New Zealand Applied Business Journal
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002
INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE ENTREPRENEURSHIP AMONGST THE
PÄKEHA AND MÄORI OF AOTEAROA / NEW ZEALAND
Howard H. Frederick
New Zealand Centre for Innovation & Entrepreneurship
UNITEC Faculty of Business
Auckland, New Zealand
hfrederick@unitec.ac.nz
Abstract: Individual entrepreneurs play a more dominant role in the New Zealand
economy than in many other countries. Based upon GEM methodology, this paper
explores varieties of entrepreneurship amongst the Päkeha (European New
Zealanders) and Mäori (indigenous Polynesian inhabitants) of Aotearoa / New
Zealand. The conclusions are based upon an adult population survey of 2000 adult
New Zealanders aged 18-64 that investigated their total entrepreneurial activity and
compared it to 28 other countries. The conclusions also draw upon forty interviews
about Mäori entrepreneurship and a survey of “ideal type” entrepreneurship and
ethnicity in New Zealand.
According to the adult population survey, in 2001 New Zealand had one of the
world’s highest rates of total entrepreneurial activity. It also ranked the world’s
highest in the rate of female entrepreneurship and in business angel activity. Another
of our findings was that New Zealanders across all ethnicities have the ability to be
enterprising. Mäori are every bit as entrepreneurial as European New Zealanders.
Thus we were interested in the extent to which existing social and cultural norms
encourage entrepreneurship and how New Zealand entrepreneurship might differ by
ethnicity.
According to Lee and Peterson (2000), “ideal type” entrepreneurs would generally
accept uncertainty and risk; not tolerate unequal relationships; stress materialism and
wealth; emphasize individual accomplishment; believe that power and status are
earned through competition and hard work; believe that a code of laws exists equally
for all. We put these cultural categories to the test in New Zealand. Survey results
show that Päkeha fit the ideal type but Mäori do not. Mäori culture, according to this
survey, does not stress materialism or individual accomplishment. Mäori
entrepreneurs may stand out as deviations from the ideal type. This might find an
explanation in the distinction between collective entrepreneurship and individual
entrepreneurship. In other words, what we may have identified is that Päkeha
entrepreneurship differs from Mäori entrepreneurship along the individualismcollectivism spectrum.
The paper goes on to describe characteristics of Mäori collective entrepreneurship
using insights gained from the interviews and secondary research. It stresses that the
study of Mäori entrepreneurship must necessarily begin by examining the cultural
imperatives of Maori economic and business development.
It also concludes that there may be two types of entrepreneurship in New Zealand.
There are the “rugged individualists” who pursue the Päkeha style of entrepreneurial
firm and there are the “harmonious collectivists” who base their entrepreneurial
aspirations upon the community aspirations of the group. A unique form of Mäori
entrepreneurship differs from the “ideal type” of Päkeha entrepreneurship.
Keywords: Entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs, Mäori,New Zealand, small business,
cultural diversity..
ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN NEW ZEALAND
This study is based upon the GEM methodology. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
(GEM) is the most comprehensive country-by-country comparison of entrepreneurship in the
1
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002
New Zealand Applied Business Journal
world (Reynolds, Camp, Bygrave, Autio & Hay, 2001). In 2001, UNITEC’s New Zealand
Centre for Innovation & Entrepreneurship carried out the New Zealand portion of the 29country GEM study, which was our first-ever national survey of entrepreneurship (Frederick
& Carswell, 2001).
We surveyed 2000 adult New Zealanders aged 18-64 on their total entrepreneurial activity
and compared these results with 28 other countries. We conducted in-depth interviews with
New Zealand experts including entrepreneurs, educators, politicians and business people,
with special attention paid to Mäori entrepreneurship. The results astounded many New
Zealanders (Jones, 2001). New Zealand turned out to be one of the world’s most
entrepreneurial countries. Ranking in the top three with Mexico and Australia, New Zealand
had a higher rate of total entrepreneurial activity than even the United States. It had the
world’s highest rate of female entrepreneurship and of business angel activity.
The most reported finding by the New Zealand media is seen in Figure 1. Here we see that
New Zealanders across all ethnicities had the ability to be enterprising. We can see that Mäori
were every bit as entrepreneurial as European New Zealanders. Some commentators were
surprised by this finding, as a high percentage of Mäori are long-term unemployed and
receive 32 per cent of New Zealand benefit entitlements (welfare) although they constitute
only 14.5 per cent of the population (Work and Income New Zealand, 2000).
This paper investigates more deeply the phenomenon of Mäori entrepreneurship within the
context of GEM and the limitations of our method. In particular, we are interested in the
cultural aspect of entrepreneurship that may distinguish one ethnic or cultural group from
another as well as from the “ideal type” entrepreneurship discussed in the literature.
THEORETICAL MODEL
Entrepreneurship is significantly related to national economic adaptation and expansion
(Reynolds, Camp, Bygrave, Autio, & Hay, 2001; Lydall, 1992; Powell, 1990; Ács, 1996;
Casson & Godley, 2000; Libecap, 2000; Scherer & Perlman, 1992; Butler, Dennis, Heritage
Foundation (Washington, D.C.), & National Federation of Independent Business, 1986). As a
result, the rate of policy-making as well as public and private investments in innovation and
entrepreneurship promotion have increased in the hope of accelerating national wealth
creation and job creation benefits.
