A Comparison Study on National Cultural Dimensions and Local Communal Cultures: A Cultural View on How Entrepreneurial Activities are Realized

(1)

A Comparison Study on National Cultural

Dimensions and Local Communal Cultures:

A Cultural View on How Entrepreneurial

Activities are Realized

Thesis - MSc International Business & Management

Jesse Boeijenga – S2327627

21-06-2017

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

(2)

2

Abstract

(3)

3

1. Introduction

This thesis focuses on how entrepreneurial activities are realized in different circumstances, in different communal cultures. Hofstede (1984), Trompenaar & Hampden-Turner (1993) and the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004)1_{generalize countries on their mean score. Yet local communal} cultures exist that define cultures on the local level. This empirical research studies if cultures can be generalized by national cultural dimensions or that local communal cultures play a more significant role in the way entrepreneurial activities are realized on the local level.

National differences have been discussed in profusion in literature. Hofstede, Trompenaar and the GLOBE study are the most profound examples and all have come up with cultural dimensions to compare countries and their cultures. These dimensions depict differences between nations by calculating means that reflect the total population of a selected country.

1_{Since Hofstede (1980), Trompenaar (1993) and the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004) reoccur plentiful in this}

thesis, subsequently, they will only be referred to by their main names. Namely, Hofstede, Trompenaar and GLOBE Study.

(6)

6

Communal cultures exist on the local level, the level in which individuals physically act with one another. The level in which social capital, which connects entrepreneurs with resources, is gained. Pennink (2014) mentions social capital in his Local Economic Development model (LED-model) which divides nations in three layers, namely the national, regional and local level (figure 1). Culture on the national level are expressed by the cultural dimensions and culture on the local level by communal cultures. Pennink (2014) also identifies the outcome on both levels in his model. The national outcome in the LED-model is reflected by the national gross domestic product (GDP), the local outcome is realized through entrepreneurial activities. As can be seen in figure 1, entrepreneurial activities are the core process of the local economic development. The outcome on the local level, quality of life of local people and return on investment for entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial group and/or multinationals (MNC), links with entrepreneurial activities. Different variables present at the local level (local leaders, bridging social capital, human coordination, Pennink, 2014) contribute positively to reach these entrepreneurial activities. Consequently, entrepreneurial activities improve the local outcome. That is why this thesis uses entrepreneurial activities as the outcome on the local level. Pennink (2014) describes this phenomenon on the local level, other researchers believe that local entrepreneurial activities are even the core process of national economic development (Van Stel et al., 2005), which explicably links local entrepreneurial with the national outcome, the national GDP.

(7)

7

(8)

8

2. A Literary Explanation on Cultures and Their Link to Entrepreneurial

Activities

2.1 Conceptual model

The conceptual model consists of three variables; entrepreneurial activities, social capital and culture. Culture has influence on which type of social capital is used within a country. Continuing, social capital couples individuals together which benefits entrepreneurial activities (Putnam, 2000). These relationships are depicted in figure 2. The conceptual model theorizes how entrepreneurial activities are realized using the generalizations made by national cultural dimensions. The chapter named “the two paths to entrepreneurial activities” explains how the different scores on the national cultural dimensions influence the way entrepreneurial activities are realized. Later this prediction of the two paths are looked at on the local level by communal cultures to see if these national generalizations of cultures are still applicable.

2.1.1 Entrepreneurial activities

As briefly mentioned in the introduction, entrepreneurial activities are linked with and the outcome of the local level and the outcome of the national level. Therefore entrepreneurial activities are the independent variable in the conceptual model. Entrepreneurial activities are the activity of assembling material and/or nonmaterial resources to develop economic opportunities. This can be done either by an individual or a group (Johannisson, 2011). As mentioned, entrepreneurial activities resemble the core variable in the LED-model (Pennink, 2014) that develops a local community and can even develop national economic development, as Van Stel et al. (2005) states that entrepreneurial activities has a positive effect on national economic growth. However, this effect is more significant in higher developed countries. This relationship between local entrepreneurial activities and national economic development can besides be perceived in the LED-model (figure 1, Pennink, 2014). At the national level, local social entrepreneurs connect with national businesses. In addition to entrepreneurs, local leaders link with national universities and local government agencies with national government.

(9)

9

This triad on the national level (universities, national government and businesses) contribute positively to the national GDP. Thus Pennink (2014) agrees with the Van Stel et al. (2005) on the national effect of local entrepreneurial activities. Thus even though the conceptual model in this thesis stops at entrepreneurial activities, in the real world it continues. Entrepreneurial activities are therefore a valuable variable to do research on as it contributes locally and nationally within a country.

Unfortunately, this research project does not have enough financial aid to locally collect data for entrepreneurial activities. Therefore, the entrepreneurial variable on the local level will be analyzed, in this thesis, by the national GDP per capita. As shown in the LED-model (Pennink, 2014), the GDP is the outcome of the national level. However, also looking at the LED-model and using the argument by Van Stel et al. (2005), entrepreneurial activities has a positive effect on the national economic growth. Therefore, the national GDP per capita is a sufficient variable to look at on the local level. Naturally, in the conclusions a better framework will be recommended to precisely measure entrepreneurial activities on the local level in future research.

2.1.2 Social capital

(10)

10

and maintain their personal social networks, but each work in a different way. Figure 3 depicts these three types of social capital its’ characteristics (Macke & Sehnem, 2016).

Gittel and Vidal (1998) made a clear distinction between bridging and bonding social capital. Bonding social capital describes the process of creating trust and close-relationships between members of the same communal culture. Thus bonding social capital sustains strong ties with individuals with the same social communal identity. These strong ties create impersonal altruism within a community. Bonding social capital is reflected in this thesis by communal values and beliefs. Bridging social capital is the practice of linking different communities who do not share that same social identity. These relationship are characterized by weak ties. Therefore individuals have to be social proactive and open to trust since bridging social capital brings individuals together who have weak ties.

Linking social capital is a more recent concept of social capital and is considered a special form of bridging social capital. Where bridging social capital describes creating and bridging horizontal relationships, linking social capital behaves more vertical (Grooteart, 2004). It defines the “trusting relationship between people who are interacting across explicit, formal or institutionalized power or authority gradients in society” (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004). Thus the role of governmental agencies (also portrayed in the LED-model by Pennink, 2014) is significant in linking social capital. Governmental agencies influence how accessible linking social capital is for an individual. In this thesis, governmental agencies are characterized by the name formal institutions. Power distance (Hofstede, 1980) can play a significant role in that as well. In high

(11)

11

power distance countries, there is a distance between communal groups. It is therefore hard to link social capital within these countries, as people with substantial power ignore people with less power. Therefore linking capital can be less effective in these societies. This is discussed broadly in the next part about culture.

