نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی- کیفی
نویسندگان
1 گروه توسعه، دانشکده کارآفرینی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
2 گروه فناوری، دانشکده کارآفرینی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Objective: The primary objective of this research is to identify and analyze the institutional voids that affect the development of digital entrepreneurship within the context of online shopping platforms in Iran. Institutional voids are defined as gaps in formal and informal structures, such as laws, regulations, social norms, and economic infrastructures, that can either hinder or facilitate entrepreneurial activities. This study seeks to understand how these voids impact the behavior and performance of digital entrepreneurs, particularly in the realm of e-commerce platforms.
The focus of this research is on identifying factors such as legal weaknesses, lack of technological infrastructure, limitations in access to financial resources, and cultural-social barriers that can obstruct the growth of digital businesses. Furthermore, this study aims to provide solutions for improving the digital entrepreneurship ecosystem by examining these voids, which can assist policymakers, platform managers, and entrepreneurs in strengthening this domain. This research is particularly significant in emerging markets like Iran, which face unique institutional and economic challenges, and it seeks to contribute new insights to the existing literature on digital entrepreneurship and institutional theory.
Method: This research is qualitative in nature and was conducted with the aim of identifying institutional voids affecting the development of digital entrepreneurship within the context of online shopping platforms in Iran. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 12 digital entrepreneurs, who were selected using a snowball sampling method to achieve theoretical saturation. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis based on the approach of Braun and Clarke (2006). This method involved manual coding, categorizing codes, and extracting main and sub-themes, resulting in the identification of 9 main themes and 42 sub-themes related to institutional voids. To ensure validity, the researcher triangulation method and expert validation of codes were used. Reliability was also calculated using inter-coder agreement between two coders, which showed a reliability percentage of 82%. The interviews were recorded with the informed consent of the participants, and their identities were kept confidential to maintain anonymity. The thematic analysis provided an accurate identification of institutional challenges and offered deep insights into the barriers to digital entrepreneurship.
Results: This study identified institutional voids affecting the development of digital entrepreneurship on online shopping platforms in Iran across three dimensions: regulatory, cognitive, and normative. These voids were categorized into three main groups:
1. Legal and Regulatory Voids: These include a lack of clear laws regulating e-commerce activities, absence of legal frameworks to protect intellectual property rights, tax and licensing issues, legal ambiguities, bureaucratic obstacles, monopolization by large companies, lack of tax transparency, and policymakers’ unawareness of digital needs (with 8 sub-themes for Rule of Law Voids, 3 sub-themes for competition and monopoly, 9 sub-themes for government policies and administrative procedures, and 4 sub-themes for political distance).
2. Infrastructural and Technological Voids: These involve low internet speed, limited access to advanced technologies, problems with online payment systems, shortage of skilled professionals, weak technical infrastructure, and lack of expertise among policymakers (with 4 sub-themes for lack of literacy and skills, 3 sub-themes for technological complexity, and 4 sub-themes for cognitive distance).
3. Cultural and Social Voids: These include cultural resistance to online shopping, lack of public trust in digital platforms, weak digital skills among consumers and entrepreneurs, bribery, and lack of administrative transparency (with 3 sub-themes for lack of transparency and corruption, and 4 sub-themes for cultural and social barriers).
These voids not only affect the performance of platforms but also influence entrepreneurs’ behavior and strategic decision-making, leading some entrepreneurs to rely on informal networks and personal relationships to fill these gaps. These challenges increase transaction costs, reduce trust, and limit innovation, thereby hindering the growth of digital entrepreneurship.
