Formation of Social Entrepreneurial Intention: A Qualitative Grounded Approach at the Base of the Pyramid

Abstract

While there have been some attempts at investigating and theorizing social entrepreneurial action at the base of the economic pyramid, our understanding of the processes contributing to the formation of social entrepreneurial intention in contexts of extreme poverty remain limited. In this study, we aim to address this gap by providing a better understanding of the formation of social entrepreneurial intentions of youths at the base of the economic pyramid. Drawing on a qualitative grounded approach, we highlight the role of self-confidence, perceived self-efficacy and social ascension beliefs as important drivers in understanding the formation of social entrepreneurial intention of youths at the base of the pyramid. At a practical level, our study suggests that besides developing entrepreneurship-specific knowledge, support mechanisms should also pay attention to the development of different self-related beliefs of youths to enable the formation of social entrepreneurial intention at the base of the pyramid.

Full text



Citation: Claeyé, Frederik, Yosra
Boughattas, and Erno T. Tornikoski.
2022. Formation of Social
Entrepreneurial Intention: A
Qualitative Grounded Approach at
the Base of the Pyramid.
Administrative Sciences 12: 24.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
admsci12010024
Received: 13 December 2021
Accepted: 31 January 2022
Published: 6 February 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
administrative
sciences
Article
Formation of Social Entrepreneurial Intention: A Qualitative
Grounded Approach at the Base of the Pyramid
Frederik Claeyé1,2, Yosra Boughattas 3and Erno T. Tornikoski 4,*
1Department of Management, ICHEC Brussels Management School, 1150 Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Belgium;
frederik.claeye@ichec.be
2Department of Development Studies, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha 6031, South Africa
3
Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Management and Economics, Artois University, 62000 Arras, France;
yosra.boughattas@univ-artois.fr
4Centre for Entrepreneurship, University of Exeter Business School, Exeter EX4 4PU, UK
*Correspondence: e.tornikoski@exeter.ac.uk
Abstract:
While there have been some attempts at investigating and theorizing social entrepreneurial
action at the base of the economic pyramid, our understanding of the processes contributing to the
formation of social entrepreneurial intention in contexts of extreme poverty remain limited. In this
study, we aim to address this gap by providing a better understanding of the formation of social
entrepreneurial intentions of youths at the base of the economic pyramid. Drawing on a qualitative
grounded approach, we highlight the role of self-confidence, perceived self-efficacy and social ascen-
sion beliefs as important drivers in understanding the formation of social entrepreneurial intention of
youths at the base of the pyramid. At a practical level, our study suggests that besides developing
entrepreneurship-specific knowledge, support mechanisms should also pay attention to the devel-
opment of different self-related beliefs of youths to enable the formation of social entrepreneurial
intention at the base of the pyramid.
Keywords:
base of the pyramid (BoP); social entrepreneurship; entrepreneurial intentions; self-beliefs
1. Introduction
It is widely acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic has had widespread socio-
economic consequences (Das et al. 2022). As a result, almost 150 million people are projected
to fall into abject poverty. The resulting increases in poverty are largely concentrated in the
already fragile regions of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, with impacts to be felt harder in
urban rather than in rural areas (Laborde et al. 2021). Researchers have increasingly turned
their attention to the emancipatory power of entrepreneurship (Rindova et al. 2009) and
how it may be a mechanism for poverty alleviation (Sutter et al. 2019;Manzoor et al. 2019;
Trivedi and Petkova 2021). The underlying argument is that through identifying and acting
on opportunities, entrepreneurs are catalysts for structural change and institutional evolution
(Naudé2014). This line of thought is particularly relevant for social entrepreneurship and
base-of-the-pyramid (BoP) approaches as mechanisms for addressing poverty and inequality
(Murphy and Coombes 2009;Cañeque and Hart 2017;Périac et al. 2018). Increasingly, BoP
strategies focus on co-creating value with the poor and empowering them to create their
own enterprises (Simanis and Hart 2008). Similarly, social entrepreneurs are typically seen as
agents of change (Dees 1998), who—drawing on a business logic—try to ‘change the system’
(Newey 2018) by implementing novel and entrepreneurial solutions to address social ills.
(Murphy et al. forthcoming;Saebi et al. 2019).
A small but growing literature is budding at the intersection of social entrepreneurship
and BoP strategies (Agarwal et al. 2018;Goyal et al. 2017;Claeyéet al. 2020). While
there have been some attempts at investigating and theorizing entrepreneurial action
among disadvantaged communities, our understanding of the processes contributing to
Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010024 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci

Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24 2 of 16
the formation of social entrepreneurial intention at the BoP remain limited. We contribute
to this line of research by investigating the following research question: How do social
entrepreneurial intentions emerge at the base of the pyramid?
We investigate this question empirically by drawing on a qualitatively grounded ap-
proach. We collected data in Southeast Asia using an entrepreneurship program developed
by a local NGO as our research setting. The youths at the BoP participating in our study
(i.e., beneficiaries) had no prior intention to create their own social enterprise before joining
the program. The contribution of our study lies in proposing a grounded cognitive model
of social entrepreneurial intention of these youths at the base of the pyramid. To this
end, our empirical findings highlight the role of self-confidence, perceived self-efficacy,
and social ascension beliefs as important drivers in understanding the formation of social
entrepreneurial intention at the BoP. At a practical level, our study highlights the impor-
tance of social support: besides developing entrepreneurship specific knowledge, support
mechanisms should also pay attention to the development of different self-related beliefs
of youths to enable the formation of social entrepreneurial intention at the BoP.
In the remainder of this article, we develop our argument as follows: first, we review
the relevant literature on entrepreneurial intentions. We then outline the methodological
approach adopted in this study. This is followed by the presentation of the findings and the
discussion thereof. We conclude with some implications and avenues for further research.
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. (Social) Entrepreneurial Intentions
Entrepreneurial intention represents a rapidly evolving field of research that has
spawned a considerable body of literature since the 1990s (Dolhey 2019;Liñán and Fayolle
2015;Donaldson et al. 2021). As Krueger et al. (2000) argue, intentions are the single
best predictor of any planned behavior, such as entrepreneurship. The two dominant
models in the field are Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior and Shapero’s (Shapero
1984;Shapero and Sokol 1982) entrepreneurial event model (Donaldson 2019). Despite
the existence of alternative models, there is some evidence of the compatibility of these
intention-based models (Liñán and Fayolle 2015).
Drawing on Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior and Shapero’s (Shapero 1984;
Shapero and Sokol 1982) entrepreneurial event model, Krueger (2009) proposes an inte-
grated model of entrepreneurial intentions. He suggests that entrepreneurial intentions first
require some sort of precipitating factor, which can take the form of some kind of perceived
facilitating factor or the removal of a perceived barrier. The resulting behavior of a potential
entrepreneur depends on the perceived desirability and perceived feasibility of a particular
course of action. Perceived desirability is mediated by personal desirability, that is, the
personal attractiveness of starting a business in terms of the expectations and beliefs one
holds about personal impacts of outcomes resulting from a particular behavior (Krueger
et al. 2000). Secondly, perceived desirability is mediated by perceived social norms, that
is one’s perception of what significant people in their lives would think about starting a
business (Krueger et al. 2000).
Perceived feasibility, in turn, depends on perceived self-efficacy, that is, one’s perceived
ability to execute a behavior required to produce an outcome, in casu, setting up a new
venture (Krueger et al. 2000). However, economically disadvantaged communities often
suffer from deficits in self-efficacy (Krueger and Brazeal 1994;Kushnirovich et al. 2018).
Furthermore, research on the psychology of poverty has shown poverty has detrimental
effects on, inter alia, individuals’ sense of self-confidence (Carr 2013;Carr and Sloan 2003;
Haushofer 2013), which may undermine people’s goal-directed behaviors (Haushofer and
Fehr 2014), such as enterprise creation.
Perceived feasibility also depends on perceived collective efficacy, that is, a group’s
belief in their conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required
to produce given levels of attainments (Shepherd and Krueger 2002). While this has been
mainly theorized in terms of organizational teams, this could be expanded to the community

Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24 3 of 16
level to include perceived collective capacity to take coordinated and interdependent action
on issues that affect the community. As Bandura (2000) indicates, many of the outcomes
people seek to attain are achievable only through interdependent efforts.
Finally, Krueger (2009), drawing on Shapero and Sokol (1982), contends that a potential
opportunity must be perceived as both desirable and feasible by a potential entrepreneur.
Before this perceived opportunity is acted upon, another antecedent, propensity to act, is
important. For Shapero and Sokol (1982), propensity to act is conceptualized as the personal
disposition to act on one’s decisions. Hence, if one’s propensity to act is low, attitudes may
be less predictive of intention and action and vice versa (Krueger 1993). Figure 1below
captures Krueger’s (2009) integrated model of entrepreneurial intentions.
Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17
Sloan 2003; Haushofer 2013), which may undermine people’s goal-directed behaviors
(Haushofer and Fehr 2014), such as enterprise creation.
Perceived feasibility also depends on perceived collective efficacy, that is, a group’s
belief in their conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required
to produce given levels of attainments (Shepherd and Krueger 2002). While this has been
mainly theorized in terms of organizational teams, this could be expanded to the commu-
nity level to include perceived collective capacity to take coordinated and interdependent
action on issues that affect the community. As Bandura (2000) indicates, many of the out-
comes people seek to attain are achievable only through interdependent efforts.
Finally, Krueger (2009), drawing on Shapero and Sokol (1982), contends that a poten-
tial opportunity must be perceived as both desirable and feasible by a potential entrepre-
neur. Before this perceived opportunity is acted upon, another antecedent, propensity to
act, is important. For Shapero and Sokol (1982), propensity to act is conceptualized as the
personal disposition to act on one’s decisions. Hence, if one’s propensity to act is low,
attitudes may be less predictive of intention and action and vice versa (Krueger 1993).
Figure 1 below captures Krueger’s (2009) integrated model of entrepreneurial intentions.
Figure 1. Intentions model (Krueger 2009, p. 58).
As Liñán and Fayolle (2015) contend in their systematic review of the entrepreneurial
intention literature, social entrepreneurial intention has recently strongly emerged as a
research topic (see Tan et al. 2020 for a recent systematic review). For the purposes of this
study, we define social entrepreneurs as individuals (or groups of individuals) setting up
and running organizations that aim to create social value by addressing social, economic,
or environmental problems (Mair and Martí 2006). Research on social entrepreneurial in-
tentions has increased considerably over the last decade. Nevertheless, with the exception
of notable examples such as Ip et al. (2021) or Yamini et al. (forthcoming), most contribu-
tions draw heavily upon and are an extension of the conventional entrepreneurial models
outlined above (Tan et al. 2020).
Drawing on Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior, Mair and Noboa (2006) were
the first to advance theoretical propositions about the antecedents of social entrepreneur-
ial intentions. In their propositions, they suggest empathy as a proxy to Ajzen’s (1991)
notion of attitudes toward behavior (personal desirability in the figure above), and moral
obligation as a proxy to Ajzen’s (1991) notion of social norms. In addition, they suggest
that self-efficacy and social support affect perceptions of social venture feasibility.
Mair and Noboa’s (2006) proposition of four antecedents of social entrepreneurial
intent were tested and extended subsequently by a number of scholars. For example, Bacq
and Alt (2018) further refine the empathy construct by highlighting that empathy explains
social entrepreneurial intentions through two complementary mechanisms: self-efficacy
as an agentic mechanism and social worth as a communal mechanism. Hockerts (2017),
extends the model by including prior experience with social problems as an additional
Perceived
Social Norms
Personal
Desirabilit y
Perceived
Self-Efficacy
Perceived
Collective Efficacy
Perceived
Desirabilit y
Perceived
Feasibilit y
INTENTIONS
Exogenous Factors (personal,
situational)
Propensity to Act
PERCEPTION of
OPPORTUNITY
Action
Figure 1. Intentions model (Krueger 2009, p. 58).
As Liñán and Fayolle (2015) contend in their systematic review of the entrepreneurial
intention literature, social entrepreneurial intention has recently strongly emerged as a
research topic (see Tan et al. 2020 for a recent systematic review). For the purposes of this
study, we define social entrepreneurs as individuals (or groups of individuals) setting up
and running organizations that aim to create social value by addressing social, economic,
or environmental problems (Mair and Martí2006). Research on social entrepreneurial
intentions has increased considerably over the last decade. Nevertheless, with the ex-
ception of notable examples such as Ip et al. (2021) or Yamini et al. (forthcoming), most
contributions draw heavily upon and are an extension of the conventional entrepreneurial
models outlined above (Tan et al. 2020).
Drawing on Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior, Mair and Noboa (2006) were
the first to advance theoretical propositions about the antecedents of social entrepreneurial
intentions. In their propositions, they suggest empathy as a proxy to Ajzen’s (1991) notion of
attitudes toward behavior (personal desirability in the figure above), and moral obligation
as a proxy to Ajzen’s (1991) notion of social norms. In addition, they suggest that self-
efficacy and social support affect perceptions of social venture feasibility.
Mair and Noboa’s (2006) proposition of four antecedents of social entrepreneurial
intent were tested and extended subsequently by a number of scholars. For example, Bacq
and Alt (2018) further refine the empathy construct by highlighting that empathy explains
social entrepreneurial intentions through two complementary mechanisms: self-efficacy
as an agentic mechanism and social worth as a communal mechanism. Hockerts (2017),
extends the model by including prior experience with social problems as an additional
variable. His study shows prior experience predicts social entrepreneurial intentions and
that this effect is mediated by the antecedents suggested by Mair and Noboa. Hockerts
(2017) study indicates that self-efficacy has the largest impact on intentions as well as itself
being most responsive to prior experience. Usman et al. (2022) further extend Mair and
Noboa’s (2006) framework by highlighting the influence of social impact and social worth
on social entrepreneurial intentions. However, most of these studies have been conducted
in more affluent societies or with members of the more affluent segments of society in

Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24 4 of 16
developing nations. To date, we lack a clear understanding of the formation of social
entrepreneurial intention in the context of extreme poverty at the BoP. In the following
section, we outline what is currently known regarding enterprise creation at the BoP.
2.2. (Social) Enterprise Creation at the Base of the Pyramid
Prahalad and Hart (1999) introduced the notion of the base of the pyramid (BoP) as a
new profitable market for multinational companies that consists of the four billion people
whose per capita income is less than USD 1500 per year. Since its introduction in 1999,
the concept has shifted from an emphasis on the on selling goods and services to the poor
(BoP 1.0; Prahalad and Hart 1999), overseeing them as potential business partners (BoP 2.0;
Simanis and Hart 2008), to focusing on a bottom-up sustainable development approach “in
which the small producers, poor and impoverished [
. . .
] are the main protagonists” (BoP
3.0; Pedrozo 2015, p. 190; for a recent review, see Dembek et al. 2020) As such, the different
BoP strategies share the emancipatory agenda that characterizes social entrepreneurship.
While research at the intersection of these two streams of scholarship is rapidly growing
(Agarwal et al. 2018;De Beule et al. 2020;Sottini et al. forthcoming), scant attention has
been dedicated to the process of social entrepreneurial intentions formation at the BoP.
Therefore, in the following paragraphs, we mainly focus on what is known about enterprise
creation at the BoP.
In their systematic review of gender and poverty entrepreneurship, Santos and
Neumeyer (2021) highlight that, overall, female BoP entrepreneurship is driven by push
factors linked to a desire to improve the current situation. These include a desire to better
one’s income and gain more personal freedom, security or recognition. For example, inves-
tigating a self-help group in India, Chatterjee et al. (2018) found that it helps to empower
women to become micro-entrepreneurs. Women participating in the self-help group gain
access to different forms of financial assistance, communication and network facilities, as
well as social recognition. This leads to greater empowerment and causes the decision to
become a micro-entrepreneur. In this regard, Santos et al. (2019) introduce the notion of
‘entrepreneurial empowerment’, whereby entrepreneurial empowerment shapes attitudes
and intentions over time, the outcomes of which may, in turn, impact entrepreneurial
empowerment (see also Morris et al. 2020). Taking an identity-based approach, Musona
et al. (2021) highlight that both social and role identities influence opportunity recognition,
but that role identities (i.e., an individual’s interpretation of what it means to be an en-
trepreneur) result in behavioral differences amongst nascent entrepreneurs with the same
social identities as they engage in enterprise creation activities.
Acheampong and Esposito (2014) found that psychodynamic factors are more impor-
tant than trait factors in explaining BoP entrepreneurship in Ghana. As such, they posit
that entrepreneurial behavior is driven by a childhood of deprivation and that this helps
nascent entrepreneurs to understand the nature of poverty and provides them with insights
that enable them develop product and services to meet the needs of the poor. Similarly,
among the three motivational factors Henning and Akoob (2017) found, ‘destitute condi-
tions’ was ranked as the most important reason for starting an informal business. This is
echoed by Dye and Dye (2018), who found that their respondents saw entrepreneurship
as a way to resist and move beyond conditions of socio-economic deprivation (see also
Miller and Le Breton-Miller 2017). In a similar vein, looking at the effects of consumption
constraints on entrepreneurial intentions, Venugopal et al. (2015) showed how chronic
constraints amplify entrepreneurial intentions and how marketplace literacy education
enhances entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Bullough et al. (2014) found that under conditions
of war, individuals develop entrepreneurial intentions if they are able to grow from adver-
sity (resilience) and believe in their entrepreneurial abilities (entrepreneurial self-efficacy).
Yessoufou et al. (2018) found that entrepreneurial processes at the BoP emerge primarily
from external factors such as challenging circumstances and disruptive events (see also
George et al. 2013). They put forward six propositions about the entrepreneurial process at
the BoP (pp. 13–16):

Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24 5 of 16
1.
Entrepreneurial processes at the BoP emerge primarily from external factors such as
challenging circumstances and disruptive events.
2.
The entrepreneurial opportunity exploitation results from opportunities developed
by learning.
3.
Entrepreneurs’ motivations of self-fulfillment, income generation and wealth cre-
ation strengthen the relationship between opportunity development and challenging
situations.
4.
The willingness to structure income uncertainty moderates the relationship between
challenging circumstances/disruptive events and opportunity development.
5.
Human agency moderates the relationship between opportunity development and
opportunity exploitation. The stronger the ability of an entrepreneur to respond to
challenging situations or events in developing entrepreneurial opportunities, the more
likely and easier the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities.
6.
The ability of the entrepreneur to network moderates the move from opportunity de-
velopment to opportunity exploitation. The stronger the ability to identify and create
supportive networks, the more likely the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities.
Some parallels can be drawn here with our earlier discussion on entrepreneurial
intentions. As in Krueger’s (2009) intention model above, exogenous factors in terms of
chronic constraints or disruptive events are put forward to act as a trigger event that induces
the entrepreneurial intent. Proposition three on personal motivations is reminiscent of
personal desirability and the beliefs one holds about personal impacts of outcomes resulting
from a particular behavior. Both propositions four and five refer to one’s propensity to
act. However, neither learning (proposition two) nor social capital (proposition six) are
incorporated in Krueger’s (2009) integrated intentions model. BoP studies suggest that these
may be important additional factors to consider as well. While social capital (proposition
six) may be partially captured by Krueger’s (2009) in terms of one’s perception of what
significant people in their lives would think about starting a business (perceived social
norms), it falls short of more traditional conceptions of social capital as the ability of actors
to extract benefits from their social structures, networks and memberships (Davidsson and
Honig 2003).
As a summary of the literature review, there are some visible disparities between
how existing intention models have theorized the emergence of social entrepreneurial
intention in general. Additionally, only a few studies concern the formation of social
entrepreneurial intentions at the context of base of the pyramid. Indeed, an overwhelming
majority of previous intention studies take place in developed countries or focus on more
affluential people in developing countries. The theoretical and empirical gaps invite us to
propose a more qualitative, explorative approach to shed light on the emergence of social
entrepreneurial intentions at BoP, which we detail next.
3. Materials and Methods
This paper addresses the following research question: How do social entrepreneurial
intentions emerge at the base of the pyramid?
There have been a number of quantitative studies into SEI (Zhang et al. 2021;Hockerts
2017) that are mostly based on deductive theory building from area outside the SE domain
and that rely on affluent societies or members of more affluent groups in developing
nations. We know very little about SEIs of poorer segments of society. This misses the
context specificity of SEI formation. By adopting a qualitative, explorative approach,
this study addresses this gap by focusing on situated human actions and their meanings
(Saldaña and Omasta 2018), and thus, by moving away from variance-based approaches,
gives us a richer and more contextualised understanding of the processes and practices
underlying SEI formation in the context of BoP (Tracy 2020).
The following paragraphs detail the research setting, how and which data were
collected, and how they were subsequently analyzed.

Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24 6 of 16
3.1. The Research Setting
This research is set in an NGO-run entrepreneurship program, launched in Southeast
Asia. The program runs for two years and provides a hands-on approach to learning
how to develop rural areas. It is presented as the first social entrepreneurship program
for the poorest of the poor (i.e., beneficiaries). During the program, the beneficiaries
attend a variety of courses that focus on character development, enterprise management,
communications, business mathematics, and agriculture. At the same time, they participate
in all the activities of the NGO, such as cleaning the common areas and preparing meals.
Besides the classroom instruction, hands-on learning, and enterprise development, the
beneficiaries become partners or apprentices of existing social enterprises through the Gap
Year Program, which allows them to continue the application of real-world skills.
3.2. Data Collection
The methodological approach taken rests on a qualitative grounded approach. For
the examination of ongoing human activity at the BoP, a qualitative approach allows for a
richer understanding of the actions and the socio-historical context of poverty that precedes
individual motivations and actions at the BoP (Tracy 2020). Our data collection involved in
situ participant observation, semi-directive interviews, as well as some life stories of benefi-
ciaries. In 2018, we conducted 20 narrative interviews with beneficiaries of the program.
This represents just under 40% of the beneficiaries enrolled in the program at that time. In
addition, we felt that saturation had been achieved as new cases did not contribute any
new information (Francis et al. 2010). We adopted a non-probability, purposive maximum
variation sampling approach and selected instances that were information rich with a view
to answering our research question (Schreier 2018). These data were supplemented with
observation field notes (eight days) and three interviews with people in charge of the pro-
gram to obtain some background information on the program and cross-check statements
made by the beneficiaries we interviewed. Table 1below summarizes the beneficiaries’
characteristics.
Table 1. Characteristics of interviewed beneficiaries.
Initials Activity Gender Age Previous
Education
Year in the
NGO
R1 Snacks M 20 College 2nd year
R2 Graphic design M 19 High School 1st year
R3 Coffee F 18 College
dropout 2nd year
R4 Fashion and textile F 20 High School 3rd year
R5 Snacks M 18 High School 3rd year
R6 Cocoa ice coffee F 21 High School 1st year
R7 Dairy F 19 High School 2nd year
R8 Not yet chosen M 22 High School 1st year
R9 Food production F 20 High School Gap year
R10 Snacks M 18 High School 2nd year
R11 Pet shop M 22 High School 2nd year
R12 Food F 18 High School 2nd year
R13 Restaurant F 22 College
dropout 2nd year

Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24 7 of 16
Table 1. Cont.
Initials Activity Gender Age Previous
Education
Year in the
NGO
R14 Coffee M 23 College
dropout 1st year
R15 Coffee M 20 High School 3rd year
R16 Landscaping M 25 High school
dropout 1st year
R17
Lemongrass tea with
ginger/“medicine” F 18 High school 1st year
R18 Still in ideational
phase F 18 High School 1st year
R19 Fruit tree industry F 20 High School 2nd year
R20 Snacks M 22 High school 2nd year
3.3. Data Analysis
This exploratory study is based on the principles of grounded theory from the perspec-
tive of Strauss and Corbin (1990) and Gioia et al. (2013). In line with these authors, in our
study, we take an inductive approach grounded in the lived experience of the beneficiaries
and how they make sense of different experiences during the NGO-run program to develop
concepts that we subsequently put in dialogue with existing literature. The data collection
was carried out by only one researcher among the three authors of this article (insider–
outsiders perspective). We looked to identify significant recurrences, as this relates to the
researchers’ attribution of meaning. The interview data were then analyzed thematically by
the authors using a combination of manual thematic content analysis and more systematic
content-sorting using QSR NVivo 11. We have devised a systematic inductive approach to
concept development.
First, we codified each idea with a concept and then modified the concepts as needed
to ensure that the revisited data fitted well with the category. We assigned
in vivo
codes
based on themes generated directly from the language used by the interviewees (Corley
and Gioia 2004).
Second, we used axial coding by identifying similarities between concepts in order
to create consolidated categories of a higher nature. For example, we created a second-
order code named “prior experience with poverty” from first-order codes such as “hunger,
survival, resourcefulness”.
Third, we selected the central idea that emerged from the axial coding and we created
the final aggregate dimension by gathering the theoretical categories from the second-
order codes. In parallel to these three steps, were confronted the emerging codes with our
participant observations notes. Taking notes in situ involves learning about a culture from
within (Miles et al. 2014).
Data were analyzed by these three researchers. Authors one and two performed the
analysis and categorization. The third author took on the role of reader to challenge the
initial conceptualizations and to improve the intercoder reliability. Data were triangulated
until saturation was achieved.
Thus, the code “perceived self-efficacy” is aggregated from the prior experience of
the beneficiaries with poverty, the formal education, and the hands-on experimentation
provided by the NGO. The findings are presented in the data structure (Figure 2below).
This data structure overview is based on the three steps required by this methodology, from
first-order codes to aggregate dimensions.

Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24 8 of 16
Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17
initial conceptualizations and to improve the intercoder reliability. Data were triangulated
until saturation was achieved.
Thus, the code “perceived self-efficacy” is aggregated from the prior experience of
the beneficiaries with poverty, the formal education, and the hands-on experimentation
provided by the NGO. The findings are presented in the data structure (Figure 2 below).
This data structure overview is based on the three steps required by this methodology,
from first-order codes to aggregate dimensions.
Figure 2. Data structure.
Finally, we provide a resulting grounded theory model (Figure 3 below) by oscillat-
ing between emergent data, concepts, and the relevant literature. This model describes
and explains the dynamic relationships among the emergent concepts and makes clear all
relevant data-to-theory connections (Gioia et al. 2013). Our goal is to highlight new in-
sights with regard to the emergence of social entrepreneurial intention at the base of the
pyramid.
Figure 3. grounded model of SEI at BoP.
4. Results
Three aggregated dimensions (see data structure in Figure 2) emerged as strong driv-
ers of social entrepreneurial intentions of the beneficiaries: perceived self-efficacy, self-
(Social ascension beliefs)
(Self confidence) (Perceived self- efficacy)
Social support
Perceived Skills
individual achievement
Prior experience with poverty
Entrepreneurship education
Self image
Community value creation
Social entrepreneurial intention
Figure 2. Data structure.
Finally, we provide a resulting grounded theory model (Figure 3below) by oscillating
between emergent data, concepts, and the relevant literature. This model describes and
explains the dynamic relationships among the emergent concepts and makes clear all
relevant data-to-theory connections (Gioia et al. 2013). Our goal is to highlight new insights
with regard to the emergence of social entrepreneurial intention at the base of the pyramid.
Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17
initial conceptualizations and to improve the intercoder reliability. Data were triangulated
until saturation was achieved.
Thus, the code “perceived self-efficacy” is aggregated from the prior experience of
the beneficiaries with poverty, the formal education, and the hands-on experimentation
provided by the NGO. The findings are presented in the data structure (Figure 2 below).
This data structure overview is based on the three steps required by this methodology,
from first-order codes to aggregate dimensions.
Figure 2. Data structure.
Finally, we provide a resulting grounded theory model (Figure 3 below) by oscillat-
ing between emergent data, concepts, and the relevant literature. This model describes
and explains the dynamic relationships among the emergent concepts and makes clear all
relevant data-to-theory connections (Gioia et al. 2013). Our goal is to highlight new in-
sights with regard to the emergence of social entrepreneurial intention at the base of the
pyramid.
Figure 3. grounded model of SEI at BoP.
4. Results
Three aggregated dimensions (see data structure in Figure 2) emerged as strong driv-
ers of social entrepreneurial intentions of the beneficiaries: perceived self-efficacy, self-
(Social ascension beliefs)
(Self confidence) (Perceived self- efficacy)
Social support
Perceived Skills
individual achievement
Prior experience with poverty
Entrepreneurship education
Self image
Community value creation
Social entrepreneurial intention
Figure 3. Grounded model of SEI at BoP.
4. Results
Three aggregated dimensions (see data structure in Figure 2) emerged as strong
drivers of social entrepreneurial intentions of the beneficiaries: perceived self-efficacy,
self-confidence, and social ascension beliefs. Our findings propose a grounded model of
social entrepreneurial intention at the base of the pyramid hereafter (Figure 3).
4.1. Self-Confidence
Firstly, we found that “self-confidence” is a central issue in understanding the emer-
gence of social entrepreneurial intention among the beneficiaries participating in our study.
Beneficiaries talked about the need to first overcome a ‘poverty mindset’ that downgrades
the poor to think that they cannot achieve anything in life. Beneficiaries indicated a sense
of regaining “self-confidence” to express their changing mentality and attitude.

Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24 9 of 16
“So, I wanted to share with you how [the program] and [the NGO] molded me
into a better person of myself, to be confident, to love and care.” (life stories)
“So, my life before is so, I am so shy, so timid and I don’t want to talk to other
people. They, the mentors help us to build our confidence, ourself.” (R10)
“They are not just teaching us about the subjects that they are teaching, but they
are also encouraging [us], motivate [us] really to be confident enough and the
determination to become a social entrepreneur.” (R7)
The beneficiaries also stressed the importance of an environment in which trust is
key in organizing social relationships as an important aspect in the development of their
self-confidence.
“I learn value, those people who trusted you, the people who bestow their trust,
their time in you because before I had a hard time of believing people. I had a
hard time of trusting people, but then when I came here, [
. . .
] they teach me [..]
the lesson in life that no man is an island.” (R1)
“But still [name of mentors] always trusts us, and we have that values transfor-
mation [
. . .
] And they, as they always said that they will never give up on us if
we don’t give up on them. I think it is just trust.” (R18)
“The trust in each other because here we really came from different places and
most of us [
. . .
]; look most of us experience hunger in our, some of us need to
steal in order to survive [ . . . ]. But then the trust; it always builds us.” (R12)
The beneficiaries evoke a mutual and reciprocal trust between them and the community
members and staff. One important element in building beneficiaries’ self-confidence is
building trust. Beneficiaries indicated there are several institutionalized moments, both
individual and collective, that are instrumental. For example, they organize a regular
collective session, where beneficiaries share their experiences and listen to the experiences
of others in order to learn from each other and move forward, both collectively and as
individuals. As one mentor put it: “Because every week we have the solidarity assembly where we
start off Mondays at 7:30 just to talk about some values, to reflect on that. So, we reflect on them; so
even those moments it’s part of the curriculum so that we can engage them and try to develop the
best out of them.” This social support enhances beneficiaries’ self-image and changes their
perception of the self. As such, developing self-confidence through the mechanisms outlined
above is a first crucial steppingstone in the emergence of social entrepreneurial intention. It
directly feeds into perceived self-efficacy, which we discuss in the following section.
4.2. Perceived Self-Efficacy
While beneficiaries are attracted to the program by a desire to escape poverty and
hunger, most of them arrive at the program without any prior knowledge about how to set
up their own venture. Many beneficiaries who arrive at the program are characterized by
the ‘poverty mindset’ we touched upon above. Our data suggest that perceived self-efficacy
is constructed through the program in which emotional and technical social support is a
key element. This social support focuses on remedying the beneficiaries’ ‘poverty mindset’
and building their self-efficacy (through enhancing their self-confidence, as we discussed
above) through valuing their previous experience with hunger, hands-on experimentation,
and entrepreneurship education. In this regard, the beneficiaries indicated:
“I think it’s the motivation part. Because it pushed me to believe that I can do
that thing [social entrepreneurship], I can make things possible.” (R1)
“Well at first I don’t want to be a, way back in my past, I don’t want to enter into
business because I’m not good in math, like that and also I’m not good in English
and this one my weaknesses before, but now I thought that now, I thought that
“yes, I am so excited”. Instead of afraid I’m excited that someday it will be and
work.” (R2)

Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24 10 of 16
“Because I am, like, I am led to be a great entrepreneur by the people [that]
surround me and also my mentors, especially the people in my community.”
(R18)
Through the program and the support given by the mentors and the program in which
they are embedded, the beneficiaries start to shed the ‘poverty mentality’, which held them
back, and start believing in themselves as individuals and potential social entrepreneurs.
By becoming more self-confident individuals that believe in their own competences and
capacities, their perceived self-efficacy grows. Even though, at this point in time, many
beneficiaries indicated that they still felt unsure about their skills or knowledge to become
successful social entrepreneurs, they were confident that they would learn and acquire the
knowledge, skills and expertise required to become successful social entrepreneurs through
their hands-on experiences during the program. Echoing a feeling echoed by many of the
beneficiaries we interviewed, the same beneficiary as above, explains that:
“I don’t think so I have a knowledge, like, but I feel, I feel it in my heart like I
just don’t know I don’t have a knowledge, I don’t have an experience of being a
social entrepreneur. But here it, here [touches heart] it tells my mind that I can be
a social entrepreneur that I can manage if I will be a good entrepreneur.” (R18)
This building of self-efficacy through working on their self-confidence, providing them
with formal skills and knowledge and a space to experiment helps the beneficiaries to look
at the future as social entrepreneurs. When asked where they saw themselves five years
from now, most beneficiaries saw themselves as being successful social entrepreneurs.
4.3. Social Ascension Beliefs
As indicated above, the beneficiaries join the NGO’s entrepreneurship program based
on a desire to break the poverty cycle in which they (often already for generations) had
be trapped. Escaping the slums, the destitution, hunger and violence that accompany life
in such conditions of extreme poverty thus become a strong driver for the beneficiaries’
entrepreneurial intention. Their desire for social ascension not only focuses on themselves
but also on emancipating their family, their community and their country from poverty.
Social enterprises are seen as vehicles through which this social ascension may be achieved.
“And if I just go around with them [in the slums], there is nothing to help me.
But if I do this job [NGO program] it really helped me a lot and I will choose this
job [becoming a social entrepreneur] because this job will give me the potential to
reach my goal in life, so like that.” (R14)
“We are all working with one goal and that is just to end the poverty.” (R8)
“Yes, it is really important for me because it could be the start of a better life for
me and my family and, of course, my country.” (R5)
I will be able to end my own poverty and end it for my family and my community
as well, [
. . .
] through this enterprise, I think and I know that we can earn a lot
of money and we can help other people to end also their poverty. (R9)
As demonstrated by the last two statements, not only their own social ascension but
also the emancipation of loved ones and the community to which they belong is important
to them. This idea that social entrepreneurship may be a way out of poverty for themselves,
their families and communities is a fundamental tenet of the program. A central place
in trying to achieve the social ascension through eradicating poverty and uplifting the
community is taken up by local notions of ‘walang iwanan’ (leaving no one behind) and
‘bayanihan’ (collective work). Beneficiaries explained its importance as follows:
“We have this sense of a really strong family. It is, we call it, walang iwanan,
nobody is left behind. It’s that strong sense of family that I really don’t want to
leave them. I know how it feels like when someone left me.” (R4)

Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24 11 of 16
“Bayanihan is working together, literally, like working together, [
. . .
] to really
meet the goal. When we meet the goal, there is the victory, that’s maybe our goal,
to really meet the victory. That’s why people here when they need help, we call it
bayanihan. We want to see everyone’s victory in ourselves, victory in the place
and all over here in [the program.” (R8)
As the fragments above highlight, beneficiaries are imbued with the idea that social
entrepreneurship is a way out of poverty at both the individual and community level.
This sense of community, which is also strongly present in local culture, informs the social
entrepreneurial intention and functions as a strong motivating factor for beneficiaries who
want to lift their communities out of poverty through their social enterprises.
5. Discussion
5.1. Contributions
Our exploratory study, rooted in a qualitatively grounded approach, is concerned
with elucidating some of the disparities between various models of social entrepreneurial
intention with a view to clarify the emergence of social entrepreneurial intention at the
base of the pyramid.
First, conventional wisdom posits a positive link between education and entrepreneurial
intention (Raposo and Paço 2011). While our study is in line with these studies, it posits the
importance of cognitive social support in the creation of social entrepreneurial intention at
the base of the pyramid. In fact, our data suggest that the three mechanisms we described
above are key to the emergence of social entrepreneurial intention among the beneficiaries
we studied. However, the emergence of such social entrepreneurial intention does not occur
in a vacuum. It emerges at the interface of personal drivers and the specific environment
created by the NGO and the program it has developed. As already noted above, bene-
ficiaries need to overcome a ‘poverty mindset’, which holds them back. For this reason,
the entrepreneurship program that the NGO runs is developed and designed to work on
this cognitive aspect in parallel with providing access to hands-on learning and business
development opportunities. This ‘values transformation’, as they call it, is embedded in a
strong support component that aims to develop beneficiaries’ trust and self-confidence.
This social support extends in two dimensions, namely the individual support that is
institutionalized in one-to-one sessions, and the collective support that is institutionalized
in the weekly ‘Solidarity Assemblies’. The notions of bayanihan and walang iwanan are
strongly embedded in the latter. As highlighted earlier, these principles of bayanihan and
walang iwanan go hand in hand with the strong sense of belonging to a community, a
family. This is important for beneficiaries who in many cases have never left their home
community before and are now sometimes living thousands of kilometers away from their
relatives. In addition to providing some homely warmth, it also gives beneficiaries support
in persevering.
In this family, the most important role is taken up by the mentors who live with
the beneficiaries and provide them with both personal, emotional and academic support.
Mentors play an important role in helping to change the mindset of beneficiaries and build
their self-confidence and self-efficacy. Entrepreneurship literature has showed that an
entrepreneur’s social network is both an important source of information and at the same
time an important influence on the way an entrepreneur thinks (Gaglio and Winter 2009).
In the NGO-run program, mentors mobilize cognitive processes to assist beneficiaries in
developing entrepreneurship specific knowledge and establishing strategies for managing
their time and their goals.
While the program run by the NGO is an exogenous factor or disruptive event (Krueger
2009;Yessoufou et al. 2018) that has an impact on triggering social entrepreneurial intention,
what actually seems to matter most is the support provided by the program staff. It does
so by enabling two key processes to occur. On the one hand, it helps to break down the
cognitive schemata that are ingrained in a ‘poverty mindset’. These cognitive schemata are
linked to lower levels of self-confidence and perceived self-efficacy, which in turn dampen

Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24 12 of 16
goal-directed behavior (Haushofer and Fehr 2014), such as social enterprise creation. On the
other hand, the support also plays an enabling role as it enhances personal desirability that
beneficiaries hold about social entrepreneurship in terms of their social ascension beliefs or
what Krueger et al. (2000) called “personal impacts of outcomes”. This personal desirability is
also intertwined with their resilience and willingness to escape poverty. To these individual
variables, we can add collective factors mediated by the community goals of bayanihan and
walang iwanan. This also overlaps with Krueger’s (2009) notion of perceived social norms
and the importance of what significant others think as a precursor of perceived desirability
as the common objective that holds the program community together is the eradication of
poverty.
Second, while Krueger et al. (2000) state that personal and situational variables
typically have an indirect influence as antecedents of entrepreneurial intention, our study
shows that in our sample, the desire to escape poverty (personal variable) and social support
by the NGO (situational variable) are key factors in developing the social entrepreneurial
intention at the BoP. As such, they may have a more important role to play than suggested
by the literature so far (Krueger et al. 2000), especially for entrepreneurship in the context
of extreme poverty. For the beneficiaries in our sample, social entrepreneurial intention
depends on and is created through their NGO support. This seems to confirm Mair and
Noboa’s (2006) assertion of the importance of the social network as an antecedent to
perceived feasibility of a social entrepreneurial project. It is also in line with Yessoufou
et al.’s (2018) proposition on the importance of social networks in converting opportunity
into action.
Third, our study highlights the importance of building self-confidence among youths
at the base of the pyramid as an important step in developing perceived self-efficacy. This
is in line with Bandura’s (1997) distinction between self-confidence as a common cognitive
mechanism for mediating people’s motivation, thought patterns, emotional reactions, and
behavior; and self-efficacy, which is concerned with the judgments of what an individual
can accomplish with a certain set of skills. Brockner (1979) showed that individuals with
low self-beliefs typically have an elevated concern about their anxieties and inadequacies
that detracts from task performance. Brown (1993) argued that specific beliefs about one’s
competencies—in other words, perceived self-efficacy—are consequences of self-confidence.
Hence, we postulate self-confidence as a critical step is developing the perceived self-
efficacy of the youths at the base of the pyramid.
Fourth, BoP youths are strongly motivated by social ascension beliefs in terms in
which social enterprises are seen as vehicles through which they may escape poverty. This
finding seems to be in line with Yessoufou et al.’s (2018) finding that motivations of self-
fulfillment, income generation, and wealth creation strengthen the relationship between
opportunity development and challenging situations. Our findings, however, do extend
their insights, in that beneficiaries are not only concerned about their own emancipation out
of poverty but also about ending poverty for the family and community. While from a social
entrepreneurial perspective this might not be so surprising as serving the greater good may
be imbedded in the raison d’être of social enterprises, our findings are, to the best of our
knowledge, the first to highlight this with regard to social entrepreneurship at the BoP.
Finally, we enrich the model of social entrepreneurial intention by pinpointing the role
of social support in developing self-confidence and perceived self-efficacy and adding the
role of social ascension beliefs in the context of youths at BoP. So, we extend the model of
Hockerts (2017) by prioritizing self-confidence before self-efficacy and confirming the main
role of social support.
5.2. Limitations
This study has a number of limitations resulting from the choices made in setting
up and executing the research. Holstein and Gubrium (2011) argue that the interview
situation shapes the form and content of what is being said. Two concerns emerge from
this: the asymmetrical relationships between interviewer and interviewee as well as the

Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24 13 of 16
authenticity of participants’ accounts. There is also the risk of sample bias. Although
we did not identify any factors suggesting systematic biases, respondents who agreed to
participate in our study may have different experiences or viewpoints from those who
chose not to. Furthermore, the sample is drawn from a specific setting. This research context
cautions for generalizations beyond the current sample frame, i.e., people living in poverty
in developing countries. Further research in other contexts, experimental or survey-based,
might shed further light on our key findings. Indeed, while the choice of our research design
(qualitative exploratory inquiry) was motivated by the nature of the research question,
we encourage further scholarly work to adopt methodological approaches and sampling
methods that allow the validation of our empirical findings.
6. Conclusions
In this study, we investigated the emergence of social entrepreneurial intention among
youths at the BoP. While the beneficiaries participating in our study had no prior intention
of creating their own social enterprise before joining the NGO-run entrepreneurship pro-
gram, our findings highlight the role of different self-related beliefs (i.e., self-confidence,
perceived self-efficacy, and social ascension beliefs) as important drivers in understanding
the emergence of social entrepreneurial intention of youths at the base of the pyramid. At a
practical level, our study highlights the importance of cognitive social support and suggests
that in addition to a focus on the development of entrepreneurship specific knowledge,
support mechanisms should also focus on the development of different self-related beliefs
to enable the emergence of social entrepreneurial intention at the base of the pyramid.
Our findings highlight a number of implications for research and practice. By combin-
ing insights from ‘general’ entrepreneurial intentions models, social entrepreneurial models,
and BoP perspectives, we contribute to furthering our understanding of the emergence of
social entrepreneurial intentions amongst disadvantaged populations. Our findings shed a
new light on understanding the social entrepreneurial intention among these groups. The
most important implication of our findings is the importance of different self-related beliefs
in understanding the emergence of social entrepreneurial intentions amongst disadvan-
taged groups. We argue that it may be important to take self-related beliefs more explicitly
into consideration when investigating the levels of social entrepreneurial intention amongst
disadvantaged communities. Furthermore, as the literature on the psychology of poverty
suggests a link between poverty and reduced levels of self-related beliefs (Haushofer
2013), we encourage future scholarly work to investigate the mechanism about how self-
confidence, and other potential self-related beliefs, contribute to the emergence of social
entrepreneurial intention among disadvantaged populations.
With regard to the literature on social entrepreneurial intention, our findings suggest
that in addition to self-confidence, social ascension beliefs are an important driver of
social entrepreneurial intentions that have thus far not received sufficient attention. Our
findings contribute to furthering ‘general’ entrepreneurial intention models by highlighting
collective desirability (eradicating community poverty) in addition to personal desirability
as antecedents of perceived desirability. In light of increasing societal attention being
dedicated to issues of sustainability (Sachs 2015), this aspect of collective desirability
might emerge as an increasingly important driver of social entrepreneurial intentions.
Furthermore, our findings suggest that personal and situational variables might be more
important than suggested in contemporary models of entrepreneurial intentions (Krueger
2009). Developing the social entrepreneurial intention among the poor, we argue, is
different from developing such intentions among non-poor individuals in developed and
developing countries.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, F.C., Y.B., E.T.T.; methodology, F.C., Y.B., E.T.T.; formal
analysis, F.C., Y.B.; investigation, F.C., Y.B.; writing—original draft preparation, F.C., Y.B., E.T.T.;
writing—review and editing, F.C., Y.B., E.T.T.; visualization, Y.B., E.T.T. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24 14 of 16
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study.
Data Availability Statement:
The data are not publicly available due to privacy reasons of the
respondents.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Acheampong, George, and Mark Esposito. 2014. The Nature of Entrepreneurship in Bottom of the Pyramid Markets. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 21: 437–56. [CrossRef]
Agarwal, Nivedita, Ronika Chakrabarti, Alexander Brem, and Nancy Bocken. 2018. Market Driving at Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP):
An Analysis of Social Enterprises from the Healthcare Sector. Journal of Business Research 86: 234–44. [CrossRef]
Ajzen, Icek. 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Theories of Cognitive
Self-Regulation 50: 179–211. [CrossRef]
Bacq, Sophie, and Elisa Alt. 2018. Feeling Capable and Valued: A Prosocial Perspective on the Link between Empathy and Social
Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Business Venturing 33: 333–50. [CrossRef]
Bandura, Albert. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Bandura, Albert. 2000. Exercise of Human Agency through Collective Efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9: 75–78.
[CrossRef]
Brockner, Joel. 1979. The Effects of Self-Esteem, Success–Failure, and Self-Consciousness on Task Performance. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 37: 1732–41. [CrossRef]
Brown, Jonathon D. 1993. Self-Esteem and Self-Evaluation: Feeling Is Believing. In Psychological Perspectives on the Self: Volume 4: The
Self in Social Perspective. Edited by Jerry Suls. New York: Psychology Press, vol. 4, pp. 27–58.
Bullough, Amanda, Maija Renko, and Tamara Myatt. 2014. Danger Zone Entrepreneurs: The Importance of Resilience and Self-Efficacy
for Entrepreneurial Intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38: 473–99. [CrossRef]
Cañeque, Fernando Casado, and Stuart L. Hart, eds. 2017. Base of the Pyramid 3.0: Sustainable Development through Innovation and
Entrepreneurship. Abingdon: Routledge.
Carr, Stuart C. 2013. Anti-Poverty Psychology. New York: Springer.
Carr, Stuart C., and Tod S. Sloan, eds. 2003. Poverty and Psychology: From Global Perspective to Local Practice. New York: Springer Science
& Business Media.
Chatterjee, Susmita, Sangita Dutta Gupta, and Parijat Upadhyay. 2018. Empowering Women and Stimulating Development at Bottom
of Pyramid through Micro-Entrepreneurship. Management Decision 56: 160–74. [CrossRef]
Claeyé, Frederik, Michael Brookes, and Sandra Ramos. 2020. Social Entrepreneurship as a Vehicle for Inclusive Development. In
Business and Development Studies: Issues and Perspectives. Edited by Peter Lund-Thomsen, Michael Wendelboe Hansen and Adam
Lindgreen. Routledge Studies in Innovation, Organization and Technology. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 424–47.
Corley, Kevin G., and Dennis A. Gioia. 2004. Identity Ambiguity and Change in the Wake of a Corporate Spin-Off. Administrative
Science Quarterly 49: 173–208. [CrossRef]
Das, Kabita, Rajiba Lochan Behera, and Biswaranjan Paital. 2022. Socio-Economic Impact of COVID-19. In COVID-19 in the Environment.
Edited by Deepak Rawtani, Chaudhery Mustansar Hussain and Nitasha Khatri. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 153–90. [CrossRef]
Davidsson, Per, and Benson Honig. 2003. The Role of Social and Human Capital among Nascent Entrepreneurs. Journal of Business
Venturing 18: 301–31. [CrossRef]
De Beule, Filip, Martin Klein, and Ernst Verwaal. 2020. Institutional Quality and Inclusive Strategies at the Base of the Pyramid. Journal
of World Business 55: 101066. [CrossRef]
Dees, J. Gregory. 1998. Enterprising Nonprofits. Harvard Business Review 76: 54–67. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dembek, Krzysztof, Nagaraj Sivasubramaniam, and Danielle A. Chmielewski. 2020. A Systematic Review of the Bottom/Base of the
Pyramid Literature: Cumulative Evidence and Future Directions. Journal of Business Ethics 165: 365–82. [CrossRef]
Dolhey, Shivam. 2019. A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Entrepreneurial Intentions from 2000 to 2018. Journal of Research in
Marketing and Entrepreneurship 21: 180–99. [CrossRef]
Donaldson, Colin. 2019. Intentions Resurrected: A Systematic Review of Entrepreneurial Intention Research from 2014 to 2018 and
Future Research Agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 15: 953–75. [CrossRef]
Donaldson, Colin, Francisco Liñán, and Joaquin Alegre. 2021. Entrepreneurial Intentions: Moving the Field Forwards. The Journal of
Entrepreneurship 30: 30–55. [CrossRef]
Dye, Bruce, and Kelly Dye. 2018. Surfacing the Voices of the Other: Female Entrepreneurs in Manila. Journal of Small Business &
Entrepreneurship 30: 157–73. [CrossRef]
Francis, Jill J., Marie Johnston, Clare Robertson, Liz Glidewell, Vikki Entwistle, Martin P. Eccles, and Jeremy M. Grimshaw. 2010. What
Is an Adequate Sample Size? Operationalising Data Saturation for Theory-Based Interview Studies. Psychology & Health 25:
1229–45. [CrossRef]

Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24 15 of 16
Gaglio, Connie Marie, and Susan Winter. 2009. Entrepreneurial Alertness and Opportunity Identification: Where Are We Now? In
Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind: Opening the Black Box. Edited by Alan L. Carsrud and Malin Brännback. International
Studies in Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer, pp. 305–25. [CrossRef]
George, Gerard, Reddi Kotha, Priti Parikh, Tufool Alnuaimi, and Abubakr Bahaj. 2013. Wealth Shocks and Entrepreneurial Intentions:
Entrepreneurship in Rural Africa. Academy of Management Proceedings 2013: 12129. [CrossRef]
Gioia, Dennis A., Kevin G. Corley, and Aimee L. Hamilton. 2013. Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia
Methodology. Organizational Research Methods 16: 15–31. [CrossRef]
Goyal, Sandeep, Bruno S. Sergi, and Amit Kapoor. 2017. Emerging Role of For-Profit Social Enterprises at the Base of the Pyramid: The
Case of Selco. Journal of Management Development 36: 97–108. [CrossRef]
Haushofer, Johannes. 2013. The Psychology of Poverty: Evidence from 43 Countries. Working Paper. Princeton: Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty
Action Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Available online: http://www.princeton.edu/haushofer/publications/
Haushofer_2013.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2018).
Haushofer, Johannes, and Ernst Fehr. 2014. On the Psychology of Poverty. Science 344: 862–67. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Henning, Sanchen, and Kabira Akoob. 2017. Motivational Factors Affecting Informal Women Entrepreneurs in North-West Province.
The Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management 9: 1–10. [CrossRef]
Hockerts, Kai. 2017. Determinants of Social Entrepreneurial Intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41: 105–30. [CrossRef]
Holstein, James A., and Jaber F. Gubrium. 2011. Animating Interview Narratives. In Qualitative Research: Issues of Theory, Method and
Practice, 3rd ed. Edited by David Silverman. Los Angeles: Sage, pp. 149–67.
Ip, Ching Yin, Chaoyun Liang, Hsiang Ju Lai, and Yuan Jhen Chang. 2021. Determinants of Social Entrepreneurial Intention: An
Alternative Model Based on Social Cognitive Career Theory. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 31: 737–60. [CrossRef]
Krueger, Norris F. 1993. The Impact of Prior Entrepreneurial Exposure on Perceptions of New Venture Feasibility and Desirability.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18: 5–21. [CrossRef]
Krueger, Norris F. 2009. Entrepreneurial Intentions Are Dead: Long Live Entrepreneurial Intentions. In Understanding the Entrepreneurial
Mind: Opening the Black Box. Edited by Alan L. Carsrud and Malin Brännback. International Studies in Entrepreneurship. New
York: Springer, pp. 51–72. [CrossRef]
Krueger, Norris F., and Deborah V. Brazeal. 1994. Entrepreneurial Potential and Potential Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 18: 91–104. [CrossRef]
Krueger, Norris F., Michael D. Reilly, and Alan L. Carsrud. 2000. Competing Models of Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Business
Venturing 15: 411–32. [CrossRef]
Kushnirovich, Nonna, Sibylle Heilbrunn, and Liema Davidovich. 2018. Diversity of Entrepreneurial Perceptions: Immigrants vs.
Native Population. European Management Review 15: 341–55. [CrossRef]
Laborde, David, Will Martin, and Rob Vos. 2021. Impacts of COVID-19 on Global Poverty, Food Security, and Diets: Insights from
Global Model Scenario Analysis. Agricultural Economics 52: 375–90. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Liñán, Francisco, and Alain Fayolle. 2015. A Systematic Literature Review on Entrepreneurial Intentions: Citation, Thematic Analyses,
and Research Agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 11: 907–33. [CrossRef]
Mair, Johanna, and Ignasi Martí. 2006. Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight. Journal of
World Business 41: 36–44. [CrossRef]
Mair, Johanna, and Ernesto Noboa. 2006. Social Entrepreneurship: How Intentions to Create a Social Venture Are Formed. In Social
Entrepreneurship. Edited by Johanna Mair, Jeffrey Robinson and Kai Hockerts. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 121–35.
[CrossRef]
Manzoor, Faiza, Longbao Wei, Mohammad Nurunnabi, and Qazi Abdul Subhan. 2019. Role of SME in Poverty Alleviation in SAARC
Region via Panel Data Analysis. Sustainability 11: 6480. [CrossRef]
Miles, Matthew B., A. Michael Huberman, and Johnny Saldaña. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 3rd ed. Thousand
Oaks: SAGE.
Miller, Danny, and Isabelle Le Breton-Miller. 2017. Underdog Entrepreneurs: A Model of Challenge–Based Entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41: 7–17. [CrossRef]
Morris, Michael H., Susana C. Santos, and Xaver Neumeyer. 2020. Entrepreneurship as a Solution to Poverty in Developed Economies.
Business Horizons 63: 377–90. [CrossRef]
Murphy, Patrick J., and Susan M. Coombes. 2009. A Model of Social Entrepreneurial Discovery. Journal of Business Ethics 87: 325–36.
[CrossRef]
Murphy, Patrick J., Artem Kornetskyy, and Joseph T. Nixon. forthcoming. Delineating Novel Aspects of Social Enterprise Theory. Social
Enterprise Journal. [CrossRef]
Musona, Jackson, Kaisu Puumalainen, Helena Sjögrén, and Anna Vuorio. 2021. Sustainable Entrepreneurship at the Bottom of the
Pyramid: An Identity-Based Perspective. Sustainability 13: 812. [CrossRef]
Naudé, Wim. 2014. Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. In International Development. Ideas, Experiences and Prospects. Edited
by Bruce Currie-Alder, Ravi Kanbur, David M. Malone and Rohinton Medhora. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 311–22.
Newey, Lance R. 2018. “Changing the System”: Compensatory versus Transformative Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Social
Entrepreneurship 9: 13–30. [CrossRef]

Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 24 16 of 16
Pedrozo, Eugenio. 2015. Proposition of BoP 3.0 as an Alternative Model of Business for BoP (Base of Pyramid) Producers: Case Study
in Amazonia. In The Challenges of Management in Turbulent Times: Global Issues from Local Perspective. Edited by Marcela Rebeca
Contreras Loera and Andrzej Marja´nski. Mexico City: Universid de Occidente, vol. 189, pp. 189–203.
Périac, Fabrice, Albert David, and Quinetta Roberson. 2018. Clarifying the Interplay between Social Innovation and Sustainable
Development: A Conceptual Framework Rooted in Paradox Management. European Management Review 15: 19–35. [CrossRef]
Prahalad, C. K., and Stuart L. Hart. 1999. Strategies for the Bottom of the Pyramid: Creating Sustainable Development. Working Paper.
Available online: http://pdf.wri.org/2001summit_hartarticle.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2018).
Raposo, Mário, and Arminda do Paço. 2011. Special Issue: Entrepreneurship and Education—Links between Education and
Entrepreneurial Activity. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 7: 143–44. [CrossRef]
Rindova, Violina, Daved Barry, and David J. Ketchen Jr. 2009. Entrepreneuring as Emancipation. Academy of Management Review 34:
477–91. [CrossRef]
Sachs, Jeffrey D. 2015. The Age of Sustainable Development. New York: Columbia University Press.
Saebi, Tina, Nicolai J. Foss, and Stefan Linder. 2019. Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements and Future Promises. Journal
of Management 45: 70–95. [CrossRef]
Saldaña, Johnny, and Matt Omasta. 2018. Qualitative Research: Analyzing Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Santos, Susana C., and Xaver Neumeyer. 2021. Gender, Poverty and Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Literature Review and Future
Research Agenda. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 26: 2150018. [CrossRef]
Santos, Susana C., Xaver Neumeyer, and Michael H. Morris. 2019. Entrepreneurship Education in a Poverty Context: An Empowerment
Oerspective. Journal of Small Business Management 57: 6–32. [CrossRef]
Schreier, Margrit. 2018. Sampling and Generalization. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection. Edited by Uwe Flick.
London: SAGE, pp. 84–97.
Shapero, Albert. 1984. The Entrepreneurial Event. In The Environment for Entrepreneurship. Edited by C. Kent. Lexington: Lexington
Books, pp. 21–40.
Shapero, Albert, and Lisa Sokol. 1982. The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. In The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Edited
by C. Kent, D. Sexton and K. Vesper. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, pp. 72–90. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/
abstract=1497759 (accessed on 25 May 2018).
Shepherd, Dean A., and Norris F. Krueger. 2002. An Intentions-Based Model of Entrepreneurial Teams’ Social Cognition*. Entrepreneur-
ship Theory and Practice 27: 167–85. [CrossRef]
Simanis, Erik, and Stuart Hart. 2008. The Base of the Pyramid Protocol: Toward Next Generation BoP Strategy, 2nd ed. Ithaca: Center for
Sustainable Global Enterprise, Cornell University, Available online: http://www.stuartlhart.com/sites/stuartlhart.com/files/
BoPProtocol2ndEdition2008_0.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2018).
Sottini, Andrea, Giacomo Ciambotti, and David Littlewood. forthcoming. Engaging Symbiotic Ecosystems to Build Community
Centred Business Models for the BoP: Evidence from Small Social Enterprises in East Africa. International Small Business Journal.
[CrossRef]
Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliet M. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park:
Sage.
Sutter, Christopher, Garry D. Bruton, and Juanyi Chen. 2019. Entrepreneurship as a Solution to Extreme Poverty: A Review and Future
Research Directions. Journal of Business Venturing 34: 197–214. [CrossRef]
Tan, Luc Phan, Angelina Nhat Hanh Le, and Lan Pham Xuan. 2020. A Systematic Literature Review on Social Entrepreneurial Intention.
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 11: 241–56. [CrossRef]
Tracy, Sarah J. 2020. Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact, 2nd ed. Hoboken:
John Wiley & Sons.
Trivedi, Smita K., and Antoaneta P. Petkova. 2021. Women Entrepreneur Journeys from Poverty to Emancipation. Journal of Management
Inquiry. [CrossRef]
Usman, Sumaiya, Fazeelat Masood, Mubashir Ali Khan, and Naveed ur Rehman Khan. 2022. Impact of Empathy, Perceived
Social Impact, Social Worth and Social Network on the Social Entrepreneurial Intention in Socio-Economic Projects. Journal of
Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 14: 65–92. [CrossRef]
Venugopal, Srinivas, Madhubalan Viswanathan, and Kiju Jung. 2015. Consumption Constraints and Entrepreneurial Intentions in
Subsistence Marketplaces. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 34: 235–51. [CrossRef]
Yamini, Reza, Daria Soloveva, and Xiaobao Peng. forthcoming. What Inspires Social Entrepreneurship? The Role of Prosocial
Motivation, Intrinsic Motivation, and Gender in Forming Social Entrepreneurial Intention. Entrepreneurship Research Journal 1.
[CrossRef]
Yessoufou, Ahoudou W., Vincent Blok, and S. W. F. Omta. 2018. The Process of Entrepreneurial Action at the Base of the Pyramid in
Developing Countries: A Case of Vegetable Farmers in Benin. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 30: 1–28. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Yang, Juanita Trusty, Tatiana Goroshnikova, Louise Kelly, Kwok K. Kwong, Stephen J.J. McGuire, Juan Perusquia, Veena P.
Prabhu, Minghao Shen, and Robert Tang. 2021. Millennial Social Entrepreneurial Intent and Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy:
A Comparative Entrepreneurship Study. Social Enterprise Journal 17: 20–43. [CrossRef]