As mentioned, bridging social capital is the variable present in the LED-model (Pennink, 2014). This research broadens this concept to just social capital, as bonding social capital and linking social capital also help entrepreneurs to create and maintain their network with individuals to realize entrepreneurial activities. From now on, the bridging social capital variable within the LED-model is referred to as social capital.

2.1.3 Culture

(12)

12

thesis focuses on the cultural dimensions individualism since, looking at the cultural dimensions, seems more significant towards social capital.

The individualism cultural dimension has a significant influence on social capital and is, next to that, present in the three biggest studies on cultural dimensions. Hofstede calls the dimension individualism (versus collectivism), which “describes the relationship between the individual and the collectivity which prevails in a given society”. Trompenaar calls it individualism versus communitarianism, where individualism is characterized by personal achievement and freedom and communitarianism by believing the group is more important than the individual. The GLOBE study took the original cultural dimensions of Hofstede and expanded it. The GLOBE study divided the individualism dimension into two dimension, collectivism I: institutional collectivism and collectivism II: in-group collectivism. Collectivism I: institutional collectivism reflects how “organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action”. Collectivism II: in-group collectivism describes how “individuals express pride, loyalty and cohesiveness in their organizations or families”. Thus all three studies on cultural dimensions explain similar traits dealing with individualistic and collectivistic cultures. According to these studies, this thesis divides the countries on individualism and collectivism. The five country cases, and its communal cultures, are China, Indonesia, South Africa, The Netherlands and the United States of America (USA). China and Indonesia are the collectivistic cases and The Netherlands and the USA reflect the individualistic side. South Africa has medium scores and functions in this study as a case in between individualism and collectivism to theorize what these countries do on their path to entrepreneurial activities.

(13)

13

2.2 The two paths to entrepreneurial activities

The simplified conceptual model explains the relationships between culture, social capital and entrepreneurial activities. Cultures are diverse and this leads to different cultural paths towards social capital and, in the end, entrepreneurial activities. As now known, this research divides cultures on the national cultural dimension individualism. Individualistic cultures and collectivistic cultures each have their own theorized way in realizing social capital and therefore entrepreneurial activities. The different types of social capital, as explained in the previous chapter, connects entrepreneurs and is therefore the link to entrepreneurial activities. Figure 4 shows these two different paths, which both are discussed, one by one, in this chapter.

2.2.1 The individualistic path to entrepreneurial activities

Individualistic cultures are cultures in which the individual in a society stands outs. Freedom and achievements (Trompenaar, 1993) are essential personal goals within an individualistic culture. To reach these goals, Hofstede states that education is crucial in individualistic cultures to increase personal economic value. Personal goals are therefore more important than collective goals for individuals. To protect society for individualistic opportunistic behavior, formal institutions are constructed. These formal institutions are present to protect individual and collective rights with everyone being able to stand up for their own. Individuals respect these institutions and are likely to comply with them or these individuals are punished through legal constraints (Hofstede, 1980). Therefore individualistic cultures depend more on institutional control than collectivistic cultures (Licht et al., 2005). These formal institutions contribute to the prosperity of a country and is therefore a reason individualistic countries are, on average, wealthier than collectivistic countries. The first reason is that institutions within

(14)

14

these countries are (and need to be) more developed and therefore called strong institutions. The second reason is that people in collectivistic countries have goals related to society instead of their personal economic growth (Larsen et al., 2004). These reasons signals that linking social capital, with the help of formal institutions, might generate more valuable entrepreneurial activities. Formal institutions are mentioned multiple times in this part, but what are institutions? Institutions are famously described by North (1991) as the “humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic and social interaction”. Hodgon (1988) explains institutions as “the stuff that make up social life”. Institutions thus make up social life and social interaction. Formal institutions are explicitly set up by the governmental agencies, where informal institutions rely on norms and values. Larsen et al. (2004) states that linking social capital is the social capital type used in individualistic countries. Linking social capital connects and links people through “vertical institutionalized power and authority gradients in society” (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004). Hence, formal institutions link people within an institutional environment that controls for opportunistic individual behavior. In the individualistic cases, examples are given of these formal institutions. Explanatory, individualistic countries rely less on communal cultures in which norms and values play a central role and thus are bonding and bridging social capital of lesser significance. Therefore this thesis theorize that linking social capital is the main type of social capital used in individualistic countries.

To summarize the individualistic culture path towards entrepreneurial activities. Individualistic countries are dependent on formal institutions to control individualistic people. These developed institutions ensure that individuals use linking social capital to connect with each other. These connections and networks are used for entrepreneurial activities. This path is exhibited in figure 4. It likewise implies that linking social capital generates more valuable entrepreneurial activities.

2.2.2 The collectivistic path to entrepreneurial activities

(15)

15

goals within their culture and formal institutions are less needed to control for individual behavior and opportunism. As a consequence, these countries rely more on informal institutions through relationships, norms and values (Gould, 1993). Individualistic opportunistic behavior is punished through these informal relationships, particularly by communal pressure (Steensma et al., 2000). So if individuals exploit collective effort for their own good, communities they live in will exile them from their communal culture. Consequently, these individuals cannot benefit from the communal common good anymore. Next to that, institutions in these collectivistic countries are not made to help these aborted people, because in a collectivistic society, communities take care and help one another. Thus, individuals are not willing to exploit collective effort for their own individual goals. Li and Zahra (2012) state that a collective orientation also limits the effects of formal institutions. Local leaders are important in collectivistic cultures, since they protect the communal goals of their communal culture on the local level (Pennink, 2014). However, these local leaders can ignore formal institutions because these institutions insufficiently contribute to the vision and profitability of their communal culture (Elmhauser & Pennink, 2016). Local communal cultures follow these local leaders and thereby limit the significance of formal institutions. Thus it would neglect nor motivate institutional instances to introduce and implement formal institutions within a collectivist country on the local level. National institutions in collectivistic countries are therefore less effective than in individualistic countries, because communal values and beliefs are considered more important. Linking social capital through formal institutions is for this reason not the type of social capital that builds networks and connections. Collectivistic minded individuals depend more on their fellow communal culture members for social capital. Thus this thesis theorizes that bonding social capital is how people connect and link with one another in a collectivistic culture.

