A MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK OF AGRICULTURALENTREPRENEURIAL DEVELOPMENT

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 2 ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND AGRICULTURE

INTRODUCTION

This study is embedded in the phenomenon of land reform in Namibia and the need for reinvigorating the instruments for its effective and efficient implementation. Chapter one narrated the challenges of land reform in Namibia as evidenced by studies (Werner & Odendaal, 2010; Ministry of Lands and Resettlement, 2010) undertaken to assess its impact on the livelihood of beneficiaries, particularly the NRP and AALS farmers. Chapter one also highlighted the importance of agriculture as a vital development tool for achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goals; as key to employment, growth and poverty reduction in Africa; as a livelihood; and as provider of environmental services, making it a unique instrument for development. Notwithstanding the importance attached to it, the agricultural sector has long been neglected in terms of policy focus and resource allocation. In Sub-Saharan Africa, only 4 per cent of total government spending goes to farming (Bach & Pinstrup-Andersen, 2008:2). Various scholars (Kelley et al. 2010; Richards & Bulkley, 2007;Valliere & Peterson, 2009) point to the critical role that entrepreneurship can play in bringing greater efficiency to agriculture, extraction and other industries. These authors regard entrepreneurs as drivers and shapers of innovation, thereby speeding up structural changes in the economy. Yet little scholarly research has been conducted on agricultural entrepreneurs. In light of the relevance of agriculture and entrepreneurship for developing economies such as Namibia,
the frame of research for this study is entrepreneurship in the agriculture sector of Namibia.In an effort to develop the theoretical framework for this study, this chapter reviews literature relating to entrepreneurship and agriculture, particularly those factors which
influence entrepreneurial performance.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

In the sub-section which follows, a historical perspective of entrepreneurship will be presented.

Historical perspective and definition of entrepreneurship

Cunningham and Lischeron (1991:45) state that the term “entrepreneur” derives from the French verb “entreprendre” meaning to “undertake” and was translated from the German verb “unternehmen” which also mean “to undertake”. The authors point out that in the early sixteenth century, entrepreneurs were thought of as Frenchmen who undertook to lead military expeditions. De Farcy and Berthold (in Cunningham & Lischeron, 1991:50) state that French economists also used the word to describe people who bore risk and uncertainty in order to make innovations. This is in line with Cantillion (1755) who is quoted as follows: “The entrepreneur buys at a certain price and sells at an uncertain price”(Antonites, 2003:27). Cantillon was the first to offer a clear conception of the entrepreneurial function as a whole (Filion, 1997:3).Filion (1997:3) highlights the fact that not only did entrepreneurship originate from the science of economics alone as is popular belief, but that the readings of both Cantillon(1755) and Say (1803; 1815; 1816; 1839) reveal that they were also interested in the managerial aspects of enterprises, business development and business management.Jean-Baptiste Say was the second author to take an interest in entrepreneurs, (Filion, 1997:3). According to this author, Say viewed entrepreneurs as agents of change and became the first to define the boundaries of what an entrepreneur, in the modern sense of the term, actually is. However, it was Schumpeter who really launched the field of entrepreneurship, by associating it clearly with innovation (Filion, 1997:3). Schumpeter (in Filion, 1997:3) states the following in relation to entrepreneurship:
“The essence of entrepreneurship lies in the perception and exploitation of new opportunities in the realm of business…it always has to do with bringing about a different use of national resources in that they are withdrawn from their traditional employ and subjected to new combinations”.Accentuating Filion (1997), Lumpkin and Dess (1996:142) state that Schumpeter was among the first to emphasize the role of innovation in the entrepreneurial process. According to these authors, Schumpeter outlined an economic process of “creative destruction”, which essentially means that wealth was created when existing market structures were disrupted by the introduction of new goods or services that shifted resources away from existing firms and caused new firms to grow (Lumpkin & Dess,1996:142). It follows from the above quotation that in Schumpeter’s view, entrepreneurs are not just innovators, but are also important agents of economic development. Knight (in Filion, 1997:4) showed that because of the state of uncertainty in which entrepreneurs worked, they assumed a risk and were rewarded accordingly by the profits they made from such activities.
Filion (1997:4) posits that although entrepreneurs are mentioned in economics, they however, appear scarcely – and sometimes not at all – in the classical models of economic development. Filion (1997:4) further argues that the refusal by economists to accept nonquantifiable models led the world of entrepreneurship to turn to the behaviourists for more in-depth knowledge of the entrepreneur’s behaviour. Consequently, a number of writers in behavioural science sprung to the fore to fill the void left by economists’ approach to entrepreneurship. One of the first authors from this group to show an interest in entrepreneurs was Max Weber who identified the value system as a fundamental element in explaining entrepreneurial behaviour and viewed entrepreneurs as innovators, independent people whose role as business leaders conveyed a source of formal authority (Filion, 1997:5). However, McClelland (in Filion, 1997:5) who is regarded as having really launched the contribution of the behavioural science to entrepreneurship defines entrepreneurs as follows:
“An entrepreneur is someone who exercises control over production that is not just for his personal consumption. According to my definition, for example, an executive in a steel-producing unit in the USSR is an entrepreneur”. Cunningham and Lischeron (1991:46) identified and analysed six schools of thought on entrepreneurship. These are: Great Person School, Psychological School, Classical School, Management School, Leadership School and Intrapreneurship School, as depicted in Table 2.1 below.

