NECESSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP: AN EMERGING FIELD

NECESSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP: AN EMERGING FIELD Introduction 1. a. b. c. Necessity Entrepreneurship as a socioeconomic phenomenon A way to reduce unemployment? A way to reduce discrimination? A way to reduce poverty? 2. a. b. c. Necessity Entrepreneurship as a human-being phenomenon Re-questioning entrepreneurship motivations Re-questioning entrepreneurial psychological capital Re-questioning the role of human and social capital in entrepreneurship 3. a. b. c. Necessity Entrepreneurship as a process-based phenomenon Usefulness of process-based approaches in entrepreneurship Usefulness of “emerging theories” in entrepreneurship Usefulness of the philosophical view of the entrepreneurial “becoming” process 4. a. b. c. Necessity Entrepreneurship: A research agenda Towards a reconceptualization Towards new theories Towards new methodologies Conclusion 1 Introduction Entrepreneurship mostly remains, at the turn of the twenty-first century, a Schumpeterian matter of heroic, risk-taking and successful behaviours by few talented individuals. Researchers, media and governments alike often adopt an ideological rhetoric of innovation-driven, economy-growing and job-creating processes. Most political leaders worldwide share this vision that « the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things […] have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom […] Entrepreneurs embody […] the idea that if you have a good idea and are willing to work hard and see it through, you can succeed. And in fulfilling this promise, entrepreneurs also play a critical role in expanding economy and creating jobs. »1. Most entrepreneurship research papers concentrate on identifying how and why individuals become successful entrepreneurs, based on their personality traits, social networks, skills and ability to identify and develop opportunities, in order to ensure innovation and economic growth (Wennekers S., Thurik R., 1999; Acs Z., Varga A., 2005; Ardichvili A., Cardozo R., Ray S. 2013). In the past fifteen years, however, alternate analyses have emerged aside from the mainstream rhetoric on entrepreneurship, to challenge neo-liberal orthodox views. In 2012, Organization published a special issue on Critical perspectives in entrepreneurship research, aiming at exploring “the ‘taken for granted’ norms of entrepreneurship scholarship as a whole, including its ideologies, dominant assumptions, grand narratives, samples and methods…[Indeed, this focus on the normative assumption that] entrepreneurship is a ‘desirable’ economic activity, perceived unquestioningly as positive, obscures important questions” (Tedmanson D., Verduyn K., Essers C., Gartner W.B., 2012, p.1). Exploring Necessity Entrepreneurship is thus an interesting challenge for researchers, in order to address “the tiny fraction of entrepreneurs who have little or nothing they need from us. And let’s face it, highly paid, highly skilled, highly resourced consultants consistently do a better job of discovering ‘what works’ for high-profile entrepreneurs than do academic researchers... In contrast, [research] that have some promise of being relevant to entrepreneurs and communities that can benefit from our work [are] extraordinarily exciting» (Baker T., Welter F., 2015, p.10). Necessity Entrepreneurship has been defined for the first time by Reynolds P.D., Camp S.M., Bygrave W.D., Autio E., Hay M. (2002, p.8) as “reflecting to the individual’s perception that such actions [setting up a venture] presented the best option available for employment but not necessarily the preferred option”, referring to the well-established theory of push and pull motivations, as described by Shapero A. (1975). Although the concept of Necessity Entrepreneurship is derived from a microanalysis of individual’s motivations, expressing a behavioural difference with opportunity-driven entrepreneurs, it has first been developed for macro explanations of surprisingly high rates of entrepreneurial activity in developing countries. The term coined in 2001 by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2 reflects the answer of an 1 Inaugural Address of President Obama. https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/01/21/president-barackobamas-inaugural-address and https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/31/white-houselaunch-startup-america-initiative. 2 The « Global Entrepreneurship Monitor » (http://gemconsortium.org) is the largest and most developed independent research program on entrepreneurship in the world. Initiated in 1999 in ten countries, it has 2 entrepreneur to a single question: a necessity-driven entrepreneur is an individual who indicates in the GEM Adult Population Survey that he/she started the business because there were no better options to obtain resources for living, rather than starting it as a result of an opportunity recognition. Necessity Entrepreneurship, although challenging to define, implies setting up a venture by default, with no preliminary intention, to address a purely economic need of making revenues, as other options, especially wage employment, are unavailable. Necessity entrepreneurs try to escape longterm unemployment or sudden lay-off, by creating their own, mostly precarious job. Necessity Entrepreneurship is an involuntary, constrained choice, due to external circumstances, also called “push factors”, occurring in an adverse context. Most studied necessity entrepreneur categories are women, minorities, seniors and youth. This necessity/opportunity dichotomy that reads the rationales for entrepreneurship primarily in terms of a structure/agency binary, classifying entrepreneurs either as pushed due to structural factors or pulled by choice and the recognition of an opportunity, has moved center-stage in much of the recent literature. Researchers have developed an increasing, yet still mild, interest for the field of Necessity Entrepreneurship3, in an effort to support governments worldwide fighting the plague of rising unemployment rates and dulling economies. This concept has gained strong support from researchers because of its simplicity and coherence. Academic journals and research conferences now regularly devote articles and communications to Necessity Entrepreneurship (Wennekers S., Van Stel A., Thurik R., Reynolds P., 2005; Shane, 2009; Carlsrud A., Brännback M., 2011; Block, J.H., Kohn, K., Miller, D., 2015). Researchers from different areas share an interest for this construct, but they approach it from very different, sometimes irreconcilable angles, serving diverging demonstrations or complementary perspectives; be it economy (Thurik A.R., Carree M.A., Van Stel A.J., Audretsch D.B., 2008), law (Perulli A., 2003; Kautonen T., Down S., Welter F., Vainio P., Palmroos J., Althoff K., Kolb S., 2010), psycho-sociology (Brasseur M., 2010) or management (Jaouen A., Lasch F., 2013). Based on this premise, Necessity Entrepreneurship shall be a full fledge concept, inspiring, among others, scholars, practitioners and policy makers. Such is not the case, as this emerging construct has suffered harsh criticism (Rosa P. & al. 2009; Smallbone D., Welter F., 2003; Williams C., 2009; Shane S., 2009; Vorley T., Rodgers P., 2012). The research on Necessity Entrepreneurs remain sparse, as several questions are unsolved: is the concept valid and functional? What really is the impact of Necessity Entrepreneurship on economic growth. What is the survival rate of necessity businesses? What is the role of negative motivations versus external push factors? The numerous open questions clearly demonstrate the gnawing gap available for research. This contribution aims at shading light on this promising but somehow misleading concept of Necessity Entrepreneurship. We strongly believe it is the right time and place to disentangle the expanded in 2015 to more than one hundred countries. Over two hundred thousand entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship experts have been interviewed by renowned institutions worldwide, to provide invaluable data sets. 3 A thorough international literature review indicates that pushed/forced/constrained entrepreneurship was studied in less than ten reviewed articles before 2000, while over forty-five articles on Necessity Entrepreneurship have been published in ranked reviews between 2000 and 2014. 3 various issues associated with the notion, so that they can be fruitfully addressed. Our objective is to rejuvenate this research domain, by deeply analyzing the literature and generating research propositions and avenues. Therefore, this article will firstly provide a comprehensive view of the state-of-the-art concerning this research field, relying on an extensive literature review. Our literature review claims to be comprehensive, trans-disciplinary and multilingual: being a qualitative content analysis, it strongly relies on the principles of the Systematic Literature Review (Appendix A). The monograph proposes, in chapter one, an analysis of Necessity Entrepreneurship as a socioeconomic phenomenon, in a context of unemployment, discrimination, poverty and dysfunctions on the labor markets worldwide. Then, the lens focuses on the human implications of Necessity Entrepreneurship, in terms of motivation, psychological, human and eventually social capital. In a third section, a thorough analysis of the process-based approach is provided, encompassing orthodox, emerging and behavioral views on the concept. The fourth and final section opens on a research agenda, providing venues for future research, applying new theories and methodologies to a reshaped concept. Chapter 1: Necessity Entrepreneurship as a socioeconomic phenomenon For over forty years, to face global lingering crises, increasing unemployment rates, on-going discrimination at work and raising poverty rates, researchers and governments alike have regarded entrepreneurship as a potential magic bullet, as mentioned by OECD General Secretary in 2011: “Entrepreneurship needs to be promoted as it is a formidable channel for economic and social progress. Inclusive growth requires the promotion of entrepreneurial skills and opportunities across societies. In this regard, it is particularly important to engage young people and women, who have been badly hit by the crisis.”4 In this regard, the distinction between necessity and opportunity entrepreneurship has led to some interesting new insights into the socioeconomic dimension of entrepreneurship. Some researchers recommend to identify Necessity Entrepreneurs in order to direct investments, not towards those unmotivated, unexperienced, unsuccessful entrepreneurs, but rather towards opportunity-driven teams (Girard, 2007; Schoar, 2009). On the other hand, an even more prevailing trend tend to consider Necessity Entrepreneurship as a tool to eradicate unemployment, discrimination and poverty (Bergmann H., Sternberg R., 2007; Thurik, A.R. Carree, M.A. Van Stel, A.J., Audretsch, D.B.,2008 ; Levratto N. et Serverin E., 2015). Some researchers, however, focus their work on the negative impacts of Necessity Entrepreneurship at an individual, economic and societal level (Armstrong, 2005; Shane S. 2009; Fayolle A., 2011). a. A way to reduce unemployment? Most industrialized countries face similar socioeconomic issues, i.e. aging population, debtburdened federal budgets, soaring unemployment, especially among long-lasting unemployed, seniors and low skilled youth. For the most part, they apply similar public policies to face these problems: decreasing pensions and welfare assistance, lower entry barriers to entrepreneurship, 4 http://www.oecd.org/industry/publicationsdocuments/speechespresentations/3/ 4 forcing individuals to find jobs. According to OECD, « nearly 26 million people in the European Union are unemployed and actively seeking work. One of the responses to moving people back into work is through business creation and self-employment ».5 Those initiatives are push factors generating Necessity Entrepreneurship (Cowling M. et Mitchell P., 1997). As an example, Necessity Entrepreneurship has jumped from 16% in 2007 up to 28% in 2010 in the United-States, due to the systemic crisis (Figueroa-Armijos M., Dabson B, Johnson T., 2012). In developing countries, where informal and self-employment are a norm, social welfare is reduced and corruption is high, Necessity Entrepreneurship reaches high scores: “necessity-driven entrepreneurship is highest in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, where 30% of entrepreneurs, on average, cite this motive” (GEM, 2016, p.23). Oxenfeldt, A., (1943), in New Firms and Free Enterprise, already described unemployment as a push factor, followed by Hakim C. (1989) and Aronson R. (1991). Necessity Entrepreneurship is commonly referred to as the unemployment push or refugee effect (Thurik et al., 2008). Unemployment or adverse economic perspectives entail some individuals to become entrepreneurs (Bergmann H., Sternberg R., 2007), especially self-employed, while Opportunity Entrepreneurship is explained by the entrepreneurial effect, where a thriving economy provides opportunity to set up and develop ventures. Ritsilä, Tervo (2002), Niefert, Tchouvakhina (2006), Welter F., Kolb S., Althof K. (2007), Venancio A. (2013), Cheung (2015) find a positive but non-linear effect of personal unemployment on the propensity of an individual to become self-employed. Startiene G., Remeikiene T. (2009) confirms the strong correlation between the number of new ventures created, and two push factors, being the average duration of unemployment and the low level of education. Moore C., Muller M. (2002), Bhola R., Verheul I., Grilo I. (2006) and Block J., Wagner M. (2010) also conclude that long-lasting unemployment favor Necessity Entrepreneurship and self-employment. Singh G., Denoble A. (2003), Smeaton D. (2003), Weber P., Schaper M. (2004) and Bell D., Rutherford A. (2013) describe how this phenomenon especially apply to seniors. Cowling M. et Bygrave W. (2003) confirm this hypothesis, correlating Necessity Entrepreneurship with high unemployment rates, especially among the youth this time, reputed for having a weak human capital. Tang Y. (2013) confirms previous studies in China (Yanfu & al., 2003; Hernandez E.M. & al., 2012), applying to most emerging economies: most entrepreneurs make this choice out of necessity, especially women and self-employed. Only Bergmann H. and Sternberg R. (2007) underline that empirical studies are contradictory concerning a possible correlation between high unemployment rates and Necessity Entrepreneurship. Additional push factors have been identified: Wenneker R.M. (2005) mentions a negative correlation between GDP per capita and Necessity Entrepreneurship. Mitchell D.T., Campbell N.D. (2009) define corruption as a push factor in both developed and developing countries. Since there is a large consensus on the fact that high unemployment rates push individuals into Necessity Entrepreneurship, and that public policies tend to encourage this trend, the question is whether it is efficient or not. On this matter, research papers mostly converge concerning the 5 http://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/inclusive-entrepreneurship.htm 5 macro-economic effects. This has been examined in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor studies, which tend to judge Necessity Entrepreneurship, as opposed to opportunity entrepreneurship, as a negative factor as far as national growth and development are concerned (Allen & al., 2006; Reynolds & al., 2002; Sternberg and Bergman, 2003). Involuntary business start-ups are unlikely to generate significant positive externalities. Thurik and al. (2008) conclude that the “entrepreneurial” effects are considerably stronger than the “refugee” effects, suggesting that Necessity Entrepreneurship is much less efficient in reducing unemployment than a vivid innovation-driven economy. Countries with a low ratio of opportunity to necessity entrepreneurs have proved to have a low GDP per capita (Reynolds et al., 2002; Acs and Varga, 2005; Kelley, Bosma, Amoros, 2011). Wennekers & al. (2005) and Wong, Ho and Autio (2005) analyzed the 2002 GEM data set for about 36 countries and showed that only high-potential entrepreneurial activity influences economic growth rates. Another negative externality is the higher cost of business ventures created out of necessity versus opportunity. Researchers conclude that slowpaced economies create few jobs, have dysfunctional labor markets, endure high long-term unemployment rates and thus reinforce entrepreneurship for negative reasons while discouraging opportunity entrepreneurship, in an ever-lasting vicious circle. Moreover, start-ups by unemployed persons are found to have a slower pace of employment growth (Ritsilä, Tervo, 2002). Niefert and Tchouvakhina (2006) show that start-ups by unemployed individuals more often than other start-ups occur in industries with low market entry barriers and low capital requirements. Furthermore, these ventures are characterized by a lower number of employees (Van Stel A. et al., 2013). In their study, about 70% of all start-ups by unemployed individuals were one-person start-ups. Necessity and opportunity entrepreneurs differ in their growth aspirations; opportunity entrepreneurs want to grow faster than necessity entrepreneurs (Baptista R, Karaöz M & Mendonça J., 2014). In GEM 2001, 14% of opportunity entrepreneurs expected to create more than 20 jobs, whereas only 2% of necessity entrepreneurs had these expectations (Reynolds et al., 2002). Those entrepreneurs lack skills and required knowledge to sustain their venture, reducing the positive refugee effect on unemployment in the long run (Giacomin, O., Guyot, J-L., Janssen, F. and O. Lohest, 2007; Thompson P. (2011); Furdas M., Kohn K., 2011). Sternberg R., Bergman H. (2003), Zali M. & al. (2013) and Calderon G., Iacovone L., Juarez L, (2016) explain that necessity ventures have a lower survival rate, are less profitable and grow slowlier than opportunity businesses. Taylor M. (1996), Andersson A.R. (2005), Johanson L. (2007) and Andersson P., Wadensjö E. (2007) have all demonstrated that previously unemployed entrepreneurs mostly return to unemployment rather than wage jobs. Most of the studies that have discussed reluctant business start-ups indicate that individuals who have been “pushed” into selfemployment have lower income levels than those driven primarily by “pull” motives (Andersson and Wadensjo, 2007; Block and Wagner, 2007, 2010; Hugues, 2003). Kellar K. & al. (2002) believe that this is partly the result of the involuntary self-employed often seeing their business activity as a temporary constraint, which is why they are less interested in developing them. Perulli A. (2003), Van Stel A. & al. (2007), Hollon J. (2009), Grüner H. (2010) and Levratto N., Serverin E. (2015) all underline another thorny issue: self-employment by necessity is often the result of an increasing and harmful “grey zone” on the labor markets, where employers worldwide 6 push their employees to set up their own venture to outsource the risks and taxes, gaining flexibility but creating job insecurity, using “freelancers”, “pay rolling” or “umbrella companies”. Independent workers represent over 15% of the European workforce (Itg group, 2014). MacDonald F. (1996) already denounced the fallacious discourse on a « welfare underclass », aiming at developing self-employment. However, the widespread assumption that Necessity Entrepreneurs hardly contribute to economic development is sustained by few empirical findings. Indeed, a negative start-up motive as such does not necessarily mean that the business could not thrive in the long term, given that many necessity-oriented entrepreneurs turn into more opportunity-oriented ones as their businesses become more established (Williams, 2007). Block and Sandner (2009) and Caliendo M., Kritikos A.S. (2010) even found that being necessity or opportunity-driven does not impact on the business success for individuals who started up in their own professional field: experience in a familiar branch has been noted to predict success and good profitability. Kelley D.J., Bosma N., Amoros J.E. (2011) stress that Necessity Entrepreneurship is a way to create employment and to put an economy back on the right track. Acs Z. & Szerb L. (2007) admit it can also help develop a local beneficial entrepreneurial culture. b. A way to reduce discrimination? Necessity Entrepreneurship can act as an “escape route” from employer discrimination, encouraged by public policies like OECD’s inclusive entrepreneurship initiative, contributing to “social inclusion to give all people an equal opportunity to start up and operate businesses. Target groups are those who are disadvantaged and under-represented in entrepreneurship and self-employment, including youth, women, seniors, ethnic minorities and immigrants, disabled people and many other groups” 6. Scholars, whose studies mostly analyze developed countries, have described self-employment as a constrained choice for migrants enduring blocked opportunities, unemployment and discrimination (Pecoud, 2010; Constant A., Zimmermann K., 2006). Following up on the disadvantage theory of business enterprise (Light and Rosenstein, 1995), some researchers suggest that ethnic minorities are pushed towards necessity or survivalist entrepreneurship because of social exclusion, marginalization and high unemployment rates (Boyd R., 2000; Hammarstedt M., 2001; Maritz A., 2004; Clark et Drinkwater 2000; Startiene G., Remeikiene T., 2009). Due to language barriers or low educational levels, migrants might not find a job in the host country’s wage labor market or are blocked upward social mobility: Khosa R.M., Kalitanyi V. (2015) describe the case of middleage male Africans migrating to South Africa. In some countries, institutional and economic corruption prevent discriminated ethnic minorities form accessing federal or even waged jobs. Proportionally, more women than men start a business out of ‘necessity’ (GEM, 2014), but literature investigating the effect of gender on the form of entrepreneurship offers mixed results (Block & Sandner, 2009; Block & Wagner, 2007). Poschke (2013) points out that female entrepreneurs in OECD countries are actually less likely to be necessity entrepreneurs, while Orhan & Scott (2001) identify several attributes closely associated with Necessity Entrepreneurship that 6 The Missing Entrepreneurs 2014, OECD report 7 were particularly common among female entrepreneurs. These were insufficient family income, dissatisfaction with the salary offered for employment, “glass ceiling” effect, harassment, difficulty finding a job and lack of flexibility in their schedule to accommodate household responsibilities. Concerning senior necessity entrepreneurs, conclusions are blurred: Bergmann & Sternberg (2007) did not find a significant effect of age on Necessity Entrepreneurship, but Wagner (2005) found an inverse U-shaped relationship existing in the case of Necessity Entrepreneurship. Most disabled individuals claim to be necessity entrepreneurs (Arnold N., Ipsen C., 2005). It is worth stressing that Necessity Entrepreneurship in these cases is not related to the individual capabilities or traits towards entrepreneurship, but by the external constraint exercised by discrimination demonstrated by employers and society as a whole. Studies are widely not positive on the outcome of this type of forced entrepreneurship. For instance, migrants invest in sectors with unattractive conditions, like long working hours, low return on investments, precarious working conditions, higher work accident rates, and poor social benefits (Pecoud, 2010). Satisfaction of senior necessity entrepreneurs towards income, health, job security and retirement savings has been found to be strikingly lower (Hugues, 2003; Benz, 2005; Block and Köellinger, 2009; Lewis K. et Walker E., 2011; Fayolle A., 2011); maybe due to the fact that those individuals are less able of the required resilience. In the same way, research by Jones (2011) and Pagan-Rodriquez (2012) demonstrate that those with a disability appear less likely to stress the positive outcomes or motivations of self-employment such as a desire for independence or ability to explore market opportunities, rather than stressing paucity of alternatives and Necessity Entrepreneurship. Blackburn R.N. and Ram M. (2006) demonstrate that young underqualified individuals pushed into entrepreneurship in the 90’s by the British government have hardly developed their businesses, as they chose precarious and hazardous jobs in low-entry barriers’ sectors, with fierce competition and low revenues. MacDonald F. (1996) stresses that those failures leave individuals with more debts, disillusionment, and welfare dependency. Moreover, discriminated minorities become discriminated entrepreneurs, less able to raise funds and conclude partnerships. However, some researchers stress that this form of Necessity Entrepreneurship, although not socially inclusive, still contributes to an improved economic and a stabilized personal situation (Olomi D., 2001; Le Breton-Miller I., 2017). De Clercq D. and Honig B. (2011) explain how entrepreneurship can be an integration and social rise factor for disadvantaged individuals, if their specificities are taken into account. c. A way to reduce poverty? Initially, Necessity Entrepreneurship described small ventures set up, especially by women, in developing countries, as a mean to escape poverty and survive (Reynolds P. and al., 2002, p.56; Wennekers S. & al., 2001, 2005), since women ‘face higher barriers to entry in the formal labor market and have to resort to entrepreneurship as a way out of unemployment and, often, out of poverty’ (Minniti and Naudé, 2010, p.279). 8 The concept proposed by GEM and widely adopted by the research community, as part of the value creation paradigm, means that poor people in low-income and developing countries are forced into entrepreneurship, while entrepreneurs in developed countries pursue profitable and innovative market opportunities. Those survivalist entrepreneurs emerge in a low-welfare, high-corruption context and the outcome of this process is diversely described. One key to developing Necessity Entrepreneurship is related to microcredit, the provision of tiny loans to the poor to allow them to establish a range of very simple income-generating activities, based on the idea of Yunus M., 2006 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, for sustainable bottom-up development. According to Blackburn R.A., Ram M. (2006) and Serviere L. (2010), however, the level of satisfaction of such necessity entrepreneurs is low: they are little educated, previously unemployed, make little benefits out of their business, are socially and economically ostracized, and feel harsh frustration in forcing their family into this highly risky adventure. Survivalist entrepreneurs lack legitimacy as much as funds (Sarason Y. & al., 2006), and increase their risk of failure, by creating in a fragile situation of bounded rationality. Banerjee A. & Duflo E. (2012) emphasize this paradox: the overall performance of ventures created out of necessity by poor people is weak, while their marginal return is decent, which imply they should grow for profit, which in their context of scarce resources and network is elusive. Harbi and Anderson (2010) point out the crucial role of institutions in the passage from necessity to opportunity entrepreneurship. Bjǿrnskov and Foss (2007, p. 324) suggest that monetary policy, government spending and financial environment are key factors influencing positively necessity entrepreneurial activity. Critical studies have pointed to the pitfalls of outsourcing development to micro-entrepreneurs, indicating that such initiatives alone are unlikely to address the structural causes of poverty (Bateman and Chang, 2012; Eversole, 2004; Dolan, 2012). Despite its origin, very few research scrutinize Necessity Entrepreneurship in developing countries (Maritz A., 2004; Thurik A.R., Carree M.A., Van Stel A.J., Audretsch D.B., 2008; Serviere L., 2010), and cultural differences leading to misinterpretation are underestimated. For instance, only public and multinational employment is considered a proper job in most developing countries, distorting most studies’ empirical results. Rosa P. & al. (2009) even express sharp criticism towards the concept of Necessity Entrepreneurship: according to their research, poor people are so busy with daily survival chores that they have no opportunity to even think of setting up a business, having no savings, but being often burdened with debts. Moreover, supply does not always create demand, and the cohorts of struggling informal microbusinesses cannot develop if potential customers have a limited purchasing power. Based on these much contrasted conclusions on the sour results of Necessity Entrepreneurship as a tool to reduce unemployment, discrimination and poverty, a possibility is to consider this economic phenomenon in connection with the theory of second best. Indeed, for individuals who start out of necessity motivations, entrepreneurship is often the best, but not necessarily the preferred, occupation. The best should not be the enemy of the good; so, when the first-best option is unfeasible, second-best solution should be considered, in a highly constrained context. The firstbest solution would be a just economic order in which market mechanisms operate in a nondiscriminatory fashion to allocate waged job according to just criteria to anyone; but this firstbest solution is unavailable, as socially, economically and politically unobtainable. Therefore, 9 Necessity Entrepreneurship can be considered a second-best policy. Necessity Entrepreneurship is a fruitful concept to tackle entrepreneurship as a potential lever for economic growth. However, one must remember that it is defined by an individual’s negative motivations to set up a venture. Therefore, it is necessary to unravel the concept at the individual level to further comprehend all possibilities and issues at stake. Chapter 2: Necessity Entrepreneurship as a human-being phenomenon In this section, we will review Necessity Entrepreneurship as a human-being phenomenon, scrutinizing motivations, psychological dimensions and human and social capital related issues. A short philosophical digression on the concept of Necessity may illuminate our path: necessity is the “constraining power of circumstances”, i.e. of the condition of life, our fate. This external constraint is internalized as a self-imperative. Indeed, philosophy teaches us that free will only can help us voluntarily and thoughtfully accept the inevitable to concentrate on what we can be accountable for. Entrepreneurship clearly depends on one’s freewill, and no external constraint can really be made responsible for an individual to set up a venture (Rosa P. & al. 2009; Smallbone D., Welter F., 2003). Therefore, Necessity Entrepreneurship should be mainly understood as an intentional process (Ajzen