(16)

16

2.3 National cultural dimensions versus local communal cultures

Until now, this research has only discussed countries on the national level and generalized these countries using national cultural dimensions. However, as the LED-model (Pennink, 2014) explains, entrepreneurial activities happen on the local level. Hofstede, Trompenaar and the GLOBE study generalize countries on their national scores, thus on the national level in the LED-model. However, these cultural dimensions consist of mean scores and are therefore not valid and reliable measurements on the local level (Venaik & Brewer, 2013). Therefore the local level which Pennink analyses and where local entrepreneurial activities happen, can differ from the prospected individualistic and collectivistic paths. For example, even though formal institutions are better developed in individualistic countries, on the local level individuals may actively connect with each other as they are part of a communal culture. Consequently, linking social capital is of lesser significance on the local level than predicted. On the other hand, it might be that collectivistic cultures are too closely bonded that they have to use the inefficient and weak formal institutions to connect with individuals that offer different knowledge. Consequently, bonding social capital is of lesser significance on the local level than theorized. Therefore this thesis does not neglect the local level and looks at the relevance of local communal cultures. It studies if national cultural dimensions, that generalize countries and their cultures, can be applicable when researching entrepreneurial activities on the local level.

(17)

17

social capital, Ubuntu on bridging social capital, and Guanxi and Gotong Royong on bonding social capital.

(18)

18

3. Communal Cultures and their Separate Ways to Entrepreneurial Activities

This part focuses on the five different countries and its national and communal culture. As mentioned, the five selected communal cultures are Community (USA), Gotong Royong (Indonesia), Guanxi (China), Noaberschap (The Netherlands) and Ubuntu (South Africa). The analysis for these communal cultures are divided in a national analysis and a communal analysis. This national analysis discusses the national culture, formal institutions and the potentiality for entrepreneurial activities. On a side note, the GLOBE study scores are overall substantially high. A score of 4 (out of 7) is considered reasonably individualistic. The communal analysis discusses how individuals interact with one another on the local level and concludes which type of social capital is used within that communal cultures to realize entrepreneurial activities. The conclusion section links the type of social capital to the value of entrepreneurial activities (GDP per capita). The communal analysis are primarily based on the in-depths interviews with Snow (The USA), Wahyuni (Indonesia), Chen (China), Breuker (The Netherlands) and Kieti (South Africa).

3.1 Community (USA)

3.1.1 The American national culture

“The land of the free, and the home of the brave” (Key, 1912). The most noticeable line of the national anthem of the United States of America. This line breathes individualism. And Hofstede and Trompenaar call it, without a doubt, an individual country. USA scores 91 (out of 100)2_on the individual dimension of Hofstede. It is thereby the most individualistic case in this thesis. Which is no surprise, Americans like to come up for their own position and their own rights, hence the land of the free and home of the brave. Americans are characterized for being proud, for their individuality and capitalism (Snow, 2017)3_{. If they disagree with plans or formal} institutions from their national/regional/local government, they go on the streets and protest and speak out for what they stand. Especially nowadays, the USA is politically headed and divided. As mentioned, individuals like to come up for their own norms and values. This is more and more done through movements. Black Lives Matter is a good example, but also groups who

2_{The scores on the national cultural dimension individualism are retrieved from the website of Hofstede}

(Hofstede G. , 2017). The scores of the GLOBE study from their website Globe Project (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, Globe Project, 2017). These scores return at each case for each individual country and will not be referred to again.

3_{Snow, 2017. Jamie Snow has been interviewed about Communities in the USA. Instead of referencing every}

(19)

19

come up for national healthcare or environment (which is a hot topic right now, since US president Trump announced, in the period this thesis is written, that the USA would withdraw from the Paris climate accord (Shear, 2017)). How communal cultures within America react on such a decision is explained in the next part about the American local communal culture, plainly called Community. As Hofstede and Trompenaar call it overwhelmingly individual, the Globe Study shows some surprising results. The USA scores high on in-group collectivism (5.77 out of 7). This is an indication for a collectivistic country. However, when you look at the definition of in-group collectivism (pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families), pride comes forward. Americans are proud of their family and whatever work they do. Therefore they talk highly and proudly about their organizational or family achievements and express these achievements whenever they can. The institutional collectivism within American scores, as expected, lower. The score is being ranged as medium (4.17 out of 7). America scores the lowest, out of all these five cases, on institutional collectivism which signals that institutions within America are the least favourable for collectivistic goals, which is as hypothesized for individualistic countries. For example, individuals in the USA cannot favour other communal individuals or even family members for job positions, not even the most powerful man in the world (Yuhas, 2017).

This is also reflected in the transparency score of the USA in which they are placed 18th_{(74 out} of 100, Transparency International, 2016). This score shows that corruption within the USA is barely present and thus that formal institutions are strong. For local entrepreneurs, which try to live the American dream, the global entrepreneurship model (2017) shows that “governmental policies which support and are relevant for entrepreneurs” and “policies on tax and bureaucracy” are average for entrepreneurs. The rights and laws for individual consumers might influence these scores. Entrepreneurs therefore have to carefully execute their entrepreneurial activities which limits their freedom. The next part explains how a Community within the USA works and the degree in which individuals participate in it.

3.1.2 The communal culture Community

(20)

20

(21)

21

multicultural Jersey about regulations that made the city too busy according to the local residents. This tendency can be seen in all American communities. Contrary to the individuals in Gotong Royong which have to participate because of the communal pressure. Individuals in American communities are free to participate in the community or not, free to contribute to the local issue or not. In Jersey, the individuals belonging to that community could attend meetings to speak up. Another reason when communities in the USA flourish is when they feel disadvantaged. A smaller Jewish community from a region where Jewish holidays are not acknowledged are more active than a Jewish community in a region where these holidays are acknowledged. And as briefly mentioned, less developed communities work considerably more together, since the individuals living in these communities need the communal help more than individuals in well-developed communities. Thus, if individual goals lead towards a communal goal, an American community will begin being active otherwise American individuals feel no need to contribute.