Our GEM-derived conceptual model of New Zealand’s economic development focused on
the creation and growth of small, new firms. New Zealand is a country of small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs). According to the New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development
(2000), SMEs constitute the majority of all enterprises in New Zealand. Ninety-six per cent
of enterprises are SMEs employing fewer than 20 full time equivalents (FTEs). Eight-four per
cent of enterprises are small firms employing 5 or less FTEs. The average New Zealand
enterprise employs 6 people yet accounts for a significant proportion (42 per cent) of total
employment. The SME sector accounts for 35 per cent of the economy, with small firms (<5
FTEs) making up 19 per cent. SMEs play a more dominant role in the New Zealand economy
2
New Zealand Applied Business Journal
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002
than in many other countries, and they account for a high proportion of employment in New
Zealand relative to other countries.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND CULTURE
Our model included contextual factors, referred to as Entrepreneurial Framework
Conditions.1 EFC number 9 was defined as:
The extent to which existing social and cultural norms encourage, or do not
discourage, individual actions that may lead to new ways of conducting business
or economic activities and, in turn, lead to greater dispersion in wealth and
income.
Social and cultural norms are highly relevant to New Zealand entrepreneurship. Ninety-one
percent of our experts cited this as the most important issue facing the growth of
entrepreneurship. Despite its apparent high overall rate, New Zealand is not ranked high
amongst the GEM countries in the “cultural value placed on independence” or “tolerance of
uncertainty.” But our survey did not address the deeper underlying issues of cultural traits or
ethnic characteristics that might influence entrepreneurial behaviour.
The literature has long focused on cultural characteristics that might promote or inhibit
entrepreneurship in various countries. Many of these works come from the neo-conservative
or neo-liberal school of thought and have focussed on the supposed unique “ideal type” of
entrepreneurship. Some of the notable names of this genre include: Brigitte Berger (1991);
Peter Berger (1990; 1986; Berger, Hsiao, & Carnegie Council on Ethics & International
Affairs, 1988) and Robert Bellah (Bellah & Congress for Cultural Freedom, 1965) in
sociology; Lawrence Harrison (1985) and Herman Kahn (1970) in economics; Lucian Pye
(1985) in political science; Geert Hofstede (2001; 1997) in management science; and James
Fallows (1994), Michael Novak (1991), and George Gilder (1984; 1981) in scholarly
journalism. Examples and case studies abound. Lam and Paltiel (1994) argue that
Confucianism is correlated with economic development and entrepreneurship in Taiwan and
Japan. Other literature describes cultural characteristics that explain why Singapore might
lack a spirit of entrepreneurship (Arnold, 1999; Mellor, 2001), a finding matched by that
country’s poor showing in GEM 2001 (Reynolds et al., 2001).
One dominant school of thought relevant to this paper examines the relationship of culture
and personality traits (Thomas, 2000; Mueller & Thomas, 2001). For example, Cowling
(2000) found that variables gender and education varied in strength of explaining
entrepreneurship across countries. Hofstede’s argument is well-known that cultural
dimensions such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, and
masculinity/femininity affect national wealth and economic growth (Hofstede, 1984). Morris
1
Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions: 1 Financial Support; 2 Government Policies; 3 Government
Programmes; 4 Education and Training; 5 Research and Development Transfer; 6 Commercial and Professional
Infrastructure; 7 Market Openness/Barriers to Entry; 8 Access to Physical Infrastructure; 9 Cultural and Social
Norms; 10 Maori dimension of entrepreneurship.
3
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002
New Zealand Applied Business Journal
showed that as entrepreneurship declines, the more collectivism is emphasized (Morris &
Davis, 1994). Trompenaars showed how different cultures respond to different management
approaches, how organizations have different meanings to different cultures (Trompenaars,
Hampden-Turner, & Trompenaars, 1994). Many authors (Verma, 1985; Hofstede, 1980;
Spence, 1985; Brockhaus, 1982; McClelland, 1987; Kets de Vries, 1977; Gartner, 1985)
reinforce the view that characteristics such as these comprise the salient dimensions of
culture insofar as entrepreneurship is concerned.
In this tradition, Lee and Peterson, drawing as well upon Lumpkin and Dess (1996), propose
that a society's propensity to generate autonomous, risk-taking, innovative, competitively
aggressive and proactive entrepreneurs and firms depends on its cultural characteristics
(Lee & Peterson, 2000). Countries with these specific cultural tendencies will engender a
strong “entrepreneurial orientation” (EO), hence higher total entrepreneurial activity. They
posit that:
[Entrepreneurial] cultures are less tolerant of power distance, willing to accept
living with uncertainty, are more individualistic, masculine, achievement oriented,
and universalistic. In contrast, societies that express concern about class structure,
commitment to the hierarchy, job security, consensus decision making, and
entitlement thinking will likely readily accept power distance, have a strong
uncertainly avoidance, be more collective, feminine, ascription oriented, and
particularistic.
