The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6204.htm

JEC
5,3

Entrepreneurship and social

and community care

212

Department of Management and Engineering and Helix Excellence Centre,

Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden

Elisabeth Sundin

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to show that not only (obviously) social enterprises but also
conventional ones are based on social intentions and that these social intentions often have community
dimensions. The conclusion of these findings is that conventional research, and consequently, also the
public debate on entrepreneurship as well as on social and community entrepreneurship, is guided by
false notions rather than on empirical facts.
Design/methodology/approach The paper starts by presenting the dominating references on
entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship and community entrepreneurship and then goes on to
compare them. The existence of social motives among conventional enterprises is brought to the fore,
first through a presentation of the official statistics of the motives for all new starters in Sweden and
then with a presentation of cases from different sectors. The cases selected to represent the starters
have all expressed social motives for going into business. Care was the word used by the individuals
themselves and therefore the care concept is introduced.
Findings Social intentions can be found in conventional market enterprises. The intentions of the
entrepreneurs are often expressed in terms of care. Care for the community is often an important part
of other care dimensions.
Research limitations/implications The empirical findings of care in conventional market
enterprises and care for the community as an important care dimension in the cases presented have
implications not only for theories on conventional, social and community entrepreneurship but also for
theory building in social sciences in general. The dominance of English-speaking researchers can be a
problem from this perspective.
Practical implications Both the descriptions and the analysis have practical implications
for everyone interested in entrepreneurship and the circumstances for enterprises of all kinds as well as
for local and regional development.
Originality/value The paper questions what is taken-for-granted, with the help of empirical
examples and not just with statements.
Keywords Entrepreneurship, Social entrepreneurship, Community entrepreneurship, Care, Sweden,
Social sciences, Social care, Community care
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Enterprising Communities:

People and Places in the Global
Economy
Vol. 5 No. 3, 2011
pp. 212-222
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-6204
DOI 10.1108/17506201111156689

Introduction
Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship are concepts which are frequently used, and which
nowadays, have a firm positive connection in the political debate. With few modifications,
this statement can also be used to describe the academic agenda, with regard to both
research and education on the university level in what can be described as the field
of entrepreneurship. The big expansion took place in the 1990s (Landstrom, 2000).
Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship, however, have been studied earlier and from
different points of view, as have social and community entrepreneurs and
entrepreneurship. I find it important to state this, because as Garud et al. (2007) posits,
the fields often seem to be narrow and ahistorical (Garud et al., 2007) a statement that

reminds us that every time and every place has its entrepreneurs and its prerequisites for
entrepreneurship (Hjorth and Johannisson, 2003).
In recent decades, social and community entrepreneurship have been the subject of
growing interest but it is the interest, not the phenomenon, that is new. One often
mentioned explanation to this increasing interest in social and community
entrepreneurship is the failure or retreat of the welfare state in the Western economies
(Thompson, 2002; Shaw and Carter, 2007; Palmas, 2006).
In research and theoretical work, the differences between social and community
entrepreneurship and conventional commercial entrepreneurship are sometimes
emphasised. Therefore, the three concepts, entrepreneurship, social, and
community, as well as their combinations, need to be clarified. The differences
are relevant both from practical, political and theoretical perspectives. The practical
and political reasons are relevant as different kinds of entrepreneurship have very
different characteristics. The theoretical importance is obvious as we should not
elaborate knowledge from misunderstandings.
The aim of the article is to show that conventional enterprises too are sometimes
started with social intentions and that the social intentions often have community
dimensions. The conclusion of these findings is that conventional research, and
consequently also the public debate on entrepreneurship as well as on social and
community entrepreneurship, is influenced by false notions rather than on empirical
facts. The empirical studies of entrepreneurship, both social and conventional
commercial, have been conducted on a limited area of entrepreneurship. General and
theoretical conclusions have been made without the limited and biased state of the
material on which these are based being acknowledged. The article ends by presenting
ideas for how future research should be organized in order to achieve a greater validity.
The paper starts with a presentation of how entrepreneurship and social and
community entrepreneurship is discussed in dominating research fields. The concept
rationality of care is introduced as a complement to earlier studies. The empirical
part of the article then follows. The studies presented, some of which are longitudinal,
were made at different times and in different local settings. The individuals and
organizations described were found when empirical studies with other aims were being
made. The article is therefore an example of how old empirical studies, theoretical
concepts and interpretations can be used and reused with the help of new theoretical
concepts and new interpretations in order to catch dynamic realities. The conclusion is
a criticism not only of the public debate, but also of the debate among researchers.
Entrepreneurship and social and community entrepreneurship
In the Scandinavian public and political debate, the word entrepreneur is often used as a
synonym for the owner of a small firm or perhaps often the other way around someone
who establishes a firm and/or is self-employed is talked about as being an entrepreneur.
To represent a common standpoint, the definition of Venkataraman (1997) follows. He states
that Entrepreneurship is about the discovery and exploitation of profitable business
opportunities for the creation of personal wealth and, as a consequence, for the creation of
social value. Bolton and Thompson (2000), other often cited researchers, claim that
entrepreneurs are people who, often habitually, create and innovate to build something of
recognised value around perceived opportunities. These dominating views are sometimes
challenged from different perspectives. One important example is the international Global