However, American communities do not help entrepreneurial activities. Entrepreneurial activities are all encouraged by formal regulations. Tax breaks in Jersey, which lead to the previous mentioned discussion within the community, made sure the businesses in the community flourished. Formal institutions are therefore very important and the communities are used to come up for their individual communal rights. Besides, local entrepreneurs also use the community for their own advantage, for their own profits. Bonding and bridging social capital is a rarity. However, when Americans trust another person and are confident in their skills, they will advise them towards companies and other entrepreneurs. Yet, these advices do not guarantee a definite position or deal. But as networking is important in the other communal cultures, it is not that important within the American ones. American individuals use communities to protect or reach individuals goals and rely on formal institutions for material and non-material resources for their entrepreneurial activities.

3.1.3 Conclusion about Community

(22)

22

are used to realize entrepreneurial activities. The value of these entrepreneurial activities is measured through the GDP per capita of the USA, which is $57,436.41 (International Monetary Fund, 2017). The USA has thereby the highest GDP per capita of the selected five cases. Concluding, the social capital which is used to realize entrepreneurial activities in the Community communal culture is linking social capital.

3.2 Gotong Royong (Indonesia)

3.2.1 The Indonesian national culture

Gotong Royong is the communal culture within Indonesia. The national culture which influences Gotong Royong is therefore the Indonesian culture. The Indonesian culture is a very collectivistic culture. This is also acknowledged by people from Indonesia (Wahyuni, 2017)4_. Indonesians like to be together, are polite through their patriotism and are afraid of losing their face (Wahyuni, 2017). As mentioned by Wahyuni, individuals in Indonesia like to be together and she therefore agrees with the collectivistic view on Indonesia by the theories from Hofstede and Trompenaar. The score on the Hofstede’s cultural dimension individualism is 14 (out of 100). Accordingly, the GLOBE Study state that Indonesia scores high on in-group collectivism (5.67 out of 7) and relatively high on institutional collectivism (5.18 out of 7). Indonesian individuals are proud and express loyalty towards organizations and families they are part from. Indonesians live with their parents until they get married, and even after that, one can stay at their parents’ house to care about them. They also feel the pressure to stay loyal towards their families, since most businesses are owned (Högberg, 2009). Consequently, these family-owned businesses are property of the family, generation by generation. This is true for the big firms, but as well for firms on the local level. Indonesia also scores relatively highly institutions that “reward and encourage collective action” in the GLOBE study. This is not only shown by institutions, but also by the Indonesian culture. Since, the culture, and thus the formal institutions (Breuker, 2017), is not beneficial for opportunistic individual actions. Furthermore, Indonesia scores relatively low on uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1980). Therefore, Indonesians work as a team, since a risk exists of working alone. When working alone,

4_{Sani Wahyuni, 2017. Sani Wahyuni has been interviewed about the communal culture Gotong Royong in}

(23)

23

individuals can fail and lose their face, which is a taboo within the Indonesian culture. Thus collectivism is crucial within the Indonesian culture.

As the prediction states for a collectivistic country, formal institutions are not that well established within Indonesia. Not surprisingly, Indonesia scores high on corruption, 37 out of 100 (Transparency International, 2016). On the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2017), Indonesia yet again scores below average on the “Government policies: taxes and bureaucracy”. Indonesia scores average on the variable “government policies that support and are relevant” for entrepreneurial activities. The infrastructure in Indonesia is the most critical point. Indonesia scores as one of the lowest in the world on commercial, physical and legal infrastructure. Wahyuni confirms that formal institutions are not well regulated and not transparent. Next to that, even though Indonesia has national laws and regulations, each village, each community has its own rules and regulations which are constructed on communal norms and values by local leaders. These communal norms and values can be established via the communal culture Gotong Royong. The next part explains the core norms and values of the communal culture Gotong Royong and the degree in which individuals participate in it.

3.2.2 The communal culture Gotong Royong

(24)

24

Therefore, equality is an important element of Gotong Royong. Taken a look at Gotong Royong within a business organization, an achievement of one particular department is celebrated across the entire organization. Next to that, on the local level, individuals help each other with building irrigation systems for farmers and build roads and schools as common property. This is all based on the idea of common communal property expressed by Mohammad Hatta (Bowen, 1986). This works within Indonesia, since Indonesians put less emphasis on individual achievements and try to reach communal goals. In that way entrepreneurs, which are mostly farmers in rural areas, help and benefit from each other in a Gotong Royong society. And thus the success of an individual farmer, just like a business department, is celebrated by the entire community. Particularly since they helped and they know that the particular farmer will likewise help them. In that way, the quality of life for the local group and the return for the entrepreneurial group will go up, just as explained in the LED-model (Pennink, 2014).

(25)

25

entrepreneurship (Nystrom, 2007). Next to that, it shows that Gotong Royong communities focus on the same entrepreneurial group. Indonesian individuals do not mind the limitation in their economic freedom, since uncertainty is avoided.

Thus local leaders can be influential within Gotong Royong, however, Indonesians amongst each other also help and influence each other. Wahyuni explains that Gotong Royong is just as Guanxi (discussed later) a network of people. Likewise Guanxi, this network of people relies more and more on technology. Social media in Indonesia is extremely important to get and stay in contact with other individuals. Social media groups are created for every occasion and within these groups Gotong Royong is present as well. Helping each other, which is central within Gotong Royong, is easier through social media. Contributing, staying in contact with people who you do not see regularly is easier as well. Therefore, social media in Indonesia is, according to Wahyuni, particularly used to “mingle” with one another. It is therefore different than Guanxi, because Guanxi social media is used as a tool for networking. Wahyuni who also lived in The Netherlands for a while, states that Gotong Royong is also present here but the degree is much less. People within The Netherlands can decide if they want to contribute or not to their communal cultures, in Indonesia communal pressure exists to ensure that individuals contribute and help.

Researchers analyze the role of bureaucracy and corruption in Indonesia and how it limits entrepreneurship and therefore the development in communal cultures (Utama, 2014). Others blame the low quality democracy (Van Klinken, 2009). Even if things happen at the local level, Indonesians sense a big power difference and think that they cannot do anything about it (Hofstede, 1980). Which is true, as can be seen that most of the economical prosperities are in hands of the elite in Indonesia (Van Klinken, 2009). All by all, this shows that people within Gotong Royong communities have to rely on each other for financing and information, since they are not able or simply do not want to approach institutions. Wahyuni also confirms that unnecessary bureaucracy exists and that it is one of the reasons individuals turn towards their own communal cultures to gain help and resources.

