04 Chapter 3

Chapter Three: Entrepreneurial development 43
CHAPTER THREE
Entrepreneurial development
Mr Ah Koy* said entrepreneurs were not born, they were made,

and with ‘vision and the burning desire to be the best’, Fijians
could succeed in the business world.
He said the technicalities of running a business were simple,

but it was the psychological aspect that separated the
successful from those who just managed to survive
financially.
A positive mental attitude, definiteness of purpose, going the

extra mile, a pleasant personality, customer satisfaction, all
these contribute to the development of a business, he said.
Reported in the Fiji Times (1 April 1995, p.9)

*Ah Koy was the Trade Minister in 1995 and later became the Finance Minister
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter reviews the literature on entrepreneurship and provides a particular focus
on small tourism businesses and the correlation between individualism/collectivism
and entrepreneurship. The literature review will investigate the information available
about each research question. The chapter will also explore the contentious issue of
whether or not entrepreneurial dispositions are inherited or developed, and whether
the personality traits of successful entrepreneurs can be measured.
The case for undertaking a comprehensive literature review in entrepreneurship

research has been advocated by Gartner (1989):
Entrepreneurship researchers cannot make important contributions to the field unless they
know what already has been contributed. Good scholarship in entrepreneurship requires that
each be consciously connected to previous work done in the field. A working knowledge of the
field sharpens ideas and can lead to new insights via more focused studies. (Gartner, 1989, p. 28)
Although Fiji has a relatively developed tourism industry, there is a paucity of

contemporary and rigorous research on the operation of small tourism businesses, on
culture and entrepreneurship and on the relationship between these three domains.
This researcher has identified only two studies published during the post-
independence period, which focus specifically on small business. One of these studies
(Techno-Economic Survey Team, 1969) explored the opportunities available to local
people in small businesses generally. The other study (Hailey, 1985) focussed
specifically on indigenous businesses. Other studies have been either of a very general
or of a highly specific nature, such as tourism master plans (UNDP/IBRD, 1973;
Coopers and Lybrand, 1989; Deloitte and Touche, 1997); visitor profile (Plange,
1985); the socio-cultural, economic and environmental impacts of tourism (Varley,
1978; King, Pizam & Milman, 1993; TCSP, 1992); resort planning (King, 1997);
globalisation (Harrison, 1997); destination profiles (King and McVey, 1998); tourism
planning (McVey and King, 1999), the effects of political instability (Berno and King,
2001). With the exception of Qalo’s (1997) case study on a communally owned Fijian
business (outside the tourism sector), no study has carried out a detailed analysis of
tourism entrepreneurship, or of small tourism businesses. Nor has any assessment
been undertaken of the entrepreneurial dispositions of either large or small business
owners in any sector of the Fiji economy. In view of this limitation, the present
literature review has been broadened to include research on entrepreneurship and
small business in a range of settings beyond Fiji.
3.2 THE DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGE
Over the past thirty years the use of terms ‘entrepreneur’ and ‘entrepreneurship’ in the
business world have become clichés. The terms have been used to describe a very
diverse group including those who ‘play three-card monte on Times Square to the
heads of giant corporations’ (Brodsky, 1996, p. 33). Newspapers have referred to
inner-city drug dealers, brothel keepers, politicians and cabdrivers as entrepreneurs.
Cannon (1991) described entrepreneurs as ‘economic heroes’ (Morrison, Rimmington
and Williams, 1999). It appears that the criterion of profit making has been used
loosely to categorise any type of businessperson who qualifies as an entrepreneur. If
we adhere to Drucker’s (1985) definition of the entrepreneur as an ‘opportunity
seeker’, all of the individuals noted above would be classified as entrepreneurs.
Despite widespread interest and usage of the terms, a concise and universally
acceptable definition of entrepreneur and entrepreneurship has proved elusive and
controversial (Hill and McGowan, 1999; Nodoushani and Nodoushani, 1999;
Cunningham and Lischeron, 1991; Gartner, 1990; Perry, 1990; Drucker, 1985). The
imprecise nature of these two terms has led Morrison, Rimmington and Williams
(1999) to conclude that ‘it is considered a futile pastime to attempt to fashion a clear-
cut definition of what an entrepreneur is’ (p. 29). Similarly, Fairbairn and Pearson
(1987) noted:
Economists have found it difficult to deal with the concept of entrepreneurship. Problems arise
in defining it and in identifying the role and significance of entrepreneurs in the growth process.
Lack of agreement on these and related matters has given rise to differing theories of
entrepreneurship and to different perceptions of the functions of entrepreneurs. (Fairbairn and
Pearson, 1987, p. 9)
In comparing the search for a universal definition of entrepreneurship to ‘hunting the

heffalump’, Kilby (1971) wrote:
The search for the source of dynamic entrepreneurial performance has much in common with
hunting the Heffalump. The Heffalump is a rather large and very important animal. He has been
hunted by many individuals using various ingenious trapping devices, but no one so far has
succeeded in capturing him. All who claim to have caught sight of him report that he is
enormous, but they disagree on his particularities. Not having explored his current habitat with
sufficient care, some hunters have used as bait their own favourite dishes and have them tried
to persuade people that what they caught was a Heffalump. However, very few are convinced
and the search goes on. (Kilby, 1971, p. 1)
Other researchers have also highlighted the vagueness of the concept of

entrepreneurship. Herron, Sapienza and Smith-Cook (1991), for example, noted the
absence of a consistent definition of entrepreneurship, while Brazeal and Herbert
(1999) attributed this state of affairs to the ‘field’s uneven development, its lack of
consistency of terminology or method, and its relative isolation from developments in
key informing fields’ (p. 29). The lack of agreement is also emphasised by Hill and
McGowan (1999) who have stated that entrepreneurship is ‘best understood as a
process, the constituents of which are the entrepreneur, their persistent search for
opportunities, usually grounded in the marketplace, and their efforts to marshal the
resources needed to exploit those opportunities’ (p. 7). Tripathi (1985) likened an
entrepreneur to a ‘hat that has lost its shape because of overuse by people who pull it
into their preferred fashion’ (Furnham, 1992, p. 168).
Research on entrepreneurship has been compared to the test given to the blind men in
the Hindu parable. After touching an elephant, each blind man identified it as a
different animal (Brazeal and Herbert, 1999). Wilken (1979) compared

entrepreneurship to a process of spontaneous combustion in which the spark
[entrepreneurship] is ignited by a catalyst [entrepreneurial disposition]. Long (1983)
stated that an effective definition of entrepreneurship should include all activities that
are entrepreneurial and exclude those that are not. The problem with this simplistic
approach is, however, the need to reach agreement about using consistent criteria
capable of distinguishing entrepreneurial from non-entrepreneurial activities.
Furthermore, such definitions do not take into account the contributions of people
who have benefited from inheritances such as Henry Ford Jr.; those who buy an
existing business and convert it into a profitable venture; or those who resurrect a
dormant business. According to Brodsky’s (1996) criteria, such people would not
qualify despite the fact that Henry Ford Jr. clearly stood out as an entrepreneur. He
would also not qualify according to a variety of other definitions.
Who then is a genuine entrepreneur? Webster’s Dictionary defines entrepreneurship

as ‘the creation of new, innovative, profit-oriented, visionary economic organizations
that exist in uncertain environments that carry some risks’ (quoted in Davis and Long,
1999, p. 25). Gartner’s (1989) definition also emphasises novelty. He found the topic
of entrepreneurship ‘inherently complex and multidisciplinary’ (p. 27) and defined
entrepreneurship as the creation of new ventures, and entrepreneurs as the creators of
new ventures where there were none before (1988, 1989, 1990). Baumol (1993)
cautioned against adoption of a rigid application of the term, ‘because whatever
attributes are selected, they are sure to prove excessively restrictive, ruling out some
feature, activity, or accomplishment of this inherently subtle and elusive character’ (p.
7).
According to Brodsky (1996), real entrepreneurs are people who start a business from
scratch with nothing ‘except what they themselves bring to the party – a concept, a
few contacts, maybe some capital, plus all of those intangible qualities that are
important to success in any new venture’ (p. 34). He further stated that entrepreneurs
survive on 'internally-generated cash flow' (p. 34). This definition may, however, be
unduly restrictive if one adheres to the view that genuine entrepreneurs are constantly
on the lookout for new business opportunities and that ‘internally-generated cash
flows’ are often inadequate for further business expansion. The following examples
demonstrate the limitations of the restrictive definitional approach. Should a roadside
fish and chip shop, or a Fijian cultural group such as the fire walkers, be considered as
an example of entrepreneurship? If the entrepreneur is an innovator in the
Schumpeterian sense of introducing a new product or service, the fish and chip shop
owner and the Fijian fire walkers after all ‘create neither a new satisfaction nor new
consumer demand’ (Drucker, 1985, p. 19). Describing such operations as
entrepreneurial would seem far-fetched. On the other hand, adopting a prescriptive
approach may preclude a range of business activities that have a genuine claim to
exhibiting entrepreneurial spirit. Some entrepreneurs may succeed in presenting an
established idea in an innovative way.
Based on the literature survey, it appears that entrepreneurship is generally associated

with the creation of new ventures. What is less clear is whether it refers to small, to
large businesses, or to both. Berger (1991) and Drucker (1985) associated
entrepreneurship with new and small businesses. According to Vesper (1980), new
ventures could take several forms: as a joint venture between two or more existing
firms; as a corporate entity, or as an independent venture initiated by one or more
partners acting in their own interests.
A synthesis of the various perspectives on entrepreneurship leads to two conclusions:

(1) that entrepreneurship is synonymous with new ventures, and that (2) the term is
applicable to small as well as large enterprises. Despite the general tendency to use
the terms interchangeably some writers, such as Hansemark (1998), have, however,
sought to dissociate entrepreneurship from self-employment or small businesses.
Hansemark viewed the entrepreneur as a small business operator, and vice versa, but
distinguished the entrepreneur as a person playing a more proactive role. According to
his analysis, small business is ‘bonded with family needs,’ whereas an entrepreneur
has innovative traits and is focussed on ‘profit and growth’ as characterised by such
entrepreneurial behaviour as alertness to opportunity, innovation, and ‘creative
destruction’. The latter behaviour has been described as a process by which
‘innovation supplants old products and methods, enhances productivity, and
ultimately leads to economic growth’ (Solomon, 1986, pp. 110-111).
Drucker (1998) suggested that innovation is a better criterion for judging a small
business than age and size. The term ‘innovation’ was first associated with
entrepreneurship by Schumpeter (1942). Innovation is the conversion of ideas into
products, services and processes, and is the result of creative thinking, perseverance,
ingenuity, and imagination (Baumol, 1993; Grigg, 1994; Couger, 1995). It goes hand
in hand with creativity. While creativity involves idea generation, innovation means
converting such ideas into fruitful business activities and a mindset that has a strategic
vision (Kuczmarski, 1996). According to Kao (1989), creativity ‘implies a vision of
what is possible, the entrepreneur translates that creative vision into action
[innovation], into a human vision which guides the work of a group of people’ (p. 17).
Considerable advances have been made in developing a better understanding of the

concepts of ‘entrepreneur’ and ‘entrepreneurship’. The ongoing search for standard
definitions is, however, unlikely to ‘eliminate the substantial complexity of the
subject which is a primary source of our confusion, perplexity, and delight’ (Sapienza,
Herron, and Menendez, 1991, p. 257). This is partly because entrepreneurs are not
homogeneous; they come from diverse backgrounds, exhibit different leadership and
management styles and motivation levels (Woo, Cooper, and Dunkelberg, 1988).
Churchill and Lewis (1986) expressed similar views when they summarised the
challenge of researching entrepreneurship:
Words used to describe the field of entrepreneurship research are “young,” “at a formative
stage,” and “still in its infancy.” Even the definition of entrepreneurship is neither agreed upon
nor static. It is restricted by some to new ventures, viewed by others to necessitate personal
risk, and more recently has come to include initiatives in any organization that involve
innovation, a new strategic direction involving risk, and a significant new combination of
strategic “factors of production.” The field is young, complex, involved in a process of
discovery and transition, and the recipient of increased attention and the basis for economic
hope. It is a field involving, appropriately, considerable discovery-oriented research; hence, it is
no wonder that its research directions are fragmented, creative, and diverse. (Churchill and Lewis,
1986, p. 334)
The absence of a standard definition of the terms ‘entrepreneur’ and