Lee and Peterson elaborate these six cultural dichotomies as:






Uncertainty Avoidance - the degree of acceptance of uncertainty or the willingness to
take risk (Strong - little acceptance of uncertainty or risk; versus Weak - generally
accepting for uncertainty and risk)
Power Distance - degree of tolerance for hierarchical or unequal relationships (High large degree of tolerance for unequal relationships; versus Low - small degree of
tolerance for unequal relationships)
Masculinity - degree of stress placed on materialism (Masculinity - large degree of stress
on materialism and wealth; versus Femininity - large degree of stress on harmony and
relationships)
Individualism - degree of emphasis placed on individual accomplishment (Individualism
- large degree of emphasis on individual accomplishment; versus Collectivism - large
degree of emphasis on group accomplishment)
Achievement - describes how power and status are determined (Achievement - power and
status are achieved or earned through competition and hard work; versus Ascription power and status are ascribed by birthright, age, or gender)
Universalism - describes norms for regulating behaviour (Universalism - code of laws
exist that apply equally to all; versus Particularism - individuals enjoy special rights or
privileges because of their status)
Specifically, "ideal type" entrepreneurs according to this theory would: generally accept
uncertainty and risk; not tolerate unequal relationships; stress materialism and wealth (as
opposed to harmony and relationships); emphasize individual accomplishment (as opposed to
4
New Zealand Applied Business Journal
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002
group accomplishment); believe that power and status are earned through competition and
hard work (as opposed to birthright, age or gender); believe that a code of laws exists equally
for all (as opposed to individuals enjoy special rights or privileges because of their status).
TESTING THIS THEORY IN NEW ZEALAND
We decided to put these cultural categories to the test in New Zealand. According to GEM,
New Zealand is one of the world's most entrepreneurial countries. Mäori seem to be every bit
as entrepreneurial as Päkeha. We therefore should expect to find both Päkeha and Mäori
possessing the "ideal type" characteristics.
Notwithstanding the problems in defining culture or ethnicity, we conducted a survey of the
cultural characteristics that might unite or distinguish Päkeha and Mäori from the ideal type.
We emailed a survey to 1000 subscribers of Innov8, the newsletter of the New Zealand
Centre for Innovation & Entrepreneurship, in April 2002 (See Annexure 1.) We asked the
standard New Zealand census question about ethnicity and then asked the respondent to
indicate where they perceive their own ethnic group to be on each of the six cultural
dimensions. We asked them to "generalise" across the entire group. 147 valid responses were
returned (107 Päkeha, 15 Mäori - representing precisely their proportion of the population, as
well as 2 Chinese, 15 Indian, 14 other - Americans, Canadian, South Africans, Dutch,
Romanian). Their responses (see Table 1) provided some surprises.
1. The ideal type entrepreneur would generally be accepting of risk or uncertainty. While
75% of Päkeha are generally accepting of risk and uncertainty, Mäori split (46% strong54% weak) on this dimension.
2. The prototypical entrepreneur would generally have a large degree of tolerance of
unequal relationships. While 65% of Päkeha tolerated unequal relationships, Mäori again
split on this dimension (47%-54%).
3. The ideal type would have a large degree of stress on materialism and wealth. While 91%
of Päkeha placed a large degree of stress on materialism and wealth, 94% of the Mäori
respondents answered the contrary, namely that there is a large degree of stress on
harmony and relationships.
4. The ideal type would place a large degree of emphasis on individual accomplishment.
While 89% of Päkeha placed a large degree of emphasis on individual accomplishment,
93% of the Mäori respondents answered the contrary, namely that there is a large degree
of emphasis on group accomplishment.
5. The prototypical entrepreneur would believe that power and status are achieved or earned
through competition and hard work. 95% of Päkeha fit this description, but Mäori were
split (57%-43%).
6. The prototypical entrepreneur would aver that a code of laws exist that apply equally to
all. Again, 86% of Päkeha fit this description, but Mäori were not so sure (64%-35%).
We can venture some conclusions. Päkeha fit the ideal type suggested by the research
literature on cultural characteristics in entrepreneurship. Mäori certainly do not. Mäori split
on characteristics 1, 2, 5, and 6. But for Mäori, two of the variables namely materialism and
wealth and individual accomplishment - stand out as striking deviations from the ideal type.
5
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002
New Zealand Applied Business Journal
If indeed Mäori are so entrepreneurial, the literature of “ideal type” entrepreneurship fails to
explain why from a cultural perspective.
INDIVIDUAL VERSUS COLLECTIVE ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Another body of literature (Chung & Gibbons, 1997; Morris & Davis, 1994; Mourdoukoutas,
1999a; Mourdoukoutas, 1999b; Tetzschner, 1997; Connell, 1999; Roberts, 1993; Reich,
1987) may provide a clue to help unravel this conundrum. This literature treats the
importance of collective entrepreneurship and identifies individual entrepreneurship as only
one culturally determined variant. As Morris states: “The role of individuals versus groups or
collectives in facilitating entrepreneurship in organisations may . . . be culture-bound.”
In other words, what we may have identified is that the particular variant of Päkeha
entrepreneurship may be culturally different from Mäori entrepreneurship along the
individualism-collectivism spectrum.