READ PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SPING WATERS

DECLARATION OF ORIGINAL WORK
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
APPENDICES
1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 NAMIBIA’S AGRICULTURE AND LAND REFORM
1.2.1 Agriculture sector’s structure and role
1.2.2 Land Reform
1.3 LITERATURE REVIEW
1.3.1 Definition of key constructs
1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.5 IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY
1.6 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1.6.1 Primary Objective
1.6.2 Secondary Objectives
1.7 HYPOTHESES
1.8 DEMARCATION AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
1.9 METHODOLOGY
1.9.1 Research Design
1.9.2 Sampling
1.9.3 Data Collection
1.9.4 Data Analysis
1.10 OUTLINE OF THE CHAPTERS
2 CHAPTER 2 ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND AGRICULTURE
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 ENTREPRENEURSHIP
2.2.1 Historical perspective and definition of entrepreneurship
2.2.2 Contemporary perspectives on entrepreneurship
2.3 ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
2.4 ENABLING ENVIRONMENT: COOPERATIVE AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES
2.5 ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION
2.6 AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
2.6.1 Agriculture and economic development
2.6.2 Agricultural sustainability
2.7 ENTREPRENEURIAL PERFORMANCE
2.8 SUMMARY
3 CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP
3.3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS ON AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT
3.4 CRITICAL REVIEW OF ENTREPRENEURIAL CONCEPTS, FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS
3.5 CRITICAL REVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL CONCEPTS, FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS
3.6 ENTREPRENEURIAL PERFORMANCE AND AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
3.7 STAKEHOLDERS AND ENTREPRENEURIAL PERFORMANCE
3.8 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF AGRICULTURAL-ENTREPRENEURIAL DEVELOPMENT
3.9 SUMMARY
4 CHAPTER 4 A MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK OF AGRICULTURALENTREPRENEURIAL DEVELOPMENT.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ON MEASURING INSTRUMENTS
4.2.1 Measurement instruments for supportive environment
4.2.2 Measurement instruments for entrepreneurial orientation
4.2.3 Measurement instruments for entrepreneurial competencies
4.2.4 Measurement instruments for entrepreneurial performance
4.2.5 Measurement instrument for agricultural sustainability
4.2.6 Measurement instrument for entrepreneurial outcomes
4.3 REVIEWING LITERATURE ON STATISTICAL MODELLING
4.3.1 Measurement Model
4.3.2 Structural model
4.4 THE AEDM
4.4.1 Measurement model for EP
4.4.2 Measurement model for SE
4.4.3 Measurement model for EO
4.4.4 Measurement model for EC
4.4.5 Measurement model for AS
4.4.6 Measurement model for entrepreneurial outcomes
4.4.7 Structural models
4.5 SUMMARY
5 CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
5.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
5.4 HYPOTHESES
5.5 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
5.5.1 Research design
5.5.2 Sampling
5.5.3 Data collection
5.5.4 Data analysis
5.6 SUMMARY
6 CHAPTER 6 DATA ANALYSIS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
6.3 INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
6.3.1 Measurement models
6.3.2 Structural model
6.3.3 Hypothesis testing
6.4 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
6.5 SUMMARY
7 CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
7.2.1 Findings from theory
7.2.2 Findings from empirical research
7.3 CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY
7.3.1 Contribution to the scientific body of knowledge
7.3.2 Contribution to policymaking and practice
7.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
7.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
7.5.1 Recommendations for future research
7.5.2 Recommendations for future practice
7.6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
8 LIST OF REFERENCES
9 APPENDIX A