3.2.3 Conclusion about Gotong Royong

(26)

26

activities. Formal institutions are weak within Indonesia and therefore, on the local level, entrepreneurs depend on the labor exchange associated with Gotong Royong for entrepreneurial activities. The GDP per capita of Indonesia is $3895.25 (International Monetary Fund, 2017). Indonesia has thereby the lowest GDP per capita of the selected five cases. The social capital which is used to achieve the GDP per capita in a Gotong Royong communal culture is bonding social capital.

3.3 Guanxi (China)

3.3.1 The Chinese national culture

China is a traditional country. The traditional national culture within China is characterized by conservativeness, collectivism and their openness towards unknown individuals (Chen, 2017)5_. This is present when doing business in China. Drinking is part of doing business which creates a relaxed atmosphere to break the ice. Drinking is a tradition to open up the conservativeness and likewise creates a collectivistic bond. Even though getting trust from Chinese individuals takes time, they are open towards unknown individuals. The national cultural dimensions embrace the collectivistic view which came forward in the interview. China scores 20 on Hofstede’s individualism variable and also on the GLOBE study, China scores relatively high on in-group collectivism (5.09 out of 7). However, they score a medium to relatively high on institutional collectivism (4.56 out of 7). This acknowledges that policies within China do not reward collectively as expected by the collectivistic culture. These policies, formal institutions, might encourage individual goals instead of common goals. The Entrepreneurial Global Monitor (2017) acknowledges that China tries to boost individual entrepreneurial behavior, as China scores higher than Asian average on government policies that are relevant and support entrepreneurial activities. On the “governmental policies: tax and bureaucracy” China scores average again, and shows the more collectivistic view of the Asian perception on bureaucracy. This is also shown in the transparency international index (2016), with a 79th_{place (40 out of} 100) China is closer to high corruption than representing a very clean and transparent society. However, since 2014 China is attacking the corruption and adequately doing so. Formal institutions are getting a greater importance within China. Laws and regulations, formal

5_{Wen Chen, 2017. Wen Chen has been interviewed about the communal culture Guanxi in China. Instead of}

(27)

27

institutions are supportive towards entrepreneurship and thus business, since it drives the flourishing economy of China (Transparency International, 2016). Accordingly, business have to formally go through an application process to set up a business, just as in The Netherlands but more extensive. This extensiveness explains the transparency international index of China, since the process of application is longer and less transparent. Chen states that formal institutions are, even though the continuing improvement, still not developed and mature enough.

This underdevelopment and immaturity is explained by the prediction this thesis makes about collectivist countries. Formal institutions are less developed in a collectivistic country, such as China. The hypothesis is that the Guanxi communal culture will take over the role of these institutions. Networking and thus getting and staying in contact with other people in Guanxi is the core idea of that communal culture. Norms and values within Guanxi can therefore be more important than the formal institutions. The next part explains the core norms and values of the communal culture Guanxi and the degree in which people participate in it.

3.3.2 The communal culture Guanxi

(28)

28

sectors, continued improvement in productivity, and successful utilization of foreign direct investment” (Luo, 2008), thus through reforming formal institutions and create transparency to benefit more people. The current situation, with corruption and Guanxi intertwined, might be a danger for the social and mainly the economic development for China. Ethical questions about Guanxi and the way it affects businesses and governance are a particularly ricing topic in the last decade, the years the prosperous growth of the Chinese national economic development is declining (Trading Economics, 2017).

Gotong Royong and Guanxi both put emphasis on networking and stay and keep in contact with other people. Guanxi stays more on the surface than Gotong Royong. When people need help from each other they will ask within their Guanxi network. But helping each other is not that aphoristic as in Gotong Royong. The ways Guanxi is used differs per person. One can be actively participating in everything and another lets it be. Both ways are completely fine, since collective pressure does not exist in a Guanxi culture, especially in the multi-millions cities within China. In smaller villages, the poorer areas, Chen believes Guanxi plays a closer and more important role within the local society in the degree of helping each other, since they have to. This view on communal cultures is also acknowledged by the other cases. Gotong Royong is more active in rural areas and also the individualistic Noaberschap has more significance in a remote are. Next to that, he also states that because Guanxi is a networking communal culture for an individual, it is also present in other countries. Just as Wahyuni with Gotong Royong, Chen states that Guanxi appears within The Netherlands. However, it does not play a crucial role as in China. Chen describes Guanxi in other countries as a passive phenomenon as people are not aware of Guanxi, the networking communal culture.

Since Guanxi is a communal culture which is largely based on networking, social media is extensively used to get and stay in contact with all the acquaintances. Technology makes it uncomplicated to create different groups and asking a question is within the reach of a fingertip. Since it is easier, Chinese people are present in different Guanxi groups each with a different social identity. Guanxi, as a result, is mainly used to bridge different individuals, different groups, with one another.

3.3.3 Conclusion about Guanxi

(29)

29

local level. However, on the local level the communal culture Guanxi is less important than predicted. Formal institutions are continuously improving and Chinese individuals are proactive and are open to trusting individuals they do not know, even though it takes a while in the Chinese culture. Guanxi is a means which supports an individual to connect with different groups, especially used in business and thus the realization of entrepreneurial activities. The GDP per capita of China is $8480.654 (International Monetary Fund, 2017). The social capital which is used to realize the GDP per capita in a Guanxi communal culture is thus bridging social capital.

3.4 Noaberschap (The Netherlands)

3.4.1 The Dutch national culture

‘Gezelligheid’, a Dutch term which cannot be precisely translated in the English language. It describes the good time that people have when they are together. ‘Gezelligheid’ shows signs of a collectivistic culture, which The Netherlands is not. Hofstede and Trompenaar signify The Netherlands as an individualistic country. The Netherlands score 80 (out of 100) on the individualism dimension of Hofstede. Individualism is expressed by Dutch people who like and especially want to give their own opinions about issues. Specifically, Dutch people are characterized by their directness, openness and tolerance (Breuker, 2017)6_{. On the one side} they want to give their own opinion, but they are also tolerant for other ideas. The GLOBE study acknowledges this. The in-group collectivism scores relatively high and is 5.17 (out of 7) and the institutional collectivism score is a bit higher than medium and is 4.55 (out of 7). These scores are similar to the scores in China. Institutions encourage individual entrepreneurial behavior. However, in-group collectivism signals that a group feeling towards a community, organization and family is firmer than expected by the other national cultural dimensions. Breuker acknowledges this, and believes that Hofstede exaggerates the individualistic aspect within The Netherlands.