‘entrepreneurship’ creates a number of challenges. According to Carsrud, Olm and
Eddy (1986), ‘lack of a generally agreed upon definition is a shortcoming that
misdirects research efforts and leads to a lack of a coherent body of research
literature’ (p. 367). Because of the problem of operationalising the terms, it is difficult
to undertake research replication precisely and to base subsequent research on
previous work (Carsrud and Olm et al., 1986).
Cunningham and Lischeron (1991) have stated that the conventional association of
entrepreneurship with small business has blurred the subject matter and has largely
eliminated large firms from consideration. For the purposes of the present research, it
is worth noting that large firms do appear capable of embracing the entrepreneurial
spirit (Harper, 1985a). For this reason they have not been excluded from the present
research.
3.3 THE ROLE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN NATIONAL

DEVELOPMENT
Schumpeter (1942) popularised the concept of entrepreneurship in his book

‘Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy’. This work predicted the gradual demise of
small businesses (Solomon, 1986). According to Solomon’s (1986) interpretation,
Schumpeter believed that ‘technical innovation was becoming increasingly
complicated and required coperative [sic] effort by teams of scientific specialists
rather than individual tinkering and inspiration’ (p. 42). He predicted that the ‘growth
of large corporations would eventually ‘socialize’ the individualistic, capitalistic

spirit’ (p. 42). Contrary to Schumpeter’s prediction, small business has not perished,
and has proceeded to lay the foundation for many economies around the world.
Entrepreneurs – large and small – have been catalysts for change, growth and
innovation in a competitive market economy characterised by globalisation and
structural change (Kirchhoff and Phillips, 1987; Timmons, 1994; Hodgetts and
Kuratko, 1995; Muzyka, Konig, and Churchill, 1995; Scott, 1996; OECD, 1998;
Wajewardena and Tibbits, 1999). As Bromley (1985) said:
There is now overwhelming evidence that Lenin’s … generalization that “large-scale machine
industry completely squeezes out the small enterprises” is untrue. Instead, small enterprises are
continuously in a state of flux, with new foundations, expansions, contractions, take-overs and
extinctions continually taking place in adjustment to the expansion and contraction of large-
scale enterprises, so that they play a role in both the causes and the effects of the changing
structure of the economy. (Bromley, 1985, p. 323)
During the nineteenth century entrepreneurship was a dominant catalyst for the
growth of the US economy (Solomon, 1986). The phenomenon experienced a
resurrection in the USA during mid 1970s and rose to cult status during the 1980s,
rekindling the ‘enterprising spirit by reawakening the animal spirits of capitalism’
(Solomon, 1986, p. 11). The USA of the 1980s was dubbed the decade of small
business, leading former President Reagan to describe it as the ‘entrepreneurial age’.
When confronted by economic recession, high unemployment, and negative
international trade trends on a scale not seen since World War 11, Americans
rekindled their interest in small business. The USA was severely impacted by the
global economic recession prompting politicians and policy makers to recognise
entrepreneurship as a vehicle for reducing future unemployment and increasing
economic prosperity. Particular attention was focused on the capacity of small
business to achieve these twin objectives because of its adaptability to changes in a
volatile environment. Furthermore, globalisation demands entrepreneurial behaviour
from all enterprises – large and small - and information technology has narrowed the
advantage that corporate enterprises enjoyed relative to start-up operations (Richman,
1997).
Like the current technological revolution, the entrepreneurial revival of the Reagan
Presidency created a revolution in business philosophy which made small business
‘more beautiful in the marketplace’ (Nodoushani and Nodoushani, 1999, p. 45). The
upsurge in entrepreneurship occurred not only in commercial organisations, but also
spread to non-profit service-provision organisations, such as governments, cities,
towns, and universities. As stated previously, even drug dealers and others involved in
shady businesses were described as entrepreneurs. From the USA the enthusiasm for
entrepreneurship spread to the European countries including France, the United
Kingdom and Italy. Small business was also seen as an engine of economic growth in
these countries, and was often contrasted with large corporations which were
described as ‘something of a dinosaur with bureaucratic organizations, and
increasingly unable to compete in a post-industrial world’ (Nodoushani and
Nodoushani, 1999, p. 45). For example, 45-65% of exports from Italy consists of
products manufactured by small-medium enterprises, ‘sometimes made by people
who can’t even read and write’ (Vinyaratn13 in Asian Week, December 2002, p. 23).
Another reason for the global interest in small business enterprise is its ability to adapt
quickly to changes in the internal and external environments. Whereas the emphasis
was previously on large corporate entities, the European Union has put increasing
emphasis on the creation of indigenous (small) businesses that have their roots in the
local economy (Garavan and O. Cinneide, 1994). The Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Economic Development (OECD) now regards entrepreneurs as not only
agents of change, but instruments for the introduction of new products and services in
the consumer market replacing industrial and military goods (OECD, 1999).
Despite the positive contribution made by entrepreneurs to the national economy,

some researchers have regarded them with suspicion. Entrepreneurs have been
described as parasites that damage the economy, particularly when they engage in
unproductive activities such as rent seeking or enter into already profitable business
13
Pansak Vinyaratn is the Chief Economic Advisor to the Prime Minister of Thailand.
ventures (Baumol 1990, 1993). Secondly, high unemployment may force non-
entrepreneurial people into business for subsistence reasons, a practice that they
discontinue once they find secure employment. With reference to the works of Cook
(1982) and Cooper (1980), Sloane (1999) wrote that entrepreneurs are ‘exploiters and
accumulators, the agents of capitalism and destroyers of traditional exchange-based
morality’ (p. 11). Such Marxist views, however, seem incongruous today, following
the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and subsequent economic
transformation of many former communist societies to the capitalist system of
production.
3.4 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLANS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Some governments have used specific entrepreneurship policies to narrow perceived

or real economic imbalances between ethnic groupings. Such policies may be called
‘affirmative action’. An affirmative action programme may be defined as a series of
financial dispensations and training programmes aimed at stimulating marginalised
sections of the community in the direction of social and economic development.
Marginalisation may arise as a result of the absence of self-development, or due to the
denial of opportunities because of one’s ethnicity, or low social status. Some people
may see an affirmative action programme as another form of discrimination. For
example, Ratuva (1999) wrote that ‘using ethnicity as a basis for affirmative action
just because previous acts of discrimination that are being compensated for was based
on ethnicity, tantamount to another form of discrimination’ (pp. 48-49).
As a result of rioting and looting in the major cities by the black population in the
1960s, President Johnson introduced a series of affirmative action measures to
alleviate the sufferings of the black community. In the relevant countries, equivalent
affirmative action plans are also available for the Australian Aborigines and the
Indian scheduled castes. The government of Malaysia provided bumiputera (son of
the soil) opportunities to the indigenous Malays. The latter were designated as being
economically disadvantaged relative to other ethnic groupings, such as the Chinese. It
was believed that the widening economic disparity between the ethnic groupings was
responsible for the creation of fear, jealousy and hatred (Othman, 1999). The Malay-
dominated government aimed to prevent the escalation of ethnic conflict by creating a
‘new class of small [Malay] capitalists’ (Chee Peng Lim et al., 1979, quoted in Sloane
1999, p. 10), who would later become middle class citizens. By providing education,
opportunity, resources and capital, the Government of Malaysia wanted the so-called
economically disadvantaged Malays to emerge as ‘enterprising, business-minded,
innovative, self-sufficient modern men and women - that is, as entrepreneurs’ (Sloane,
1999, p. 10). Bumiputera is not only about the economic empowerment of an ethnic
group but also about ‘self-validation and a key to the construction of modern Malay
identity’ (Sloane, 1999, p. 23). The major objective of bumiputera was to enable
Malays to control 30% equity in all Malaysian companies by 1990. In practice, only
20% of the equity was in Malay hands by 1990. (Thompson, 2000). To counteract any
criticism of this discriminatory and arguably racist policy, the Malaysian government
passed a constitutional amendment that labelled any negative criticism of the scheme
as seditious (Thompson, 2000). The fact that Malays now play a greater role in the
economic and political life of the country is sometimes attributed to the affirmative
action programme. Although Malays currently hold about 30% of the capital of all
Malaysian limited companies compared to 7% in 1970, affluence has not trickled
down to the middle class14 (Gilley, Far Eastern Economic Review, 10 August 2000).
14 There is no clear consensus as to what constitutes a middle class. The word bourgeoisie has also been applied
to this concept. Generally speaking, a middle class may be seen as a ‘social stratum that is not clearly defined but
is positioned between the lower and upper classes. It consists of businessmen, professional people, etc. along
with their families, and is marked by bourgeois values’ (Wordreference.Com Dictionary:
http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=middle+ class). Easterly (2001) defines "A middle class
… as a high share of income for the middle class and a low degree of ethnic divisions …. A high share of income
for the middle class and lower ethnic divisions are associated with higher income and higher growth, as well as
with more education, better health, better infrastructure, better economic policies, less political stability, less civil
war and ethnic minorities at risk, more social 'modernization' and more democracy" (in the abstract, p. 1).
On the other hand, Netto (2003) wrote that not only the ethnic bumiputera’s share of
the economy has increased, but it has also led to the emergence of a middle class and
that ‘a huge chunk of this stake is in the hands of state-backed institutional investment
agencies holding shares in trust for the bumiputras [sic]’ (p.1). Netto added that the
Malaysian economic experiment has divided the rural and urban people and that the
1999 statistics had showed that rural household incomes was about 55% of the urban
income. Despite this uneven economic development, bumiputera seems to have
boosted Malay confidence and identity but it is uncertain whether a template is
appropriate for other multi-ethnic societies such as Fiji.
Since the 1970s Fijians have been recipients of considerable government assistance,
but in the absence of business skills have struggled to compete with other ethnic
groupings in the domain of entrepreneurship. With greater educational opportunities
and better advisory services, policy planners believed that an affirmative action
programme would enable Fijians to compete more effectively against other ethnic
groupings.
Affirmative action policies are subject to short-term political expediency, but time is
needed to assess their sustainability. One potential danger encountered in
implementing an affirmative action policy is that those receiving the benefits may
attempt to undermine any policy of scaling back, even when the primary objectives
have been achieved. This has occurred in Malaysia recently. Another danger for
countries which foster an unbalanced entrepreneurial policy, such as Malaysia and
Fiji, is that they may not realise the full potential and benefits of economic
development. In the case of Malaysia, the recent Asian financial crisis had shown the
‘failure of the big Malay capitalists and the dynamism of the Chinese capitalists’ (Far
Eastern Economic Review, 10 August 2000). The Chinese and other communities in
Malaysia do not receive the special economic benefits that are available to the
indigenous Malays.
The 1997 Constitution of Fiji has introduced an affirmative action programme that
provided equal access to education, land and housing, commerce and social welfare
for disadvantaged groups. Of the 29 programmes, five are earmarked for Fijians, five
for Fijians and Rotumans, two for Indo-Fijians, and minority groups, and 15 for rural
and peri-urban residents. The main objective of the programme is to ‘bridge the socio-
economic gaps between them and other ethnic groups’ (Ministry of Information and
Media Relations, 2003, p. 34). In the case of Fiji's affirmative action plan targeted
specifically at Fijians and Rotumans, it is the Blueprint.
According to some critics, the Blueprint has mostly benefited a minority within the
Fijian elite and the ‘provinces get peanuts’ (e.g. Speed, Fiji TV One, 3 June 2001) –
very much like in Malaysia. Sowell (2003) has made a similar conclusion:
The most common outcome is that the benefits of affirmative action programs go to only a small
minority within the groups that are supposed to benefit from them. This is almost invariably the
already most prosperous segment of these groups. (Sowell, 2003, http://www.townhall.com/
columinists/thomassowell/printts20030604.shtml)
Ratuva (1999) has associated the Fiji affirmative action plan in the context of
hegemony and chiefly communal power. According to him:
…affirmative action has been conceptualised and implemented within the framework of
communalism, the ‘benefits’ have largely been diverted to consolidating the indigenous Fijian
communal institutions, under the tutelage of traditional elites, rather than being evenly
distributed amongst subordinate classes. On the other hand, attempts to create an indigenous
Fijian bourgeoisie through affirmative action have largely failed because resources have been
mobilised along communal lines and locked into communal ownership (this includes communal,
instead of individual investment); because communal institutions continue to put pressure on
indigenous Fijian institutions to divert resources to communal obligations; because use of
communal labour has not benefited individuals concerned, and because emphasis on communal
investment and resource mobilisation has undermined the development of entrepreneurial skills
of indigenous Fijians. (Ratuva, 1999, p. 4)
Basing their experience on Kenya, Dondo and Ngumo (1998) have suggested that a
level playing field should apply in national economic development so that all
communities can make a contribution:
Entrepreneurship is a way of life that enables people to take charge of their own destinies, and
the realisation that their success will only come through their own efforts. Entrepreneurship
cannot, therefore, grow in a society fond of blaming others and looking for scapegoats. The
sooner Kenyans collectively start believing that they are and ought to be in control of their lives,
the faster the spirit of entrepreneurship will rise, and the sooner Kenya will join the proud list of
new economically thriving nations. (Dondo and Ngumo, 1998, p.23)
In a later section (under ‘Entrepreneurship in the Fijian Society’) the nature of Fijian
entrepreneurship will be discussed. It will be shown that Fijian entrepreneurial growth
is based on communal capitalism, and that the acquisition of capital by individual
members is not very significant.
3.5 THE NATURE AND EVOLUTION OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Say (circa 1800) is widely regarded as having introduced the concept of