Conclusion: This study identified key institutional voids that impact digital entrepreneurship within online shopping platforms in Iran. Utilizing thematic analysis of interviews with digital entrepreneurs, the research revealed significant challenges across three dimensions. Regulatory voids, such as ambiguous laws and bureaucratic hurdles, increase transaction costs and reduce entrepreneurs’ confidence. Cognitive voids, including a lack of digital skills and inadequate technological infrastructure, limit the exploitation of digital opportunities. Furthermore, normative voids, like social resistance to digital businesses and corruption, undermine public trust and operational efficiency. Collectively, these voids hinder the growth and sustainability of digital entrepreneurship in the studied context. The findings underscore the necessity of targeted institutional reforms to foster a supportive environment for digital entrepreneurs.
Keywords: Institutional voids, digital entrepreneurship, online shopping platforms, thematic analysis
کلیدواژهها [English]
رنجبر، هادی، حق دوست، علی اکبر، صلصالی، مهوش، خوشدل، علیرضا، سلیمانی، محمدعلی، و بهرامی، نسیم. (1391). نمونه گیری در پژوهش های کیفی: راهنمایی برای شروع. مجله دانشگاه علوم پزشکی ارتش جمهوری اسلامی ایران (annals of military and health sciences research)، 3((10) مسلسل 39))، 238-250.
Amini Sedeh, A., Pezeshkan, A., & Caiazza, R. (2022). Innovative entrepreneurship in emerging and developing economies: the effects of entrepreneurial competencies and institutional voids. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 47(4), 1198-1223. 1198–1223.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09874-1
Beerepoot, N. & Lambregts, B. (2015) Competition in online job marketplaces, Global Networks, 15(2), 236-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12051
Boon, W. P., Spruit, K., & Frenken, K. (2019). Collective institutional work: The case of Airbnb in Amsterdam, London and New York. Industry and Innovation, 26(8), 898–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2019.1633279
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bruton, G.D., Ahlstrom, D., Li, H.-L. (2010). Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: Where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrep. Theory Pract. 34 (3), 421–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00390.x
Cao, Z., & Shi, X. (2021). A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging economies. Small Business Economics, 57, 75-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00326-y.
Christensen, C.M. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. HBS Press, Boston, MA
Christensen, C.M., Hang, C., Chai, K., Subramanian, A.M. (2010). Managing innovation in emerging economies: an introduction to the special issue. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 57 (1), 4–8. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2009.2036601
Constantinides, P., Henfridsson, O., & Parker, G. G. (2018). Introduction-platforms and infrastructures in the digital age. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0794
Davidson, E., & Vaast, E. (2010). Digital entrepreneurship and its sociomaterial enactment. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Honolulu. IEEE Xplore, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2010.150
DiMaggio, P. J., & Zucker, L. G. (1988). Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 3-22.
DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Doh, J., Rodrigues, S., Saka-Helmhout, A. and Makhija, M. (2017). International business responses to institutional voids, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 293-307. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0074-z
Downes, L. (2009). The Laws of Disruption: Harnessing the New Forces that Govern Life and Business in the Digital Age. Basic Books, New York
Dy, A. M. (2019). Levelling the playing field? Towards a critical-social perspective on digital entrepreneurship. Futures, 102438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.102438
Elert, N., & Henrekson, M. (2017). Entrepreneurship and institutions: a bidirectional relationship. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 191-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000073
Elia, G., Margherita, A., Passiante, G. (2020). Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: how digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 150 (2020), 119791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119791
Ernkvist, M. (2015). The double knot of technology and business-model innovation in the era of ferment of digital exchanges: the case of OM, a pioneer in electronic options exchanges. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 99, 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.02.001
Fuenfschilling, L., Truffer, B. (2016). The interplay of institutions, actors and technologies in socio-technical systems—an analysis of transformations in the Australian urban water sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 103, 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.023
Goel, S., Karri, R. (2020). Entrepreneurial aspirations and poverty reduction: the role of institutional context. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 32 (1-2), 91–111.
Govindarajan, V., Ramamurti, R. (2011). Reverse innovation, emerging markets, and global strategy. Glob. Strategy J. 1 (3-4), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.23
Guest, Greg; MacQueen, Kathleen M. Namey, Emily E. (2012). Applied Thematic Analysis, SAGE Publications.