If Hofstede exaggerates the individualistic side, the reliance on the communal culture is greater. However, formal institutions within The Netherlands extensively encourage and support the

6_{Engbert Breuker, 2017. Engbert Breuker has been interviewed about the communal culture Noaberschap in}

(30)

30

Dutch business world (Transparency International, 2016). Companies, especially domestic, within The Netherlands work closely together with Dutch institutions. Innovation policies in The Netherlands stimulate co-operation between companies and institutions such as universities and public knowledge institutions. Of course, these institutions can be found in China, South Africa and Indonesia as well, but in order for these institutions to be effective for innovation, two main necessities are important. Firstly, the companies should be experiencing incoming knowledge spillovers from the institutions, and secondly they have to require academic or basic R&D knowledge in developing innovation areas (Van Beers, Berghäll & Poot, 2008). Therefore, a lot of companies work closely together with universities in The Netherlands. This can also be seen at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. At the Zernike complex in Groningen (university complex), companies eventually settled up an office to benefit optimally from the knowledge spillovers. This might tell why institutions in corruptive countries might not work, since companies there can experience negative knowledge spillover with instances and receive little knowledge in developing innovation areas. The Netherlands ranks 8th_{in the Transparency Index} (2016) with a score of 83 out of 100. Which tells us that the business environment is exceedingly transparent and information is controllable.

Next to these important spillovers from formal institutions, companies within The Netherlands have to register at the Dutch chamber of commerce. This Dutch chamber of commerce protects entrepreneurial rights and organizes events for entrepreneurs to meet one another. Municipalities in The Netherlands create flex work spaces in which starting entrepreneurs can work on their companies. These work spaces bring local entrepreneurs together and create, once again, knowledge spillover effects (Van Beers, Berghäll and Poot, 2008). Next to that, the main problem for starting entrepreneurs is financing their ideas. The Dutch government helps these people. For workless or for students that just graduated, for every kind of person there is a way in The Netherlands to finance their ideas and to start up a company. Understandably, The Netherlands scores way higher than average on the global entrepreneurial monitor on all variables, including infrastructure and government policies.

(31)

31

communal culture and the norms and values that goes with them. The next part explains how the Noaberschap works and the degree in which individuals participate in it.

3.4.2 The communal culture Noaberschap

As hypothesized, a greater reliance on formal institutions would neglect the importance of communal cultures. A communal culture, such as Noaberschap in The Netherlands, should be less important for Dutch entrepreneurs since they can easily trade information, get in contact with other entrepreneurs and receive financing through formal institutions. Thus it might be no surprise The Netherlands is categorized as an individualistic country. But as mentioned, Breuker disagrees and calls The Netherlands more collectivistic than the cultural dimensions theorize, especially when you look at Noaberschap. He calls communal cultures, such as Noaberschap, the answer on individualism and believes that the established cultural dimensions of Hofstede and Trompenaar lack accuracy on the local level (which is, likewise, my motivation for writing this thesis). On the local level, individuals need social cohesion and act in Noaberschap in the segments which interest them. Individuals within Noaberschap do not have to participate if they do not want to. But most of them want to, since Noaberschap is practiced locally when for example doing sports, when sitting in the bar, or when attending church. It depends on the individual preference. However, once in a while a big event is organized within Noaberschap for everyone of that communal culture. Networking on the local level is very important and the individuals within that community help each other. They help each other in their private life but also help when local formal instances lack to provide the services needed. A good example is the health care. People take care of elderly people within Noaberschap, since elderly homes can be full or lack the preferred Dutch quality.

(32)

32

entrepreneurial activities, linking social capital is more important. Noaberschap is there for social cohesion, ‘gezelligheid’ and to create a better life for the people living within that communal culture. They contribute to either volunteering or giving money towards the local association. Contributing is all on voluntarily basis. Thus if an individuals who live in a Noaberschap community does not want to participate, he is free to do so.

3.4.3 Conclusion about Noaberschap

The generalized national prediction for The Netherlands is that they rely on linking social capital to generate entrepreneurial activities and that therefore communal cultures are not important on the local level. Engbert Breuker (2017) does not agree with this generalization and believe that communal cultures are important on the local level. Breuker is partially true, on the local level Dutch individuals interact more collectivistic with one another than expected. They care for each other and organize activities. However, individuals do not have to be part of the Noaberschap and it occurs more often in rural areas distanced from institutional buildings. Capital and knowledge for entrepreneurial activities is mostly reached through the strong formal institutions. The only part that connects individual on the local level is the network aspect of Noaberschap. The GDP per capita in The Netherlands is $44654.23 (International Monetary Fund, 2017). The social capital which is used to achieve the GDP per capita in a Noaberschap communal culture is still leaning more towards linking social capital.

3.5 Ubuntu (South Africa)

3.5.1 The South African national culture

South Africa is a divided country. Divided primarily between the black and white societies, the two societies which made the word “apartheid” famous. The national division would also explain the medium score on individualism of the country. The South Africans from an African background are presumably more collectivistic and the descendants from Europe more individualistic if you look at the average score of both continents. This is also reflected by the individualism score, which is 65 (out of 100). Consequently, South Africa is called an island in Africa (Kieti, 2017)7_{. Other Africans do not even call it part of Africa, and even South Africans}

7_{Elizabeth Kieti, 2017. Elizabeth Kieti has been interviewed about the communal culture Ubuntu in South-Africa.}

(33)

33

themselves consider it completely separate. Concluding the history of South Africa, the country is considered part Dutch with a mixture of African cultures. This African culture is mostly based on Nigerians which immigrated to South Africa. The division resulted in a poor country with a high criminality rate. South Africans, ironically, despise foreigners who come to South Africa for work. The South African individuals believe these foreigners take their jobs, and that as a result the unemployment of South Africa rises. It is no surprise the in-group collectivism score of the GLOBE study, is the lowest score of all five cases. South Africa scores a 4.99 (out of 7). South Africans are the least proud and loyal towards their organizations, which is not surprising in a divided country. The institutional collectivism is the second lowest with 4.3 out of 7 (only the USA scores lower). Likewise, the formal institutions within South Africa contribute to the division and do not support collective distribution of resources and reward collective action. Where the in-group collectivism and institutional collectivism show signs of an individualistic country, Transparency International (2016) rates South Africa closer towards the collectivistic countries. South Africa only scores 45 out of 100 and thereby ranks closely to China with a score of 40 and Indonesia with a score of 37. Thus the formal institutions within South Africa, just as the culture, are contradicting. On the one hand it encourages individual goals, but on the other hand the formal institutions cannot support them. As theorized, individualism need transparent formal institutions in order for individuals to link with each other and for entrepreneurial activities to flourish. However, formal institutions negatively influence entrepreneurial activities on the local level in South Africa, especially because of unemployment, criminality, and inflation and interest rates (Cant & Wiid, 2013). Kieti also mentions two of these factors as severe problems for the South African national development. South Africa is a divided country by ethnicity, but the formal institutions behave as divided.