entrepreneurship. According to Say, entrepreneurship is the process of shifting
‘economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity
and greater yield’ (Drucker, 1985, p.19). This definition suggests that maximising
return on investment should be the highest priority for an entrepreneur. In practice,
some entrepreneurs may opt to prioritise objectives unrelated to profit maximisation.
Drucker (1985) also stated that entrepreneurs always react to change and exploit
opportunities. According to this view, the proactive entrepreneur ‘lives in the future,
never in the past, rarely in the present’ (Gerber, 1995, p. 24).
Though Say is often credited with introducing the entrepreneurship concept, it was
Schumpeter (1942) who gave a distinct meaning to the word and wrote extensively on
the subject. Others who have subsequently contributed to the understanding of
entrepreneurship are outlined in Table 3.1.
Schumpeter’s work stimulated a range of subsequent studies on entrepreneurship such

as by McClelland (1961); Kirzner (1973, 1985); Vesper (1980); Casson (1982);
Table 3.1: Contributors to the theory of entrepreneurship
Year Contributors Important definitional attributes
1810 Say -Many different talents are required to be a

successful entrepreneur.
-Many obstacles and uncertainties accompany
entrepreneurship.
-Separated profits of entrepreneur from profit
of capital.
1890 Marshall -The abilities to be an entrepreneur are different

yet complementary with the abilities to be a
manager.
1934 Schumpeter -Entrepreneurship is an innovation and develops

untried technology.
1960 Penrose -Managerial capacities should be distinguished

from entrepreneurial capacities
-Identifying and exploiting opportunities and
ideas for expansion of small enterprises is the
essential aspect of entrepreneurship.
1961 McClelland -Entrepreneur is an energetic moderate risk-

taker with a high level of motivation to achieve.
1964 Drucker -Entrepreneurs maximise opportunities
1977 Gasse -Personal value orientation
1980 Vesper -Entrepreneurs seen differently by economists,

psychologists, business persons, and
politicians.
1982 Dunkelberg -Growth oriented; independence oriented;

and Cooper and craftsmen oriented
1987 Begley and -Tolerance of ambiguity

Boyd
Sources: Timmons, Smollen and Dingee (1985); Greenfield and Strickon et al., (1979);
Long (1983); Drucker (1985); Furnham (1992); Timmons (1994); Hisrich and Peters
(1995).
Drucker (1985); Baumol (1990, 1993); and Timmons (1994). Schumpeter’s interest in
entrepreneurship focuses on economic development (Greenfield, Strickon, Aubey,
and Rothstein, 1979). Schumpeter (1949) defined development as ‘the carrying out of
new combination’ (quoted in Greenfield and Strickon et al., 1979, p. 6). Schumpeter
described the act of ‘new combinations’ as the ‘enterprise’, and the activities of the
individuals responsible for the functions of such enterprises as entrepreneurship
(Greenfield and Strickon et al., 1979). Schumpeter argued that entrepreneurs and
entrepreneurship are responsible for the transformation of an economy and that
individuals play a key role in the economic growth because they are constantly
making influential choices and decisions. He also asserted that innovation is the
foremost economic factor which helps our understanding of the process of
entrepreneurship. Schumpeter distinguished the entrepreneur from both the inventor
and the capitalist arguing that because an entrepreneur is not a capitalist, he should
not be regarded as a risk-taker.
Although Schumpeter did not associate risk-taking propensity with entrepreneurship,

other researchers have argued that risk-taking is a critical determining factor
(McClelland, 1961; Drucker, 1985; Begley and Boyd, 1987). Though Schumpeter
regarded innovation as an important element of entrepreneurship, he failed to answer
several important questions. These include: (1) Who are the entrepreneurs? (2) Is it
possible to separate the functions of the entrepreneur from his/her entrepreneurial
traits? (3) How does one recognise and carry out studies of entrepreneurship that have
international validity? (4) How are entrepreneurs and their shared characteristics
distributed within a given population? (5) Which groups within a society are most
likely to produce entrepreneurial disposition, and why?
Questions such as the above have preoccupied many post-war researchers. They
shifted their focus from the functions of an individual entrepreneur to the
psychological characteristics and the social environment leading to his/her growth.
McClelland (1961) was a notable social scientist who answered these questions,
including why some societies show entrepreneurial disposition and development

while others do not. While aware of the association between ‘capitalism’ and the
‘Protestant work ethic’, McClelland attempted to explore psychological variables
which motivated individuals towards entrepreneurship. Around the same time, other
researchers such as Hagen (1962) were investigating why visible minorities such as
the dissenters in England, the Protestants in France, the Samurai in Japan, and the
Jews in different parts of the world, had displayed considerable entrepreneurial
progress. Hagen found that the unique entrepreneurial tendencies of minorities were
due to ‘a sense of separateness from the rest of society in which they lived, combined
with a feeling of being discriminated against by members of the larger society. They
found compensation for this sense of diminished status … in entrepreneurial
achievement’ (quoted in Greenfield and Strickon et. al., 1979, p. 10).
Similarly, Dondo and Ngumo (1998) attributed the entrepreneurial disposition of the
Kikuyu, Kissii, and Maragoli tribes in Kenya to the fact that they (like Indo-Fijians)
do not own land and have to look for alternative means of survival. Harper’s (1985b)
interpretation of the entrepreneurial success of dislocated minorities around the world
aligns with Hagen’s analysis:
The very experience of living in a difficult environment, and of planning, financing and executing
a move and then surviving in a new and often hostile environment requires qualities of self-
restraint, abstinence, hard work and voluntary postponement of gratification which are normally
far more severe than those demanded by the lifestyle of those who remain at home, or of
indigenous people of the place in which these refugees relocate. (Quoted in Burns and Dewhurst,
1989, pp. 79-80)
Although they cannot be said to constitute a minority community with approximately

40-45% of the total population of Fiji, perhaps there is a similar explanation for the
considerable entrepreneurial achievements of Fiji’s virtually landless Indo-Fijian
community. In this context Ravuvu’s (1988) analysis is pertinent:
The Indians [Indo-Fijians] … were indentured and became migrants from a generally harsh and
severe physical and social environment in which they were highly differentiated, stratified into
castes and oppressed by overpopulation and starvation. Fiji was an opportune place to make
the best out of it. Although the period of indenture contract [girmit] was rather dismal,
exploitative and tortuous to many, the process of serving or suffering under the indenture
system was in fact a baptism of fire which further developed in the Indian personality a great
sense of endurance, risk taking and determination …. They also had to develop other traits or
characteristics which would enable them to survive and become free in a new environment ….
Cut off from their extended village and family ties in India, they increasingly become
individualistic and egoistic in order to survive and forge ahead economically, politically and
socially. (Ravuvu, 1988, p. 57)
Cunningham and Lischeron (1991) have categorised the various research findings on
entrepreneurship into Six Schools of Thought as outlined in Figure 3.1. The first three
‘Schools of Thought’ relate to start-up business. The ‘Great Person’ School asserts
that an entrepreneur has an ‘inborn intuition’ that gives ‘vigour’, ‘energy’,
‘persistence’ and ‘self-esteem.’ The Psychological Characteristics School shows that
the driving forces behind entrepreneurship are unique values, attitudes and needs. The
Classical School is related to creativity and innovation, while improvement of
technical and interpersonal skills is the focus of the Management and Leadership
Schools. Finally, the direction of Intrapreneurship School is geared towards
adaptation to change and consolidation by exploiting opportunities. All these
characteristics are identified as important in achieving entrepreneurial success.
Overall, it may be argued that the growth of entrepreneurship is due to a wide range
of factors and the economic factor may be just as important as the psychological and
cultural influences. The importance of the economic factors in stimulating
entrepreneurship has been made by Wilken (1979) as follows:
If the economic conditions are favorable, then, given the basic human motivation to maximise
one's gains, entrepreneurship will emerge and economic growth and development will result. If
the economic conditions are not favorable, entrepreneurship will not emerge and the society's
economy will stagnate. From this point of view, entrepreneurship is primarily a dependent
variable and social and psychological characteristics receive relatively little attention. (Wilken,
1979, p. 3)
It could also be argued that in some countries (examples, the USA, Great Britain and
Germany) the economic factors may be more important, while in other countries the
cultural factors may be equally important (examples, Japan and China).
Figure 3.1. Approaches to an understanding of entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurial Central focus or Assumption Behaviors Situation

Model purpose and skills
“Great Person” The entrepreneur has an Without his “inborn” Intuition, Start-up
School intuitive ability – a intuition, the individual vigor, energy,
sixth sense – and traits would be like the rest of us persistence,
and instincts he/she is mortals who “lack what it and self-
born with takes” esteem
Psychological Entrepreneurs have People behave in Personal Start-up

Characteristics unique values, accordance with their values, risk
School attitudes, and needs values, behavior results taking, need
which drive them from attempts to satisfy for
needs achievement
and others
Classical School The central The critical aspect of Innovation, Start-up

characteristic of entrepreneurship is in the creativity, and early
entrepreneurial process of doing rather and discovery growth
behavior is innovation than owning
Management Entrepreneurs are Entrepreneurs can be Production Early

School organisers of an developed or trained in the planning, growth
economic venture; they technical functions of people and
are people who management organising, maturity
organize, own, manage, capitalisation,
and assume the risk and budgeting
Leadership Entrepreneurs are An entrepreneur cannot Motivating, Early

School leaders of people; they accomplish his/her goals directing and growth
have the ability to adapt alone, but depends on leading and
their style to the needs others. maturity
of the people.
Intrapreneurship Entrepreneurial skills Organisations need to Alertness to Maturity