I., 1991; Krueger N.F., Carsrud A.L., 1993) under harsh external constraints. Especially in developed countries, benefiting from extended welfare systems, unemployment benefits and life-long learning programs, entrepreneurship is a deliberate choice made among other alternatives. The Gordian knot might be this external constraint is forced onto “displaced” (Shapero A., 1975) individuals, already weakened by their personal situation, a divorce, uprooting, health issue, a lay-off or financial distress. They may not be able to demonstrate the resilience expected for a venture set-up, under those severe and adverse conditions. a. Re-questioning entrepreneurship motivations Researchers commonly argue that a weak stated motivation predicts business failure. Amit R. and Muller E. (1995) encourage business angels to identify high yield entrepreneurs based on their declared type of motivation: « push » entrepreneurs, dissatisfied with their previous job, will be less successful than “pull” entrepreneurs, pursuing profitable market opportunities. Shane S. & al. (2003) and Bhola R. & al. (2006) confirm that weakly/negatively motivated entrepreneurs are less capable of leveraging business opportunities. Indeed, their entrepreneurial intentions are weak : “Those pushed to entrepreneurship as the only way to get by have significantly lower levels of entrepreneurial intentions than those for whom entrepreneurship would be a preferred occupational choice (opportunity entrepreneurs).” (Bullough A., Renko M., 2013, p.485) Therefore, most researchers tend to advise against necessity-driven entrepreneurship. Indeed, when analyzing Necessity Entrepreneurship in the light of Entrepreneurship’s five prevalent paradigms (Gartner W.B., 1990), we are forced to acknowledge that it does not fit in those frameworks in the least. Entrepreneurial personality traits have been analyzed for decades, more cautiously in the recent 10 years, to try and identify potential successful entrepreneurs (Gartner, 1988; Rauch A., Frese M., 2007). Yaniv E, Brock D. (2012) well capture the common understanding on Necessity Entrepreneurs not fitting in the traits description of entrepreneurs. They can be defined as « antientrepreneurs », not demonstrating any of the usual entrepreneurial characteristics: need for autonomy and self-realization, internal locus of control, risk propensity, and self-efficacy are very low, as well as intrinsic motivation to become an entrepreneur, in the case of Necessity Entrepreneurs. Necessity Entrepreneurs hardly plan on developing innovations, as stated by Cantillon, Say and Schumpeter, in the mainstream entrepreneurial paradigm. Positive externalities are not a major goal for necessity entrepreneurs compared to opportunity entrepreneurs, in terms of export contribution, job creation, innovation or economic growth (Acs Z., Varga A., 2005; McMullen J. & al.,2008; Hessels J., Van Gelderen M., Thurik R., 2008; Giacomin, O., Guyot, J-L., Janssen, F. and O. Lohest, 2007). However, Shane S. (2009) argues that this lack of deep economic impact applies to most new ventures, not only necessity-driven ones. Penrose E. (1959), Kirzner I. (1973), Stevenson D., Jarillo J.C. (1990), Bygrave C.W., Hofer W.D. (1991) and Shane S., Venkataraman S. (2000) describe entrepreneurship as an opportunity detection, evaluation and development process by qualified individuals, which is the absolute opposite definition of Necessity Entrepreneurship. Most necessity entrepreneurs have no previous idea of their future business activity (Amit, Muller, 1995). However some researchers have broaden the acceptation of “opportunity”: Gries and Naudé (2011, p. 217) define it as “when persons can create new firms that will further the kind of lives they desire”. In the third entrepreneurial paradigm, Ronstadt R. (1984) erects value creation as the ultimate goal of entrepreneurship. In the case of necessity entrepreneurs, most businesses create no financial value and are not viable. Only from a social and individual perspective can value creation be considered: the increasingly popular concept of social entrepreneurship is used to denote “a process that catalyzes social change and addresses important social needs in a way that is not dominated by direct financial benefits for the entrepreneurs” (Mair and Martí, 2006, p. 36). Eventually, Necessity Entrepreneurship does not fit any better in the fourth paradigm of organization creation. Necessity businesses are small, precarious, and unstable (Fayolle A., 2011). Andersson P., Wadensjö E. (2007) explain that necessity entrepreneurs are mostly self-employed. Blackburn A., Ram M. (2006) and MacDonald F. (1996) confirm that discriminated individuals supported by public policies still create only small, vulnerable, short-lasting businesses in highly competitive markets. Most evidence thus suggest that opportunity entrepreneurs have more profitable businesses, manage them better and have higher measures of better management practices and skills, compared to necessity ones. 11 The 5 main Entrepreneurial Paradigms The Entrepreneur Innovation development Entrepreneurship involves What it means for Necessity Entrepreneurs (N.E.) Individuals with unique personality characteristics and abilities Doing something new as an idea, product, service, market, technology The idea that entrepreneurship creates value Growth as a main characteristic N.E. have none of the commonly accepted traits N.E. do not innovate, neither in processes, nor in products or services N.E. create no long-term economic value, but individual and social value Opportunity N.E. create without any previous development idea, have a hard time identifying opportunities, and do not develop them as they want to find a waged job Organization Specific behaviors involved in N.E. create small, vulnerable, shortdevelopment creating organizations lasting, non-profitable organizations Table 1: How Necessity Entrepreneurship fits in main Entrepreneurial Paradigms? Value creation It is thus questionable whether Necessity Entrepreneurs actually can be called entrepreneurs at all. Moreover, literature provides for a very wide array of Necessity Entrepreneurs : from downgraded seniors to highly qualified but inexperienced newcomers who cannot find a job in accordance with their expectations (Smeaton D., 2003; Yaniv et Brock, 2012 ; Bell et Rutherford, 2013); from actual survival entrepreneurs in developing countries (Claret et Ruane, 2010; Carlsrud et Brännback, 2011) to discriminated minorities not fitting in their local labor market (Maritz, 2004); from individuals pushed by their employers to set-up their own venture and become subcontractors (Kantola J., 2014) to people relocating and creating their job as only alternative (Kantola J., 2014); from waged employees asked by their family or colleague to inherit and take over the company (Giacomin, O., Guyot, J-L., Janssen, F. and O. Lohest, 2007; Bhola et al., 2006) to disillusioned employees escaping a waged but stressful, demeaning, prospectless job (Kantola J., 2014). All those varied profiles have been labeled Necessity Entrepreneurs in the current researches, although they seem to have very little in common. Eventually, researchers (Tervo H, Nittykangas H., 1994; Orhan M., Scott D., 2001; Beaucage A., Laplante N., Légarée R., 2004; Gurtoo, Williams, 2009; Langevang & al., 2012; Williams, Nadin, 2013; Williams, Round, Rodgers, 2010; Dawson and Henley, 2012) have shown that push and pull motivations are very intricate in most individuals: this dichotomy appears over simplistic (Smallbone D. et Welter F. (2003), Williams C.C. et Youssef Y. (2014). Also, motivations may evolve from extrinsic to intrinsic, from push to pull during the venture development process, especially if the business is successful (Williams N., Williams C., 2011; Cassar G., 2007; Estrin S., Korosteleva J., Mickiewicz T., 2013). Shane S. (2009), Smallbone D., Welter F. (2003) and Vorley T., Rodgers P. (2014) introduce a valuable situative approach: it is the project, not the entrepreneur, which is out-of-necessity, in a specific context and timeline. It is 12 thus crucial to analyze entrepreneurial motivations in regard of individuals’ life-courses, as motivations are partially outcomes of socio-economic factors. b. Re-questioning entrepreneurial psychological capital “Psychological Capital is an individual’s positive psychological state of development and is characterized by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success” (Luthans F., Youssef C.M., Avolio B.J., 2007, p.542). Thus, the psychological capital construct encompasses self-efficacy/confidence, optimism, hope, and resiliency. As we have mentioned earlier, the psychological capital of necessity entrepreneurs is deemed to be low. They have lost their hope, their optimism, and their self-confidence is harshly damaged. These individuals have commonly suffered many displacements, be it a divorce, a disease, relocation, harassment, or unemployment. They have thus developed a low level of self-esteem, selfconfidence and self-reliability. They carry the stigma of socio-economically discriminated minorities, including senior, single parents, unqualified young persons, immigrants, unemployed individuals. They are pushed into entrepreneurship because they have no other source of income: they lose their free will and agency, their ability to influence their social contribution and professional path (Gries T. et Naudé W.A., 2011). Scholarship on the effect of fear of failure on opportunity and Necessity Entrepreneurship provides mixed results. In a German context, it was found that opportunity entrepreneurs are willing to accept more risks when compared to necessity entrepreneurs (Block, Sandner, et al., 2015). Brünjes & Diez (2013) had similar results in their investigation around a rural developing context in Vietnam. Wagner (2005) also found that the fear of failure is lower among opportunity entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, Wagner (2005) and Morales-Gualdrón & Roig (2005) concluded that fear of failure hinders both opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs. Recognizing the distress of necessity entrepreneurs could even lead to more stigmatization: necessity entrepreneurs feel disgraced by this very name and believe they are labor market victims (Kantola J., 2014). « Necessity entrepreneurs » indeed implies individuals rather ripping off the welfare system than gifted and hard working to overcome financial hardship. The risk of stigmatizing necessity entrepreneurs is to judge them, not based on their projects and achievements, but based on counter-productive social biases that define them, a mix of distrust and commiseration. Hence, necessity entrepreneurs may feel dismayed, give up and withdraw, instead of bouncing back. Furthermore, as necessity entrepreneurs tend to fail more than opportunity entrepreneurs, they may undergo bankruptcy procedures that can further decrease their selfconfidence (Wexler D.B., 1999). Necessity entrepreneurs are torn between resignation, external locus of control on one hand, and resilience, combativeness on the other. Resilience characterizes individuals who are able to overcome setbacks related to their life and career aspirations, by a “learned optimism” (Seligman M.E.P., 1990; Krueger N., 2008; Bullough 13 A., Renko M., 2013): it is supposed to be a major entrepreneurial trait, insuring firm success. Some researchers are now considering resilience rather as a process, stating that business venture set up can be a positive resilience experience for those neglected individuals, who have fallen through the cracks of the prosperity gap (Kautonen T., Palmroos J, 2010; Kantola J., 2014): “For the individual, the project provides meaning” (Bernard M.J., Barbosa S.D., 2016, p.101). Entrepreneurs mobilize creativity, commitment, negotiation and presentation skills, that will help them reinforce their selfconfidence. Fleischmann F. (2006) demonstrates how entrepreneurship is an empowerment tool. Folta T.B. & al. (2010) explain how hybrid entrepreneurship allows an incremental transition to entrepreneurship, for those more risk-averse. Necessity Entrepreneurship provides underdog individuals with a better self-image, a springboard path to resocialization, and society as a whole with a renewed entrepreneurial culture (Bergmann H. et Sternberg R., 2007). Moreover, « negative personal circumstances of an economic, sociocultural, cognitive, and physical/ emotional nature may have a powerful role to play in getting people to become effective entrepreneurs. These challenges create conditions and experiences that motivate particular adaptive requirements which in turn foster outcomes such as work discipline, risk tolerance, social and network skills, and creativity” (Le Breton-Miller I., 2017, p.7). Although mostly theoretical, those researches should be credited with providing a more optimistic, less deterministic and biased view on Necessity Entrepreneurship. c. Re-questioning the role of human and social capital in entrepreneurship Human capital includes formal and non-formal education, experience, practical learning on the job, capabilities and skills acquired (Davidsson P., Honig B., 2003). Theory suggests that knowledge provides increased cognitive abilities, leading to more productive and efficient activity (Cooper A. C., Gimeno-Gascon F. J., Woo C. Y., 1994). Higher education levels improve the perception of opportunities (Autio & Acs, 2010). With formal education, individuals are better equipped to learn about markets and technology, and to recognize opportunities in the surrounding environment (Shane, 2009). Formal education also allows individuals to develop learning aptitudes and enables skills to exploit those opportunities (Grant, 1996). Hence individuals who stay within the education system for a longer period are more likely to become opportunity entrepreneurs (Baptista, Karaöz, & Mendonça, 2014). Push motivations to pursue Necessity Entrepreneurship will be more prevalent among immigrants not speaking the local language, young unqualified people, and all those with scarce human capital, since they have difficulties finding salaried work. Nevertheless, there are few findings on the effect of educational level on involvement in necessity- and opportunity-driven entrepreneurial activity (Bergmann and Sternberg, 2007; Giacomin, O., Guyot, J-L., Janssen, F. and O. Lohest, 2007; Verheul et al., 2010; Wagner, 2005). Poschke (2013) and Oliveira E.X., Laplume A., Pathak S., (2015) find that necessity entrepreneurs tend to have lower levels of education. Block, Kohn, et al. (2015) and Oliveira, Laplume and Pathak (2015) find that necessity entrepreneurs are likely to have sparse human capital, in the form of knowledge and skills, required to start a venture. Block & Sandner (2009) argue that opportunity entrepreneurs who start their venture voluntarily have more knowledge and/or of a higher quality than necessity entrepreneurs. Block & Sandner (2009) and Fossen and Büttner (2013) conclude that necessity entrepreneurs are 14 seldom educated in the field in which they start and run a business. “Notwithstanding, when inequality is high, more individuals with higher education are likely to fall into unemployment and consequentially brush up against the need for entrepreneurship as a means of survival, making entry into Necessity Entrepreneurship a more prevalent solution” (Oliveira E.X., Laplume A., Pathak S., 2015, p.1191). Research, however, highlights that higher education is more directly correlated to opportunity entrepreneurship than