(34)

34

3.5.2 The communal culture Ubuntu

(35)

35

The local leader will then discuss the issue in the next meeting, the next merry-go-round. Even though Ubuntu is the communal culture of South Africa, it is only present in the less developed areas. The explanation Keiti gives is that the individuals from a developed area have no risk in acting alone. For them, no individual gain can be reached when acting in the Ubuntu communal culture. Thus even Ubuntu stresses the division within South Africa, since only the less developed areas use the Ubuntu communal culture.

3.5.3 Conclusion about Ubuntu

(36)

36

4. Conclusion and Discussion

4.1 Conclusion and discussion

Two main questions are raised in this thesis. First, the countries are divided between collectivistic and individualistic countries. Literature predicts that individualistic countries use linking social capital and collectivistic countries will use bonding social capital to connect with other individuals to gain human and financial capital. This thesis looks at the local, communal culture, level to examine if the generalization made on the cultural dimension individualism is applicable on the local level. Secondly, this thesis wants to theorize if one particular type of social capital on the local level generates more valuable entrepreneurial activities.

According to the national cultural dimensions, individualistic countries will use linking social capital type and collectivistic the bonding social capital. So The Netherlands and The USA use linking social capital, China and Indonesia use bonding social capital and South Africa lays somewhere in the middle and uses bridging social capital. Figure 5 graphically depicts the prediction. A score closer to a 100 predicts a reliance on linking social capital and a score closer to 0 a reliance bonding social capital. The middle, in which South Africa lays, predicts bridging social capital. Figure 6 (next page), shows which type of social capital is used in each communal culture according to the in-depth interview. The communal cultures leaning more towards linking social capital are Noaberschap and Community. Gotong Royong and Ubuntu lean more towards bonding social capital. Guanxi in China uses bridging social capital. The difference between the generalization

(37)

37

on the local level and the prediction on the national level can inspected when comparing figure 5 and figure 6. The significant differences are that Guanxi in China has shifted more towards the individualistic side and Ubuntu in South Africa more to the collectivistic side. The communal cultures in The Netherlands, The USA and Indonesia behave locally rather as predicted, only The Netherlands behaves slightly more collectivistic on the local level.

Overall, the prediction on national basis by national cultural dimensions are still quite accurate on the local level. Thus a theory is made that the generalization made by cultural dimensions concerning the type of social capital on the national level are applicable on the local level. However, Guanxi in China and Ubuntu in South Africa behave differently. This can be explained by a couple of reasons. The first reason is institutions. China is working hard to improve the institutions, despite the corruption. The institutions in South Africa are weak and divided and support both individualism and collectivism. As can be seen in figure 6, communal cultures in countries with strong institutions are, as predicted, located towards the linking social capital side. This therefore might explain the shift Guanxi and Ubuntu makes. Another, more plausible reason, is that Ubuntu is present in exclusively less developed areas. Less developed areas have a significant more reliance on communal cultures, since they cannot solve financial and social issues

themselves. This can be seen in figure 6 but is also other cases, such as the USA and Gotong

(38)

38

Royong, mention more communal cohesion in less developed areas. The interviewee from China came from a developed part of China, which consequently explains why Guanxi according to him leans more towards the individualistic side.

Next to the cultural comparison, this thesis tries to find out which type of social capital generates the most valuable entrepreneurial activities. Unfortunately, this thesis had no financial aid and had and a time restriction to construct local variables for entrepreneurial activities on the local level in each country. Therefore the GDP per capita per country was used. Concluding these data, we can see in figure 6 that the closer a communal culture comes towards linking social capital, the higher the GDP per capita is. It is a chronological sequence where Gotong Royong has the lowest and Community the most valuable entrepreneurial activities. An explanation can be that collectivistic communal cultures have other goals besides entrepreneurial activities, such as the communal and familiar goals this thesis mentions. Thus a theory can be made according to these data which explains that communal cultures which rely on linking social capital have more valuable entrepreneurial activities than communal cultures and countries which rely on bonding social capital. This theory contributes to the existing literature of Larsen et al. (2004).

(39)

39

4.2 Limitations

This thesis has multiple significant limitations, as mentioned, because of the lack of financial capital and the lack of time. First of all, only one in-depth interview has been done on each communal culture. This has influence on the outcome as can be seen from the results of China, where the interviewee is coming from a developed area. It would therefore be better to interview more individuals about each communal culture. Another limitation is that entrepreneurial activities were not researched on the local level. It is impossible with the resources of this thesis to go to each communal culture and measure the entrepreneurial activities. A variable that measures the entrepreneurial activities on the local level gives better comparison possibilities with the GDP per capita on the national level. The last noteworthy limitation is that only a brief amount of countries are analyzed in this research. Only two for individualism, two for collectivism and one for the middle-of-the-road. A theory can be made, but nothing concluding can be said with this research. Therefore a study which examines more countries is more reliable.

4.3 Future research

Even though the limitations, this research is a perfect first step into the world of communal cultures. National cultural differences and their impact have been researched plentiful, however, communal cultures have not. Interesting differences compared to the national level occur on the communal level. The Netherlands are comparatively more collectivistic on the local level but most of all China and South Africa behave differently than expected. We would therefore advise future research to explore the following aspects that came forward in this thesis.

(40)

40

quantitatively survey people at the local level. Such a research would extend this thesis to examine if communal cultures generate extra value to entrepreneurial activities or not. The expectation according to this research is that the more an individual relies on communal culture, the less valuable the entrepreneurial activities are.

(41)

41

Bibliography

Acs, Z., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15-30.

Asiedu, E. (2006). Foreign direct investment in Africa: The role of natural resources, market size, government policy, institutions and political instability. The World Economy, 29(1), 63-77. Bauder, H. (2002). Neighbourhood effects and cultural exclusion. Urban Studies, 39(1), 85-93.