Entrepreneurship
and care

213

JEC
5,3

214

Entrepreneurship Monitoring (GEM, 2006) studies which show that necessity motives for
being self-employed are stronger than the opportunity motives. The different kinds of
incentives are sometimes also discussed as push-and-pull incentives.
Social entrepreneurship
To some researchers, the conjunction social and entrepreneurship is an anomaly, as
they question the very idea of applying entrepreneurial discourses to social
phenomena. The entrepreneurship concept means an implicit market analogy, state
Parkinson and Howorth (2008). Based on that statement, I will discuss conventional
commercial entrepreneurship versus social and community entrepreneurship.
Both entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship are enacted in organizational
contexts. The international literature on social entrepreneurship often uses third-sector
organizations, NFP non-for-profit organizations, in their examples. In many countries, the
social label given to an organization is important as such organizations follow different tax
laws, etc. A social organization exists when there are no identifiable shareholders as owners
and when profit is not the driving objective state Thompson (2002) and Leadbetter (1997).
One fundamental question concerns the social dimension of social entrepreneurship.
What makes entrepreneurship social? Sometimes, the social parts come as an unintended,
but valuable, consequence. Kao (1993) presents such a definition. I find this way of arguing
too wide however and want to add a social intention. Leadbeater (1997) takes the same
standpoint and expresses this by saying that social entrepreneurs have many similarities
with other entrepreneurs but that they also have a strong commitment to help others
(Austin et al., 2006; Peredo and McLean, 2006). Parkinson and Howorth (2008) found that
there was an expressed connectedness to need rather than to opportunity among their
informants and who displayed none of the commonly held concepts of entrepreneurship.
The entrepreneurs investigated in this study presented their activities as reactions rather
than proactions and discussed success in non-economic terms. They were operating
literally in a different world of meaning state the authors.
Social entrepreneurship is often described as a collective process, and one which
depends on the involvement of many different actors. Shaw and Carter (2007) however,
take an individual perspective and write about individuals who established enterprises
primarily to meet social objectives. The perspective demonstrated challenge the long
held orthodoxies concerning motivation of entrepreneurship and the ownerships
structures of small enterprises state Shaw and Carter.
Ways in which to make comparisons between social and commercial entrepreneurship
are discussed by Austin et al. (2006) who argue for four dimensions: market failure,
mission, resource mobilization and performance measurement. The first dimension
includes a close contact between social and commercial organizations and
entrepreneurship. The failure of a commercial organization will sometimes create
opportunities for social ones. The second dimension, the most fundamental, has already
been commented upon. The third dimension, the mobilization of resources, both human
and financial, differs between the two categories and so does the performance
measurement. The social entrepreneur does not want to protect the idea, but rather the
other way around to invite as many as possible to join in. To do that, the reputation and
the construction of the agreement and commitment are of great importance as legitimacy
is needed to survive. This consequently imposes more constraints on social entrepreneurs
than on conventional entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs have to stick to their idea.

