepreneurship was introduced by Ashoka Foundation in 1983 when it launched its initial programmes to identify, train and fund local entrepreneurs (Ashoka 2011). However, organisations bearing similar characteristics to ones currently labelled as social enterprises can be traced as far back as pre-independence period in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Abdullah 2011; Boomgaard 1987; Burhanudin 2010). Furthermore, there is evidence pointing to the relationship between social movement for independence and the growth of social entrepreneurship in the country. Hence, it appears that any effort to develop a theoretical framework of social entrepreneurship in Indonesia should be rooted in a historical analysis of its pre-independence social movement, and how that relates to the present situation. The current study explored the above topic by way of a literature review covering three hundred and fifty years of colonial policies, social movement and social entrepreneurship development in Indonesia, from 1596 to 1945. In addition, it also considered the post-colonialist stance which presents a localised and contemporary view of the effects of colonisation. This balanced approach has led to an improved understanding of past developments of social entrepreneurship in the country, and enabled the formulation of a model of social entrepreneurship in its present environment. The paper begins by revisiting the concepts of social entrepreneurship and social movement, then proceeds with a detailed examination of major Dutch policies and their effects on Indonesia’s socio-economy prior to independence. That is followed by a discussion of post-colonialism and current socioeconomic developments in the country. Findings of the study highlight the importance of educational and economic empowerment, Islam and leadership as key drivers of social entrepreneurship in pre-independence Indonesia, which will continue to influence its post-colonial growth. The proposed relationships among these variables are ultimately presented in the form of a diagrammatic framework, which can be pursued in future empirical research.

References

Abereijo, I.O., 2016. Ensuring environmental sustainability through sustainable entrepreneurship. Economic modeling, analysis, and policy for sustainability, pp.234-249.

Acs, Z.J., Autio, E. and Szerb, L., 2014. National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy43(3), pp.476-494.

Almeida, P.I., Ahmetoglu, G. and Chamorro-Premuzic, T., 2014. Who wants to be an entrepreneur? The relationship between vocational interests and individual differences in entrepreneurship. Journal of Career Assessment22(1), pp.102-112.

Anggadwita, G. and Dhewanto, W., 2016. The influence of personal attitude and social perception on women entrepreneurial intentions in micro and small enterprises in Indonesia. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business27(2-3), pp.131-148.

Bacq, S., Hartog, C. and Hoogendoorn, B., 2013. A quantitative comparison of social and commercial entrepreneurship: Toward a more nuanced understanding of social entrepreneurship organizations in context. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship4(1), pp.40-68.

Bae, T.J., Qian, S., Miao, C. and Fiet, J.O., 2014. The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta‐analytic review. Entrepreneurship theory and practice38(2), pp.217-254.

Becker, G.S., 2013. The economic approach to human behavior. University of Chicago press.

British Council. 2017. UK launches international social investment strategy. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.britishcouncil.org/society/social-enterprise/news-events/news-uk-international-social-investment-strategy. [Accessed 31 July 2017].

Bromley, P. and Meyer, J.W., 2014. “They Are All Organizations” The Cultural Roots of Blurring Between the Nonprofit, Business, and Government Sectors. Administration & Society.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2015. Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA.

Bryman, A., 2015. Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Choi, N. and Majumdar, S., 2014. Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing29(3), pp.363-376.

Choi, N. and Majumdar, S., 2014. Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing29(3), pp.363-376.

Cotterrell, R., 2013. Law, culture and society: Legal ideas in the mirror of social theory. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..

Covaleski, M.A., Dirsmith, M.W. and Weiss, J.M., 2013. The social construction, challenge and transformation of a budgetary regime: The endogenization of welfare regulation by institutional entrepreneurs. Accounting, Organizations and Society38(5), pp.333-364.

Creswell, J.W., 2013. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

Di Zhang, D. and Swanson, L.A., 2013. Social entrepreneurship in nonprofit organizations: An empirical investigation of the synergy between social and business objectives. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing25(1), pp.105-125.

Fowler Jr, F.J., 2013. Survey research methods. Sage publications.

Frynas, J.G. and Stephens, S., 2015. Political corporate social responsibility: Reviewing theories and setting new agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews17(4), pp.483-509.

Fuller, T., Pearson, M., Peters, J. and Anderson, R., 2015. What affects authors’ and editors’ use of reporting guidelines? Findings from an online survey and qualitative interviews. PloS one10(4), p.e0121585.

Giddens, A., 2013. The third way: The renewal of social democracy. John Wiley & Sons.