School can be useful in adapt to survive; opportunities, and
complex organizations; entrepreneurial activity maximising change
intrapreneurship is the leads to organizational decisions
development of building and entrepreneurs
independent units to becoming managers
create market, and
expand services.
Source: Cunningham and Lischeron (1991, p. 47)
3.6 ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE FIJIAN SOCIETY
Entrepreneurship existed in Fiji prior to the arrival of colonialism in the nineteenth

century (Wilkes 1845, cited in Fairbairn, 1988a). According to Sutherland (1984), in
the pre-colonial period ‘Land was the most important means of production and
although there appears to have been a small degree of private ‘ownership’, it is clear
that the predominant practice was for it to be held collectively’ (p. 32). However, the
colonial policies which heralded the introduction of the cash economy and other
Western commercial concepts, did not accord with the ethos of Fijian collectivism
and other ‘traditional Fijian enterprise practices’ (Hailey, 1988, p. 37). The segregated
life under colonialism prevented generations of Fijians from understanding and
inculcating entrepreneurial skills. According to Ravuvu (1988),
The British colonial power, with the help of the church, developed a specific orientation to
change, but within defined limits. It was considered both desirable and necessary to effect only
those changes which would not suddenly disrupt the existing order but which would enhance
imperial policies. Thus changes were generally limited to administrative and technical matters,
concentrating mostly in the urban centres. Changes in the deeper social and cultural aspects of
the people’s way of life were left to chance and paid lip service only. So long as Fijians in the
rural areas complied with the administrative demands of the Colonial government, according
largely to the principles of indirect rule, they were left to their own devices. (Ravuvu, 1988, pp.
184-185)
As a matter of fact, Fijians were not ‘left to their own devices’ in the village
environment, as all aspects of their lives were controlled through official rules and
regulations. For example, Governor Gordon used ‘collaborative’ chiefs to form the
Great Council of Chiefs, which became his advisory body. The Governor used the
‘traditional authority’ of the Great Council of Chiefs to introduce land reforms and
provision of taxation in the Fijian community. Native Regulations at the district level
were enforced by the Roko Tui and at the district level by the Turaga ni Koro15
According to Norton (1990),
15
Roko Tui and Turaga ni Koro were eminent chiefs at the district and village levels respectively
Provincial and district councils framed programs or the implementation of regulations including
tax collection, administration of finance, and village maintenance. Special police and
magistrates enforced the regulations. The authority restricted settlement and work outside
villages, required everyone to produce prescribed quantities of crops, and obliged parents to
send their children to schools staffed by teachers in the pay of provincial councils. The system
gave legal sanction to customary services rendered by commoners to chiefs such as provision
of food for ceremonial feasts and labour for public works. (Norton, 1990, p. 21).
The extent to which the lives of the Fijian people were regimented may be better
understood by looking at their yearly work programme for one Province (Colo West).
This is shown as Figure 3.2. Obviously the Fijians with an entrepreneurial disposition
could not have found time to engage in entrepreneurship when they were
compulsorily preoccupied with traditional duties. Even if they tried, it is most likely
they would have been discouraged by the village chief.
Despite the chiefly antipathy towards entrepreneurship, the colonial authorities

nevertheless encouraged some commercial activities amongst Fijians on grounds of
necessity – to broaden the taxation base. Fijians were allowed to produce cash crops
(that included copra, bananas and sugar) under chiefly supervision. Produce was
collected at the provincial level and sold on tender. Surplus funds were used for
village projects. By the late 1870s 3% of the government revenue came from Fijians
(Howard, 1991).
The excessive control exercised on the Fijian people by the colonial administrators
and the Fijian chiefs did not go down well among some commoners, who gave an
alternative vision to the Fijians. One such individual was Apolosi Nawai. His
challenge to the existing authority by the formation of Viti Vakani (Viti Company) in
1912 has been described as ‘the first clear expression of organised struggle by the
Fijian peasantry against not only colonial rule but also the underlying system of
exploitation’ (Sutherland, 1984, quoted in Howard, 1991, p. 39). Nawai wanted to cut
the middleman in the banana and copra trade and organise a co-operative venture for
Fijians so as to compete on the basis of strength. Nawai’s thoughts constituted a
Figure 3.2: Yearly work programme for able-bodied Fijians
January
Plantations. Every able-bodied man in the districts of …to plant 50 roots of yaqona each. Every able-
bodied man in every district to plant 200 dalo, 200 tapioca, 20 voivoi, 50 bananas.
February
Plantations and house building. Every able-bodied man in the villages of…to plant one acre of cane.
The district of Namataku to repair the walls of the Provincial Commissioner’s house at
Natuatuacoko. The district of Magodro to repair the walls of the Native Magistrate’s house at
Natuatuacoko, and the district of Nasikawa to repair the Provincial Constable’s house.
March
Plantations and house building. All paths to be weeded, and all bad sections to be repaired. The
district of Komave to weed the village path from Nabukelevu to Nabotini. The districts of Qalimare,
Bemana, Noikoro, and Nasikawa each to build a house for their Buli.
April
Plantations and house building. The districts of Mavua, Qalimare, Bemana, Namataku, Magodro,
Noikoro, Nasikawa and Koroinasau each able-bodied man to plant 100 roots of tobacco. The district
of Korolevuiwai to build the Provincial Matanivanua’s house at Tagage. The district of Magodro to
build the retired Buli’s house at Bukuya.
May and June
All to obtain their Provincial Rate and to pay it to the Provincial Commissioner before June 30th.
Those who remain in their villages to work as ordered by the Buli or Turaga ni Koro.
July
Plantations and house building. Every able-bodied man in the district of Koroinasau to plant 100
roots of yaqona. All paths to be weeded and cleaned and bad sections to be repaired.
August
Plantations. Every man to plant 400 yams, 400 dalo and 30 vudidina.
September
Plantations and house building. The district of Mavua to build their Buli’s house.
October
Plantations and house building. All paths to be weeded, cleaned and repaired.
November
Plantations and house building
December
Free month
Buli’s Lala
All able-bodied men to work 8 days each in the Buli’s plantations.
Turaga Ni Koro’s Pay
Every able-bodied man in every village to pay 3/- to his Turaga ni Koro before November 30th, and
to work for 3 days in his plantations.
Village Weeding
All villages to be weeded every Wednesday.
Provincial Compounds
It shall be the duty of the Provincial Commissioner or Roko Tui to order a village or district to
perform any necessary weeding or house building or other work in the Provincial Compounds at
Lawaqa and Natuatuacoko or in the compund of the Native Medical Practitioner at Korolevu and of
the nurse at Tubairata and at Qalimare.
Source: National Archives of Fiji, reproduced in Lal (1992, pp. 24-25).

heresy amongst the collaborator chiefs and the business community, who were
threatened by competition. On the strength of evidence provided by the ‘collaborator’
chiefs and other ‘credible’ witnesses, the colonial authorities exiled Nawai outside his
Province and later to New Zealand. The Viti Vakana, apart from advancing the
economic empowerment of Fijians, became the vehicle for the expression of a variety
of grievances against the colonial rule. Nawai’s greatest support came from the galala
(independent farmers) who were officially encouraged to farm land in the 1920s and
1930s (Lal, 1992). The galala farming was further encouraged in 1958, but the
conditions attached to it would have de-motivated a significant number of Fijians
from taking up farming. For example, a Fijian had to fulfil the following conditions to
attain galala status: (1) ‘to maintain at least three acres of land’; (2) ‘where cattle are
kept, to provide not less than two acres of pasture land for each beast’; (3) 'to manage
his holding so as to make a gross income of not less than £100 per year’; (4) ‘to have
at all times growing and properly-cared for crops sufficient for the requirements and
welfare of himself and those dependent on him’; (5) ‘to pay, in addition to Provincial
Rates, the commutation rate of £1 per year’ (Watters, 1969, p. 69). The galala
farmers were engaged mostly in vegetable farming and in the banana, dairy and cocoa
industries. Watters (1969) found them happier, showing greater capacity for saving,
and displaying greater individualism. It can be argued that had galala farming been
actively encouraged amongst Fijians since the advent of colonialism, the current
economic disparity between the Fijians and non-Fijians would have narrowed
considerably.
From the days of British colonialism and until 1940 two major developments had
occurred among Fijians (Ratuva, 1999). The first change was the entrenchment of
communalism under the Native Policy and the other was the consolidation of the
capitalist economy. According to him, the communal system of production under the
hegemony of the chiefs supported a semi-subsistence lifestyle, while economic
development at the national level gave rise to a working class whose ethos conflicted
with the communal nature of the Native Policy. The working class consciousness
posed a threat to the chiefly hegemony. This threat was countered with the reform of
the Native administration in 1944. These included introduction of the co-operative
movement (Soqosoqo o Cokovata ni Veivoli) in 1947, the Fijian Banana Venture in
1950, and the Fijian Development Fund (Lavo Musuki in Veivakatoro Caketaki) in
1951. These reforms were superficial and ‘were more reactionary than progressive
because they aimed to reinforce communalism, rather than encourage individual
enterprise, amongst indigenous Fijians, by operating within the rigid guidelines of the
Fijian Administration’ (Ratuva, 1999, p. 76). The other major event was the
introduction of the galala farmers (Tu na galala) in the 1920s and 1930s, but by 1955
this scheme was so highly regulated that one had to function within the ambit of
Fijian Administration. This arrangement was not likely to encourage individual
enterprise. Between 1953 and 1957 Fijian farmers had yearly harvested less than 5%
of the total tons of sugar cane harvested (Ratuva, 1999). Overall, ‘little had changed
in relation to indigenous participation in commerce’ by the 1950s. (Ratuva, 1999, p.
80). This became a major problem for the policy makers.
Against this background, Spate (1959) and Burns (1960) were commissioned to
examine the socio-economic problems that kept Fijians away from participating in the
commercial sector. Spate, inter alia, said Fijians had a choice between ‘rigid
authoritarian collectivism’ or a ‘community of independent farmers’ similar to galala
farming (Tu na galala). He recommended greater individualism amongst Fijians in
order to develop enterprising citizens. Spate said the traditional roles of chiefs had
expired in this modern world:
The functions of the chief as a real leader lost much of their point with the suppression of
warfare and the introduction of machinery to settle land disputes, but constant emphasis seems
to have led to an abstract loyalty in vucuo, to leaders who have nowhere to lead to in the old
terms and, having become a sheltered aristocracy, too often lack the skills or the inclination to
lead in the new ways. Hence, in some areas, a dreary negativism: the people have become
conditioned to wait for a lead which is never given.. (quoted in Lal, 1992, p 182)
The Governor of Fiji (in 1960) also advised the Great Council of Chiefs to grant
greater individual freedom to the Fijians:
Much has been achieved in the past by your traditional communal system and in some areas
this system is producing excellent results. But a money economy and a new standard of living
have changed the pattern of life in these islands. I am sure the way forward lies in individual
initiative and enterprise amongst Fijians and in the development of a tough and self reliant body
of independent farmers. (quoted in Lal, 1992, p. 182)
On the other hand, Burns (1960) studied the population trends and natural resources in
Fiji. His most important recommendation pertained to the restructuring of the Fijian
Administration. The Fijian leaders initially expressed unhappiness at both these
reports, but the reality of a changing world finally dictated to them that some form of
change was desirable. Subsequently they encouraged with enthusiasm the galala
system of independent farming, so as to breed a new society of Fijian peasants who
could operate according to market forces and unencumbered by communal
obligations. They also acquiesced to the abolition of the rigid structure of the Fijian
administration. The major recommendations of Spate and Burns were at last
implemented. In the following decades, these reforms hardly created a cadre of Fijian
entrepreneurs who could compete with non-Fijians on a level-playing field. The Fijian
leaders focused more on communal capitalism rather than on individual capitalism.
The issue of low Fijian share of the economy became a political issue after Fiji gained
independence in 1970. To increase the share of Fijian entrepreneurship Government
adopted two contradictory positions: (1) maintaining vestiges of the old Native Policy
that had previously arrested Fijian entrepreneurship, and (2) encouraging Fijian
commerce (Ratuva, 1999). The vestiges of the old Fijian institutions include the
Native Lands Trust Board (NLTB), the Fijian Affairs Board (FAB), and the Great
Council of Chiefs (GCC). These institutions have formed a ‘state-chiefly class
alliance’ to maintain hegemony over the Fijian people, and lack the capacity to
liberate Fijians into individualistic pursuits. The Provincial Council, established in
1970 and which is an important arm of the FAB, expects provinces to raise funds
through soli. Funds raised have been used to buy shares in companies in order to
increase the portfolio of Fijian communal capital. This has created a hegemonistic
relationship. This relationship has been described as ‘primordial servitude…adapted
to modern commercial exploitation’ (Ratuva, 1999, p. 231).
Fijian entrepreneurs, however, may be divided into three categories. Table 3.2 shows
one form of classification. Categories of ‘communal semi-subsistence’ and
‘communal capitalism’ are not examples of entrepreneurship under Brodsky’s (1996)
criteria. Individualist Fijian capitalists are not many in the country. Many of them are
products of affirmative action policies introduced after the military coups of 1987 and
it is doubtful they could be described as entrepreneurs. Detailed statistics on their
number and operation are not available, but it has been reported that there are 105
members on the roll of the Fiji Indigenous Business Council, whose annual turnover
is a minuscule $20 million (Fiji Times, 3 March, 2004).
Fijian participation in business is generally in the form of ‘portfolio investment’ (or