What is collective entrepreneurship? According to Mourdoukoutas (1999a), entrepreneurial
collectives are communities that share a common fate: the risks and rewards associated with
the discovery and exploitation of new businesses. It might not come as a surprise that in his
later work, Schumpeter explicitly recognises the rise of collective entrepreneurship: “[The]
entrepreneurial function need not to be embodied in […] a single physical person. Every
social environment has its own ways of filling the entrepreneurial function […it] may be and
often is filled co-operatively” (Schumpeter, 1949). One often-cited advocate of collective
entrepreneurship says, “we must begin to celebrate collective entrepreneurship, endeavours in
which the whole of the effort is greater than the sum of individual contributions” (Reich,
1987). Morris makes the distinctions:
In an individualistic environment, people are motivated by self-interest and
achievement of personal goals. They are hesitant to contribute to collective action
unless their own efforts are recognized, preferring instead to benefit from the
efforts of others.
Collectivists believe that they are an indispensable part of the group, and will
readily contribute without concern for advantage being taken of them or for
whether others are doing their part. They feel personally responsible for the group
product and are oriented towards sharing group rewards.
In addition to its use in corporate entrepreneurship, the concept of collective entrepreneurship
also has meaning for community entrepreneurship because it combines business risk and
capital investment with the social values of collective action. “It is an event that exists when
collective action aims for the economic and social betterment of a locality by means of some
transformation of social norms, values, and networks for the production of goods or services
by an enterprise” (Connell, 1999).
6
New Zealand Applied Business Journal
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002
CHARACTERISTICS OF MÄORI ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Very little has been written about Mäori entrepreneurship or about the Mäori dimension of
the knowledge economy (Frederick & McIlroy, 2000; Frederick, 2000b; James, 1995;
Tapsell, 1997; Zepalska, Perry, & Dabb, 2002). Even outside of New Zealand, the field of
“indigenous entrepreneurship ” is in its infancy and the individualism-collectivism dichotomy
is not well treated. Perhaps most researched are the indigenous people of North America,
particularly Native American Indians and Canadian Inuit (Chiste, 1996; Dana, 1995; DavisBird, 1997; Guly, 1999; Guly, 1998; Humphreys & McClung, 1982; Jenkins, 1977; Jenkins,
1992; Mangelsdorf, 1988). There are a few studies of Australian aboriginal entrepreneurship
(Daly, 1994, 1993; Hunter, 1999). So the knowledge that informs this paper derives primarily
from interviews with Mäori entrepreneurs and experts in Mäori entrepreneurship during 2000
as well as previous research (Frederick, 2000a).
Traditional Mäori society was tribal, property was communally owned, and tribal dominion
over land (mana whenua) was and remains a significant feature. Leadership was exercised by
elders of high status (mana) by virtue of their lines of descent (whakapapa). Mäori have a
strong spiritual connection with the land. Each tribe (iwi) exercises self-determination over
its resources within the principle of kaitiakitanga (custodianship), which guides Mäori in their
interaction with the environment, including the business world. Some iwi (tribes) may be
asset-rich, but most are not cash-rich. Mäori are now highly urbanised, with 86 per cent living
in cities. Though many urban Mäori maintain close links with their kin who remain living on
ancestral land, for some the tribal connections have been loosened or severed by modern life.
Despite urbanisation, Mäori culture is still very communal or collective.
Under Mäori tradition, the group, the tribe or iwi or, more often, the sub-tribe or hapu, owns
important aspects of knowledge (Frederick & McIlroy, 2000). This contrasts with the Päkeha
tradition where the individual or sometimes the corporation owns knowledge. Knowledge
exists to benefit the group, and individuals are not expected to profit commercially from it.
Mäori knowledge may be tapu (sacred knowledge, healing and religious knowledge) or noa
(common or everyday knowledge, crafts, and hunting or fishing skills). The transmission of
tapu knowledge is subject to constraints; even ordinary knowledge is communally owned,
and may not be passed to another, rival sub-tribe (McRae, 1987).
Mäori have a history of collective entrepreneurship and enterprise upon which to draw. Mäori
carried out huge economic changes using group-oriented hapu kinship processes rather than
classic individualistic market mechanisms (Merrill, 1954). Industriousness is a cultural trait:
Mäori worked very hard, but “work was not done for measurable material reward” (Sutch,
1964, p. 8). This is documented by Sir Raymond Firth, the great New Zealand social
anthropologist, in his Economics of the New Zealand Mäori (Firth, 1929; 1972). Firth
confirms that Mäori have an entrepreneurial streak. They return cunning with respect as this
may increase one’s mana (spirit or respect). Mäori dignify labour and reprove idleness:
The deep interest taken in work, the commendation of it in proverb and in song, as
well as by public opinion, the close attention paid to quality, the administration of
skill, the wide fame accorded to acknowledged experts and the preservation of
7
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002
New Zealand Applied Business Journal
their names in tribal memory—all this comprises a definite social attitude in
favour of industry (p. 183)
The Mäori Wars of 1845-1866 were fuelled not only by the settlers’ hunger for land but also
because Mäori had become such fierce negotiators in the sale of land, as expressed in 1852
by the Surveyor-General, who reported that Mäori had “an energy quite surprising in pursuit
of gain . . . all other pursuits seem merged in habits of thrift” (Firth, p. 450). They were such
successful entrepreneurs that they controlled a large share of the commerce throughout the
country. Mäori were involved in the export of produce to Australia and various other
countries (Sutch, 1964) and to some degree Mäori entrepreneurial abilities were the subject of
envy by Päkeha. Mäori were also fervent adopters of technology. Best known is the Mäori
use of muskets to the great cost of the settler forces. Less well known is the history of Mäori
adaptation of European agriculture and shipping methods as well as their rapid adoption of
books and use of publishing (Sinclair, 1959; Dell, 1987; Walker, 1986; Firth, 1972). Mäori
are so adept at technology that their rapid uptake has spawned the Mäori saying "Ka pu te
ruha ka hao te rangatahi" (The old net lies in a heap while the new net goes fishing) (Smith,
1997).