The restriction is perhaps connected to the tendency towards a greater forgiveness

factor with regard to the performance failures of social entrepreneurs. The difficulties in
measuring performance are probably the main reason behind these weak judgements.
Social return is harder to measure than economic return.
The primary aspect of the context is elaborated by Austin et al. (2006) with the words:

Entrepreneurship
and care

[. . .] the impact of the context on a social entrepreneur differs from that of a commercial
entrepreneur because of the way the interaction of a social ventures mission and performance
measurement systems influences entrepreneurial behaviour. [. . .] Indeed, an adverse context
may often lead the social entrepreneur to seek to change the context itself, as often the social
problem is deeply embedded in contextual factors.

215

As a consequence, a successful social entrepreneur makes her/himself redundant.

Ambition to create change also indicates that many social entrepreneurs are
institutional entrepreneurs as well (Garud et al., 2007).
Community entrepreneurship
There is an ongoing discussion about how to define community entrepreneurship and
community entrepreneurs, not only in relation to social entrepreneurship but also in
relation to conventional commercial entrepreneurship and traditional social
organizations (Cooney, 2008).
For both community entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurs
and entrepreneurship, the collectivity dimension is often emphasised while commercial
entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship are considered to be more individualistic. Collectivity
involves different dimensions such as the process, the actors and the motives. The
common good is an expression often used including for example in the articles by Borch
et al. (2008) and Vestrum and Borch (2006). Johannisson and Nilsson (1989) makes a
taxonomic outline where they present the differences between community and
autonomous, (the concept used by the authors), entrepreneurs. The community is
important for community entrepreneurs. What the community is however is a matter for
discussion. In his studies from Sweden, Johannisson (1990) uses the concept of a community
both for a village and a municipality, and argues for the relevance of the latter in empirical
studies. The Scandinavian tradition, with comparatively independent municipalities,
makes municipalities that take a community entrepreneurship role easy to understand
and legitimize (Laukkanen and Niittykangas, 2003). In the cases presented by Rnning et al.
(n.d.), civil servants in a municipality promoted business development in entrepreneurial
ways. The studies made in Norway and presented by Borch et al. (2008) and Vestrum
and Borch (2006) have been conducted from a municipality perspective, as the
informants express themselves in such a way. On a closer look however the interests of the
entrepreneurs are more narrowly restricted to a village or a small town. In the studies
presented here, the main task of the community entrepreneurs is defined as to create a local
infrastructure for other entrepreneurs. These definitions are quite different from research
performed in other parts of the world. Findings in one context may not be relevant in others.
Community entrepreneurship should be distinguished from community business
entrepreneurship and market orientation is a key concept of great relevance. The market
orientation for community businesses could be either a choice or something that is forced
upon the actors as an appropriate way to achieve their goals (Nicholls and Cho, 2006).
That some community business entrepreneurs are classified as community
entrepreneurs, despite their market orientation, is due to the primary motives for the

JEC
5,3

216

actions taken and organizations established. This discussion is very familiar to those
referred to under the heading social entrepreneurship above.
The social motives in the community entrepreneurship discussions are connected to a
specific community most often the community where the entrepreneur lives or was born.
The community perspective emphasises the importance of a local perspective and
knowledge. As suggested by Johnstone and Lionais (2004), what is local could be
individual. To distinguish between space and place is a way to handle these
differences. The authors connect conventional commercial enterprise to space and the
social enterprise to place.
The empirical studies of community entrepreneurship have mainly been conducted
in peripheral and even depressed, or at least economically disadvantaged, areas
(Cooney, 2008; Johannisson, 1990; Peredo and Chrisman, 2004). The importance of
entrepreneurship for economic development both as the prime objective (Haugh, 2005)
or as an important job-creation-dimension among others is an often mentioned topic, as
shown by Thompson (2002).
Rationality of care
The social dimensions often have associations with care care for the depleted or
disadvantaged communities, or rather for the individuals living there and to what
Hjalager (1989) calls their threatened life mode. The communities as place represent a
life mode or a life style that is highly valued by the community entrepreneurs. One
informant of Borch et al. (2008) concludes that my driving force is to grow old here.
For parts of the labour market, the concept rationality of care has been used to
describe behaviour in working life that from a conventional economic perspective seemed
to be irrational but which was rational when other logics were used. It was introduced by
the Norwegian researcher Waerness (1984). Her empirical studies were carried out among
women working with the elderly and in child care. These are also the fields investigated by
those researchers who use her concept after her (Davies, 1996; Nilsson, 1998). I will also use
the care concept for entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship in the presentation of the empirical
findings below. Care for the community is an expression that might be used but that is not
found in the research on community entrepreneurship.
Social entrepreneurship and community entrepreneurship in conventional
commercial enterprises
In the following section, I will present empirical findings on entrepreneurs and small
firm owner managers and discuss the social and community dimensions connected to
the individuals and the organizations. The presentation starts with some facts and
figures from Nutek the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (2008) on
new starters in Sweden. My interpretation is that the overall figures indicate strong
elements of social entrepreneurship although they are never discussed in that way.
Whether or not community entrepreneurship is also to be found cannot be seen from the
statistics. It is, however appropriate to discuss this latter perspective in the cases which
follow. However, the case enterprises are all registered as conventional enterprises.
New enterprises motives behind the start
As presented above, profitability and personal wealth constituted important
elements of the entrepreneurship definition given by Venkataraman (1997) and other