it is to necessity-based entrepreneurship (Bergmann & Sternberg, 2007). Fossen and Büttner (2013) prove that necessity entrepreneurs have lower returns on education than opportunity ones. The fact that they cannot find employment on the labor market indicates that they have only limited control over the employment of their human capital. Opportunity entrepreneurs are likely to have prepared more systematically for their entry into selfemployment, and invested more in the specific human capital necessary to succeed as business owners. More importantly, Block & Sandner (2009) state that education contributes positively for the success of necessity entrepreneurs. Thus, educating and improving the competence of the necessity entrepreneurs contribute positively to the survival rate of their businesses. It shall especially true for the 358 million young people around the world currently not in education, employment or training. Social capital refers to the ability of individuals to benefit from their social structures, networks, and memberships, including extended family, community-based or professional relationships to supplement the role of human and financial capital (Davidsson P., Honig B., 2003). While Giacomin et al. (2007) identified a negative effect of having entrepreneurial relatives on Necessity Entrepreneurship, while Morales-Gualdrón and Roig (2005) found positive influence of knowing an entrepreneur on both types of entrepreneurship. Necessity entrepreneurs are less likely to have parents who were self-employed than opportunity entrepreneurs (Wagner, 2005), although the social context is of a major importance to access information, capital and all resources required for success (Kloosterman R., 2010). Necessity entrepreneurs should thus increase their human and social capital throughout the venture set up process, not only to make it more successful, but also because it is a key success factor for their possible social reintegration in a waged career. Support and coaching should tackle this issue and set networking and education as major objectives. Mentoring from successful entrepreneurs is a path already taken by several social entrepreneurship organizations, which should be included in their agenda by public institutions willing to encourage inclusive entrepreneurship. Indeed, mentoring and networking are elements of empowerment (Datta P.B., Gailey R., 2012). Some recent papers focus more on the means than on the ends: occupational choice theory underlines the benefit of the entrepreneurial process, in terms of education, networking, autonomy, self-esteem and resilience (Evans D.S. and Leighton L.S., 1990; Taylor M., 1996). Therefore, it is crucial to consider Necessity Entrepreneurship as a process-based phenomenon. Chapter 3: Necessity Entrepreneurship as a process-based phenomenon Fayolle (2011, p.8) casts the first light on the specificities of Necessity Entrepreneurship processes: “The projects resulting from these situations often lack structure; they are uncertain and remain 15 vulnerable to many hazards. The creation process is characterized by extreme pressure linked with the numerous individual and environmental constraints, which tends to increase in periods of economic downturns”. Although critical a phenomenon as it may have appeared in recent years, no process-based approach has been used to analyze Necessity Entrepreneurship, neither outcome nor event based, neither causal nor effectual based. Surprinsingly enough, there are no longitudinal studies analyzing the Necessity Entrepreneurship process and its outcome (Carlsrud A. et Brännback M., 2011). As the Entrepreneurship research field “contains a potpourri of over 30 models purporting to describe entrepreneurial process” (Moroz W., Hindle K., 2012, p.812), we decide to consider three major aspects of the process-based approach, being its usefulness to analyze Necessity Entrepreneurship, the potential contribution of emerging theories, and the insight of the more philosophical “becoming theory”, in order to determine what is truly specific to Necessity Entrepreneurship processes and organizations. a. Usefulness of process-based approaches in entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship is an action-based phenomenon, involving a highly interrelated set of creative, strategic, and organizing processes; encompassing “all the functions, activities, and actions associated with perceiving opportunities and creating organizations to pursue them” (Bygrave, 2004, p. 7). The dialogic formed by the entrepreneur and its venture must be considered jointly, in a holistic approach of the venture set up process (Bruyat C., Julien P.A., 2001). For Moroz W. and Hindle K., (2012, p.811), all process models have a set of common principles: “the relationship between individuals and opportunities is crucial: not every opportunity can be processed by every would-be entrepreneur. Second, the need to critically assess the transformative and disruptive value of knowledge is an explicit or implicit component of every model. Third, there is a shared emphasis on entrepreneurial process involving some kind of evaluation of ways to create value for stakeholders through creating new business models in contrast to optimizing existing business models. Fourth, fifth, and sixth, are the clearly recognized importance, among entrepreneurial process theorists, of temporality, action, and context. Time matters: opportunities do not last forever and market receptiveness can differ over time. (…) Finally and crucially, context really matters: an entrepreneurial process can never be abstracted from its contextual setting”. If referring to this perspective, necessity entrepreneurs’ processes are poorly designed and bound to fail. 16 Successful Processes Model Opportunity fitted for the entrepreneur Transformative value-creating activity Necessity Entrepreneurs’ processes specificities N.E. seldom create in their area of expertise. N.E. create in low entry barriers’ markets, copying existing firms, offering mostly low key services. Innovative business model N.E. have no clear vision on how to gain and monetarize customers, make valuable partnerships. Business plans are set up by their counselors, not understood by N.E. and never followed up. Timely exploitation of opportunity N.E. create a business without premeditation, whatever the demand is, as a last resort decision. Action must be taken, from idea to venture N.E. have no formal knowledge about the steps required to set up a business. They procrastinate. Context is crucial to the success Context is adverse, money and time are tight, network does not exist, competition is fierce. Table 2: How Necessity Entrepreneurship fits in main Entrepreneurial Process Models? Research, though generally perceiving necessity entrepreneurs as unsuccessful, show no evidence to suggest that they are less successful than opportunity entrepreneurs (Block and Sandner, 2009). Nonetheless, the rhetoric is that of tragic heroes (Mandják T. & al., 2011): pushed by a negative displacement, i.e. divorce, dismissal, school failure, these individuals are forced into entrepreneurship, without demonstrating neither motivation nor preparation. Notwithstanding, they indulge in this chore and devote all their energy, knowing they have only a slim chance of succeeding in this context. Their attitude reduces the efficiency of their network and potential of success: they often choose their business, not based on opportunities, competition or customers’ needs, but only based on personal aspirations, in a state of emergency, vulnerability and bounded rationality (Sarason & al., 2006). Conversely, Kodithuwakku S., Rosa P. (2002, p.431) indicate that “entrepreneurial processes were important in the successful entrepreneurs' emergence from an extremely unpromising and constrained environment. In achieving success, they were not much more innovative in identifying opportunities than the unsuccessful villagers. Rather, they were much more creative and persistent in finding ways to mobilize scarce resources. In particular, their ability to extract value from their social networks and contacts was a vital element in their struggle to accumulate more capital. The successful entrepreneurs were also adept at efficiently managing their enterprises, a factor that became increasingly important as pluriactivity increased. This supported the argument that both entrepreneurship and management are necessary for business success, and that they are interdependent and complementary”. Were these abilities individuals’ traits or taught skills remain an open question. Jayawarna D. & al. (2013) suggest to take a global perspective on Necessity Entrepreneurship, encompassing personal life setbacks like divorce or disease, professional career issues, i.e. dismissal, family business takeover, and entrepreneurial context difficulties, being the lack of resources, of ideas, or a negative attitude, to scrutinize the process. For instance, although they have less resources, entrepreneurial and business area knowledge, it seems their highly adverse situation tend to force them into taking more risks than opportunity entrepreneurs. 17 Eventually, Hugues K. (2003) suggests to distinguish between two types of necessity entrepreneurs, the « refugees » and the «converted ». The former return as soon as possible to waged jobs, while the latter develop their business, their experience and thus the quality of their entrepreneurial processes. Mainstream theories refer to a teleological, purposive model of entrepreneurial processes, linear and goal-oriented, which fail to illustrate Necessity Entrepreneurship processes, as far as they have been studied. Therefore, we believe it relevant to investigate alternate theories of entrepreneurial success (Archer G., Baker T., Mauer R., 2009), based on available resources, risk aversion and iterative creative processes. b. Usefulness of “emerging theories” in entrepreneurship In this section, we will review the contribution of more recent and heterodox theories, being improvisation, entrepreneurial bricolage and effectuation, to assess whether they are more fit to explain and support Necessity Entrepreneurship processes. Those models all acknowledge entrepreneurial processes as being highly uncertain and unpredictable. They describe risk-avert entrepreneurs, constantly adjusting their goals based on their resources, in an iterative, circular process, encompassing limited rationality. Improvisation is an organizational theory (Miner A. & al., 2001) describing the design and production of new products: «the more improvisational an act, the narrower the time gap between composing and performing, designing and producing, or conceptualizing and implementing” (Moorman & Miner, 1998, p.702). It implies a creative process guided by intuition, of thinking and doing almost simultaneously. It may entail the use of resources at end, thus including a bricolage dimension. It can be considered as a part of the effectuation theory, as far as opportunity development by prototyping and adaption to unexpected circumstances is concerned. This theory has never been proof-tested on necessity entrepreneurs, although it appears a promising path of research, in this time constrained environment. However, necessity entrepreneurs probably lack the cognitive resources to perform improvisation, as cumulated experience appear an important feature of it. Entrepreneurial bricolage is defined by Baker and Nelson (2005, p.333) in an influential article as ‘making do by applying combinations of the resources at hand to new problems and opportunities’. Main features of bricolage are: gathering cheap and available resources for a future use, ability to combine innovatively resources, learning by trial and error process, exploiting environment constraints to determine a goal rather than setting a goal prima facie. It can thus be considered as part of the effectuation theory. Again, this theory has never been scrutinized in the Necessity Entrepreneurship research field, valuable as it may seem. Only Mair J. and Marti I. (2009) have mentioned it as a useful tool for institutional and social entrepreneurship studies in developing countries. The effectuation theory proposes a comprehensive and enlarged synthesis of improvisation and bricolage, specifically applied to entrepreneurship (Sarasvathy S., 2001; Read S. & al., 2009). Sarasvathy has identified and described the logic and reasoning most efficient for venture set up, by interviewing at length 27 highly experienced entrepreneurs on their problem solving process. 18 The effectual logic is opposed to causal reasoning, which implies pre-set goals, expected returns, minimization of unexpected outcomes, competitive analysis and prediction of the future based on established market forces. On the contrary, effectuation relies on five main principles7, necessary to launch a successful business, in a highly unpredictable and uncontrollable future: entrepreneurs start their business based on their means, experience, skills, resources, networks; they think in terms of affordable loss at all stages of the venture set-up; they leverage contingencies to create new market opportunities; they obtain early pre-commitments of key stakeholders; eventually, those expert entrepreneurs do try to control the future as it arises rather than predicting it. Sarasvathy (in Sarasvathy, Germain, 2011, p.69) rejects the concept of necessity entrepreneurs: “I think it is not a question of necessity entrepreneurs versus opportunity entrepreneurs […] “Opportunity” is usually an ex-post description of successful ventures and sometimes ex-ante description of motivation, but almost always an outcome of a learnable and teachable process.” However, her description of the process appeals very much to necessity entrepreneurs: “All around the world, people say, “I would love to be an entrepreneur, but….” and then they give four reasons: (1) I don’t have an idea; (2) I don’t have money; (3) I don’t know what to do; and (4) I am afraid to fail. Effectuation shows them that they don’t need extraordinary blockbuster ideas; nor do they need a lot of money. They can simply take up “doable” ideas based on who they are, what they know and whom they know and they need to invest no more than what they can afford to lose. Additionally, effectuation tells them in some detail what they can actually do to start their ventures and also shows them how to incorporate failures as inputs into eventual success – by keeping them small, letting them happen early and by not failing alone.” (Sarasvathy S., Germain O., 2011, p. 69). Block J.H. and al. (2015, p.18) even consider that “necessity entrepreneurs, because of the resource shortages they face, may serve as useful subjects for scholars of entrepreneurial bricolage and effectuation […] Indeed, it would be promising to examine how and when necessity entrepreneurs make a virtue out of their penurious situations by becoming more ingenious and finding unexplored opportunities.” Before closing this review of process-oriented perspectives on Necessity Entrepreneurship, we believe it especially relevant to tackle a more social and philosophical approach, that of “becoming”. c. Usefulness of the philosophical view of the entrepreneurial “becoming” process Bygrave (1989, p.21) writes: « Entrepreneurship is a process of becoming rather than a state of being. » Entrepreneurship, as a process-oriented phenomenon, has given birth to an interesting but still understudied field of research, that of “entrepreneuring”: “If any field is alive to, and fully resonant