Hayllar, M.R. and Wettenhall, R., 2013. As public goes private, social emerges: The rise of social enterprise. Public Organization Review13(2), p.207.

Idris, A. and Hijrah Hati, R., 2013. Social entrepreneurship in Indonesia: Lessons from the past. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship4(3), pp.277-301.

Jain, R. and Ali, S.W., 2013. A review of facilitators, barriers and gateways to entrepreneurship: directions for future research. South Asian Journal of Management20(3), p.122.

Kickul, J. and Lyons, T.S., 2016. Understanding social entrepreneurship: The relentless pursuit of mission in an ever changing world. Routledge.

Kostetska, I. and Berezyak, I., 2014. Social entrepreneurship as an innovative solution mechanism of social problems of society. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development36(3), pp.569-577.

Latchem, C.R., 2014. Informal learning and non-formal education for development. Journal of Learning for Development-JL4D1(1).

Lee, I., 2015. A social enterprise business model for social entrepreneurs: theoretical foundations and model development. International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation3(4), pp.269-301.

Leitch, C.M., McMullan, C. and Harrison, R.T., 2013. The development of entrepreneurial leadership: The role of human, social and institutional capital. British Journal of Management24(3), pp.347-366.

Leonardi, P.M., Huysman, M. and Steinfield, C., 2013. Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication19(1), pp.1-19.

Lombard, A., 2014. Entrepreneurship In Africa: Social Work Challenges For Human, Social And Economic Development. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk39(3).

Macmillan, R., 2013. ‘Distinction’in the third sector. Voluntary Sector Review4(1), pp.39-54.

Mazzucato, M., 2015. The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths (Vol. 1). Anthem Press.

Mertens, D.M., 2014. Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage publications.

Nandan, M., London, M. and Blum, T.C., 2014. Community practice social entrepreneurship: an interdisciplinary approach to graduate education. International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation3(1), pp.51-70.

Osburg, T. and Schmidpeter, R., 2013. Social innovation. Solutions for a sustainable future. Springer.

Packard, M.D., 2017. Where did interpretivism go in the theory of entrepreneurship?. Journal of Business Venturing.

Payumo, J.G., Arasu, P., Fauzi, A.M., Siregar, I.Z. and Noviana, D., 2014. An entrepreneurial, research-based university model focused on intellectual property management for economic development in emerging economies: The case of Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia. World patent information36, pp.22-31.

Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’Regan, N. and James, P., 2015. Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group & Organization Management40(3), pp.428-461.

Razafindrambinina, D. and Sabran, A., 2014. The impact of strategic corporate social responsibility on operating performance: An Investigation Using Data Envelopment Analysis In Indonesia. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly6(1), p.68.

Razafindrambinina, D. and Sabran, A., 2014. The impact of strategic corporate social responsibility on operating performance: An Investigation Using Data Envelopment Analysis In Indonesia. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly6(1), p.68.

Ridley-Duff, R. and Bull, M., 2015. Understanding social enterprise: Theory and practice. Sage.

Roth, S., 2014. The eye-patch of the beholder: introduction to entrepreneurship and piracy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business22(4), pp.399-407.

Roumboutsos, A. and Pantelias, A., 2015. Allocating revenue risk in transport infrastructure public private partnership projects: How it matters. Transport Reviews35(2), pp.183-203.

Salamon, L.M. and Sokolowski, S.W., 2016. Beyond nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations27(4), pp.1515-1545.

Sánchez, J.C., 2013. The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Journal of Small Business Management51(3), pp.447-465.

Scaffa, M.E. and Reitz, S.M., 2013. Occupational therapy community-based practice settings. FA Davis.

Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E., 2014. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage publications.

Schönbrodt, F.D. and Perugini, M., 2013. At what sample size do correlations stabilize?. Journal of Research in Personality47(5), pp.609-612.

Sekliuckiene, J. and Kisielius, E., 2015. Development of social entrepreneurship initiatives: a theoretical framework. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences213, pp.1015-1019.

Tsang, E.W., 2014. Case studies and generalization in information systems research: A critical realist perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems23(2), pp.174-186.

Turner, S., 2013. Indonesia’s small entrepreneurs: Trading on the margins. Routledge.

Uprichard, E., 2013. Sampling: bridging probability and non-probability designs. International Journal of Social Research Methodology16(1), pp.1-11.

Vanevenhoven, J. and Liguori, E., 2013. The impact of entrepreneurship education: Introducing the entrepreneurship education project. Journal of small business management51(3), pp.315-328.