prominent researchers. Such a position has some support in writings that take their point
of departure in economic rationality, where profit maximising is an integrated part.
The domination of these perspectives is however surprising, as the individuals behind
new enterprises do not express opinions of this kind to the extent expected. In the
motives for starting an enterprise presented by Nutek, money plays a minor role, and
was just mentioned by 4 per cent of the women and by 8 per cent of the men (Swedish
Agency for Economic and Regional Growth, 2008). The same was also found in author
study from the mid-1980s. The most often mentioned incentives, and these have
remained stable over the years, are independence and the realisation of ideas. A recent
study made by the Swedish National Rural Development Agency (2008) presents the
same findings but to an even greater extent. It must be pointed out that Nutek did not
explicitly ask their respondents if they had social motives. However, some of the given
alternatives like Need on the market could have social dimensions. To find out,
we have to go beyond the figures and meet the individuals in case studies. The cases
below are chosen to illustrate different motives. Care could be seen as a common
heading for them all. However, there is often more than one motive behind a new
enterprise. Although this applies also to the cases below, it is not emphasised in the case
presentations my aim is to illustrate the existence of social and community motives.
Case care for the place
Care for the community, for the village or in other words for the place, were presented
in many of the studies which constitute the frame of reference for this article. Some
more examples will be given here, both from studies I have made myself and those
carried out by others. None of these studies had social or community entrepreneurship
as a focus, and the finding was an unexpected outcome.
Example 1. Lo nnbring (2003) elaborates the place dimensions among
entrepreneurs living in the part of Sweden she studied. Enterprises in the
countryside seem to be activities hard to explain and still they are increasing[. . .]
she states. Lonnbring uses the theoretical concepts life modes and life styles in her
analyses. Her informants emphasize the total responsibility they have for their families;
children, husbands, parents, parents-in-law, etc. Where their family lives that is their
arena of responsibility. Lonnbring made her studies in a part of the country dominated
by the life-mode of independence where self-employment was seen as a traditional way
of earning a living. According to that life mode, to establish an enterprise is a means not
an aim. Lonnbring concludes that enterprises that are hard to understand from an
economic perspective turn out to be self-evident from a social point of view.
Example 2. In recent decades, the Swedish school sector has undergone a dramatic
change in many ways and for many reasons. The municipalities have the responsibility
for the schools. For economic reasons, the politicians sometimes want to close small
schools on the periphery of the municipality and to bus the children living there to bigger
schools located in the centre. These decisions are often met with resistance by the
parents who transform the local municipality school into a private school enterprise[1].
The reasons given by the parents are not just school related but concern the place and
how it needs to survive in a society which gives priority to economic rationality and
centralization. The way these parents present their arguments will be illustrated by the
homepage from one small school located in a village called Kvarsebo we need a school
in Kvarsebo that it is a free-school (that is the concept used in the Swedish debate) is not