communal capitalism investment). The largest type of communal investment is in the
Fijian Holdings Limited company (FHC). This company was formed as a result of
ideas generated by a group of educated Fijians known as the Fijian Initiative Group
(1988). This group recommended:
That F$20 million in equity be injected from the FAB to the FHC; that a unit trust for ethnic
Fijians be established; that a compulsory savings scheme for ethnic Fijians be created; that
government concessions to ethnic Fijian businesses be enhanced; that a Management Advisory
Services Department be established within the FAB; that ethnic Fijians be allocated a minimum
ownership of resource-based industries; that certain sectors of the economy be reserved for
ethnic Fijian investment; that a daily newspaper be owned by ethnic Fijians; and that the FAB be
restructured and strengthened. (Ratuva, 2000, p. 234).
Based on these recommendations the FHC in 1994 invested funds in nine companies
as shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3.2 Classification of Fijian capital formation
Communal semi-subsistence Communal capitalism Individualism

capitalism
- Produce for consumption - Mobilisation of kinship - Individual

and networks for collecting investment
exchange (reciprocity). capital (through soli-
vakavanua) and - Group
- Legitimation through investment. investment
elaborate ceremonies based on
- Capital and business common
- Dominance of chiefly conceptualised in terms of commercial
authority communal prestige and interest, not
social cohesion, not kinship.
- Communal activities accumulation
based on kinship network - Aimed at
- Hierarchy of communal accumulation
investment and
- tokatoka investment valorisation of
- Mataqali capital
- Koro
- Yasana
Fijian Affairs Board

Investment
- Formation of companies
(e.g. Fijian Holdings) with
investment from these
communal groups
- Chiefs maintain traditional

role and assume new role
as company director in
many cases etc.
Source: Ratuva (1999, p. 186)

Table 3.3 Fiji Holdings Limited - details of investment
Name of company Ownership interest

1994 1993
% %
Listed securities
a. Fiji Sugar Corporation 12.8 12.8
b. Unit Trust of Fiji 8.9 8.9
Unlisted securities
Subsidiary companies
Basic Industries Ltd 100.0 100.0
Fijian Property
Trust Company Ltd 89.7 89.7
Carpenters Properties Ltd 50.01 50.01
Associate Companies
Carlton Brewery (Fiji Ltd) 30.0 30.0
Merchant Bank of Fiji 50.0 50.0
Carpenters Properties Ltd - -
Other Companies
Motibhai and Company Ltd 100.0 100.0
Goodman Fielder (Fiji Ltd) 100.0 100.0
Source: Fijian Holdings Annual Report 1994, reproduced in Narube (1997, p. 239).
In 1988 Government reviewed the affirmative actions introduced since 1987. This
review document came to be known as ‘The 1988 Nine Point Plan’. The points that it
covered were: (1) restructuring and strengthening of the Fijian Affairs Board (not
achieved)16 (2) establishment of a compulsory savings scheme for Fijians (not
achieved); provision of concessions under the commercial Fijian loan scheme from
the Fijian Development Bank (subsidised rate was reduced to 8 per cent, achieved);
(3) injection of $20 million capital into Fijian Holdings through the Fijian Affairs
Board (achieved); (4) establishment of a Unit Trust for Fijians (existing Unit Trust is
available to Fijians, no action); (5) reserve sectors of commercial activities for Fijians
(not achieved); (7) minimum ownership by Fijians of selected resource based
industries (not achieved); (8) seek Fijian ownership of at least one daily English-
16
Achieved/not achieved valid up to 1997 only
language newspaper (achieved); and (9) creation of a Management Advisory Services
Department at the Fiji Development Bank (achieved)
The 1998 review was followed by ‘The 1992 Cabinet Proposals’. These proposals
supplemented the provisions of the 1988 Nine Point Plan. They aimed to provide a tax
holiday for Fijian-owned business (not achieved)17; transfer government
shareholdings in public enterprises to Fijians (partially achieved); setting up of a small
business agency (not achieved); interest-free loans to Fijian Affairs Board and
Provincial Councils for purchase of shares in Fijian Holdings (achieved); direct
budgetary allocation to Provincial Councils (not achieved); and increase the
appropriation for Fijian Education Scholarship (achieved). The 1993 Opportunities for
Growth plan focused on six major areas: (1) extension of Fijian ownership of business
ventures; (2) assistance to Fijians in obtaining capital; (3) strengthening of Fijian
education; (4) strengthening of Fijian culture; (5) strengthening of business training;
and (6) establishment of Fijian-oriented institutions. It is evident that The 1993
Opportunities for Growth plan reinstated the 1988 Nine Point Plan. With the
exception of the last objective, other opportunities were achieved.
Other recommendations that were made as part of the affirmative action plan for
Fijians were: (1) parliamentary legislation spelling out the importance of Fijian
participation in commerce and affirmative action areas such as protection,
concessions, employment quota in government, allocation of scholarships and
minimum participating rights (not achieved); (2) Fijian Holdings Limited to buy
shares in financial institutions and Fijian-owned companies (partially achieved); (3)
allocation of minimum amount of import licences to Fijians (partially achieved); (4)
establishment of an Equity Loan Fund to facilitate portfolio investment by Fijians
(achieved); (5) introduction of minimum employment of Fijians in selected industries
and favourable treatment of Fijian tenders for projects (not achieved); and (6)
17
Achieved/not achieved valid up to 1997 only
establishment of a Small Business Agency as a separate statutory body (not achieved).
A large number of the provisions in the affirmative plans, though laudable in terms of
increasing a wide range of portfolio investment capital for the Provinces, did not
assist individual Fijians. Moreover, they were not implemented with proper guidelines
and timetables. As such, these affirmative provisions failed to increase individual
entrepreneurs amongst the Fijians. According to the Fiji Registrar of Companies
(cited in Ratuva, 2000), of the 700 companies that existed in 1987 Indo-Fijians owned
50%, Fijians 15%, Others 20% and 15% were joint ventures. Before and after 1987,
some notable Fijian businesses that benefited under the affirmative provisions, like
the CBM Holdings, Commercial Loans to Fijian Scheme (CLFS) and the Equity
Investment Management Company Limited (EIMCOL), made bad business decisions
and suffered financially. EIMCOL had to be folded up.
Many of these communally owned businesses ‘currently operate without a shred of

accountability or transparency’ (Fiji Sun, 13 March 2004, p. 2). These companies
have not maintained their accounting standards to the minimum requirements, as
claimed by the Citizens Constitutional Forum (CCF):
Each of the 14 [Provincial] Councils has companies. They operate distinctly from the Provincial
Councils. These companies are accounting nightmares to anyone trying to make a sense of
Council accounts.
For example, Ra Province started up Ra Provincial Holdings Ltd on July 1, 1997. This company’s
main activity involves leasing a commercial building. On February 2, 1997, a loan of $[Fiji]
814,600 was obtained from FDB [Fiji Development Bank]. From this loan, $730,000 was used to
buy land and the building. Council used $43,440 to take-over debt. Details on this $43,440 debt
and the following transaction to cover it with loan funds have not been reflected in the Council’s
last audit.
Ra Council’s investment decisions are unsound for a number of reasons. Land rates revenue is
being indirectly diverted to Uluda Holdings Ltd, the other provincial company.
The Council’s fixed assets base has been eroded because they decided to use it to guarantee
loans obtained by two other companies.
Dividends from the two companies will most likely not earn income for Ra Council for a number
of years, since the rental income and loan repayments are fixed. Dividends income from shares
held in Fijian Holdings Ltd has been assigned to pay back loans.
The Council does not even have any shareholding in the companies nor has a direct control
over their operations, judging from their accounts.
As a result, it is difficult to establish the nature of the companies in relation to the Council. (CCF,
Fiji Sun, 13 March 2004, p. 2)
The CCF have highlighted many other instances of financial mismanagement and lack
of prudent financial investment in companies associated with other Provincial
Councils. Since the Provincial Councils have not refuted the allegations, it may be
concluded that the CCF charges carry some credibility.
3.7 COLONIALISM AND FIJIAN ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Apart from the politics of communal capitalism, colonialism – either wittingly and
unwittingly – also impacted negatively on Fijian entrepreneurship. One Fijian scholar
(Ravuvu, 1988) analysed the impact of imperial policy on the Fijians. Though his
study focused on a particular province, it has national applicability. He demonstrated
that the practice of keeping Fijians economically powerless operated as an implicit
form of social control and served the interests of both the British colonial powers and
the Fijian Chiefs. It was similar to the control exercised by the imperial rulers and the
Indian Maharajahs over the masses in the years prior to India’s independence in 1947.
As owners collectively of approximately 88% of the land, one might expect Fijians to
be the most powerful economic force in Fiji. As explained earlier, they have,
however, been largely unable to accumulate wealth because they have been
encouraged to observe traditional usage of land and have been discouraged from using
it for private benefit.
Ravuvu (1988) gave an example of a proactive Fijian who saw an opportunity to

make money by selling vegetable products to nearby construction workers. Just when
he was about to become relatively prosperous, his Chief advised this promising
‘entrepreneur’ to desist from using the piece of land for commercial activities. Worse
still, the entrepreneur’s piece of land was reduced considerably so that the farmer
could not re-emerge as an ‘entrepreneur’. With his entrepreneurial disposition
diminished, the unfortunate farmer had to revert to subsistence farming. In many
Pacific Islands, people who demonstrated entrepreneurial success, or ‘emulate
Europeans’, were treated either as outcasts, or castigated in the most humiliating
manner (Finney, 1987; Deane, 1921). With reference to a lecture given by a former
Colonial Secretary of Fiji, Mr J. Stewart, Deane (1921) gave an example of a Fijian
who tried the English principles of entrepreneurship. This budding entrepreneur was
subjected to boycotts and pestering that he ‘died from the intensity of his humiliation’
(Deane, p.103). Later, a preacher boasted that the errant entrepreneur was ‘squirming
in hell for his misdeeds’ (Deane, p.103).
The Fijian social system has clearly not encouraged individual entrepreneurship. For
Fijians with the drive and enthusiasm for entrepreneurship, the Fijian social system
has been a major handicap. With Fijian ‘entrepreneurs’ confined to village life and
with the immigrant Indo-Indian society preoccupied with commercial farming and
small business, the domination of the commercial field was in the hands of the
European community, at least until independence.
Independence ostensibly provided all ethnic groupings with an equal opportunity to

launch into an era of entrepreneurial experimentation. As stated elsewhere, while the
Indo-Fijians and Others generally took advantage of commercial opportunities, the
same cannot be said of Fijians. The late Fijian chief, Ratu David Toganivalu, spoke of
the incompatibility of the Fijian mindset to commercial activities. He noted that the
‘single most important problem is a Fijian’s mental attitude and approach to business.
He starts with a great liability in that he has a cultural heritage that is not really
conducive to frugality and material acquisition. These are disciplines that run against
the grain of all that is natural to our way of life’ (quoted in Lal, 1988, p. 17).
Rakoto’s (1975) highly perceptive observation on cultural obstacles facing Fijian
commercial ventures is highly relevant to this research. He identified four problems
under (1) ceremonies and resources, (2) Christianity, (3) the individual or the group,
and (4) today and tomorrow. The first three issues are particularly relevant to the
present study and are discussed below:
1. Ceremonies and resources. There is scope to disregard certain ceremonies