Boom, I. H., & Pennink, B. W. (2012). The Relationship between Humannes and Knowledge Sharing in Malaysia; Emperical Evidence from Malaysian Managers. Gadjah Mada International Journal

of Business, 14(2), 99-122.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson, Handbook of Theory and Research for the

Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Bowen, J. R. (1986). On the political construction of tradition: Gotong Royong in Indonesia. The

Journal of Asian Studies, 45(03), 545-561.

Breuker, E. (2017, May 24). Interview about Noaberschap, the communal culture in The Netherlands. (J. Boeijenga, Interviewer)

Cant, M. C., & Wiid, J. A. (2013). Establishing the challenges affecting South African SMEs. The

International Business & Economics Research Journal (Online), 12(6), 707-716.

Chang, C. L. (2011). The effect of an information ethics course on the information ethics values of students - A Chinese Guanxi culture perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 2028-2038.

Chen, W. (2017, May 23). Interview with Wen Chen about the Chinese communal culture Guanxi. (J. Boeijenga, Interviewer)

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.

Coulson-Thomas, C. (2004). The knowledge entrepreneurship challenge: Moving on from knowledge sharing to knowledge creation and exploitation. The Learning Organization, 11(1), 84-93. Dietrich, A. (2014). Entrepreneurs in Kalimantan Barat, Indonesia: Microenterprise owners and

own-account workers examined closely. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (1998). Taking stock in our progress on individualism-collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management, 24(3), 265-304.

Gittell, R., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing: Building social capital as a development

strategy. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Glasze, G. (2003). Private Neighbourhoods as club economies and shareholder democracies. Reveu

Belge de Géographie, (1), 87-98.

Gould, R. (1993). Collective action and network structure. American Sociological Review, 58(2), 182-196.

(42)

42

Hodgson, G. M. (1988). Economics and institutions. Journal of Economic Issues, 1, 1-25. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International differences in work-related values .

Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (2017). Geert Hofstede. Retrieved June 1, 2017, from Geert Hofstede Web site: www.geert-hofstede.com

Högberg, A. (2009). Formal and informal institutions in Asia: A survey of Asian corporate governance.

Risk Management and Corporate Governance. Chicago.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and

organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2017). Globe Project. Retrieved June 1, 2017, from Globe Project Web site: www.globeproject.com/results

Hsu, F. L. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passage to differences. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

International Monetary Fund. (2017, April). International Monetary Fund. Retrieved June 15, 2017, from International Monetary Fund Web site:

http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/U SA

Key, F. S. (1912). The Star-Spangled Banner. In T. Lounsberry, The Yale Book of American Verse (pp. 4-11). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Khoza, R. J. (1994). The need for an Afroc centric approach to management and within it a South

Africa-based Management approach. Randburg: Knowledge Resources.

Kieft, A. (2014). The importance of entrepreneurship in reducing poverty. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

Kieti, E. (2017, June 14). Interview about the communal culture Ubuntu . (J. Boeijenga, Interviewer) Kistemaker, B. (2014). Local economic development and its multi-level, multi-actor influences: The

influence of a supranational power and social capital. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

Kubati, A., Charles, N., & Fagan, J. (2015). Community Exchange Programs May Be More Succesful in

Collectivist than in Individualist Cultures. New Brunswick: Rutgers University.

Larsen, L., Harlan, S., Bolin, B., Hackett, E. J., Hope, D., Kirby, A., . . . Wolf, S. (2004). Bonding and bridging: Understanding the relationship between social capital and civic action. Journal of

Planning Education and Research, 24(1), 65-77.

Li, J., & Qian, C. (2013). Principal-principal conflicts under weak institutions: A study of corporate takeovers in China. Strategic Management Journal, 34(4), 498-508.

Licht, A. N., Goldschmidt, C., & Schwartz, S. (2005). Culture, law, and corporate governance.

International Review of Law and Economics, 25(2), 229-255.

(43)

43

Luo, Y. (2008). The changing Chinese culture and business behavior: The perspective of

intertwinement between Guanxi and corruption. International Business Review, 17(2), 188-193.

Macke, J., & Sehnem, A. (2016). The Inverted Spiral: How Social Capital Diverges from Micro to Macro Levels. Revista Espacios, 37(14), 21.

Mangaliso, M. P., & Mphuthumi, B. D. (2001). Building competitive advantage from Ubuntu: Management lesson from South Africa. The Academy of Management Executive, 15(3), 23-33.

McGrath, R. G., Macmillan, I. C., & Scheinberg, S. (1992). Elitists, risk-takers, and rugged individualists - an explanatory analysis of cultural-differences between entrepreneurs and

non-entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(2), 115-135.

Mulder, N. (1996). The ideology of Javenes-Indonesian leadership. In H. Antlöv, & S. Cederroth,

Leadership on Java: gentle hints, authoritarian rule (pp. 57-72). Richmond, Surrey: Curzon

Press.

Nixon, S. (2016). Working Together to Stop TB: Building Community Partnerships to Eliminate TB in African American Communities. National Conference on Healt Communication, Marketing

and Media. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97-112.

Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment .

American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 88-127.

Pennink, B. W. (2014). Dimensions of Local Economic Development: Towards a level, Multi-Actor Model. Journal of Business and Economics, 5(1), 249,256.

Pennink, B. W., & Elmhauser, L. (2016). Modeling longevity in local economic development initiatives

by involving locla parties: Emperical data from Singkwang (Kalimantan, Indonesia).

Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Remember Singapore. (2013, September 17). Remember Singapore. Retrieved June 01, 2017, from Remember Singapore website: https://remembersingapore.org/2013/09/17/kampong-spirit-and-gotong-royong/

Robertson, C., & Schwartz, J. (2012, March 22). Trayvon Martin Death Spotlights Neighborhood Watch Groups. The New York Times.

Schultz, T. P. (1984). Studying the impact of household economic and community variables on child mortality. Population and Development Review, 10, 215-235.

Shear, M. D. (2017, June 1). Trump Will Withdraw U.S. From Paris Climate Agreement. The New York

Times.

Skretny, J. D. (1996). The ironies of affirmative action: Politics, culture, and justice in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

A Comparison Study on National Cultural Dimensions and Local Communal Cultures: A Cultural View on How Entrepreneurial Activities are Realized