WHAT OUR EXPERT INTERVIEWS TOLD US
According to our expert informants, Mäori entrepreneurs fight battles on several fronts. They
have all the usual problems in getting their business off the ground. They may have to wrestle
with the wider family group (hapu) to be culturally accepted. Finally, Mäori entrepreneurs
have a hard time being accepted as successful in the Päkehä-dominated business world. They
face problems of trust and loyalty, and tend to mistrust others for fear their good ideas might
be stolen.
Many young Mäori entrepreneurs do not speak their language well, which opens up a rift
with their elders. Tribal elders may exercise power on the marae (in a traditional setting), but
they generally feel powerless in today’s world of technology and change. Equally, outside of
traditional contexts, members of the younger generation may have little respect for their
elders (kaumätua and kuia) because they perceive them to be ill-equipped to lead in the
modern world. There is a tension between traditional models of leadership, in which status is
derived from age and descent, and the models of leadership that apply to the business world,
based on the concept of merit. Young Mäori resent the wasted and lost opportunities that
arise from a mismatch between leadership capability and the nature of the opportunity. Elders
may tell their youngsters “don't you go and do it on your own, you move with the whanau
(family).” This often makes the reawakening of Mäori entrepreneurial culture inaccessible to
the next generation. Elders do not want their mana challenged. The elders are not
commercially minded nor are they promoters of young budding entrepreneurs.
Our informants commented on the cultural and social norms that hold Mäori entrepreneurship
back:
Mäori are trying to build the tribal nirvana that was crushed under the process of
our marginalisation processes in the late nineteenth century. Then we look for
8
New Zealand Applied Business Journal
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002
justification of our own total Mäori language immersion programme which does
not provide skills nor empower the kids business-wise to the extent that it should.
All we do is help our children get access to the next stock of commodities, but we
don’t help them add value through new entrepreneurial businesses.
If you want to be captains of industry rather than cabin boys, don’t (mislead)
yourself that because you are learning your language and your culture you’ve got
Nirvana. Unless you have a set of skills that can help your people voyage out into
the great unknown, you have actually built a cultural straitjacket that confirms
your right to be different.
Another problem for Mäori is the attitude toward personal wealth creation. There are few
amongst Mäori who have ‘made it’. Mäori rely heavily on public welfare and some fear they
may have lost their entrepreneurial spirit.
Mäori think it’s a sin to be rich and that it’s not a good thing to have money – but
I know that deep down they all want it, but it’s their mental attitude. It’s almost a
passive aggressive role.
One relic of the communal past affects their business practices today. Traditionally Mäori
have made cultural products and given them away as gifts. Our experts maintained that they
may not well understand or financially value what they have produced. They feel
uncomfortable putting a price on it especially if it involves charging people who are close to
them.
Generally in my tribe I am considered an entrepreneur because I created a
successful business. They say, “You are the entrepreneur, we know how
enterprising you are. The rest of us are the norm. You can, we can’t.” The
majority of our generation don’t see themselves as entrepreneurs.
Yet there are a number of exceptional Mäori entrepreneurs who provide inspiration and
confidence to young and old. Mäori entrepreneurs are even beginning to explore some
culturally specific business concepts, such as what a Mäori human capital system might
mean, or how the monetary system fits with kaitiakitanga. A return on the balance sheet has
to be reflected on how Mäori build human capital as well as how they accumulate wealth.
Overall, the current resistance to wealth creation represents a substantial barrier for Mäori. As
a result, cultural attitudes towards failure, risk, and growth are unhelpful. Mäori entrepreneurs
feel trapped by the reverence for the past of their elders, which rules both the present and
future.
CONCLUSIONS
Mäori entrepreneurship is not well treated in the literature, and it is a bit out of place for an
American-New Zealander to venture much of a conclusion. While leaving it up to my Mäori
colleagues to elaborate, I’d nonetheless like to offer the following theses on the study of
Mäori entrepreneurship.
9
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002




New Zealand Applied Business Journal
The study of Mäori entrepreneurship must necessarily begin by examining the cultural
imperatives of Mäori economic and business development. Only uniquely Mäori
political, economic and social systems can explain cultural, social and political factors
that inhibit and promote Mäori economic prosperity.
There are two types of Mäori entrepreneurship. There are the “rugged individualists” who
pursue the Päkeha style of entrepreneurial firm and there are the “harmonious
collectivists” who base their entrepreneurial aspirations upon the community aspirations
of the group. A unique form of Mäori entrepreneurship differs from the “ideal type” of
Päkeha entrepreneurship. Mäori organisations and communities, such as iwi authorities,
Trust Boards or incorporations; rünanga; häpu, whanau or whenua-based trusts and marae
committees, can be seen as collective entrepreneurs.