associated with death, sickness, and birth. Death is a particularly expensive affair in
the Fijian community, as food, yaqona and tabua have to be given to visitors on the
fourth, tenth, twentieth nights until the hundredth night after burial. Burua and
vakatairaisulu involve further expenses that include purchase of food, clothes, and
tabua. Fearing supernatural punishment, Fijians generally follow these customs.
Surprisingly, Rakoto’s study of Fijian farmers showed that the successful ones were
adherents to custom and tradition, while the less successful farmers also attributed
their low yield to culture, although their contribution to cultural ceremonies was not
significant. Unlike the behaviour of low performers, the successful farmers used their
time wisely and would say ‘no’ if they were not able to make contributions to
traditional functions.
2. Christianity. Prior to the arrival of Christianity Fijians emphasised hard work,

efficiency, good health, good and abundant food, and valour in war. Work was
regulated according to seasons, but ‘Christianity upset this balance for ever’ (Rakoto,
p. 33). The Protestant ethic emphasises individual initiative, while Fijian Christianity
has focused on the group thereby leading them to ‘a downward path in the control of
our material world ….’ (Rakoto, p. 33).
While discussing the peculiarities of Fijian culture, Ravuvu (1988) said that because
villagers lack regular and reliable sources of income, they find it increasingly difficult
to meet cultural obligations. He added that:
Being constantly required to contribute to various causes at the whim of those who wield power
in the name of progress, villagers increasingly resent such levies and often contribute their
hard-earned cash reluctantly. School committees, church committees and, Provincial Councils
for example, often impose cash levies (which are usually required within a short period) upon
villagers for the construction of buildings or for various other projects, without considering the
ability of the people to pay. (Ravuvu, 1988, p. 164)
Fijians comply with such requests begrudgingly. Borrowing money leads them into
debt and subsequently into further debt18.
3. The individual or the group. Traditional leaders monitored Fijian social life. Land
rights of individuals and small groups were administered under the mataqali system.
Individuality was suppressed and individuals punished ruthlessly for any breach of
traditional rules. No effort was made to encourage them into agriculture, commerce,
education and other fields of social and economic development. They were led to
believe that their culture was inimical to business.
An observation that may be added to the above discussion is that Western observers
may find it difficult to understand the concept of Fijian entrepreneurship as
understood in the Western world, or in textbooks. Westerners may find it strange that
Fijians appear to find traditional work more interesting because they can relate to it.
Many find business in the entrepreneurial sense an abstraction (Qalo, 1997).
According to Hailey (1988), the Western sense of entrepreneurship emphasises
cultural values that are alien to Fijians and these are not valued highly in Fijian
culture. He said these values include ‘individual acquisitiveness’, ‘frugality’, and
measurement of success in financial terms. Entrepreneurship involves sales and
profits, and there is a heavy emphasis on individual motivation to achieve reward for
one’s efforts. Fijian society by contrast is collectivist. Caring and sharing is a normal
social protocol and financial reward as an instrument to gain social recognition and
independence is generally not an aspiration in the Fijian way of life. According to
Qalo (1997), family is more important in Fijian life than financial rewards:
18 Until the 1960s ethnic Fijians were prohibited by law to borrow money. Nowadays they usually borrow from
credit unions, from money lenders, shop owners often at very high interest
Dou veilomani and making money in business seem to be poles apart. But if we are clear that
the idea of money is based on human desire for more rather than less, or simply greed, then
veilomani or love can be expressed by the elimination or the minimising of greed. While making
money in business is important in itself for the creation of wealth, family is important in the
battle against the dangers of greed and the desirability of sharing. (Qalo, 1997, p. 17)
In an exhaustive study of a Fijian family business, Qalo (1997) proposed a number of

factors that negatively affect Fijian entrepreneurship. Five of these critical factors are
considered below:
1. Lack of attention to detail. With reference to the late paramount Chief, Ratu Sir
Lala Sukuna, and Scarr (1983), Qalo said an Englishman is quick with his mind,
while the Fijians get lost in details. The values at the workplace, he said, include
‘work ethic, family, skills, possessions, personal integrity, prudence, knowledge,
status and so on’ (p. 136). These values are precisely defined and are part of the
socialisation process. Fijian upbringing does not inculcate such values with the same
precision used in Asian and Western epistemology. Lack of attention to detail leads to
‘over supply (or lack of) of material, wastage of material through mistakes in
marking, wastage of time, added transportation costs, lateness of work completion,
followed by poor customer satisfaction …’ (Qalo, 1997, p. 138).
2. Importance of kinship over reasoning. In Fijian businesses, kinship is used as an

excuse for arriving late for work, or for not attending work on Fridays and Mondays.
Pressure from spouses can lead to undesirable business decisions. As an example,
some women – with ‘99% enthusiasm and 1% business acumen’ – decided to raise
money for a communal project which they had instigated without proper appraisal.
Their enthusiasm for the project led them to organise a successful dance, but the
business was closed the next day. The employees may have danced the whole night
away leaving little energy for work the next day. Such behaviour would not be
entertained in most non-Fijian businesses.
3. Legitimation factor of leadership. Fijians may find management of the business a
bit confusing. Ownership to a Fijian means a free rein on the business, giving away
anything one owns.
4. Hero worship. The prevalence of hero-worship or charismatic leadership leads

workers to commit business funds for traditional purposes. This is done on the belief
that it will bring ‘mana’ or supernatural powers. Such powers are expected to make
things happen physically or psychologically.
5. Subsistence economy mindset19. Fijians generally possess the subsistence

mindset, which emphasises ‘communal work; labour-intensive work; task - as
opposed to time – oriented; very general plans; relaxed; undemanding lifestyle;
consumption-oriented living…’ (Qalo, p. 142). He wrote that:
The subsistence mindset in market economic terms ‘saves’ only for delayed consumption. Very
little ‘investment’ (or the creation of wealth) is consciously attempted. Purchase of trucks,
outboard motors and power machines, for example, are not seen entirely in investment terms
(creating wealth) …. The machines are used in a traditional manner without attention to
servicing, maintenance and so on. These machines are utilised in a manner that is similar to the
use of traditional tools and utensils such as a digging stick, a dugout canoe, bamboo raft,
thatched house or the leaves that are used in feasts or daily meals. They are given away or left
to wither. Power machines and vehicles are by and large treated in the same way. They are
treated as if they have no market value let alone resale value. (Qalo, 1997, p. 143)
The subsistence mindset also extends to the social domain. For example, Fijians may
be so emotionally carried away during fundraising that they may donate all of their
cash without considering other social commitments. Making money or getting rich
does not seem to be a priority in the Fijian way of life.
Despite the many social and financial obstacles facing the Fijians to become
‘entrepreneurs’, a few have shown some degree of success. They could be divided
into ‘productive entrepreneur’ and ‘unproductive entrepreneur’ categories with an
19 A mindset is ‘a fixed attitude or disposition that predetermines a person’s responses to and interpretations of
situations’. (From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mindset).
imbalance towards the latter. Though a number of creative and innovative Fijian
businessmen/women have emerged over the past 30 years, Watters (1969) found an
absence of ‘productive Fijian entrepreneurs.’ Despite recent developments,
entrepreneurs in the South Pacific are still seen to be non-innovative. In this regard, a
recent United Nations (1997) study observed:
The shortage of entrepreneurship is reflected in a general conservatism and lack of innovative

ideas as to possible types of business, ways to add value to products, or how to diversify them.
Business development trainers in the region often comment on the conservatism in the types of
projects people embark on, for example, piggery or poultry operations being the almost only
choices of youth groups in some countries and few people in rural areas generally, looking
beyond retail trade or transport services. This conservatism can be seen in the ‘copy-cat’
behaviour of many businesses, such as the proliferation of barbecue stands in some Pacific
island towns. Instead of devising variations, many people set themselves up in the same
business, selling an identical product, often in the same locality. Getting a small slice of the
market seems to many people preferable to taking a chance on a new product or service.
Innovative thinking is needed on opportunities for business diversification. (United Nations, 1997,
p. 34)
The absence of a business ethos among South Pacific people in general and Fijians in
particular, led Fairbairn and Pearson (1987) to question the relevance of the
Schumpeterian concept of business novelty to the developing world generally
characterised by a lack of innovation. They argued that families play a bigger role in
business decisions in developing countries and that research should not focus
exclusively on the individual entrepreneur. In this context Morrison (2000, p. 68) said
that ‘the role of the family, immediate and extended, is recognised as having the
potential to make a positive contribution towards entrepreneurial behaviour through
the provision of inter-generation role models, and as tangible and intangible support
providers’ (p. 68). This perspective will be addressed in the present study.
Hailey’s (1988) definition of a Fijian entrepreneur is more attuned to Pacific culture.

He defined a Fijian entrepreneur as ‘a Fijian (i taukei) who shows practical creativity,
combining resources and opportunities in new ways to benefit the individual, the
family, and the community in general’ (p. 41). The problem with this definition is that
it refers to a single ethnic grouping and to novelty, a rare characteristic in Fijian
entrepreneurship. Hailey’s definition therefore needs further refinement. For the
purposes of the present research, an entrepreneur is defined as 'a person who shows
practical creativity, combining resources and opportunities to benefit the individual,
the family, and the community in general’. As explained previously, novelty is
associated with entrepreneurship. However, Pacific entrepreneurs are generally weak
in innovation and are characterised by the ‘copycat’ syndrome (United Nations, 1997;
Hailey, 1985). Consequently reference to novelty in the definition would disqualify
most businesses from the proposed research. For this reason, the amended definition
does not refer to ‘new’ or ‘novelty’ products. The inclusion of ‘individual’, ‘family’,
and ‘community’ encapsulates the essence of the individualistic and collectivist nature
of ethnic groupings in Fiji.
3.8 THE DEFINITION AND NATURE OF SMALL BUSINESS IN FIJI
In light of the very different approaches adopted towards small business in different
countries, there is little agreement about definitions. Like entrepreneurship, small
business is ‘easier to describe than to define’ (Burns and Dewhurst, 1989, p.3).
Because of geographical disparities between countries, it is natural that each country
will define the term in a way that suits its needs. For example, the nature of small
business in the USA – the world’s largest economy - is different from the situation in
Fiji. Therefore, definition of small businesses located in the US will not be
appropriate for the Fiji environment. As Wingham (1998) says:
The disparity over the years between the definition of small business adopted globally has
resulted in nations seeking to define their own perception of the phenomenon. Thus, definitions
that are advanced by participating nations will vary. However, the description in each case in
many ways defines the prevailing culture and attitudes of business monitors and governments
toward these entities at one particular point in time. (Wingham, 1998, pp. 96-97)
Whatever criteria are applied when defining a small business, a common objective is
to eliminate larger firms from the preferential treatment intended for smaller ones
(Harper, 1985a). As shown in Table 3.4, there are four definitions of a small business
in Australia.
Table 3.4: Definition of small business in Australia.
Wiltshire Report (1971) Business in which one or two persons are required to
make all of the critical management decisions
(finance, accounting, personnel, purchasing,
processing or servicing, marketing and selling)
without the aid of internal specialists, and with
specific knowledge in only one or two functional
areas.
Australian Bureau of A business having fewer than 20 persons is referred to

Statistics (1988) as ‘small’ irrespective of the industry in which it
operates.
Beddall Report (1990) A small business may be defined as one which

employs up to 20 persons in the non-manufacturing
sectors; and up to 100 if a manufacturer. It should also
be independently owned and managed, be closely
controlled by its owner/managers, who also contribute
most, if not all, of the operating capital, and have the
principal decision-making functions resting with the
entrepreneurs.
Ang (1991) A small business possesses most of the following

characteristics: it has no publicly traded securities; the
owners have undiversified personal portfolios; limited
liability is absent or ineffective; first generation
owners are entrepreneurial and prone to risk taking;
the management team is not complete; business
experiences the high cost of market and institutional
imperfections; relationships with stakeholders are less
formal; and it has a high degree of flexibility in
designing compensation schemes.
Source: Wingham (1998, p. 97)