Vickers, I. and Lyon, F., 2014. Beyond green niches? Growth strategies of environmentally-motivated social enterprises. International Small Business Journal32(4), pp.449-470.

Wiguna, A.B. and Manzilati, A., 2014. Social Entrepreneurship and Socio-entrepreneurship: A Study with Economic and Social Perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences115, pp.12-18.

Wilson, F. and Post, J.E., 2013. Business models for people, planet (& profits): exploring the phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation. Small Business Economics, pp.1-23.

Zahra, S.A. and Wright, M., 2016. Understanding the social role of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies53(4), pp.610-629.

Zahra, S.A., Newey, L.R. and Li, Y., 2014. On the frontiers: The implications of social entrepreneurship for international entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice38(1), pp.137-158.

Appendix-1

Questionnaire

Participants Information Sheet

The following questionnaire has been designed in order to assess the role of government in promoting social enterprise among students in Indonesia.

Gender

 Male
 Female

Age

 18 – 21
 22 – 25
 26 – 30
 31 – 34
 35+

Questions

1. Which one of the following statements best matches your understanding of social entrepreneurship?

 Individuals with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems
 Social enterprises are a charity that uses social media for fundraising
 Independent business individuals that act as agents of change for the environment
 Social enterprises are about looking for solutions to poor people problems

2. Are you interested in being a Social Entrepreneurship? 

 Very Interested

 Interested

 Neutral

 Not Interested

 Extremely Not Interested

3. Which sectors are you interested if you become a Social Entrepreneur in Indonesia?

 Agriculture

 Poverty

 Healthcare

 Education

 Fishery

 Not Interesting in Social Entrepreneurship

 Other

If you selected Other, please specify: 

Your answer should be no more than 100 characters long.

__________________________________________________________________

4. What do you think is the most common challenge faced by Social Entrepreneurship? 

 Funds

 Lack of Entrepreneurship Education

 Strategy

 Other

If you selected Other, please specify: 

Your answer should be no more than 100 characters long.

__________________________________________________________________

5. If you are interested in becoming a Social Entrepreneurship in the future, what kind of support do you expecting from the Indonesian Government?

 Funds

 Education about Social Entrepreneurship

 Ease in Obtaining Formal Legality

 Guarantee of Intellectual Property

 Continuity of Business

 Other

If you selected Other, please specify: 

Your answer should be no more than 100 characters long.

__________________________________________________________________

6. Indonesian Government provides adequate management consultancy and legal counseling

 Strongly Agree

 Agree

 Neutral

 Not Interested

 Disagree

 Strongly Disagree

 Do Not Know

7. Indonesian Government provides adequate marketing support in terms of Social Entrepreneurship

 Strongly Agree

 Agree

 Neutral

 Not Interested

 Disagree

 Strongly Disagree

 Do Not Know

8. Indonesian Government provides adequate financial support in terms of Social Entrepreneurship

 Strongly Agree

 Agree

 Neutral

 Not Interested

 Disagree

 Strongly Disagree

 Do Not Know

9. Social enterprises play an important role as an economic agent for Indonesia

 Strongly Agree

 Agree

 Neutral

 Not Interested

 Disagree

 Strongly Disagree

 Do Not Know

10. Regulatory environments and bureaucratic procedures are favourable in Indonesia for Social Entrepreneurs

 Strongly Agree

 Agree

 Neutral

 Not Interested

 Disagree

 Strongly Disagree

 Do Not Know

11. Social Entrepreneurs have adequate capacities to facilitate governmental procedures

 Strongly Agree

 Agree

 Neutral

 Not Interested

 Disagree

 Strongly Disagree

 Do Not Know

12. The government assist in providing new sources of funding for the social entrepreneurship

 Strongly Agree

 Agree

 Neutral

 Not Interested

 Disagree

 Strongly Disagree

 Do Not Know

13. Government assesses the performance of social entrepreneurs’ businesses to support if the business deficient in certain way

 Strongly Agree

 Agree

 Neutral

 Not Interested

 Disagree

 Strongly Disagree

 Do Not Know

14. The government continue to boost the access of funding for the social entrepreneurs

 Strongly Agree

 Agree

 Neutral

 Not Interested

 Disagree

 Strongly Disagree

 Do Not Know

15. Government also promotes the idea of innovation to the social entrepreneurs

 Strongly Agree

 Agree

 Neutral

 Not Interested

 Disagree

 Strongly Disagree

 Do Not Know