Heeks, R., Gomez-Morantes, J. E., Graham, M., Howson, K., Mungai, P., Nicholson, B., & Van Belle, J.-P. (2021). Digital platforms and institutional voids in developing countries: The case of ride-hailing markets. World Development 145 (2021) 105528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105528
Heeks, R., Gomez-Morantes, J. E., Graham, M., Howson, K., Mungai, P., Nicholson, B., & Van Belle, J. P. (2021). Digital platforms and institutional voids in developing countries: The case of ride-hailing markets. World Development, 145, 105528.
Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28 (1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004
Hodgson, G. M. (2006). What are institutions?. Journal of economic issues, 40(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2006.11506879
Hodgson, Geoffrey M. (2004). the Evolution of Institutional Economics; Agency, Structure and Darwinism in American Institutionalism, Routledge
Hoskisson, R. E., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., & Peng, M. W. (2013). Emerging multinationals from midrange economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50(7), 1295–1321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01085.x
Jennings, Jennifer E., and Candida G. Brush. (2013). “Research on Women Entrepreneurs: Challenges to (and from) the Broader Entrepreneurship Literature?” The Academy of Management Annals 7(1): 663–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2013.782190
Khanna, T. & Rivkin, J. W. (2001). Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22(1): 45-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200101)22:1%3C45::AID-SMJ147%3E3.0.CO;2-F
Khanna, T. and Palepu, K.G. (2010), Winning in Emerging Markets: A Road Map for Strategy and Execution, Harvard Business Press, Boston.
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. (1997). Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 41–51
Khanna, T., Palepu, K. (2000). The future of business groups in emerging markets: long-run evidence from Chile. Acad. Manag. J. 43, 268–285. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556395
Khanna, T., Palepu, K. (2010). Winning in Emerging Markets: A Road Map for Strategy and Execution. Harvard Business Press, Bost.
Kimmitt, J., Muñoz, P., & Newbery, R. (2020). Poverty and the varieties of entrepreneurship in the pursuit of prosperity. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(4), 105939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.05.003
Knight, Jack. (1992) Institutions and Social Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kunduru, S.R. (2024). Institutional Voids and Digital Ecosystems of India’s Public Sector. In: Sharma, S.K., Dwivedi, Y.K., Metri, B., Lal, B., Elbanna, A. (eds) Transfer, Diffusion and Adoption of Next-Generation Digital Technologies. TDIT 2023. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 697. Springer, Cham.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.
Le Dinh, T., Vu, M. C., & Ayayi, A. (2018). Towards a living lab for promoting the digital entrepreneurship process. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 22(1), 1–17.
Liedong, T. A., Peprah, A. A., Amartey, A. O., & Rajwani, T. (2020). Institutional voids and firms' resource commitment in emerging markets: A review and future research agenda. Journal of International Management, 26(3), 100756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2020.100756
Lin, C., Atkin, D., Cappotto, C., Davis, C., Dean, J., Eisenbaum, J., House, K., Lange, R., Merceron, A., Metzger, Mitchum, Nicholls, A., Vindican, S, H. (2015). Ethnicity, digital divides and uses of the internet for health information. Comput. Hum. Behav. 5, 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.054
Littlewood, D.C. and Kiyumbu, W. (2018). Hub’ organisations in Kenya: what are they? What do they do? And what is their potential?, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 131, pp. 276-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.031
Lux, S.,Crook, T.R., Woehr, D.J. (2011). Mixing business with politics: a meta-analysis of the antecedents and outcomes of corporate political activity. J. Manag. 37 (1), 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310392233
Lyon, F. (2000). Trust, networks and norms: The creation of social capital in agricultural economies in Ghana. World Dev. 28 (4), 663–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.006
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.006
Malik, F., Heeks, R., Masiero, S., & Nicholson, B. (2021). Digital labour platforms in Pakistan: Institutional voids and solidarity networks. Information Technology & People, 34(7), 1819–1839. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2020-0218
Malik, F., Nicholson, B., & Heeks, R. (2017). Understanding the development implications of online outsourcing. In J. Choudrie (Ed.), International Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries (pp. 425–436). Cham: Springer.