Whilst these definitions exhibit congruence in terms of general principles, ‘clarity and
cohesion in the adoption of definition to facilitate global comparison is lacking’
(Wingham, 1998, p. 97). In the UK, the Bolton Committee of 1971 defined small
firms as those which have a small share of the market and are managed by
owners/part-owners in a personalised, non-formal structure in which the owner has
the total freedom to make decisions (Singh, 1992). In the USA, a small business in the
manufacturing sector is defined as having less than 100 employees. In other sectors of
the economy the major criterion is output-based (Storey, 1982). In the European
Union, a small business employs between ten and 99 staff, a medium-sized enterprise
between 100 and 499 staff, and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are defined as
businesses with less than 500 employees (Buhalis and Cooper, 1998). In other
countries, the prevailing definitions incorporate factors other than the number of
employees and may include reference to sales, energy consumption or number of
customers. Small businesses may also be distinguished on the basis of level of
investment and capital. For example, in Singapore, a small business must have at least
30% local equity with not more than S$8million in net fixed assets (Choo, 1992, p. 3).
Table 3.5 provides a typology applied to small business enterprises based in South
Africa under the headings ‘survivalist’, ‘micro’, ‘small’ and ‘medium’.
Small businesses in Fiji may also be grouped under ‘micro’ and ‘small’. Many
‘livelihood operations’ (Taylor 1987) operated generally by Fijians and Indo-Fijians
fall under the survivalist category. Within the South Pacific, it is difficult to quantify
small business activities because many either lack a formal structure or else operate
within the family paradigm. The difficulties of defining small business in Fiji are
exacerbated by the fact that many businesses do not keep up-to-date records and rely
on the employment of friends and relatives on an irregular or part-time basis. Despite
this constraint, Hailey (1988) noted that a small business in Fiji could be defined by
using criteria such as the number of employees, annual sales turnover, level of profit,
the size of assets, the decision-making structure, and the degree to which control is
separated from ownership.
Table 3.5: A typology of small business enterprise
Types Description
Survivalist Run by largely unemployed people. They often fail to produce

even a minimum income; virtually no training takes place and
opportunities for growth into a viable business are extremely
limited. Poverty and survival strategies appear to characterize
these enterprises which are often run by women.
Micro Very small businesses, often employing family members and

one or two employees and run by the owner. Many are
‘informal’ in the sense that they lack the appropriate licences,
value-added tax registration, permits and accounting
procedures. The capital base is frequently limited and technical
and business skills generally rudimentary.
Small Constitute the bulk of the established businesses and generally

employ between 5 and 50 people. These enterprises are usually
owner-managed; operate from business premises; are registered
for tax and meet other formal registration requirements.
Medium Compose a category of enterprise falling between ‘big’ and

‘small’. They still tend to be owner/manager-controlled but
would generally employ over 200 people and hold capital
assets (excluding property) of R5 [South African currency]
million at the upper limit.
Source: Allie and Human (1998, p. 33)
In Hailey’s (1988) survey of businesses in Fiji, he found that while the Indo-Fijian
and European businesses were concentrated predominantly in urban and peri-urban
centres, the typical Fijian business was rural-based, and employed between two and
five staff. Fijian entrepreneurs specialised in businesses such as retail stores, transport
and service-related businesses because of the relative simplicity of operation and
lower level of management skills and capital. For these reasons, the service sector has
become saturated with Fijian entrepreneurs, leading to low profit margins. Hailey
(1988) also found that Fijian males dominated small business, and that a large number
of them started their business after gaining experience from employment elsewhere,
suggestive that entrepreneurship can be learnt or at least that relevant experience
gained elsewhere can provide useful boost. In contrast, many Indo-Fijian
entrepreneurs were nurtured in a family business environment. Hailey (1988) noted
that three-quarters of Fijian business enterprises were legally registered as sole
traders. Generally, Fijian traders preferred independence and avoided partnership
arrangements with their extended family or mataqali (tribe). An independent
approach also minimised communal responsibilities. This strategy, however, did not
preclude them from employing family or relatives as low cost labour.
Hailey (1988) observed that small businesses operated by Fijians faced a number of
problems. Firstly, they had a limited market and this often created cash flow
problems. Secondly, lack of economies of scale meant that traders had to sell a few
consumer products at a high margin – approximately 20% above those charged by
Indo-Fijian shopkeepers. Higher prices directed non-captive clients elsewhere, and
banks would not loan money to these traders on account of their low turnover. These
problems compounded the perennial challenge of the Fijian obligation to make
generous contributions - cash and kind - for village projects and activities, and to
show generosity through extending trade credits to customers (often Fijians). In
practice the latter may not pay at all or at least fail to pay back in a timely fashion thus
signalling the death knell for many businesses. Added to the fact that ‘Fiji’s business
arena is a maze of protocol, inter and intra connections, false modesty, etiquette,
decorum, niceties, and competition’ (Qalo, 1997, p. 93) these problems help to
explain why Fijians have low participation in entrepreneurial activities.
The traditional Fijian system of kerekere has profoundly hindered their economic
development. Kerekere is the Fijian custom of sharing things with fellow Fijians and
is a long established practice. One twentieth century chief justified the retention of
kerekere by stating: ‘Why should one man be richer than another?’ (quoted in Deane,
1921, p. 123). Such ‘socialist’ sentiments may not be prevalent in modern Fijian
society, but it may be inferred that deep in their minds, chiefs would not like to see
ordinary Fijians becoming richer than them. A wealthier society may lead to greater
demands for liberalisation and individualism within the Fijian social system.
Small businesses in Fiji operate at two different ethnic levels (Fijian and non-Fijian)
and under different conditions. Consequently, it is very difficult to formulate a
definition of small business that includes different elements involved in the operation
of small business. Despite this constraint, Hailey (1985) defined a small business in
Fiji as a small enterprise having an annual turnover of less than F$50,000, fewer than
five paid employees and managed personally by its owner. Qalo (1997) found
difficulty in defining a small business without reference to government regulations,
and reinforced Taylor’s (1987) advice that researchers should distinguish between
registered businesses and ‘livelihood operations’ such as market vendors, gardeners,
and fishermen.
For the purposes of the present research, a small business in Fiji’s tourism sector has
been defined as either ‘a new venture offering a new tourist service and product, or an
existing business offering a new or an existing tourist service and product; has less
than 100 employees and is managed by an individual or a family’. This definition is
fairly close to the definition adopted in the European Union, and offers the researcher
a useful degree of flexibility.
3.9 THE MOTIVATIONS AND PERSONALITY TRAITS OF

ENTREPRENEURS
3.9.1 Introduction
There is widespread recognition that entrepreneurs contribute to economic

development by generating ideas, looking for opportunities, and translating these
opportunities into commercial realities. Entrepreneurs have long been the subjects of
intense scrutiny because of their wealth-generating capacity, and researchers have
focused on such questions as: Why do some individuals, and not others, against all
odds and uncertainty, take risks and set up a new venture? Why do some people go to
enormous lengths to convert their initial ideas and dreams into commercial reality? In
other words, what are the differences between a successful entrepreneur and an
unsuccessful one?
This researcher’s initial consideration of such questions led to a focus on personality

attributes. Social science researchers have long attempted to explore ‘forces which
shape the values, attitudes and approaches to life which lead certain people to take on
the challenges of initiating, organising or developing which are generally associated
with enterprise’ (Cannon, 1991, p. 6). Chell (1985) and Cannon (1991) used three
models to explain these forces.
The first is called the Trait Model (associated with McClelland, 1961). Within this
model there is an intelligent gene or a group of traits in a person’s personality that
makes him or her enterprising. The ‘gene theory’ is supported by Andrews (1998),
who suggested that ‘there is an entrepreneurial personality that is either written in the
genes or imprinted in early youth’ (p. 24) without which an individual is unlikely to
venture and succeed into business ownership. This model assumes a degree of
permanency on the part of our personalities. In this regard, Eysenck (1965) suggested
that human beings are endowed with two personality dimensions that correspond to
motivation and emotion, and Woods (1998) proposed that genetics influences 75% of
human personality while environmental factors influence the remaining 25% (Bolton
and Thompson, 2000). McClelland (1961) argued that entrepreneurial traits cannot be
developed. On the other hand, Shaver (1995) concluded that entrepreneurship
involves psychological variables such as ‘attitudes towards independent business,
interpersonal skills of self-presentation and negotiation, and ways of thinking about
the social world’ (p. 21). These variables are not personality traits and they can be
cultivated. Goleman (1995) argued that a manager’s ‘emotional intelligence’, which
include confidence, curiosity, intentionality, relatedness, self-control, zeal and
persistence, ability to motivate oneself, and capacity to communicate and co-operate
could be taught. Proof of successful training programmes to build these non-
personality entrepreneurial traits is provided by Dainow (1988) and Gupta (1989).
The second approach is known as the Psychodynamic Model (associated with Kets de
Vries, 1977). The Psychodynamic Model suggests that an enterprising personality is a
deviant behaviour arising from a deprived background, and entrepreneurship is a form
of self-compensation for reducing dependence on others. The final approach is the
Social Development Model (associated with Gibb and Ritchie, 1981). This approach
states that a person’s enterprising personality is a reflection of domestic, social and
occupational experiences.
In resource-scarce developing countries, a key issue for policy makers is the extent to
which it is possible to develop the traits that lead to entrepreneurial success. Some
researchers have concluded that entrepreneurial skills could be imparted to potential
and existing entrepreneurs (Shaver, 1995; Richman, 1997). Others have argued that
entrepreneurial traits could be developed through appropriate training. Stumpf,
Dunbar, and Mullen (1991) suggested that ‘behavioural simulation technology, which
has been successfully used to teach strategic and organizational processes and to
diagnose and develop managerial skills, is appropriate for teaching entrepreneurship’
(p. 681). Similarly, Oneal (1993) and Kuratko and Hodgetts (2001) have stated that
entrepreneurs are not born with certain personality traits and that entrepreneurship can
be taught to interested people. The debate on whether entrepreneurs are born or
created seems to be endless because many people with sound entrepreneurial
education and training have failed, while others with little education or
entrepreneurial guidance have demonstrated a record of achievement.
There is little doubt that some individuals possess ‘innate entrepreneurial flair, just as
others have natural talents for mathematics or music’ (Echtner, 1995, p. 122).
According to Loucks (1988), entrepreneurship appears to involve an appropriate
mixture of innate enterprising traits and learned skills (Echtner, 1995). This theme
was pursued by McMullan and Long (1990) who stated that entrepreneurship involves
a combination of ‘creativity and/or innovation, uncertainty and/or risk-taking, and
managerial and/or business capabilities’ (Echtner, 1995, p.122). Of the items on the
list, ‘innovation’ and ‘risk-taking’ may be considered as innate and thus difficult to
cultivate or change. These two personality traits could, however, be helpful in
screening potential entrepreneurs for training and development. The other two skills –
‘managerial’ and ‘business capabilities’ – could, however, be learnt through training
and education programmes. In recent years, many innovative Fijians have
experimented with entrepreneurship, but many have ultimately been unsuccessful,
apparently because they lack the managerial and technical skills needed to operate a
business.
3.9.2 Typologies of entrepreneurship
Typologies are important in entrepreneurial research because they assist in the

‘theoretical development of entrepreneurial behaviour and performance’ (Woo,
Cooper, and Dunkelberg, 1988, p.165), and ‘draw attention to the essential
heterogeneity of entrepreneurs’ (Morrison and Rimmington et al., 1999, p. 30).
Hornaday (1990) suggested that the entrepreneurial concept be dropped from business
research because of the difficulty in operationalising the word ‘entrepreneur'. Chell,
Haworth and Brearley (1991), on the other hand, expressed the need for
‘entrepreneurial typologies’ to be applied to small business owners.
Starting a new business is a major decision in an individual’s life. Few people are
born as entrepreneurs and relatively few new businesses are 'juvenile innovations',
especially in the South Pacific. Research conducted in various parts of the world has
shown that a majority of start-up ventures fold within a few years of operation
(Wijewardena and Tibbits, 1999; Legge and Hindle, 1997). It has been reported that
over 50% of the US business failures and bankruptcies during the 1980s occurred
within five years of their establishment (Elmmuti and Kathawala, nd). Of those which
survive, some provide a livelihood for owners and employees and some develop
subsequently into large enterprises.
With notable exceptions, indigenous start-up businesses in Fiji have been unable to
expand into large enterprises. Many Indo-Fijian-owned businesses are also small.
However family-owned businesses such as Punja and Sons Ltd, Motibhai and
Company Ltd, Vinod Patel and Company, and the Tappoo Group of Companies
started up as small business ventures and subsequently grew into multi-million dollar
business empires. It may be noted that all these businesses belong to Gujeratis, though
they constitute a minority category within the Indo-Fijian grouping. In India,
Gujeratis live in the state of Gujarat, which is economically underdeveloped. But
outside India Gujeratis have made considerable economic achievements, like in
Uganda and Kenya, and have generated jealousy amongst the locals. The enormous
success of Gujeratis in Uganda and their ‘isolationist’ lifestyle led President Idi Amin
to expel a large number of them from Uganda in 1972.
The entrepreneurship literature has proposed a variety of entrepreneurship typologies.