with, a processual understanding […], it is entrepreneurship studies” (Hjorth D., Holt R., Steyaert C., 2015, p.599). As the gerund verb form indicates, studying the entrepreneurial process as such, is to consider the changes, flows and transformations at stake, for the society, the organization created and the individual: the world is considered “as restless, something underway, 7 http://www.effectuation.org/sites/default/files/documents/effectuation-3-pager.pdf 19 becoming and perishing, without end”. Indeed, entrepreneuring is not necessarily intentional or planned. Steyeart and Katz (2004, p. 181) urge scholars to view entrepreneurship as ‘a societal phenomenon rather than as a pure economic reality’, suggesting a more complex view of entrepreneurship where ‘the cultural, economic, spatial, relational and institutional effect become understood in their integrative effect’. This trend is highly relevant for Necessity Entrepreneurship, as it has been underlined how much this phenomenon is socially grounded. Indeed, it is less the individual than the process under constraints, which is “out of necessity”. As we have shown, the context and environment have a major role to play on the venture set-up process, which in turns can be influenced by the individual and the organization created. Verduyn K. (2015, p.639) suggests that we need to move away “from conceptualizations in terms of taxonomies, hierarchies, dichotomies, segmentation, stages and (sequential) steps; [...] from any conceptualization featuring categories that temporarily ‘may make it easier for us to grasp reality but [...] also hide [...] underlying complexities”. Furthermore, it implies that entrepreneuring has long-lasting consequences on the individuals undertaking this task. Steyaert C. mentions effectuation as a worthy process-based theory, which “facilitates a view in which the entrepreneur is not supposed to rationally evaluate and/or calculate available opportunities but instead is to actively create the conditions upon which he/she wants to act. [...] It gives weight to those features of a processual understanding that focus on its context of uncertainty where neither means nor ends are predetermined; instead, they are constructed in an incremental way, i.e. in the process of the making” (2007, p.466). Furthermore, Rindova et al. (2009) present the notion of entrepreneuring as emancipation, suggesting that entrepreneurial processes can empower individuals to free themselves from their existing position within a power structure. Considering entrepreneuring as an emancipatory factor put an emphasis on ‘the factors that cause individuals to seek to disrupt the status quo and change their position in the social order in which they are embedded—and, on occasion, the social order itself’ (Rindova, et al., 2009, p. 478). This description partially relates to the resilience theory already mentioned, although understudied. Eventually, the work of Cope J. (Pittaway L., Thorpe R., 2012) can be mentioned, as he focused on the dynamic of the learning process, which does not limit entrepreneurship to the initial knowledge and skills, but opens it to the on-going process where the dialogic formed by the entrepreneur and his or her organization constantly learn from each other. Cope also explains how valuable failure can be as a learning experience and how this can impact on future entrepreneurial success. This indeed is a promising direction to further investigate specific learning and coaching fit for necessity entrepreneurs. Now that we have in turn envisioned Necessity Entrepreneurship as a socio-economic, humanbased and process-based phenomenon, establishing what research has already taught us and which dark areas remain, we will wrap-up this article with a chapter providing an extensive research agenda. We will suggest directions for studies, encompassing reconceptualization, new theories and methodologies to apply. 20 Chapter 4 Researching Necessity Entrepreneurship Progressing in the unveiling of Necessity Entrepreneurship as an increasingly prominent concept, we have stumbled on several hurdles. These require further investigation, and we thus propose a comprehensive agenda for research. The concept needs to be reconsidered in-depth, and probably reshaped in order to be more relevant and operational. There is also a crucial call for applying promising theories and rigorous methodologies to future research, to meet the expectations. a. Towards a reconceptualization The major flak concerns the concept itself. Necessity Entrepreneurship is currently considered a one-dimensional construct, linearly opposed to Opportunity Entrepreneurship. Necessity Entrepreneurship Opportunity Entrepreneurship Diagram 1: Current one dimensional perspective on Necessity Entrepreneurship However, many researchers have criticized this over simplistic one dimensional approach. Baker T. and Welter F. (2015, p.9) “put a huge question mark against the dichotomies entrepreneurship researchers like to apply (not least because it makes their life easier as the messiness of entrepreneurial behavior – or reality – is difficult to capture)”, mentioning among others the necessity/opportunity dichotomy. Shane (2009, p.149) “don’t believe that these distinctions work. “Opportunity” and “necessity” entrepreneurship refer to the trigger for starting a business. People can build high-growth, jobcreating, wealth-generating companies even if their motivation for starting a business was necessity. Moreover, most “opportunity” entrepreneurs are not interested in growing their businesses, and fewer still manage to do so.” Cassar (2007), Estrin, Mickiewicz, & al. (2013) also mention that skills and motivations evolve, especially if the business gets successful. Smallbone D. & al. (2003), Williams C.C. & Youssef Y. (2014), Stephan U., Hart M., Drews C. (2015) all conclude the concept of Necessity Entrepreneurship is static and uncomplete, not taking into account external factors: the concept is static while the process described as dynamic socio-economic, political, cultural, individual and spatio-temporal dimensions. For Kodithuwakku S. and Rosa P. (2002, p.465), “the theory that there are two forms of entrepreneurship as espoused by Acs et al (2005) one, necessity, prevalent in developing countries and the other, opportunity driven, prevalent in developed countries clearly needs re-examining.” Indeed, they demonstrate in their research that there is an issue as “how far people understood or related to necessity and opportunity as motives for business start-up”: the concept is not clearly understood, and suffer cultural bias. For instance, in Uganda, employment per se is only understood as positions in government institutions or large companies. Also, local entrepreneurs “will lessen any state of necessity, but this will be a consequence rather than a driver of their entrepreneurship” (Kodithuwakku S., Rosa P., 2002, p.464). Davidsson P. and Gordon S. (2012) and Dawson and Henley (2012) also criticize harshly the 21 methodology used to identify necessity entrepreneurs: are we looking at companies or individuals? Are we only referring to first-time entrepreneurs? Is self-declaration reliable? Is misinterpretation possible: for instance, financial distress would be a necessity factor, but financial profit would be a pull factor? Have ex ante intentions evolved compared to ex post motivations? Block J. & Sandner P. (2009), Folta T.B. & al. (2010), Williams N. & Williams C. (2011), all stress that multi-dimensional motivations are not taken into account. All profiles and situations are not equal. Can survivalist entrepreneurs, individuals forced into entrepreneurship as designed family business heirs or employees forced by their employers to set up their on ventures for subcontracting purpose, be included in the same category, for instance? This linear view also totally excludes the idea of entrepreneurs following an opportunity under necessity. Many storytelling and actual business successes, however, would fall in this non-existing category. Companies like U-Haul, FUBU or My Solemate are good examples. Gibbs, Mahone and Crump (2014, p.53) have also surmised that “informal entrepreneurs operate along a continuum of necessity-based and opportunity-driven entrepreneurship”. Furthermore, Bhola R. and al. (2006) propose to introduce important socio demographic individual and contextual variables to further investigate Necessity Entrepreneurship, like age, gender, country of origin, disabilities, work experience, education, social and human capital, business area, previous job and revenues, social security system, bankruptcy laws and entrepreneurship public policies. They stress that studies must analyze exogenous factors contributing to Necessity Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial behavior must be study as well, including risk taking propensity, innovation capacity, network, self-confidence, locus of control, ability to tackle opportunities. Hechavarria D.M. and Reynolds P.D. (2009) propose to research the impact of cultural norms and social values. But the goal of identifying key success factors and potentially successful entrepreneurs (Tervo H., Niittykangas H., 1994; Taylor M., 1996; Weber P., Schaper M., 2004; Ashta A., Raimbault S., 2009 ; Block J., Sandner P., 2009 ; Block J. et Wagner M., 2010), might be delusive. Gabarret I. and Vedel B., (2012) propose an improved two-dimensional interpretation of entrepreneurial motivation, based on two continuums: push/pull and economic/non-economic. 22 Economic Necessity Opportunity Push Pull Dissatisfaction Independance Non-economic Diagram 2: Proposed two-dimensional perspective on Necessity Entrepreneurship, Gabarret I. and Vedel B., (2012). Mandják T. and al. (2011) envision another two-dimensional perspective, differentiating “soft” Necessity Entrepreneurship, due to internal factors like job dissatisfaction, and “hard” Necessity Entrepreneurship, due to external factors like unemployment. Eventually, our extensive literature review allowed us to classify the various factors leading to different types of Necessity Entrepreneurship. They can be grouped in three categories, leading to a three-dimensional perspective on the phenomenon. Necessity Entrepreneurship descriptors mentioned in the literature are threefold: 1) a constrained legal, social and economic environment pushing individuals into entrepreneurship at a given point in their life, as described for instance by Clark and Drinkwater (2000) or Hammarstedt (2001); 2) intrinsic push motivations of individuals, which may evolve over time, as mentioned by Singh and Denoble (2003) or Tyszka and Cieslik (2011); and finally, 3) lack of entrepreneurial expertise and skills and/or psychological unfitness for entrepreneurship, as stressed by Amit and Mueller (1995), although those last descriptors appear more as assumptions in the literature than actual evidence-based conclusions. 23 Constrained legal, social and economic environment Legal constraints : - Forced subcontracting Informal ventures required to comply with the law Social constraints: - - - Stressful workplace, harassment, demanding work schedule, glass ceiling Living place with no fitted job opportunity Requirement to take over the family or associate business Discrimination: women, immigrants, disabled, special needs and health condition, seniors, lone parent, young people with no qualifications Intrinsic Push Motivations - Job dissatisfaction Lack of entrepreneurial expertise and skills - - Low social and human capital External locus of control High risk aversion No entrepreneurial culture No entrepreneurial network (family, tutor, coaching) Low self-esteem Low self confidence Low self-efficacy Economic constraints: - Long term unemployment - No minimum welfare - Recidivist temporary low-paid job - Precarious wage earning position - Retirement pension under poverty threshold Table 3: Descriptors of Necessity Entrepreneurship as listed after the literature review As we can ascertain, intrinsic push motivations are scarce compared to external constraints. Moreover, lack of entrepreneurial expertise and skills have hardly been proven. 24 It seems now is the time to introduce a new perspective on Necessity Entrepreneurship, shifting from a focus on an individuals’ lack of motivation, to a wider view on constraints of all types weighing on an individual’s situation and entrepreneurial project. This could prevent from idle tautological exercises concluding that “the probability of being an opportunity versus a necessity business owner is higher for male, younger, wealthier, proactive, and optimistic business owners. Furthermore, those who prefer being a business owner and those who have more favorable perceptions of financial start-up support are more likely to be an opportunity versus a necessity business owner” (van der Zwan, P., Thurik, R., Verheul, I. et al., 2016, p.273). As Baker and Welter (2015, p.3) wisely state: “Most of the people doing entrepreneurship at any time are doing so under conditions of constraint, adversity and myriad forms of structural inequality. So-called “necessity” entrepreneurship, which is defined not in terms of the patterns of behavior but instead in terms of the opportunity context in which founders find themselves, together with “opportunity” entrepreneurship under adverse conditions, make up the bulk of all entrepreneurship in the world, yesterday, today and tomorrow.” Therefore, we offer a three-dimensional perspective on Necessity Entrepreneurship, as an attempt to fully encompass the complexity at stake (Block J. and Sandner P., 2009; Folta T.B. and al., 2010; Williams N. and Williams C., 2011; Gabaret I. and Vedel B., 2012) : 1) first dimension is the external environment and the level of economic, legal and social constraints the dialogic individualproject has to face; 2) second dimension concerns the level of entrepreneurial expertise, skills and traits of the individual; 3) third and final dimension encompasses the pull and push motivations. Each entrepreneurial dialogic individual-project can be placed at a “necessity point” on this three dimensional representation, defining a specific degree of contextual, motivational and competential necessity. Constrained+legal,+social,+ economic+environment Entrepreneurial expertise Push Motivations Pull Motivations Lack of entrepreneurial traits/skills Favorable+ entrepreneurial+ + environment+ Diagram 3: Proposed three-dimensional perspective on Necessity Entrepreneurship. This reconceptualization of Necessity Entrepreneurship calls for a new approach in terms of both theories and methodologies. We will thereafter summarize our direction for future research. 