Entrepreneurship
and care

217

JEC
5,3

218

important (Author). The last argument clarifies why the school starters had to start an
enterprise. They were necessity-starters and they did it out of care for their village and
their life mode.
Case care for quality of life
Life modes can be seen as ways of defining the quality of life. Quality of life can have
many sources. The owner-manager who in the following example illustrates care for
individuals quality of life, is a librarian (Author). The librarian was employed by a
municipality and was managing a small local library when a reorganization was
introduced. This meant less money for libraries. The librarian was told to reduce
opening hours and to hire cheaper premises far from the local school. The librarian
found these changes unacceptable as she knew that to meet the school childrens needs,
a library must be close to the school to make it possible for them to drop in. She also
found it necessary to have evening opening hours for the inhabitants who could not
come during the daytime as they were working outside the village. She formulated her
mission as to give books and experiences from reading to the individuals living in
her village. The planned changes would prevent her from doing that as an employee.
She saw a library of her own to be the solution and therefore she established an
enterprise with library services. As she promised to give the services at a lower cost
than the municipality library could do, she was accepted as a provider. Her library was
established because she cared for the inhabitants quality of life.
Case care for the workmates
Enterprises started by employees to protect their jobs and their incomes is an old
phenomenon. These enterprises have been labelled employee-owned organizations and
often arise out of a crisis. The case which follows is representative of this trend (Author).
The case organization was established as a joint stock company. The background to
its being established was, once again, the reorganization of a municipality. In this case,
the decision makers wanted to reduce the number of employees and also what was
produced in house. The politicans wanted to outsource as much as possible on the
market. Cleaning was one of the first jobs to be outsourced and the many cleaners
employed by the municipality feared that they would become unemployed. The
cleaners established an enterprise because they cared for each other. There was no
alternative really as one of them said.
Cases care for the family
It is usually the case that where individuals live their lives is where they have their
families. Paid work is one part of life and sometimes a condition and a way to take
responsibility for the family. Parents often try to organize their working conditions to
make it possible to be good parents too. From this perspective, owner-managers are
often like employees. Care for the family is expressed in all the cases above although not
emphasized in the presentations.
Discussion
The discussion about community and social entrepreneurship takes its starting point
in the cases presented. They have two characteristics in common: they are registered
as conventional commercial enterprises and the individuals who started them state

that they did so as this was a way to really take care take care of their locality and
the inhabitants living there, to care for peoples quality of life, to take care of their
workmates and take care of their families. In this section, it will first be discussed
whether, to what extent, these cases fill the requisites of social and/or community
entrepreneurship.
The research into social entrepreneurship emphasises social intention. All of the
case enterprises started with a social intention. Reaction rather than action is also
mentioned as something typical for many social entrepreneurs. In the cases started as a
consequence of the reorganization of the public sector, especially that is of the librarian,
the schools and the cleaners mentioned above, the reaction is obvious. The actors did
not expect the market represented by big business to do anything to solve the
problems they saw. The new starters felt they had to do it themselves. Both need and
care were words often used by the entrepreneurs interviewed. They stated that they
had a mission this mission was time and place specific.
According to Austin et al. (2006), another characteristic of social entrepreneurs is
that social entrepreneurs do not want to protect their ideas but instead want many
others to join in. They need many others for resource mobilisation. In these matters,
there are difference between the cases presented and there are differences between the
cases and the literature referred to. In some ways, the librarian did not want to protect
her idea; she wanted many to visit the library as she believed in the value of reading.
She encouraged other librarians in other parts of the municipality and in the country to
do the same. For the school starters, the situation was similar. These two cases got
their financial resources, their incomes, from the municipality. This constitutes both a
strength and a threat. If they get the contracts with the municipality they get all they
need; if they do not, they can find no other customers.
The firm owners in the countryside (example one under care for the place) tried
different ideas like small shops and cafes. They are on a real market as are the cleaners
caring for their workmates. They need customers not supporters. Their resources
come from the market and their performance is measured on the market. The social
dimension is unimportant for the customers and is maybe even something it is
important to hide. Customers are not prepared to pay for family obligations or for care
for workmates. This is a complication for community entrepreneurs who also work as
autonomous entrepreneurs in the cases presented by Borch et al. (2008).
The success of the librarian and the school owners is measured by a mixture of
economic and ideological factors. These latter are often expressed as the importance of
a living countryside and the survival of the place. In the words of Austin et al. (2006)
using these arguments, the school starters try, to change the context itself. If they
succeed, they make themselves redundant.
The discussion so far shows that the cases, the conventional enterprises presented,
are examples of social entrepreneurship as they were established with social intentions
and socials motives as the main driving force. In some other respects they differ from
what earlier international research-findings report.
Community entrepreneurship has explicitly a local perspective with space and place
in focus. In some of the cases presented, the focus is on a specific place, a village or a
small municipality. That is the case for both the librarian and the schools. For the others,
the life mode both for the starters themselves and for others, like their workmates, are
closely connected to the place. For firm owners who are totally dependent on the market,