Mäori entrepreneurship is particularly strong in land-based industries, but also in tourism,
forestry, fisheries and related businesses in the service sector. Attention must be given to
shifting Mäori economic development from its focus on commodity industries to future
sectors such as information technology and biotechnology and other value-added
enterprises.
The study of Mäori entrepreneurship must examine both commercial and noncommercial bodies set up to administer Mäori resources and iwi, entities set up by the
Crown as well as bodies formed by Mäori in an attempt to keep control of their own
resources. This would include case studies of commercial initiatives iwi have taken with
the funds obtained through the Treaty claims settlement process.
Some of the essential research questions that this paper has revealed are summed up well by
the Mira Szazy Research Centre:
What was the extent of the entrepreneurial commercial ethos within Mäoritanga
before colonisation, how did this ethos resonate in the entrepreneurship expressed
in late nineteenth century Mäori business enterprise and its later collapse? Can a
residual spark of entrepreneurship be identified in contemporary Mäori culture
and society? How far and to what extent can Mäori SME's be innovative and
create wealth? Are cultural and other factors aids or impediments to innovation
and wealth creation? Finally, can culture be mobilised to ensure the success of
SME start-up and sustainability, and conversely, does business enterprise ethos
and practice impact on Mäori culture and society?
In the end, Mäori economic success is central to honouring the principles of the Treaty of
Waitangi. This success will enable Mäori to improve their well-being, and provides a more
solid foundation for national well-being. National well-being and the well-being of Mäori are
inseparable. Mäori entrepreneurship is a major contributor to the New Zealand economy.
Mäori economic and social resurgence in the past century have created a demand for
entrepreneurs who have a sound understanding of the dynamics of Mäori. The more youthful
and fertile nature of the Mäori population, and the older and less fertile nature of the Päkeha
population, means that Mäori will be an increasing proportion of New Zealand entrepreneurs
in the twenty-first century.
10
New Zealand Applied Business Journal
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002
TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1 Total Entrepreneurial Activity by ethnicity, New Zealand
Cultural dimension
Uncertainty avoidance
Power distance
Materialism / Harmony
Individualism
Achievement
Universalism
“Ideal type”
Weak
Low
Materialistic
Individual
Achievement
Universal
Päkeha
Weak
Moderate
Materialistic
Individual
Achievement
Universal
Mäori
Split
Split
Harmonious
Collective
Split
Split
Table 1 Cultural Characteristics of New Zealand Entrepreneurship
ANNEXURE 1 SURVEY ON NEW ZEALAND CULTURE AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
You are a subscriber to Innov8: Tools for Entrepreneurs, the newsletter of the New Zealand
Centre for Innovation & Entrepreneurship. As you may recall, we reported in Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor New Zealand 2001 that New Zealanders across all ethnicities had
the ability to be enterprising. Would you please help us in our research by taking the
following two-minute snap survey of your perceptions of your ethnicity's position on six
cultural dimensions that relate to entrepreneurship?
Your ethnicity
1.1.
Which ethnic group to you belong to? (this is the New Zealand Census question)
Mark the box or boxes which apply to you.
New Zealand European
Mäori
Samoan
Cook Island Mäori
11
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002
New Zealand Applied Business Journal
Tongan
Niuean
Chinese
Indian
Other (such as Dutch, Japanese, Tokelauan) Please state:
Cultural dimensions
We list six cultural dimensions that are commonly associated with entrepreneurship. Please
indicate where you would place your ethnicity in general (which may be different from
yourself). We realise that there may be differences in age and gender etc., but for this purpose
we would like you to combine them all together.
In all of these questions, we're interested in your perception of your ethnic group's attitudes,
not necessarily your own personal attitudes.
2.1.
How willing is your ethnic group to acceptance uncertainty or to take risk?
Little acceptance of uncertainty or risk
Generally accepting of uncertainty and risk
2.2.
How tolerant is your ethnic group to hierarchical or unequal relationships?
Large degree of tolerance of unequal relationships
Small degree of tolerance of unequal relationships
2.3.
How much stress does your ethnic group place on materialism?
Large degree of stress on materialism and wealth
Large degree of stress on harmony and relationships
2.4.
How much emphasis does your ethnic group place on individual accomplishment?
Large degree of emphasis on individual accomplishment
Large degree of emphasis on group accomplishment
2.5. How is power and status in your ethnic group determined?
Power and status are achieved or earned through competition and hard work. Power
and status are ascribed by birthright, age, or gender
2.6. What are you ethnic group's norms for regulating behaviour?
Code of laws exist that apply equally to all
Individuals enjoy special rights or privileges because of their status
12
New Zealand Applied Business Journal
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002
REFERENCES
Ács, Z. J. (1996). Small firms and economic growth (The international library of critical writings in economics:
An Elgar reference collection No. 61). Cheltenham, UK, Brookfield, Vt., US: E. Elgar Pub.
Arnold, W. (1999). Where the Start-Up Dance Is Still Hard to Do. New York Times, . 149( 51650, Section 3), 1.
Bellah, R. N., & Congress for Cultural Freedom. (1965). Religion and progress in modern Asia. New York:
Free Press.
Berger, B. (1991). The culture of entrepreneurship . San Francisco, Calif: ICS Press.
