Asian Entrepreneurs in Comparative Perspective

By Sikko Visscher and Peter Keppy

Participants from East Asia, Southeast and South Asia, North America, Europe, and Australia came together to discuss entrepreneurs and the possibilities for an inter-regional and multidisciplinary perspective. The participants, representing 14 countries in all, have conducted research on entrepreneurship in the following 13 countries: India; Malaysia; Thailand; Vietnam; Singapore; Indonesia; Philippines; Korea; Japan; China; Hong Kong; Italy; and the Netherlands.
In his opening address, the convenor of the workshop, Dr Mario Rutten of CASA, emphasized that up to now, scholars interested in entrepreneurs in Asia have often tended to carry out their work somewhat isolated both from the point of view of regional focus and of theoretical framework. The aims of the workshop were: to obtain a more precise social and economic profile of rural and regional-level entrepreneurs in South Asia and Southeast Asia; and to study these entrepreneurs in a comparative perspective, extending the comparison to studies on similar groups in East Asia and Europe, past and present. In view of the enthusiastic reactions, the presence of more than 30 scholars from diverse backgrounds and the presentation of 18 papers, it does seem that Mario Rutten's concerns are shared by many in the academic community.
Two position papers, one on the abundance or scarcity of entrepreneurs and the other addressing the question of whether Southeast Asian entrepreneurs are true innovators in the Schumpeterian sense, provided starting points for the discussions. Most of the remaining papers were local or regional case studies, although a few participants did try to wrestle with a true comparative perspective, either between regions or in analysing the theoretical and methodological tools available.
During the two-day conference, papers were presented in sessions on South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Europe, in which non-area specialists were asked to discuss the papers. Although the discussants acknowledged their lack of knowledge about the subjects they were asked to address, this approach actually resulted in a very practical discussion on the comparative perspective. Each discussant explicitly related the findings, arguments, and analytical approach of the papers to their own field of expertise and to the academic discussions current in their part of Asia or Europe. In this way, each session assumed a true comparative perspective. The sessions gave rise to very broad, lively discussion, which greatly benefited from the presence of Mr. Wu Renbao, a successful Chinese businessman. Mr. Wu who comes from Huaxi, a village near Shanghai, boasts 35 years' entrepreneurial experience in all kinds of business and greatly enlightened the participants with his practical business knowledge.

Structure - Culture
While in the South Asia debate the common approach seems to be contained within the structuralist framework of the Marxist-inspired paradigm, this is not the case for debates in Southeast Asia and East Asia, where cultural dimensions of various natures, derived from a Weberian-inspired paradigm, seem to be predominant. In the discussion on Southeast Asia, the focus was on networks, in particular, the ethnic Chinese networks in the region. The papers on Europe and the ensuing discussion posed questions as to the specificity of networks as a cultural characteristic and this was corroborated by studies on ethnic Thai entrepreneurs. In the South Asia discussion, on the other hand, the shortcomings and problems related to the structuralist approach were identified. This cannot always be applied satisfactorily in seeking the explanation for regional and local differences in socio-economic development, nor when addressing questions about successful versus unsuccessful entrepreneurship.
After a lengthy discussion on structure versus culture, a general consensus was reached that this subject is no longer a fruitful topic of debate. What is needed, instead, is to look at how 'structure' and 'culture' interact, especially within a historical perspective. Moreover, some argued that the concept of 'culture' as it is usually employed in entrepreneurship studies needs to be replaced by a more dynamic and up-to-date notion of culture which conveys how culture is constantly being recreated and negotiated by conscious actors.
In his comments on two papers on Thai entrepreneurship, a historian working on Dutch economic history, provided an eye-opener to all. In his work on the 17th and 18th century Dutch entrepreneurs, he has been confronted with very similar questions, both empirically and theoretically. The apparent dichotomy between the structuralist and the cultural approach also seems to be present in this field of study. His observations and comments support Rutten's point that there are many sound reasons for the pursuit of a comparative perspective, both in place and in time, in the study of entrepreneurship. Another scholar, well-experienced in the field of modern Dutch entrepreneurship emphasized that either only a structuralist or only a cultural approach taken on its own would give us neither the depth and breadth of vision nor the methodological tools to understand modern entrepreneurship fully, whether in Europe or in Asia.
To support this argument, the case was made that the role of the state would be important and indispensable as a factor in the research environment whether through its influence on macro-economic structures by means of economic policy or through education or at the level of the individual entrepreneur through local incentive and investment schemes.

Comparative perspective?
During the final session, which aimed to transcend the 'regionalist' approaches and to look for a common theoretical framework, it was realized by all participants that this aim was rather ambitious. One of the dangers expressed was that comparison could lead to 'butterfly collecting', i.e. comparing different cases without taking their respective contexts into consideration. Another point made was that when making a comparison we should be wary not to over-emphasize similarities and thus forget about the inevitable, and certainly, most interesting differences.
Broadly speaking, however, all the participants agreed that they found the comparative perspective worth pursuing. They also said that they had found it a very fruitful exercise to look at other regions and approaches, as this enriched their own analyses of their fields of expertise. Several participants have agreed to link up with other scholars with a different regional focus but with roughly compatible interest in topics or research questions in order to compare their respective findings and co-author a publication.
In view of this, a future research agenda was discussed. A list of possible topics and foci was drafted for a follow-up workshop. This follow-up workshop is scheduled to take place in the early summer of 1997 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The topics and foci included: first, at a general level, typologies of entrepreneurs, identification of political activities of entrepreneurs and studies of their business associations and political organizations, the influence of law and changes in jurisdiction on the behaviour of entrepreneurs and the correlation between larger historical developments and the waxing or waning of entrepreneurial activity. Secondly, at the firm or intermediate level, a comparison of modes of capitalization, the effects of technological change on firms and entrepreneurs. Thirdly, at the level of the entrepreneur, the relationship of the entrepreneur to his/her environment, analysis of the specificity or non-specificity of networks, conspicuous consumption and donation as long-term strategies.
A selection of the papers submitted to the workshop will be compiled to form a forthcoming publication. All participants look forward to meeting again to share their new experiences. Mr. Wu Renbao, unfortunately, was unable to attend the closing session. When asked about his hurried departure, he replied, "We have business to do".