Social Entrepreneurship and Complexity: social innovation in
an indigenous context
Paul Tapsell
Adjunct Senior Lecturer
Department of Anthropology; University of Auckland
Co-coordinator
Museums & Cultural Heritage Programme, University of Auckland
Tumuaki – Director Maori
Tamaki Paenga Hira / Auckland War Memorial Museum
Private Bag 92018
Auckland Museum
ptapsell@aucklandmuseum.com
Deb Shepherd
Senior Lecturer
Management and International Business
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland
New Zealand
d.shepherd@auckland.ac.nz
Christine Woods*
Senior Lecturer
Management and International Business
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland
New Zealand
cr.woods@auckland.ac.nz
* Corresponding Author
1
Abstract
This paper explores the notion of social innovation as it arises in indigenous
communities. In particular, we consider entrepreneurial activity in Maori communities
where innovation arises through the interaction of the young opportunity seeking
entrepreneur (potiki) and the elder statesperson (rangatira). To explore this behaviour in
more detail we draw on a neo-Schumpeterian understanding of innovation as self
organisation: new combinations are seen as ‘the deliberate formation and re-formation of
cooperating groups’ (Foster, 2000, p. 319). We then provide an illustrative example in the
form of one social entrepreneurship venture: Maori Maps.
Self-organisation is founded on the idea that entrepreneurially driven enterprises are
embedded in larger systems; they are complex networks of many independent actors
interacting with one another. These interactions give rise to emergent properties different
to the properties of individual actors; these properties are the consequence of selforganisation. Self-organisation is the result of actor’s action on local knowledge – there is
no central controller to tell actors what to do, nor does any actor have complete
knowledge of the circumstances surrounding their actions. The interaction between
actors of a system creates novel and unpredictable patterns. From a Schumpeterian
perspective, for dynamic change to occur and for the economy to evolve, new
combinations must be introduced to disrupt the circular flow framework. All disruptions
are the result of innovation in the form of new combinations. The willingness to
recognise and then exploit newly perceived opportunities is the hallmark of
entrepreneurial behaviour (Schumpeter, 2003, p. 250). In concrete terms Schumpeter
provides a list of the typical opportunities entrepreneurs recognise and then exploit.
These new combinations ‘appear discontinuously’ and bring about economic change.
Five types of new combinations are given and include: introducing a new good or method
of production, opening a new market or sourcing new material; and carrying out a new
organisation of any industry (Schumpeter, 1934, p. 66).
Implementing these new combinations characterises enterprise and the individuals whose
function it is to carry them out are defined as entrepreneurs (Schumpeter, 1934, p. 74).
Schumpeter emphasises leaps and discontinuities rather than continuous change and his
notion of evolution places an emphasis on novelty and change. Entrepreneurial activity
takes place within an economy that needs to be understood as a process occurring in
historical time. Entrepreneurial activity is socially situated and contingent on the
historical context in which it occurs (Schumpeter, 1949a, 1949b).
So how does Schumpeter’s understanding of innovation relate to social entrepreneurship?
Schumpeter divides people into ‘those who are dynamic and do what is new, and those
who are static and only repeat what has already been done’. Social entrepreneurship can
therefore ‘be translated into Schumpeterian terminology as a form of dynamic behaviour
in one of the non-economic areas of society’ (Swedberg, 2006, p. 33). To understand
Schumpeter more clearly on this we need to return the first edition of The Theory of
Economic Development. In this edition Schumpeter discusses entrepreneurship and how
2
it relates to different forms of economic as well as social change. Schumpeter states that
the process of development has ‘remarkable analogies to other sectors of social life. Most
importantly, these analogies can contribute to further illuminate our understanding, and to
show that existence and activity in these other sectors can be grasped with a perspective
parallel to ours’ (Schumpeter, 1911, p. 422).1
Further to this, Becker and Knudsen (2002) argue that, based on Chapter Seven of the
first edition of Theory of Economic Development, Schumpeter saw ‘the development of
the economy as a whole is a phenomenon emerging on the basis of the interaction among
the various parts’ (emphasis added) (p. 396). We argue that this interaction can enable
entrepreneurial activity in the form of innovation to emerge in the field of social
entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship can be understood as dynamic change resulting
from innovation which takes the form of the introduction of new combinations.
The introduction of new combinations is a distinctive process requiring explanation.
Schumpeter does not explicitly develop a theory to explain the microlevel, behavioural
decision process of how entrepreneurs generate change. To explore this process in more
detail we turn to work of John Foster (1997, 2000). Foster argues that Schumpeter’s
understanding of economic evolution offers intuitions and insights compatible with a self
organisation approach and that Schumpeter’s ‘self organisational intuitions were derived
from his extensive and detailed study of economic history’ (Foster, 2000, p. 319). Foster
points us in the direction of complexity science and expands on the self organisation
approach of Schumpeter.2 Entrepreneurial acts develop in a spontaneous process.
Innovation emerges from the endogenous novelty-creating, self-organising acts of
entrepreneurs. According to Foster (2000, p. 319), the
entrepreneurial desire to discover new and profitable organisational combinations
provides what we can now label as a self-organisational impetus within the
economic system creating organised complexity. ‘Combination’ implies, not
competition, but the deliberate formation and re-formation of cooperating groups
engaged in production. The result is expanding variety in products and processes.
