Main Body Essay

Introduction

The notion of entrepreneurship has history of decades in the commercial sector and it received tremendous recognition in the nonprofit organizations. However, for practitioners and policy makers looking for innovative solutions for social issues in different economies of the world, social entrepreneurship is one of the favorable subjects. Still, there is a lack of conceptual comprehension about the social entrepreneurship’s nature and how it varies and matches from corporate sector entrepreneurship. Certainly, claimed that notion of social entrepreneurship reveals a union of two schools of thought. The initial one comprises the undertaking of modernization for social transition and the second one is the concept of developing earned (market) revenue in assistance of social objectives that is through corporate actions by nonprofit entities. The adequate conceptualization of social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit entities specifically, nature of its association with the corporate marketplace has an importance as it outlines the bunch of capabilities required by nonprofit entities to manage their social missions. The conventional model is favorable in the case when the concept of social entrepreneurship is considered as success of the market. Nevertheless, in the scenario of wider notion of innovator and catalyst for social transition is complied, then a complex bunch of set is needed by social entrepreneurs.
This essay highlights the importance of social entrepreneurship in the context of nonprofit sectors and how social entrepreneurship is different from regular entrepreneurship. It as well illustrates the significance of social entrepreneurship models in the modern phenomenon of nonprofit organizations.

Social Entrepreneurship & Regular Entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurship gained the improved attention and resourcefulness of academicians, public bodies, practitioners, and the individuals in general since in the beginning of 1990s. It is a growing field that improved the notion of entrepreneurship by involving and in few cases encouraged the ‘social dimension’ of entrepreneurial projects . It reveals social missions and considers social value development with profitable ways. Social entrepreneurs address issues including inequalities and poverty in education and health sectors and the task involves moral and social values . (Trivedi, 2010) theorized social entrepreneurship in terms of the attributes of a social entrepreneur (Alter, 2004) (Dees, 2001) (Thompson, 2002); the procedures of social entrepreneurship (Martin & Osberg, 2007; Wei-Skillern, Austin, Leonard, & Stevenson, 2007); and the outputs generated by social entrepreneurship that is radical transition from social to socio-economic aspects . The recap of the studies and the research on social entrepreneurship by , it is culminated that social entrepreneurship is an entrepreneurial process introduced by social entrepreneurs with social objectives and missions for ensuring social value development. The outcomes of social entrepreneurship are social entities and nonprofit entities that involve social corporate activities for commercialization.
The study on extensive technology startups shows a rising domain of investigation in management and economic literature. The foremost downturn for majority of startups at the introduction of this century declared the requirement to comprehend their complexities for living and the specifics of the information-oriented entrepreneur behind those entities in contrast with frequent entrepreneurs. The academic studies outlined extensive technology startup as an energetic entity which is less than 8 years old carried out by persons for generating and applying innovative practices in numerous forms . Regular entrepreneurship encompasses a product, services, a modern entity structure, but scholars in strategic entrepreneurship management reveal single or multiple of these ways, or simply they include varied methods and thus get multiple illustrations of entrepreneurship and its forms for the entities. Most of these concepts overlap or behave as synonyms. The following diagram shows the multiple entrepreneurial forms with two axes. The initial axis reveals the place of the entrepreneurial process and the second axis represents the dimensions considered by the entrepreneurial process.
Figure 1: Plural and additional forms of entrepreneurship

Source:

The meaning of location in the horizontal axis of the entrepreneurial process shows the contribution of number of entities in the process of entrepreneurship. Are there numerous individuals relating to multiple entities or is there only one single entrepreneur? On the other hand, the occurrence of entrepreneurial process backed by multiple dimensions. Does it alter the business model, the product, the entity, etc.? Are there numerous or solely one of these dimensions considered?

Social Entrepreneurship Models

The social entrepreneurship approaches conventionally focus on varied assessment levels. For instance, entrepreneurs nested in the boundaries of workplaces nested in the boundaries of industrial sectors. They are applicable to longitudinal data that ensures multiple years nested within boundaries of organizations. In order to comprehend how entrepreneurship models are best in exploring longitudinal factors, there is a need to illustrate few assumption and provisions. A longitudinal research demands frequent actions for at least one practical concept of interest , and there are one or more frequent actions reveal as output variable in the model. The fundamental problem in social entrepreneurship assessment is the variance in between and within the units of observations, that is, measuring variations between entities and transition over time. There are four dimensions of longitudinal models that change on the basis of between-unit and within-unit variance norms. The dimensions involve different models including single-level model, change-score model, multi-level model, and cross-level model. Each model contributes in assessing change over time. On the other hand, the within-unit analysis standards involve event history and survival analysis, multilevel event history analysis, longitudinal growth modeling, standard logistic regression and traditional regression. They are useful and current in terms of social entrepreneurship models as it comprehensively cover predictor, outcome in within-unit variance. They as well ensure incorporation of frequent measures and reveal inferences about change over time and allow individuals to observe a transition in ‘A’ over time due to a within-unit transition in ‘B’ over time. However, other models mentioned above do not have common properties as within-unit standards have.

Conclusion

The essay discussed the entrepreneurship literature and the bunch of capabilities required by entrepreneurs working in varied sectors of the economy. The case studies of social enterprise literature explored in little detail. The scholar gained insight on difference between corporate and public entrepreneurship with nonprofit organizations and linked the same to the deviations in financial advocacy researched among nonprofit entities. This essay concludes that nonprofit social entrepreneurs may demand a varied bunch of capabilities compared to business entrepreneurs. Specifically, political capabilities appeared a positive contribution in social enterprise ventures. A contracted opinion of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise with conventional model of business limits the possible advantages of generating social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit sectors. It indicates that the academics of social entrepreneurs must be adequately developed keeping in view the corporate, governmental and nonprofit oriented directives.

References

Alter, K. (2004). Social enterprise typology. Retrieved January 20, 2015, from http://www.virtueventures.com/setypology/index.php
Dees, J. G. (2001). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship” . Retrieved January 20, 2015, from http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/documents/dees_SE.pdf
Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2006). Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship: Building on two schools of practice and thought. In R. Mosher-Williams (Ed.), Research on social entrepreneurship: Understanding and contributing to an emerging field. Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action Occasional Paper Series, 39-66.
Freeman, C. (1982). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hervieux, C., Gedajlovic, E., & Turcotte, M. (2010). The legitimization of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 37-67.
Laperche, B., Sommers, P., & Uzunidis, D. (2010). Innovation Networks and Clusters: The Knowledge Backbone. Burssels: P.I.E Peter Lang S.A .
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 36-44.
Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 28-39.
Polyhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 94-120.
Thompson, J. L. (2002). The world fo the social entrepreneur. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 412-431.
Trivedi, C. (2010). A social entrepreneurship bibliography. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 81-85.
Wei-Skillern, J. C., Austin, J. E., Leonard, H. B., & Stevenson, H. H. (2007). Entrepreneurship in the social sector. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.