Berger, P. L. (1986). The capitalist revolution fifty propositions about prosperity, equality, and liberty. New
York: Basic Books.
Berger, P. L. (1990). The Capitalist spirit toward a religious ethic of wealth creation. San Francisco, Calif,
Lanham, Md: ICS Press. Distributed to the trade by National Book Network.
Berger, P. L., Hsiao, H., & Carnegie Council on Ethics & International Affairs. (1988). In search of an East
Asian development model. New Brunswick, N.J., USA: Transaction Books.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1982). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In C. Kent, D. Sextion, & K. Vesper (editors),
Encyclopaedia of entrepreneurship . Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Butler, S. M., Dennis, W. J., Heritage Foundation (Washington, D.C.), & National Federation of Independent
Business. (1986). Entrepreneurship the key to economic growth. Washington, D.C: Heritage Foundation.
National Federation of Independent Business.
Casson, M., & Godley, A. (2000). Cultural factors in economic growth (Studies in economic ethics and
philosophy . Berlin, New York: Springer..
Chiste, K. B. (1996). Aboriginal small business and entrepreneurship in Canada. New York: Captus Press.
Chung, L. H., & Gibbons, P. T. (1997). Corporate entrepreneurship. Group & Organization Management, 22(1),
10.
Connell, D. J. (1999) Collective Entrepreneurship: In Search of Meaning [Web Page]. URL
http://www.djconnell.ca/articles/CollEntrep.pdf.
Cowling, M. (2000). Are entrepreneurs different across countries? Applied Economics Letters, 7(12), 785.
Daly, A. E. (1993). Self-employment amongst Aboriginal people. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy
Research: Canberra, 39.
Daly, A. E. (1994). Self-employed indigenous Australians in the labour market. Centre for Aboriginal Economic
Policy Research : Canberra, 67.
Dana, L.-P. (1995). Entrepreneurship in a remote sub -Arctic community. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 20(1), 57-72.
Davis-Bird, E. (1997). Fort peck entrepreneur committed to keeping Indian money in Indian country. Montana
Business Quarterly: Missoula, Autumn, 35(3), 17-19.
Dell, S. (1987). The Mäori book or the book in Mäori. New Zealand Libraries, 45(5), 98-101.
Fallows, J. M. (1994). Looking at the sun the rise of the new East Asian economic and political system (1st ed.).
New York: Pantheon Books.
13
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002
New Zealand Applied Business Journal
Firth, R. W. (1929). Primitive economics of the New Zealand Mäori. New York: E.P. Dutton and company.
Firth, R. W. (1972). Economics of the New Zealand Mäori (Being the 2d ed. of Primitive economics the New
Zealand Mäori ed.). Wellington, N.Z: A.R. Shearer, Govt.Printer.
Frederick, H. (2000a). Matauranga tau hokohoko / The Mäori dimension of the knowledge economy. In
Communication Beyond 2000: Technology, Industry and the Citizen in the Age of Globalization
Singapore: School of Communication Studies, Nanyang Technological University; Asian Media
Information and Communication Centre.
Frederick, H. (2000b). New Zealand and its competitors in the knowledge economy. In New competencies for
production and consumption of computer-based media Roskilde: Roskilde University Centre, Master of
Computer-Mediated Communication (MCMC).
Frederick, H. H., & Carswell, P. J. (2001). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor New Zealand 2001. Auckland:
New Zealand Centre for Innovation & Entrepreneurship .
Frederick, H. H., & McIlroy, D. J. (2000). New Zealand and Its Competitors in the Knowledge Economy.
Telematics & Informatics: An International Journal on Telecommunications and Internet Technology,
16(4 ).
Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation.
Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696-706.
Gilder, G. F. (1981). Wealth and poverty. New York: Basic Books.
Gilder, G. F. (1984). The spirit of enterprise. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Guly, C. (1998). Banking on aboriginal entrepreneurs. Canadian Banker, 105(6), 17-23.
Guly, C. (1999). The entrepreneurial spirit soars in aboriginal canada. Canadian Banker, 106(6), 6-8.
Harrison, L. E. (1985). Underdevelopment is a state of mind the Latin American case. Lanham, MD: Center for
International Affairs, Harvard University and University Press of America.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?
Organizational Dynamics, 9 , 42-63.
Hofstede, G. H. (1984). Culture's consequences international differences in work-related values (Abridged ed.).
(Cross-cultural research and methodology series . Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Hofstede, G. H.
(1997). Cultures and organizations software of the mind (Rev. ed. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture's consequences comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations
across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Humphreys, M. A., & McClung, J. (1982). American Indian entrepreneurs in the Southwest. Texas Business
Review: Austin, 56(4), 187-192.
Hunter, B. H. (1999). Indigenous self-employment: miracle cure or risky business? Centre for Aboriginal
Economic Policy Research: Canberra.
James, C. (1995). Native talent. Far Eastern Review: Hong Kong, 158(25), 94.
Jenkins, J. R. G. (1977). Government policy and native entrepreneurship in the Canadian North. Business
Quarterly: London, 42(4), 68
Jenkins, J. R. G. (1992). An appraisal of aboriginal entrepreneurship in the Canadian arctic. Die Veranderte
Welt, 401-411.
14
New Zealand Applied Business Journal
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002
Jones, A. (2001 November). The GEM Report: How Kiwi entrepreneurs rate . New Zealand Herald.