25 b. Towards new theories We now wish to summarize the theories hereabove mentioned and listed in research articles, which appear to be relevant for advancing the Necessity Entrepreneurship research field. Concerning legal, social and economic environment pushing individuals into Necessity Entrepreneurship, several paths could be fruitfully followed. We believe that both neo-institutional and institutional voids theories (Hessels J., Van Gelderen M. et Thurik R., 2008; Ashta A. et Raimbault S., 2009) would be worth summoning. What are the most efficient institutions, public policies and tools to support Necessity Entrepreneurship in a social and economic worthy manner (Bergmann H. et Sternberg R., 2007; Brasseur M., 2010)? Those studies should be unbiased and measure with reliable accounting tools the financial outcomes of entrepreneurial public policies: are inclusive entrepreneurship policies efficient? Some studies indeed suggest that “the public programs could obtain larger impacts by concentrating on the entrepreneurs with the highest growth potential, whereas other types of interventions might help low-performing necessity entrepreneurs improve their prospects for salaried employment” (Calderon G., Iacovone L., Juarez L., 2016, p.10). How efficient are taxes, social welfare, savings policies, Labour codes and regulations of work, unemployment public policies, educational systems, infrastructures, financial support institutions and anti-discrimination laws and policies (Storey D., 1991; Hessels J. et al., 2008)? What is the impact of social exclusion, competition, technological innovation, globalization and protectionism on Necessity Entrepreneurship? Could privately-owned, social or non-profit organizations be more efficiently addressing necessity Entrepreneurship than traditional public institutions? Which other stakeholders could be envisioned, to finance necessity entrepreneurial projects and support them based on their particularities, to gain better leveraging effects? How help necessity entrepreneurs better take charge of their own destiny? How to sustain entrepreneurial intentions over time? All of those remain questions for further research. Mair J. and Marti I. (2009) introduce the concept of institutional and social entrepreneurship as an emerging and promising framework (Cukier W. and al, 2011). “Social entrepreneurs pursue poverty alleviation goals with entrepreneurial zeal, business methods and the courage to innovate and overcome traditional practices. A social entrepreneur, similar to a business entrepreneur, builds strong and sustainable organizations, which are either set up as not-for-profits or companies”8 : according to Mair and Marti (2009), there is an opportunity for those entrepreneurs to be development actors and fill a gap between micro and macro-structures. This also open a very hopeful perspective on a redesigning of current capitalism orthodoxy, to overcome its proven limits. At this point, investigating how Necessity Entrepreneurship impacts unemployment, industrial development, growth and well-being is a counterpart requirement. Mair J. and Marti I. (2009) link these reflections to the effectuation theory, which, as Chandler and al. (2011), Block J. and al. (2015) mention, should be fruitfully called upon in the Necessity Entrepreneurship field of research. Necessity, institutional and social entrepreneurs are indeed less “heroes” than “bricoleurs”, trying to develop new solutions in highly uncertain environments. This 8 http://www.schwabfound.org/content/what-social-entrepreneur 26 could give an opportunity for further understanding the entrepreneurial processes under necessity, to evaluate their specificities. Therefore, it would be interesting to refer to Archer R., Baker T. and Mauer R., (2009), Fisher G., (2012) and Stinchfield B., Nelson R. and Wod M., (2013), to analyze process types, i.e. art, craft, engineering, bricolage, brokerage, effectuation, improvisation and causation, per necessity entrepreneur types. Understanding how various necessity entrepreneurs’ profiles behave would help ensure that there really are specific necessity entrepreneurial processes or whether they are in fact common with opportunity entrepreneurs’. It would also allow to identify venture longevity and financial performance based on identified profiles, to better support them, if applicable. Eventually, frugality being a recognized competitive advantage in entrepreneuring nowadays (SOURCE), necessity entrepreneurship could be studied as an example of state-of-theart processes, as suggested by Block J.H. and al. (2015). Nonetheless may scholars learn how to best take advantage of scarcity and constraints, but necessity entrepreneurs could be more highly regarded, as valuable pioneers of a successful form of entrepreneuring under constraints. Another interesting direction would be to refer to the network theory, to analyze the role of strong and weak ties, as defined by Granovetter M. (1983), in the Necessity Entrepreneurship-based research. Bhola R. et al. (2006) indeed demonstrate that strong family ties have a positive outcome on Necessity Entrepreneurship, but far less than on opportunity entrepreneurship. Also, Wagner M. (2005) concludes that necessity entrepreneurs are not supported in their project by family members. Necessity entrepreneurs feel socially isolated, manage poorly their network, underutilize it and lack an efficient financial network (Sarason Y. et al, 2006). This is a crucial issue to further investigate, as networks are proved to be crucial in entrepreneurial success (Brüderl, J. & Preisendörfer, P., 1998; Sarasvathy, 2001), especially when social and human capitals are scarce. For instance, in the early start-up stage, strong ties may influence the persistence of nascent entrepreneurs to continue in their venture set-up activities (Davidsson, Honig, 2003). Therefore, at an individual level, investigating process-based characteristics as perseverance (van Gelderen M., 2012) could be a promising direction for future research. Persistence or perseverance may be defined as the commitment necessary to achieve a desired result in the face of challenges or setbacks, “finishing what one has started, keeping on despite obstacles, taking care of business (Peterson and Seligman, 2004, p.202). Interestingly enough, individuals with high self-esteem and optimism persevere longer than those with low self-esteem and little optimism (Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E., 2004). Therefore, it would be interesting to apply the perseverance strategies proposed by van Gelderen (2012), which call for social support, i.e. networks, and role models, onto necessity entrepreneurs, to measure their success. To further support necessity entrepreneurs, calling upon the resilience concept would be valuable: entrepreneurial resilience theory could allow a broader perspective on Necessity Entrepreneurship, transforming a negative, fruitless process, into a rewarding experience, that could be publicized as such. Resilience characterizes individuals who are able to overcome setbacks related to their life and career aspirations: like possessing a good network, it is assumed to be a key success factor for entrepreneurs (Krueger N., 2008). Another valid concept of this phenomenon is “learned optimism” (Seligman 1990), which could be called upon to improve necessity entrepreneurs’ coaching and tutoring. However, resilience theory still lacks solid theoretical foundation in the entrepreneurship research area. 27 Eventually, although a more theoretical and philosophical concept, entrepreneuring could provide a salutary shift in perspective, for an unbiased view on Necessity Entrepreneurship. This theory could “serve as the conceptual attractor to accommodate the increasing interest in process theories within a creative process view” (Steyaert, 2007, p.1). We can thus conclude that two main directions for future research are suggested, tackling firstly the environment, and especially the institutions surrounding Necessity Entrepreneurship, and secondly, a process-based stream of investigations. Which theory? Institutional voids Neo-institutionalism Social entrepreneurship Effectuation Bricolage Network To answer which question? What are the limits and failures of public policies in terms of N.E.? Which out of the box stakeholders could support Necessity Entrepreneurship? Could social entrepreneurship be an option for necessity entrepreneurs? Do necessity entrepreneurs adopt the most relevant entrepreneurial processes? What is the role of self-perceived identity on entrepreneurial behaviors? Do necessity entrepreneurs adopt the most relevant entrepreneurial processes? How can an efficient network support necessity entrepreneurs? Limits Difficulty to draw unbiased conclusions Conceptual, static construct, no empirical studies Few empirical studies and lack of theoretical references Few empirical studies to rely on, no consensus on theory Difficulty to empirically test the hypothesis Difficulty to collect social network data in multicultural environment Entrepreneurial How can Necessity Entrepreneurship No empirical studies and resilience be turned into a fruitful experience? lack of theoretical references Perseverance How can perseverance strategies No empirical studies and help necessity entrepreneurs? lack of theoretical references Entrepreneuring Can Necessity Entrepreneurship have No empirical studies, a positive impact on individuals? philosophical perspective Table 4: Agenda for future research in Necessity Entrepreneurship In conclusion, we want to provide a comprehensive methodological toolkit to ensure researchers develop consistent and reliable work on Necessity Entrepreneurship. c. Towards new methodologies Rosa P. & al. (2009, p.2) summarize the focal methodological issue: the “diversity of motives is not measured adequately in the GEM Adult Population Survey. The distinction between opportunity and Necessity Entrepreneurship is just measured by a very small number of questions. As exploratory questions they have some value, but they were not designed to underpin rigorously 28 Necessity Entrepreneurship as primary factor in a complex theory of entrepreneurship and economic development as that proposed by Acs et. al. (2004)”. Overall, the current work published show no reliable method to clearly identify necessity entrepreneurs. Individual self-declare their motivation in front of an interviewer, which implies some declarative and cultural biases. Moreover, individuals can feel reluctant to admit they create out of necessity, as this is a rather downgrading term (Bergmann H. et Sternberg R., 2007). Vocabulary is unclear, misinterpretation of push and pull motivations is possible (Dawson C., Henley A., 2012), and the concept is not self-explanatory for most individuals (Reynolds P.D. et al., 2002). Some variables, like independence, which might have a positive or negative meaning according to individuals, should be specified to be operational: does the entrepreneur escape from deleterious work conditions, which would be a push motivation, or does he or she seek more autonomy and flexibility in his/her work, which would rather be a pull motivation? Does he/she seek to escape financial distress, or does he/she try to increase one’s revenues? Stephan U. and al. (2015) remind us that 10 to 15% of entrepreneurs express a mix of push and pull motivations, but this category has never been explored. Also, sampling must be more rigorous, for instance to clarify whether existing organizations or nascent entrepreneurs are questioned (Davidsson P. et Gordon S., 2012). Furthermore, longitudinal studies are required (Smallbone D. and Welter F., 2003, Davidsson P. and Gordon S., 2012), to explore how and why necessity organizations grow and fail, to research the impact of necessity entrepreneurial processes on the economy as a whole and on individuals’ well-being and satisfaction. In case of failure, do necessity entrepreneurs get back to unemployment or to a wagedjob (Andersson P. and Wadensjö E., 2007)? Moreover, most research is based on Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies (Henrich J., Heine S.J., Norenzayan, 2010): this calls for more research in other types of contexts. Besides, since motivations are at stake, it seems of utmost importance to study the psychological dimension of Necessity Entrepreneurship, be it risk aversion, locus of control, self-efficacy, human capital, perseverance and resilience, to move beyond potential prejudiced misconceptions to a reliable unbiased understanding of the phenomenon. More important, studies based on behavioral criteria like motivations should be very careful in drawing conclusions in a totally different domain, be it economic development or public policies. It seems more relevant to study the environment of Necessity Entrepreneurship, encompassing welfare system, labour legislation, unemployment rate, corruption, informal economy, entrepreneurial culture and level of industrialization, to determine the impact of the social, legal and economic environment on Necessity Entrepreneurship and vice versa. Eventually, as Necessity Entrepreneurship can be qualified an emerging field of research, empirical quantitative studies, based on a rigorous validated methodology, are necessary to legitimate its development: about sixty articles have been identified, which draw conclusions from quantitative studies, based on samples (PSID, flasheurobarometer, OCDE) in which the notion of Necessity Entrepreneurship simply does not exist. 29 Based on the above observations, it appears that Necessity Entrepreneurship research is a new field, like social entrepreneurship, still in its infancy. To become a recognized academic field, many efforts and progresses have to be done, starting with its ontological foundations. The process might be long and harrowing, but social demand is higher than ever and calls for the construction of a strong academic legitimacy. 30 Bibliography Acs Z.J., Varga A., (2005), “Entrepreneurship, Agglomeration and Technological Change”, Small Business Economics, vol.24, n° 323 Acs, Z.J., Szerb, L. (2007), "Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy", Small Business Economics, vol. 28, no. 2‐3, pp. 109‐122 Ajzen I., (1991), « The Theory of Planned Behaviour », Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, n° 2, p. 179‐211 Allen E., Elam A., Langowitz N., Dean M., and Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, (2007), GEM Report on Women and entrepreneurship Amit R., Mueller E., (1995), « Push and pull Entrepreneurship », Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, vol 12, No 4, p. 64‐80 Anderson A. R., (2005), "Enacted Metaphor: The Theatricality of the Entrepreneurial Process", International Small Business Journal, vol.23, p.587‐603 Andersson P., Wadensjö E., (2007), « Do the unemployed become successful entrepreneurs? A comparison between the unemployed, inactive and wage‐earners », International Journal of Manpower, vol. 28, p. 604‐626 Archer R., Baker T., Mauer R., (2009), "Towards an alternative theory of entrepreneurial success: integrating bricolage, effectuation and improvisation", Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Vol.29, n°6 Ardichvili A., Cardozo R., Ray S., (2003), “A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, n° 1, pp. 105‐123 Armstrong P., (2005), Critique of entrepreneurship: People and policy, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Arnold N., Ipsen C., (2005), Self‐employment policy changes through the decade, Journal of Disability Studies, vol.16, n°2, pp.115‐122 Aronson R. (1991), Self‐employment: A Labor Market Perspective, Ithaca: ILR Press Ashta A., Raimbault S., (2009), « Business perceptions of the new French regime on auto‐ entrepreneurship: a risk‐taking step back from socialism », Cahier du CEREN, Vol. 29, p. 46‐61 Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 50, n°3, pp. 329‐366 Baker T., Welter F., (2015), “Bridges to the future: challenging the nature of entrepreneurship scholarship”, published in: Baker, T. & F. Welter (eds), Routledge Companion to Entrepreneurship, London: Routledge Baker T., Welter F., (2017)," Come on out of the ghetto, please! – Building the future of 31 entrepreneurship research ", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, vol. 23, n° 2 pp.114‐135 Banerjee A., Duflo E., (2012), Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty, Public Affairs Ed. Baptista R., Karaz M., Mendonça, J., (2014), “The Impact of Human Capital on the Early Success of Necessity versus Opportunity‐based Entrepreneurs”, Small Business Economics, 42 (4), 831‐847 Bateman, M., & Chang, H. J. 2012. Microfinance and the illusion of development: from hubris to nemesis in thirty years. World Economic Review, 1: 13‐26. Beaucage, A., Laplante, N. and Légaré, R. (2004) ‘Le Passage au Travail Autonome: Choix Imposé ou Choix qui s’impose?’ [The Shift to Self‐employment: An Imposed Choice or an Obvious Choice?], Relations Industriells/Industrial Relations 59(2): 345‐378. Bell D., Rutherford A., (2013), "Older Workers and Working Time", discussion paper n°7546, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn Benz M., (2005). “Entrepreneurship as a Non‐profit‐seeking Activity”, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics Working Paper No. 243, University of Zurich Bergmann H., Sternberg R., (2007), « The changing face of entrepreneurship in Germany », Small Business Economics, vol. 28, p. 205‐221 Bernard M.J., Barbosa S.D., (éà16), “Resilience and entrepreneurship: A dynamic and biographical approach to the entrepreneurial act”, M@n@gement, vol.19, n°2, pp.89‐123 Bhola R., Verheul I., Thurik A.R., Grilo I., (2006), "Explaining engagement levels of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs", EIM papier de recherche Bjǿrnskov, C., Foss, N.J., 2007, Economic Freedom and Entrepreneurial Activity: Some Cross‐country Evidence, Journal of Public Choice 2008, vol. 134, pp. 307–328 Blackburn R. A., Ram M. (2006), Fix or fixation? The contributions and limitations of entrepreneurship and small firms to combating social exclusion, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 18, n° 1, p. 73‐89. Block J., Köellinger P., (2009), "I can get no satisfaction : Necessity Entrepreneurship and procedural utility", Kyklos international review for social sciences, Vol.62, n°2, p.191–209 Block J, Kohn K., Miller D & Ullrich K (2015) Necessity Entrepreneurship and competitive strategy. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 37‐54. Block J., Sandner P., (2009), “Necessity and opportunity entrepreneurs and their duration in self‐ employment: Evidence from German micro data”, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, vol. 9, n° 2, pp. 117‐137 32 Block J, Sandner P & Spiegel F (2015) How do risk attitudes differ within the group of entrepreneurs? The role of motivation and procedural utility. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 183‐206. Block J., Wagner M., (2007), “Opportunity recognition and exploitation by necessity and opporutnity entrepreneurs: Empirical evidence from earning equations”, In Academy of Management Proceedings (pp. 1‐6),Academy of Management Block J.,Wagner, M. , (2010), "Necessity and Opportunity Entrepreneurs in Germany: Characteristics and Earning s Differentials", Small Business Review, n°62, 154‐174 Boyd R.L., (2000), “Survivalist Entrepreneurship among Urban Blacks during the Great Depression: A Test of the Disadvantage Theory of Business Enterprise”, Social Science Quarterly, vol. 81, n°. 4, pp. 972‐984 Brasseur, M. (2010), Entrepreneuriat et insertion, Bruylant, Bruxelles Brüderl, J. & Preisendörfer, P. Small Business Economics (1998) 10: 213. Network Support and the Success of Newly Founded Business Brünjes J & Diez JR (2013) “Recession push” and “prosperity pull” entrepreneurship in a rural developing context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(3‐4), 251‐271. Bruyat C, Julien PA (2001) Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 16(2): 165–180 Bullough A ;, Renko M ., 2013, « Entrepreneurial resilience during challenging times », Business Horizons, vol.56, n°3, pp.343‐350 Bygrave, W. D. (1989). The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (I): A Philosophical Look at its Research Methodologies, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(1), 7‐26. Bygrave, W. D. ,(2004), “The entrepreneurial process”, in W. D. Bygrave & A. Zacharakis (Eds.), The portable MBA in entrepreneurship. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Calderon G., Iacovone L., Juarez L, (2016), “Opportunity versus Necessity: Understanding the Heterogeneity of Female Micro‐Entrepreneurs”, The World Bank Review, vol.30, n°2 Caliendo M., Kritikos A.S., (2010), «Start‐ups by the unemployed: characteristics, survival and direct employment effects », Small Business Economics, vol. 35, n° 1, p. 71‐92 Camp P.D., Bygrave S.M., Autio E., Hay M., (2001), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2001 Executive Report, Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership Carlsrud A., Brännback M., (2011), "Entrepreneurial motivations: what do we still need to know?", Journal of Small Business Management, vol.49 n°1, p. 9‐26 Cassar G., (2007), "Money, money, money? A longitudinal investigation of entrepreneur career reasons, growth preferences and achieved growth", Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol.19, n°1, 33 p.89‐107 Chandler G., DeTienne D., McKelvie A., Mumford T., (2011), "Causation and Effectuation processes : a validity study", Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 26, n°3, p.375–390 Cheung, O.L.,(2014), “Are we seeing 'necessity' or 'opportunity' entrepreneurs at large?”, Research in Business and Economics Journal, vol. 9, pp. 1‐26 Claret M., Ruane M. (2010), Nene and her business: entrepreneurship by necessity, International Journal of entrepreneurship, vol. 14, p.75‐80. Clark K., Drinkwater S., (2000), "Pushed or pulled in? Self‐employment among ethnic minorities in england and Wales", Labour Economics, vol.7, n°5, p.603‐628 Constant A. and Zimmermann K. (2006). The making of entrepreneurs in germany: Are native men and immigrants alike?. Small Business Economics,, 26(3):279–300. Cooper A. C., Gimeno‐Gascon F. J., Woo C. Y., (1994), "Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance", Journal of Business Venturing, vol.9, n°5, p.371‐395 Cowling M., Bygrave W., (2003), Entrepreneurship and Unemployment: Relationship Between Unemployment and Entrepreneurship in 37 Nations Participating in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2002, Babson College, Wellesley, USA Cowling M., Mitchell P., (1997), "Trends in Self‐Employment: Government Policy and the Role of the Macroeconomy’, The Manchester School, vol.65, p.427‐442 Cukier, W.,Trenholm S., Dale C., Gekas G., (2011), “Social Entrepreneurship: A Content Analysis », Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, vol. 7, n° 1 Datta P.B., Gailey R., (2012), « Empowering Women Through Social Entrepreneurship: Case Study of a Women's Cooperative in India », Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol.36, n°3 Davidsson, Per & Gordon, Scott R. (2012) Panel studies of new venture creation: a methods‐focused review and suggestions for future research. Small Business Economics, 39(4), pp. 853‐876. Davidsson P., Honig, B., (2003), “The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs”, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 18, n° 3, pp. 301‐331 Dawson C., Henley A., (2012), “Push” versus “pull” entrepreneurship: an ambiguous distinction?”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, vol.18, n°6, p. 697 – 719 De Clercq, D. et Honig, B. (2011), « Entrepreneurship as an integrating mechanism for disadvantaged persons », Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 23, n°5‐6, p. 353‐372 Dolan, C. 2012. The new face of development: The ‘bottom of the pyramid’entrepreneurs, Anthropology Today, 28(4), 3‐7. 34 Estrin S., Korosteleva J., Mickiewicz T., (2013), "Which institutions encourage entrepreneurial growth aspirations?", Journal of Business Venturing, vol.28, n°4, p.564‐580 Evans D.S., Leighton L.S., (1990), "Small business formation by unemployed and employed workers", Small Business Economics, vol. 79, p. 519‐535 Eversole, R. 2004. Change makers? Women's microenterprises in a Bolivian city. Gender, Work & Organization, 11(2), 123‐142. Fayolle A., (2011), "Necessity Entrepreneurship and Job Insecurity: The Hidden Face of Entrepreneurship", Intrnational Journal of E‐Entrepreneurship and Innovation, vol.2, n°3, pp. 1‐10 Figueroa‐Armijos M., Dabson B, Johnson T., (2012) "Rural Entrepreneurship in a Time of Recession", Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Vol. 2, n°1, Article 3 Fisher G., (2012), "Effectuation, Causation,and Bricolage: A Behavioral Comparison of Emerging Theories in Entrepreneurship Research", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.36, n°5, p.1019–1051 Fleischmann F., (2006), « Entrepreneurship as emancipation: The history of an idea », A lecture delivred at the Free University of Berlin Folta T.B., Delmar F., Wennberg K., (2010), « Hybrid Entrepreneurship », Management Science , Vol. 56, No. 2, p. 253–269 Furdas M., Kohn K., (2011), "Why is start‐ up survival lower among necessity entrepreneurs? A decomposition approach", KfW Frankfurt and IZA Bonn conferences Gabarret I. et Vedel B. (2012), « Quitter son emploi pour devenir entrepreneur », Revue @grh, Vol. 4, p. 79‐97. Gartner, W. B. (1988). “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question”, American Journal of Small Business, 12(4): 11‐32 Gartner W.B., (1990), “What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship?”, Journal of Business venturing, vol.5, n°1, pp. 15‐28 Granovetter M., (1983), “The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited”, Sociological Theory, vol. 1, pp. 201‐233 Grüner H., (2010), "Entrepreneurship in Germany and the role of the new self‐employed", Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2006, Vol.7, No 2, 59–67 Hakim C. (1989), “Trends in the flexible workforce”, Employment Gazette, pp. 549‐560 Hammarstedt M., (2001), "Immigrant self‐employment in Sweden ‐ its variation and some possible determinants", Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol.13, p147‐162 Harbi S. E., Anderson A.R., (2010), "Institutions and the shaping of different forms of entrepreneurship", 35 Journal of Socio‐Economics, Vol.39, n°3, p.436‐444 Hernandez L., Nunn N., Warnecke T., (2012), "Female entrepreneurship in China: opportunity‐ or necessity‐ based?", International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 15, No. 4 Hjorth D., Holt R., Steyaert C., (2015), “Entrepreneurship and process studies”, International Small Business Journal, vol. 33, n° 6, pp.599–611 Hollon J., (2009), "The freelance flood", Workforce Management, Vol.88, n°3, p.34 Hugues K., (2003), "Pushed or Pulled? Women’s Entry into Self‐Employment and Small Business Ownership", Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 10, n°. 4 Giacomin, O., Guyot, J‐L., Janssen, F. and O. Lohest, 2007, Novice creators: personal identity and push pull dynamics, CRECIS Working Paper 07/2007, Center for Research in Change, Innovation and Strategy, Louvain School of Management Gibbs SR, Mahone CE & Crump MES (2014) A framework for informal economy entry: Socio‐spatial, necessity‐ opportunity, and structural‐based factors. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 20(2), 33‐59. Gries, T. and Naudé, W. 2011. Entrepreneurship and human development: A capability approach. Journal of Public Economics 94: 216‐224. Gurtoo, A., & Williams, C.C. (2009). Entrepreneurship and the informal sector: Some lessons from India. International Journal of Entepreneurship & Innovation, 10(1), 55‐62. Hechavarria D. M.,Reynolds P. D., (2009), « Cultural norms and business start‐ups: The impact of national values on opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs », The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, vol. 5, n°4, p.417–437 Henrich J., Heine S.J., Norenzayan, (2010), “The weirdest people in the world?”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 33, pp. 61‐83 Hessels J., Van Gelderen M., Thurik R., (2008), « Entrepreneurial aspirations, motivations, and their drivers», Small Business Economics, vol. 31, n° 3, p. 323‐339 Jaouen A., Lasch F., (2013), "A new typology of micro‐firm owner‐managers", International Small Business Journal, online Jayawarna D., Rouse J. and Kitching J., (2013), "Entrepreneur motivations and life courses", International Small Business Journal, vol.31, n°1, p.34‐56 Johanson L., (2007), "Sitting in Your Reader’s Chair Attending to Your Academic Sensemakers", Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 16 No. 3, p. 290‐294 Jones M. K., (2011), “Disability, employment and earnings: an examination of heterogeneity”, Applied Economics, vol.43, n° 8, pp. 1001‐1017 36 Kantola, J. (2014). Narrating coping experiences of necessity entrepreneurs. Acta Wasaensia 298. Monograph. Kautonen T., Down S., Welter F., Vainio P., Palmroos J., Althoff K., Kolb S., (2010),""Involuntary self‐ employment" as a public policy issue: a cross‐country European review", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 16 Iss: 2 pp. 112 ‐ 129 Kautonen T, Palmroos J, (2010), "The impact of a necessity‐based start‐up on subsequent entrepreneurial satisfaction", International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, Vol.6, p.285–300 Kellard K., Legge K., Ashworth K., (2002), "Self‐employment as a route off benefit", Report from the UK Center for Research in Social Policy on behalf of the Department of Work and Pension Kelley D.J., Bosma N., Amorós J.E., (2011), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2010 Global Report, Global Entrepreneurship Research Association Kirzner, I. M. (1973), Competition and Entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press Kloosterman R., (2010), "Matching opportunities with resources: A Framework for analysing (migrant) entrepreneurship from a mixed embeddedness perspective", Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, vol.22, n°1, p.25‐45 Kodithuwakku S., Rosa P., (2002), "The entrepreneurial process and economic success in a constrained environment", Journal of Business Venturing, n°17, p.431–465 Khosa R.M., Kalitanyi V. , (2015),"Migration reasons, traits and entrepreneurial motivation of African immigrant entrepreneurs", Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, vol. 9, n° 2 pp. 132 ‐ 155 Krueger N., (2008), "Entrepreneurial Resilience: Real & Perceived Barriers to Implementing Entrepreneurial Intentions", working paper, Boise university, USA Krueger, N.F. et Carsrud, A.L. (1993), « Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behaviour », Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 5, p. 315‐330 Langevang, T., Namatovu, R., & Dawa, S. (2012). Beyond necessity and opportunity entrepreneurship: Motivations and aspirations of young entrepreneurs in Uganda. International Development Planning Review, 34(4), 439‐459. Le Breton‐Miller I., (2017), “Underdog Entrepreneurs: A Model of Challenge‐Based Entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 41, n° 1, pp. 7–17 Levratto N., ServerinE., (2015), “Become Independent! The Paradoxical Constraints of France's “Auto‐ Entrepreneur” Regime”, Small Business Management, Vol. 53, n° 1, pp. 284–301 Lewis K., Walker E, (2011), "Self‐employment: Policy panacea for an ageing population?", Small Enterprise Research, Vol. 18, n°2, p.143‐151 37 Light, I. And C. Rosenstein, (1995), Race, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurhsip in Urban America, New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter Luthans F., Youssef C.M., Avolio B.J., (2007), “Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge”, Oxford University Press Macdonald F., (1996), "Welfare dependency, the entreprise culture and self‐employed survival", Work Employment and