212
Entrepreneurship is here itself important to community and regional resilience
and overall sustainability. Developing a path dependence based on entrepreneurship
builds innovation capacity. The latter emphasises newness, change and adaptation.
Hence, a community and region improves its resilience as its history and capabilities for entrepreneurship and innovation enable positive adaptations to failed sectors. A wellbeing approach then encourages variety and a history of path creation,
thereby steering away from too much path dependence (Martin and Sunley 2006).
Future research can further explore how a wellbeing approach to entrepreneurial
development leads to more resilient communities and regions with less negative
externalities than those regions adopting a purely economic development logic.
Included is the need to develop a measure of multidimensional wellbeing across the
eight components conceptualised in this paper. A score for community wellbeing on
each of the eight components could be based on averaging scores of individuals.
Such a test could also serve as an ideal type where a total maximum wellbeing score
could serve as the barometer against which one could measure a total wellbeing
score for the community. Research could also test if a portfolio approach to community entrepreneurship achieves greater multidimensional wellbeing than existing
approaches which prioritise economic development. Research is also needed into
the governance required to oversee the portfolio of enterprises in the community, set
community wellbeing goals and develop entrepreneurship.
Social enterprises also have a role in entrepreneurship for community wellbeing
(Peredo and Chrisman 2006; Peredo and McLean 2006). Social entrepreneurship
can help to prioritise aspects of wellbeing in their portfolios (e.g. a focus on contributing to social wellbeing or environmental or spiritual). However, as with for-profit
entrepreneurship, there are benefits to the community-level coordination of social
entrepreneurship based on wellbeing deficiencies in the community. Such coordination keeps things focused on both community and wellbeing. Social entrepreneurship literature could benefit by studying how wellbeing could become an overarching
goal and point of difference with traditional profit-maximisation entrepreneurship.
This includes study of the interactions between various components of wellbeing
and how these play out at a community level.
Corporations stand to bring useful benefits to the communities in which they
operate. Importantly though, such companies would benefit from a wellbeing-based
approach to development investment and responsible production. Investing in the
entrepreneurship skills of locals needs to be complemented with investments in
leadership and governance from a wellbeing perspective.
In this context, the implementation of an entrepreneurship for community wellbeing approach coupled with other initiatives, such as food security and farming
programmes, is highly recommended due to the likelihood that mining impacts will
have adverse implications for locals. This will allow activities like mining to coexist
with other industries and activities relevant to the local economy and will add value
to other livelihood options relevant to communities, as well as helping to ensure that
improved community wellbeing remains after the mines have closed.
It is advisable to build community capacity for wellbeing-based approaches to
entrepreneurship in developing resource regions of Latin America. Existing approaches
I. B. Franco and L. Newey
Entrepreneurship is here itself important to community and regional resilience
and overall sustainability. Developing a path dependence based on entrepreneurship
builds innovation capacity. The latter emphasises newness, change and adaptation.
Hence, a community and region improves its resilience as its history and capabilities for entrepreneurship and innovation enable positive adaptations to failed sectors. A wellbeing approach then encourages variety and a history of path creation,
thereby steering away from too much path dependence (Martin and Sunley 2006).
Future research can further explore how a wellbeing approach to entrepreneurial
development leads to more resilient communities and regions with less negative
externalities than those regions adopting a purely economic development logic.
Included is the need to develop a measure of multidimensional wellbeing across the
eight components conceptualised in this paper. A score for community wellbeing on
each of the eight components could be based on averaging scores of individuals.
Such a test could also serve as an ideal type where a total maximum wellbeing score
could serve as the barometer against which one could measure a total wellbeing
score for the community. Research could also test if a portfolio approach to community entrepreneurship achieves greater multidimensional wellbeing than existing
approaches which prioritise economic development. Research is also needed into
the governance required to oversee the portfolio of enterprises in the community, set
community wellbeing goals and develop entrepreneurship.
Social enterprises also have a role in entrepreneurship for community wellbeing
(Peredo and Chrisman 2006; Peredo and McLean 2006). Social entrepreneurship
can help to prioritise aspects of wellbeing in their portfolios (e.g. a focus on contributing to social wellbeing or environmental or spiritual). However, as with for-profit
entrepreneurship, there are benefits to the community-level coordination of social
entrepreneurship based on wellbeing deficiencies in the community. Such coordination keeps things focused on both community and wellbeing. Social entrepreneurship literature could benefit by studying how wellbeing could become an overarching
goal and point of difference with traditional profit-maximisation entrepreneurship.
This includes study of the interactions between various components of wellbeing
and how these play out at a community level.
Corporations stand to bring useful benefits to the communities in which they
operate. Importantly though, such companies would benefit from a wellbeing-based
approach to development investment and responsible production. Investing in the
entrepreneurship skills of locals needs to be complemented with investments in
leadership and governance from a wellbeing perspective.
In this context, the implementation of an entrepreneurship for community wellbeing approach coupled with other initiatives, such as food security and farming
programmes, is highly recommended due to the likelihood that mining impacts will
have adverse implications for locals. This will allow activities like mining to coexist
with other industries and activities relevant to the local economy and will add value
to other livelihood options relevant to communities, as well as helping to ensure that
improved community wellbeing remains after the mines have closed.
It is advisable to build community capacity for wellbeing-based approaches to
entrepreneurship in developing resource regions of Latin America. Existing approaches
I. B. Franco and L. Newey