McAdam, M., Crowley, C., & Harrison, R. T. (2019). To boldly go where no [man] has gone before. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 912–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.051
Miller, D., Lee, J., Chang, S., & Breton-Miller, I. L. (2009). Filling the institutional void: the social behavior and performance of family vs. non-family technology firms in emerging markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 40: 802–817. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848443228.00009
North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of economic perspectives, 5(1), 97-112
Novo-Corti, I., Varela-Candamio, L., García-Álvarez, M. (2014). Breaking the walls of social exclusion of rural women by means of ICTs: the case of ‘digital divides’ in Galician. Comput. Hum. Behav. 30, 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.017
Olthaar, M., Dolfsma, W., Lutz, C., Noselett, F. (2017). Markets and institutional swamps: tensions confronting entrepreneurs in developing countries. J. Inst. Econ. 13 (2), 243–269. doi:10.1017/S1744137416000308
Palepu, Krishna G., and Tarun Khanna. (1998). Institutional Voids and Policy Challenges in Emerging Markets. The Brown Journal of World Affairs 5(1): 71–8.
Parket, G., Alsytne, M., Choudary, S. (2016). Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets are Transforming the Economy, and How to Make Them Work for You. W. W. Norton & Company (ISBN-10: 0393249131).
Parthasarathy, B., & Matilal, O. (2019). The Platform Economy and Digital Work, DIODE Paper no.9, CDI. UK: University of Manchester.
Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. (2009). The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2009.43479264
Ranjbar, H., Haghdoost, A. A., Salsali, M., Khoshdel, A., Soleimani, M., & Bahrami, N. (2012). Sampling in qualitative research: A guide for beginning. Annals of Military and Health Sciences Research, 10(3), 238-250. [In Persian]
Sarkar, S., Waldman‐Brown, A., & Clegg, S. (2023). A digital ecosystem as an institutional field: curated peer production as a response to institutional voids revealed by COVID‐19. R&D Management, 53(4), 695-708. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12555
Scott, W.R., (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Si, S., Ahlstrom, D., Wei, J., & Cullen, J. (2021). Introduction: Business, entrepreneurship and innovation toward poverty reduction. In Business, entrepreneurship and innovation toward poverty reduction (pp. 1-20). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2019.1640485
Soluk, J., Kammerlander, N., & Darwin, S. (2021). Digital entrepreneurship in developing countries: The role of institutional voids. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 170, 120876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120876
Sutter, C., Bruton, G.D., Chen, J, (2019). Entrepreneurship as a solution to extreme poverty: a review and future research directions. J. Bus. Ventur. 34 (1), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.06.003
Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. (2011). Entrepreneurship in emerging markets. Management International Review, 51(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-010-0066-8
Uzunca, B., Rigtering, J. C., & Ozcan, P. (2018). Sharing and shaping: A cross-country comparison of how sharing economy firms shape their institutional environment to gain legitimacy. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(3), 248–272. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2016.0153
Von der Heydte, Lisa. (2020). Challenges Resulting from Multiple Institutional Logics in Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Social Business Hybrids. Springer Nature.
Vrande, V.van de, Jong, J.P.J.de, Vanhaverbeke, W., Rochemont, M.de, (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation 29(6-7), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.001
Wells, Alan. (1970). Social Institutions. London: Heinemann.
Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R.E., Peng, M.W., (2005). Strategy research in emerging economies: challenging the conventional wisdom. J. Manag. Stud. 26, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00487.x
Wu, J., Si, S., & Yan, H. (2022). Reducing poverty through the shared economy: Creating inclusive entrepreneurship around institutional voids in China. Asian Business & Management, 21, 155–183. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-020-00113-3
)