Entrepreneurship
and care

219

JEC
5,3

220

space and place is one and the same. For others who are dependent on the political
market the place, where they live is what they care for.
Conclusions
The cases presented illustrate that the motives of individuals who start and own
conventional commercial enterprises are not those generally expected from commercial
firms. The comparisons made above make it clear that, in the words of Johnson (2000)
socially entrepreneurial activities blur the traditional boundaries between public, private
and non-profit sector, and emphasize hybrid models for profit and non-profit activities.
The cases support the conclusion cited earlier from Shaw and Carter (2007) that these cases
challenge the long held orthodoxies concerning motivation of entrepreneurship and the
ownership structures of small enterprises. The existing definitions and images of
entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship and community entrepreneurship, do not cover
the wide range of activities and organizations that exist nor do they cover the individuals
and groups behind them. We need more studies made with an open mind both of empirical
phenomena and also of their theoretical implications. All societies need entrepreneurs of
many kinds theoretical constructions and bureaucratic regulations should not hinder
them and hide their existence (compare Steyaert and Katz, 2004).
When the cases are compared with the international literature on social and
community entrepreneurship, some interesting similarities and differences are found.
First, the cases seem to be examples of community entrepreneurship. Second when it
comes to motives, they are clearly examples of social entrepreneurship and of social
business entrepreneurship when it comes to earning an income. Apart from that, the
cases differ from that described in the international literature. The needs referred to are
context specific. They are connected to specific national and local characteristics as
well as to time. I will conclude this article by discussing just this issue.
Social science theories are constructed from empirical studies. Studies in social
sciences in the Western world are predominately by the English language and, maybe as
a consequence of this, also by cases and quantitative studies from the English-speaking
countries. Consequently, the theories too are often constructed from, and thereby also
for, English-speaking countries, mainly the USA and the UK. This is often done
unintentionally. The consequences are sometimes confusing and sometimes even have
negative repercussions on the production of scientific knowledge. The fields of
entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, and community entrepreneurship illustrate
this dilemma. This has been mentioned, but not highlighted, in the presented cases
above. As an example can be mentioned the obligations and constructions of
municipalities, which are often discussed as communities in different parts of the
world. The obligations and constructions of municipalities have connections to
the construction of the welfare system that some social scientists describe as welfare
regimes (Esping-Andersen, 1996). The needs of the inhabitants have to be taken care
of by who depends on the welfare regime. In other words entrepreneurs and
entrepreneurship of all kinds work in a context and in cooperation with that context.
The specificity of the context has to be taken very seriously by social scientists. This
may mean that it is too early to talk about one theory for social entrepreneurship and one
theory for community entrepreneurship as well as one theory for entrepreneurship.
More empirical studies have to be made from many perspectives and with sensitivity to
differences in time and place in order to make theoretical conclusions.