Society, vol.11, n°3, p431‐447 Mair J., Marti I., (2006), “Social Entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction and delight », Journal of World Business, vol. 41, pp. 36‐44 Mair J., Marti I., (2009), « Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh », Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 24, n°5, p. 419‐435 Mandják T., Bárdos C., Neuman‐Bódi E., Németh S., Simon J. (2011), To solve the impossible: From necessity to success with the help of business network, IMP Journal, vol. 5, n° 3, p.212‐223. Maritz A., (2004), « New Zealand necessity entrepreneurs », International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, vol 1, No. 1, p.255‐263 Mc Mullen J.S., Sheperd D.A., (2006), "Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty on the theory of entrepreneur", Academy of Management Review, vol.31, p. 132‐152 Miner A., Bassof P., Moorman C., (2001), "Organizational Improvisation and Learning: A Field Study", Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 2, p.304‐337 Minniti, M., & Naude, M. (2010). What Do We Know about the Patterns and Determinants of Female Entrepreneurship across Countries? European Journal of Development Research, 22 (3), 277‐293 Mitchell D.T. , Campbell N.D., (2009), "Corruption's Effect on Business Venturing Within the United States", American Journal of Economics and Sociology, vol.68, n°5, p1135‐1152 Moore C., Mueller M., (2002), "The transition from paid to self‐employment in Canada: the importance of push factors", Applied Economics, vol.34, p.791–801 Moorman C., Miner A.S., (1998), “Organizational improvisation and organization memory”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 23, n° 4, pp. 698‐723 Morales‐Gualdron, S. T. and S. Roig (2005) "The new venture decision: An analysis based on the GEM project database." International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal1(4): 479‐499. Moroz W., Hindle K., (2012), “Entrepreneurship as a Process: Toward Harmonizing Multiple Perspectives”, EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, vol. 36, n°4, pp. 781‐818 Niefert, M. and Tchouvakhina, M., (2006), “Aus der Not geboren? – Besondere Merkmale und Determinanten von Gründungen aus der Arbeitslosigkeit”, Discussion Paper 06–010, ZEW 38 Oliveira E.X., Laplume A., Pathak S., (2015), "What motivates entrepreneurial entry under economic inequality? The role of human and financial capital", Human Relations, vol.68, n°7, pp. 1183‐1207 Orhan M., Scott D., (2001), "Why women enter into entrepreneurship: An explanatory model", Women in Management Review, vol.16, n°5/6 Oxenfeldt, A., (1943), New Firms and Free Enterprise, Washington, D.C.: American Council on Public Affairs Pagan‐Rodriquez R., (2011), “Transitions to and from self‐employment among older people with disabilities in Europe”, Journal of Disability Studies, vol. 23, n° 8, pp. 82‐93 Pecoud P., (2010), What is ethnic in an ethnic economy?, International Review of Sociology, 20(1), 59‐76 Perulli A., (2003), “Economically dependent/quasi subordinate (parasubordinae) employment : legal, social and economic aspects”, European Commission report for Employment, social affairs and inclusion Penrose E. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford University Press, Oxford Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press. Pittaway L., Thorpe R., (2012), “A framework for entrepreneurial learning: A tribute to Jason Cope”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, vol. 24, n° 9‐10, pp. 837‐859 Poschke M (2013) “Entrepreneurs out of necessity”: A snapshot. Applied Economics Letters, 20(7), 658– 663. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal Volume 22, Number 1, 2016 Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta‐analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 353–385. Read S., Song M., Smit W., (2009), "Meta analytic review of effectuation and venture performance", Journal of Business Venturing, vol 24, n° 6 Reynolds P.D., Camp S.M., Bygrave W.D., Autio E., Hay M., (2002), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2001 Executive Report, Kansas City, MO:Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership Rindova V., Barry D., Ketchen D.J., (2009), “Entrepreneuring as Emancipation”, Academy of Mangement Review, vol. 34 n°. 3, pp. 477‐491 Ritsilä J., Tervo H., (2002), “Effects of unemployment on new firm formation: micro‐level panel data evidence from Finland”, Small Business Economics, vol.19, pp. 31‐40 Rosa P.J., Kodithuwakku S., and Balunywa W., (2006), "Entrepreneurial motivation in developing countries: what does “necessity” and opportunity” entrepreneurship really mean?”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, vol. 26, n° 20, art.4 39 Sarason Y., Dean T., Dillard J., 2006, "Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and opportunity: A structuration perspective", Journal Of Business Venturing, vol.21, p.286‐305 Sarasvathy D., (2001), "Causation and Effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency", Academy of Management Review, vol.26, n°2, p.243‐288 Sarasvathy S., Germain O., (2011), « “L'effectuation, une approche pragmatique et pragmatiste de l'entrepreneuriat” », Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, vol. 10, n° 3, pp. 67‐72 Seligman, M. (1990) Learned Optimism. NY: Knopf Serviere L. (2010), Forced to entrepreneurship: modeling the factors behind Necessity Entrepreneurship, Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, vol. 22, n° 1, p. 37‐53. Shane S., (2009), « Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy», Small Business Economics, vol. 33, p.141‐149 Shane S., Locke E., CollinsC., (2003), "Entrepreneurial motivation", Human Resource Management Review, vol.13 Shane S., Venkataraman S., (2000), "The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. I, 217‐226 Shapero A., (1975), "The Displaced Uncomfortable Entrepreneur", Psychology Today, vol.42, pp. 83‐88 Singh G., Denoble A., (2003), "Early Retirees As the Next Generation of Entrepreneurs", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.27, n°3, p.207–226 Smallbone D., Welter F., (2003), "Entrepreneurship in transition economies: necessity or opportunity driven?", paper presented at the BCERC, Babson College Smeaton D. (2003), Self‐employed workers: calling the shots or hesitant independents? A consideration of the trends, Work Employment and Society, vol. 17, n° 2, p. 379–391 Startiene G., Remeikiene T., (2009), "The Influence of Demographical Factors on the Interaction between Entrepreneurship and Unemployment", Inzinerine Ekonomika‐Engineering Economics Sternberg, R. and H. Bergmann, 2003, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Laenderbericht Deutschland 2002 [Global Entre‐ preneurship Monitor: Country Report Germany 2002], Cologne: Institute of Economic and Social Geography, University of Cologne. Stevenson, H. H. and J. C. Jarillo (1990). ‘A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 11, pp. 17‐27 Steyaert, C. (2007). Entrepreneuring as a conceptual attractor? A review ofprocess theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(6), 453‐477 Steyaert, C. and Katz, J. 2004. Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: geographical, discursive and social dimension. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development: An International Journal 40 16: 179–196 Stinchfield B., Nelson R., Wod M., (2013), "Learning From Levi‐Strauss’ Legacy: Art, Craft, Engineering, Bricolage, and Brokerage in Entrepreneurship", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.37, n°4, p.889– 921 Storey D., (1991), "The birth of new firms ‐does unemployment matter? A review of the Evidence", Small Business Economics, vol.3, p.167‐178 Tang Y., (2013), "The Structure Comparison of Necessity Entrepreneurial Resource Support Networks Based on SNA", Business and Management Research Vol. 2, n°3 Taylor M., (1996), "Earnings, Independence or Unemployment: why become self‐employed?, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, vol.58, n°2, p.253‐265 Tedmanson D., Verduyn K., Essers C., Gartner W.B., “Critical perspectives in entrepreneurship research”, Organization, vol. 19, n° 5, pp. 531‐541 Tervo H., Niittykangas H., (1994), "The impact of unemployment on new firm formation in Finland", International Small Business Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.38–53 Thompson P., (2011), "Necessity and Opportunity Entrepreneurs through the Business Cycle", 1102 Florida International University, Department of Economics, working paper Thurik, A.R. Carree, M.A. Van Stel, A.J. et Audretsch, D.B. (2008), « Does self‐employment reduce unemployment? », Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 23, n° 6, p. 673‐686 Tyszka, T., J. Cieslik, et al., (2011) "Motivation, self‐efficacy, and risk attitudes among entrepreneurs during transition to a market economy." Journal of Socio‐Economics, vol.40, n°2 van Gelderen M., (2012), "Perseverance strategies of entreprising individuals", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, vol.18, n°6 van der Zwan, P., Thurik, R., Verheul, I. et al., (2016), “Factors influencing the entrepreneurial engagement of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs”, Eurasian Business Review, pp. 1‐23 Van Stel A., Storey S., Thurik R., (2007) "The effects of business regulations on nascent and young business entrepreneurship", Small Business Economics, Vol. 28, Nos. 2–3, p.171–186 van Stel A., Liebregts W., de Vries N., (2013), "Explaining entrepreneurial performance of solo self‐ employed from a motivational perspective," Scales Research Reports H201308, EIM Business and Policy Research Venancio A., (2013), "New beginnings : business start‐ups by dismissed individuals", working paper, School of Economics and Management, Lisboa Portugal Verduyn K., (2015), “Entrepreneuring and process: A Lefebvrian perspective, International Small Business Journal, vol. 33 n°.6, pp. 638‐648 41 Vorley T., Rodgers P., (2014), "Home is where the business is : Incidents in everyday life and the formation of home‐based businesses", International Small Business Journal, vol. 32 no. 4, p. 428‐448 Wagner J., (2005), "“Der Noth gehorchend, nicht dem eignen Trieb” ‐ Nascent Necessity and Opportunity Entrepreneurs in Germany: Evidence from the Regional Entrepreneurship Monitor (REM)", IZA working paper Weber P., Schaper M., (2004), "Understanding the grey entrepreneur", Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.147–164 Welter F., Kolb S., Althof K., (2007), Involuntary entrepreneurship in Germany, Pro KMU edition Wennekers, S., Noordhaven N., Hofstede G., Thurik R., (2001), "Cultural and economic determinants of business ownership across countries", Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership Award for Excellence in Research Wennekers, S., Thurik, R., (1999), “Linking Entrepreneurship and Economic”, Small Business Economics, vol.13, n° 27 Wennekers S., Van Stel A., Thurik, R., Reynolds P., (2005), "Nascent entrepreneurship and the level of economic development", Small Business Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3, p.293–309 Wexler D.B., (1999), “Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Culture of Critique”, Contemp. Legal Issues, vol. 263 Williams C., (2007), "Entrepreneurs operating in the informal economy: necessity or opportunity driven? ", Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, vol.20, n°3 Williams C., (2009), "The motives of off‐the books entrepreneurs : necessity or opportunity?", International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, vol.5, n°2, p.203–217 Williams C., Nadin S., (2013), "Beyond the entrepreneur as a heroic figurehead of capitalism: Re‐ representing the lived practices of entrepreneurs", Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol.25, p. 552‐568 Williams C., Round J., Rodgers P., (2010), "Explaining the off‐the‐books enterprise culture of Ukraine: reluctant or willing entrepreneurship?", International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, vol.10, No.2, p.165 – 180 Williams N., Williams C., (2011), "Beyond necessity versus opportunity entrepreneurship: some lessons from English deprived urban neighbourhoods ", International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol.10, n°1, p. 23‐40 Williams C., Youssef Y., (2014), "Is Informal Sector Entrepreneurship Necessity‐ or Opportunity‐driven? Some Lessons from Urban Brazil", Business and Management Research, Vol. 3, No. 1 42 Wong P.K., Ho Y.P., Autio E., (2005), "Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data", Small Business Economics, vol.24, p.335–50 Yanfu et al., (2003), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor China 2002, Tsinghua University Press, China Yaniv E., Brock D. (2012), Reluctant entrepreneurs: Why they do it and how they do it, Ivey Business Journal, pp. 1‐8 Zali M., Faghih N., Ghotbi S., Rajaie S. (2013), "The effect of necessity and opportunity driven entrepreneurship on business growth", International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, vol, 7, n°2, p. 100‐108 Appendix Details on the Material used for Our Literature Review Our literature review is a qualitative content analysis which, although not strictly being a Systematic Literature Review, applies most of its rules and techniques. We have included in our review books, book chapters, and journal articles. This approach is appropriate when the focus is on new and innovative research ideas at an early stage of development (Tranfield et al., 2003; Coviello et al., 2011). First, we have set-up a list of Keywords, in title, abstract and full text: necessity entrepreneur(ship), unemployment and entrepreneurship, self-employment and necessity or constraint or precarity, reluctant or involuntary or forced or constrained or pushed entrepreneur(ship), refugee, push motivations. Several steps have then been implemented to define the studied corpus: a) Google Scholar and relevant data bases, i.e. Business Source Complete, Proquest, Ebsco, Winley library, Cairn info, Emerald, Science Direct, New Economics Papers on Entrepreneurship have been searched; b) a monitoring strategy has been implemented on hose databases. Relevance and interest of articles have been decided upon full reading of the complete text. As regards books, we followed the same key words criteria by browsing our Universities online libraries catalogues and also other sources such as google books and amazon.; c) we have systematically searched peer ranked entrepreneurship journals (HCERES ranking); d) we have reviewed papers from main conferences in entrepreneurship; e) we have contacted researchers working on Necessity Entrepreneurship to obtain their latest work; f) we have done an in-depth bibliographical search on major authors pertaining to the field, like Rosa, Block or Wagner. We have adopted a trans-disciplinary approach: a) we have selected articles from reviews in various fields of research, be it management, psychology, sociology, economic and cultural anthropology, political economics, strategy, marketing, finance, geography, law; b) bibliographies of articles have been reviewed to cross-check all references. Only articles which main focus is on Necessity Entrepreneurship have been selected. 43 After reading all the abstracts retrieved, we have selected 240 papers that directly and explicitly integrate theory and concepts from Necessity Entrepreneurship literature. A database has been set up, including relevant information for each article: field, theory, method, including sampling method, conclusions, limits, definition of Necessity Entrepreneurship. 44