Kahn, H. (1970). The emerging Japanese superstate challenge and response. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: PrenticeHall.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1977). The entrepreneurial personality: A person at the crossroads. Journal of
Management Studies, 14, 34-57.
Lam, D., & Paltiel, J. T. (1994). The Confucian entrepreneur? Chinese culture, industrial organization, and
intellectual property... Asian Affairs: An American Review, 20(4), 205.
Lee, S. M., & Peterson, S. J. (2000). Culture, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Global Competitiveness. Journal
of World Business, 35(4), 401.
Libecap, G. D. (2000). Entrepreneurship and economic growth in the American economy (Advances in the
study of entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth: Advances in the study of entrepreneurship,
innovation, and economic growth No. v. 12). Amsterdam, New York: JAI.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to
performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135-172.
Lydall, H. (1992). The entrepreneurial factor in economic growth. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Mangelsdorf, M. E. (1988). The entrepreneurial chief. Inc: Boston, 10(6), 18.
McClelland, D. C. (1987). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 21, 21933.
McRae, J. (1987). Mäori Literature: A Survey. In T. Sturm (Ed), Oxford History of New Zealand Literature in
English . Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Mellor, W. (2001). The risks of playing it safe. Asiaweek, 27(17), 28.
Merrill, R. S. (1954). Some Social and Cultural Influences on Economic Growth: The Case of the Mäori.
Journal of Economic History, 16(4), 401-408.
Ministry of Economic Development. (2000) SMEs in New Zealand: Structure and Dynamics [Web Page]. URL
http://www.med.govt.nz/irdev/ind_dev/smes2/index.html#TopOfPage.
Morris, M. H., & Davis, D. L. (1994). Fostering corporate entrepreneurship: Cross-cultural comparisons of the
importance of individualism versus collectivism. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 65.
Mourdoukoutas, P. (1999a). Collective Entrepreneurship in a Globalizing Economy. Westport, Conn.: Quorum
Books.
Mourdoukoutas, P. (1999b). Collective entrepreneurship in a globalizing economy. Westport, Conn: Quorum.
Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2001). Culture And Entrepreneurial Potential: A Nine Country Study Of Locus
Of Control And Innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 51..
Novak, M. (1991). The spirit of democratic capitalism. Lanham: Madison Books. Distributed by National Book
Network.
Powell, S. S. (1990). The entrepreneur as the mainspring of economic growth (Essays in public policy No. no.
16). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Pye, L. W., & Pye, M. W. (1985). Asian power and politics the cultural dimensions of authority. Cambridge,
Mass: Belknap Press.
15
Volume 1, Number 1, 2002
New Zealand Applied Business Journal
Reich, R. B. (1987). Entrepreneurship reconsidered: The team as hero. Harvard Business Review, 65 (MayJune) , 77-83.
Reynolds, P. D., Camp, S. M., Bygrave, W. D., Autio, E., & Hay, M. (2001). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor:
2001 Executive Report. London: London Business School.
Roberts, N. C. (1993). Public Entrepreneurship and Innovation . Policy Studies Review, 11(1).
Scherer, F. M., & Perlman, M. (1992). Entrepreneurship, technological innovation, and economic growth
studies in the Schumpeterian tradition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1949). Economic History and Entrepreneurial History. Cited in R. A. te Velde, Schumpeter’s
Theory of Economic Development Revised: A Story about True Entrepreneurs, High Bandwidth, False
Hopes and Low Morale . Conference on the Future of Innovation Studies, Eindhoven University of
Technology.
Sinclair, K. (1959). A History of New Zealand. London: Penguin.
Smith, A. (1997) Fishing with New Nets: Mäori Internet Information Resources and Implications of the Internet
for Indigenous Peoples. Paper presented at INET 1997.
Spence, J. T. (1985). Achievement American style: The rewards and costs of individualism. American
Psychologist, 40, 1285-95.
Sutch, W. B. (1964). The Mäori Economy. A Survey to the time of the coming of the European. A paper
prepared for the opening address to the New Zealand Federation of Mäori Students at Victoria
University of Wellington. Wellington
Tapsell, S. (1997). Is Mäori management different? Management: Auckland, 44(9), 46-47, 50.
Tetzschner, H. (1997). Collective Entrepreneurship and Co-operative development. in L. Montanheiro (ed),
Public and Private Sector Partnerships: Learning for Growth (pp. 503-517). Sheffield : SHU press.
Thomas, A. S. (2000). A Case for Comparative Entrepreneurship: Assessing the Relevance of Culture. Journal
of International Business Studies, 31(2), 287.
Trompenaars, A., Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture understanding
diversity in global business. Burr Ridge, Ill: Irwin Professional Pub.
Verma, J. (1985). The in-group and its relevance to individual behaviour: A study of collectivism and
individualism. Psychologia, 28, 173-81.
Walker, R. (1986). Cultural Sensitivity to the Sanctity of Wananga (Knowledge). Archifacts, 2, 72-76. Work
and Income New Zealand. (2000). Annual report. Wellington.
Zepalska, A., Perry, G., & Dabb, H. (2002). Culture, Structure, and Regional Levels of Mäori Entrepreneurship
in New Zealand . Business Journal for Entrepreneurs .
16