Note
1. Municipalities have the responsibility for the education of the children living in their area.
The national level is also involved however. The regulations concerning schools are rather
complicated and will not be described here as it not is necessary for the aim of the paper.
References
Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006), Social and commercial entrepreneurship:
same, different, or both?, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, January, pp. 1-22.
Bolton, B. and Thompson, J. (2000), Entrepreneurs: Talent, Temperament, Technique, Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Borch, O.J., Frde, A., Rnning, L., Vestrum, I.K. and Alsos, G.A. (2008), Resource configuration
and creative practices of community entrepreneurship, Journal of Enterprising
Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 100-23.
Cooney, T.M. (2008), Why is community entrepreneurship worth debating?, Journal of
Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 2 No. 2.
nskningar och realiteter: om flexibilitet, tyst kunskap och omsorgsrationalitet
Davies, K. (1996), O
i barnomsorgen, Carlsson, Stockholm.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1996), Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global
Economies, Sage, London.
Garud, R., Hardy, C. and Maguire, S. (2007), Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency:
an introduction to the special issue, Organization Studies, Vol. 28, pp. 957-69.
GEM (2006), GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitoring, Babson College and London School of
Economics, London.
Haugh, H. (2005), The role of social enterprise in regional development, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 346-57.
Hjalager, A.-M. (1989), Why no entrepreneurs? Lifemodes, everyday life, and unemployment
strategies in an underdeveloped region, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 85-97.
Hjorth, D. and Johannisson, B. (2003), Conceptualising the opening phase of regional
development as the enactment of a collective identity, Concepts and Transformation,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 69-92.
Johannisson, B. (1990), Community entrepreneurship cases and conceptualization,
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Johannisson, B. and Nilsson, A. (1989), Community entrepreneurs: networking for local
development, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-19.
Johnson, S. (2000), Literature Review on Social Entrepreneurship, Canadian Centre for Social
Entrepreneurship, Edmonton.
Johnstone, H. and Lionais, D. (2004), Depleted communities and community business
entrepreneurship: revaluing space through place, Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, Vol. 16, Part 3, pp. 217-33.
Kao, R.W.Y. (1993), Defining entrepreneurship: past, present and?, Creativity and Innovation
Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 69-70.
Landstrom, H. (2000), Entreprenorskapets rotter, Studentlitteratur, Malmo.
Laukkanen, M. and Niittykangas, H. (2003), Local developers as virtual entrepreneurs
do difficult surroundings need initiating interventions?, Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 309-31.

Entrepreneurship
and care

221

JEC
5,3

222

Leadbeater, C. (1997), The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur, Demos, London.

Lonnbring, G. (2003), Sjalvstandighetens livsformer. Kvinnoforetagande pa varmlandsk
landsbygdKarlstad University, dissertation, Karlstad University Press, Karlstad.
Nicholls, A. and Cho, A.H. (2006), Social entrepreneurship: the structuration of a field,
in Nicholls, A. (Ed.), Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change,
Part II New Theories, Chapter 5, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Nilsson Motevasel, I. (1998), Om begreppet omsorgsrationalitet, Aktuellt om kvinnoforskning,
No. 2, pp. 3-5.
Palmas, K. (2006), Socialt foretagande som ny modell for valfarden, in Ekstrom, A. (Ed.), Digital
Valfard. Rapport 2, available at: www.globalutmaning, www.isk-gbg.org/
Parkinson, C. and Howorth, C. (2008), The language of social entrepreneurs,
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 20, pp. 285-309.
Peredo, A.M. and Chrisman, J.J. (2004), Toward a theory of community-based enterprise,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 309-28.
Peredo, A.M. and McLean, M. (2006), Social entrepreneurship: a critical review of the concept,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 56-65.
Rnning, L., Ljunggren, E. and Wiklund, J. (n.d.), The Community Entrepreneur as a Facilitator
of Local Economic Development, Nordland Research Institute, Bodo, Book chapter
submitted to the forthcoming book: Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Functional
Regions, (Eds) Karlsson, C., Johansson, B., Stough, R.R. (to be published by Edward Elgar).
Shaw, E. and Carter, S. (2007), Social entrepreneurship: theoretical antecedents and empirical
analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes, Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 418-34.
Steyaert, C. and Katz, J. (2004), Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society:
geographical, discursive and social dimensions, Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 179-96.
Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (2008), Kvinnors foretagande i gles- och
landsbygder fakta och fonster, Glesbygdsverket, Ostersund.
Thompson, J.L. (2002), The world of the social entrepreneur, The International Journal of Public
Sector Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 412-31.
Venkataraman, S. (1997), The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research, in Katz, J. and
Brockhaus, E. (Eds), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth,
JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 119-38.
Vestrum, I.K. and Borch, O.J. (2006), Community entrepreneurship within the cultural sector,
paper presented at Nordic Conference on Small Business Research, Stockholm, May 11-13.
Waerness, K. (1984), The rationality of caring, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 185-211.
Corresponding author
Elisabeth Sundin can be contacted at: elisabeth.sundin@liu.se

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.