(emphasis added)
Organisations are complex adaptive systems comprised of people ‘who experiment,
explore, self organise, learn and adapt’ to their changing environments; to do this the key
self organising behaviours include exploration and experimentation (Carlisle & McMillan
(2006, p. 3, 4). Emergent possibility or innovation lies between the regions of stability
and chaos (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997). Organisations can be placed along a spectrum: at
one end of the spectrum we have random and highly chaotic and at the other we have
mechanistic and highly ordered (Carlisle & McMillan 2006). It is between the ‘edge of
chaos’ and ‘the edge of stability’ that the complex adaptive system operates, and
innovation through self organisation occurs in this space. Carlisle and McMillan (2006)
label this the Zone of Emergent Complexity and suggest that organisational success and
survival requires an organisation to operate at both edges and avoid moving out of the
Zone. Too much chaos and the organisation risks disintegration, too much structure and
rigidity and ossification occurs. The CAS moves between and on the edges.
3
For the purposes of this paper we wish to focus on the aspects of CAS that assist our
understanding of how innovation can occur as self organisation. We focus on the
interactions that occur within the Maori tribal community between the potiki (young
opportunity seeker) and the rangatira (elder).
Intense interactions between tribal members and the environment enabled the formation
and self organisation of tribal identities that operated within self generated boundaries.
Typical of a CAS, Maori society formed into nested self-similar layers (MacGill, 2007).
However, while society is hierarchically organised with clearly defined roles, interactions
between all levels of society is significant.
Rangatira and potiki represent two aspects of the CAS system. Autonomy and
connectivity are vital for the continuation of a CAS. If the autonomy of the individual
takes precedence then the group looses its ability to cooperate and coordinate resources.
If on the other hand connectivity becomes paramount then actors lose their individuality
and diversity and the tribal community becomes too inflexible (MacGill, 2007). The
potiki operates at the edge of chaos and autonomy and the rangatira at the edge of
stability and connectivity. Self organisation occurs in the Zone of Innovation where the
potiki and rangatira interact within the tribal setting. Actions are guided by Tikanga
(customary practice) which is able to adapt and change in response to internal and
external forces.
To illustrate this dynamic in more detail we draw on the illustrative example of Maori
Maps. Maori Maps is about social and genealogical entrepreneurship. It is a Maori driven
response to a very real, emerging crisis: Maori cross-generational alienation. The
challenge is to find an effective way to meaningfully reconnect the urban-raised ‘potiki
generation’ to their home communities and elders. The marae has been the continuous
focus of tribal values, spanning 3000 plus years of oceanic voyaging, settlement,
innovation and most recently a retreat from colonisation. Post World War II urbanisation
has not only ruptured customary knowledge transfer – elder to grandchild – but
geographically separated them, rendering each invisible to the other and preventing
marae rejuvenation. Maori Maps seeks to reconnect core kin-relationship and ensure
Aotearoa’s unique marae remains central to New Zealand’s future well-being and
national identity.
In this paper we discuss the emergence of Maori Maps as an example of social
innovation. Here tradition and heritage form the path to innovation with the opportunity
seeking adventurers taking the steps along the path to begin the journey.
4
Becker, M. C., & Knudsen, T. (2002). Schumpeter 1911: farsighted visions on economic
development. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 61(2), 387-403.
Brown, S., & Eisenhardt, K. (1997). The art of continuous change: linking complexity
theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organisations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1-34.
Carlisle, Y., & McMillan, E. (2006). Innovation in organizations from a complex
adaptive systems perspective. Emergence: Complexity and Organizations, 8(1), 29.
Foster, J. (1997). The Analytical Foundations of Evolutionary Economics: from
Biological Analogy to Economic Self-organisation. Structural Change and
Economic Dynamics, 8, 427-451.
Foster, J. (2000). Competitive Selection, Self-organisation and Joseph A. Schumpeter.
Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10, 311-328.
MacGill, V. (2007). A complexity view of three Maori tribal groups of the South Island
of New Zealand and the Moriori of the Chatham Islands. Emergence: Complexity
and Organizations, 9(1-2), 67-76.
McKelvey, B. (2004). Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 19, 313-341.
Schumpeter, J. ([1949a] 1969). Economic Theory and Entrepreneurial History. In R. V.
Clemence (Ed.), Essays on Economic Topics of J A Schumpeter (pp. 248-266).
New York: Kennikat Press.
Schumpeter, J. ([1928] 2003). Entrepreneur (Translated by Markus C Becker &Thorjborn
Knudsen
Austrian Economics and Entrepreneurial Studies, 6, 235-265.
Schumpeter, J. ([1949b] 1967). The Historical Approach to the Analysis of Business
Cycles. In R. V. Clemence (Ed.), Essays on Economic Topics of J.A. Schumpeter
(pp. 308-315). New York: Kennikat Press.
Schumpeter, J. ([1911]2002). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung (translated by
Markus C Becker
Thorbjorn Knudsen)
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 61(2), 406-437.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934 ). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Swedberg, R. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: the view of the young Schumpeter. In C.
Steyaert & D. Hjorth (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as Social Change (pp. 21-34).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
1
This quote is taken from Chapter 7 of the first edition (Schumpeter, 1911 [2002]). This chapter was totally
eliminated from the 1934 English translation.
2
McKelvey (2004) notes that Schumpeter’s highlighted other key principles of complexity theory such as
phase transitions and punctuated equilibrium well before leading complexity theorists like Prigogine and
Muruyama.
5