Braden (1977) has classified entrepreneurs into ‘caretakers’ and ‘managers’ (Das and
Teng, 1997), while Smith (1967) grouped them into craftsman entrepreneurs and
opportunistic entrepreneurs (Das and Teng, 1997). According to Smith (1967),
craftsman entrepreneurs are exemplified by ‘mom and pop’ styles of store which do
not sell new products and services and have a narrow education and training
experience, low social awareness and involvement (Das and Teng, 1997).
Opportunistic entrepreneurs have higher levels of education and training, and show
greater levels of awareness and involvement (Das and Teng, 1997). They seek out
hidden opportunities and introduce new products and services to the market. Kao
(1989) divided entrepreneurs into product-oriented and technical or service-oriented
entrepreneurs. These two types need different levels of education. Kao made a further
distinction between creative and/or charismatic entrepreneurs who are ‘commercially
innovative as well as entrepreneuring’ (p. 101). Kao’s entrepreneurs differ from
conventional entrepreneurs who own and expand their business with conventional
ideas. Burch's (1986) model of entrepreneurship, shown in Figure 3.3, brings out the
behavioural differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs.
According to the model shown in Figure 3.3, the ‘Labourer’ is the least
entrepreneurial, while the ‘Bureaucrat’, the ‘Lender’ (bank officer), the ‘Professional’
and the ‘Manager’ tend to be non-entrepreneurial.
Figure 3.3: Tendencies towards entrepreneurial or non-entrepreneurial activities
Venture Capitalist
Inventrepreneur
Opportunistic
Entrepreneur
Entrepreneur
Entrepreneur
Professional
Bureaucrat
Innovative
Labourer
Manager
Copycat
Lender
Non-entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial
Dependence-seeking…………… …………………….………..…..Independence-seeking
Subsistence-seeking…………………………………..…………….……… Wealth-seeking
Tendency
Calibrator
Averse to opportunity…………..…….………….……..…………...…Opportunity-seeking
Noninnovative….…………………………………….…………………………..Innovative
Averse to venture…………………….…………………………...………..Venture-seeking
Averse to risk……………………………..……………………..…………..Risk-accepting
Analytic……...…………………………………………………….……………. .Intuitive
Source: Burch (1986, p. 16)
It is possible, however, for these individuals to exhibit streaks of entrepreneurship by

introducing a new procedure, process or service. Copycat entrepreneurs imitate the
products or services of others. Opportunistic entrepreneurs have a strong
entrepreneurial disposition and are quick to exploit opportunities when they arise.
Venture capitalists cannot be called entrepreneurs, for they are mostly sources of
equity, while the innovative entrepreneur and the inventrepreneur exhibit strong
entrepreneurial disposition. Many of Fiji’s ‘entrepreneurs’ appear to be of the
'copycat' type (including Indo-Fijian ‘entrepreneurs’).
3.10 RESEARCH ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP
As has been mentioned previously, the earliest studies on entrepreneurship by authors

such as McClelland (1961) concentrated on entrepreneurial motivations. The
following section will examine the various theories and research findings that have
been advanced to explain the disposition or personality traits of successful
entrepreneurs. Within the entrepreneurship literature the personality dispositions of
entrepreneurs have received disproportionate coverage (Churchill and Lewis, 1986).
Despite an abundance of research in this area, there has been little agreement amongst
researchers on the core elements that distinguish entrepreneurs from non
entrepreneurs, or from the general population (Stewart, Watson, Carland, and
Carland, 1998; Gartner, 1988; Sexton and Bowman, 1986). Gartner (1988) concluded
that researching entrepreneurial personalities is a dead end task with little prospect of
meaningful outcomes (Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner and Hunt, 1991). According to
Deakins (1996) studies on the personality characteristics of entrepreneurs have not
yielded useful information because of the unstable nature of traits, subjectivity of
judgements, and a lack of attention to the cultural and environmental factors when
undertaking measurement. Other factors often overlooked in personality research have
included gender, age, social class and education. All of these have the potential to
influence entrepreneurial disposition (Morrison and Rimmington et al., 1999).
According to Kao (1989), the major drawbacks of the personality approach is that
traits found to describe entrepreneurs can also be used for managers. They lack
specificity, focus mostly on men, and are not applicable across cultures. Despite such
pessimism, many researchers have identified or confirmed the existence of certain
personality traits and behavioural characteristics that may drive entrepreneurs.
Brockhaus and Horwitz (1986) identified five personality traits that are deemed to
sow the seeds of entrepreneurship. These traits are the ‘need for achievement
motivation’ (nAch), ‘locus of control’, ‘risk taking’, ‘problem solving and creativity’,
and ‘values’. Other entrepreneurial traits include ‘total commitment’, ‘determination’,
‘perseverance’, ‘drive to achieve and grow’, ‘opportunity’, ‘goal orientation’,
‘initiative’, ‘personal responsibility’, ‘persistent problem-solving’, ‘realism’, ‘sense of
humour’, ‘feedback’, ‘risk seeking’, ‘low need for status and power’, and ‘integrity
and reliability’ (Timmons, Smollen and Dingee 1985). There is no guarantee that
possession of all or some of these traits will convert an individual into an
entrepreneur. For example, David Bussau, without any formal education, became a
very successful entrepreneur. By contrast, John de Lorean, with degrees in music,
industrial engineering and business administration and having acquired the art and
skills of entrepreneurship at General Motors, while initially successful as a managerial
entrepreneur, failed after starting a new venture of his own (Bolton and Thompson,
2000).
Research findings indicate that nAch and risk-taking propensity do extend our
understanding of the personality of entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. These two
personality traits will now be discussed in the context of entrepreneurship.
3.10.1 Need for achievement motivation (nAch)
McClelland (1961) has been the principal proponent of human motivation under nAch
(need for achievement), a concept 'that values success, personal initiative, and
curiosity and takes a rational and practical approach to problem solving’ (Fairbairn
and Pearson, 1987, p. 13). McClelland argued that motivation towards
entrepreneurship is conditioned by childhood experience, education and religion and
specified three attributes that characterise entrepreneurs under nAch: (1) individual
responsibility for solving problem, setting goals, and reaching these goals through
their own efforts; (2) moderate risk-taking as a function of skill, not chance; and (3)
knowledge of results of decision/task accomplishment (Hisrich and Peters, 1995).
McClelland argued that though motivation for achievement was high amongst
entrepreneurs, there was no evidence to suggest that heredity was a factor. This
conclusion triggered research in similar areas leading researchers to establish
causality between nAch and entrepreneurial behaviour (Begley and Boyd, 1987). The
majority of studies have failed to establish any significant correlation between the two
variables, leading Shaver and Scott (1991) to conclude that ‘achievement motivation
remains the personologist’s best candidate in the attempt to account for new venture
creation’ (p. 32).
Robinson and Stimpson et al. (1991) found that the personality/trait approaches to
understanding entrepreneurship encounter four fundamental problems. Firstly, the
respective research methodologies are based on unsuitable measurements. Many of
these measurements are oriented towards psychology and have proved inappropriate
and ineffective for entrepreneurship research. As Wortman (1986) stated:
When specific instruments are used, they are either developed by the researchers or are
behavioral instruments which have found their way into the field of entrepreneurship. For
example, Rotter’s locus of control, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Job Description Index,
Levinson locus of control, Miner Sentence Completion Scale, and Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study
of Values are all time-honored instruments from psychology that are now being utilised in the
study of entrepreneurship behavior. Practically no instruments specifically dedicated to the
study of entrepreneurs have been developed. (Wortman, 1986, p. 277)
Because of poor results produced by existing psychological instruments Hornady

(1992) proposed using a more effective means of assessing entrepreneurial skills
(Robinson and Stimpson et al., 1991). Efforts at finding a perfect instrument to
measure entrepreneurial disposition have, however, not been successful.
Secondly, it has been argued that the various instruments that have been used to
measure the same concept (entrepreneurial disposition or enterprising personalities)
have shown poor correlation. In this sense, they have lacked convergent validity.
Thirdly, personality theories have been proposed to measure general tendencies across
multi-situations. They lose their efficacy when used exclusively for a specific concept
like entrepreneurship.
Fourthly, the traditional model of personality suggested that personality is embedded
early in life, and subsequently remains stable. This approach has been criticised by
psychologists who have argued that personality/behaviour is not static, but is
influenced by the environment. Shaver (1995) has summarised the current state of
research on entrepreneurial traits as follows:
To believe that all entrepreneurs must be like a few select individuals is to make an error in
reasoning. Psychologists call this the “availability heuristic,” a tendency to use easily
remembered instances, rather than actual data, to reach judgements about members of a
particular social category. Researchers are people, too, so they have compared entrepreneurs to
non-entrepreneurs on (1) achievement motivation, (2) locus of control, (3) risk taking, and (4)
creativity. Although such comparisons make intuitive sense, the results of these many studies
must have been disappointing to seekers of the “entrepreneurial personality”. Among the
“personality characteristics” that have been investigated, only achievement motivation shows a
clear relationship to entrepreneurial activity. (Shaver, 1995, pp. 20-21)
The need for achievement trait shows how values and attitudes can motivate
individuals to interact with their environment to achieve certain objectives in life.
Individuals high on nAch enjoy solving problems, while those low on nAch tend to
avoid problems and become disheartened when faced with difficulties and obstacles.
Research by McClelland (1961) showed that people high on nAch have a higher
probability of success in entrepreneurship. A drawback of this conclusion is that the
correlation between ‘need achievement’ and economic growth (McClelland, 1961)
has been found to be spurious. As Lindgren (1973) said:
… nAch is a culturally determined variable … some societies or cultures foster personal

achievement and place it in a central position within a complex of interrelated attitudes and
values, whereas others may regard high-achievement persons with suspicion and as threats to
group solidarity and loyalty. The degree to which the values of a culture are characterized by
nAch and nAff [need to affiliate] will … have an important effect on how the members of the
culture perceive themselves and their environment. There is an almost infinite range of variables
on which cultures differs. NAch may not even be the most important source of variation, but in a
world composed of societies that are achieving and affluent and those that are economically
deprived, of industrialized nations and nations trying to emerge from the restraining bonds of
traditionalism, national variations in nAch may prove to be more significantly related to progress
and economic survival than almost any other kind of difference. (Lindgren, 1973, p. 113)
3.10.2 Propensity for risk-taking
Most of the entrepreneurship literature refers to the risk-taking propensity of

entrepreneurs. Sexton and Bowman (1985) stated that risk-taking ‘propensity can be
conceptualised as an individual’s orientation toward taking chances in a decision-
making scenario’ (quoted in Stewart and Watson et al., 1998, p. 194). Their study also
showed that entrepreneurs generally take more risks than managers because they
operate in a less structured and more uncertain environment. Some cultures may show
low tolerance for failure as a result of these factors. To a Singaporean, for example,
failure carries a ‘perception of castigation and ruin’ (Tan, 1998, p. 85). On the other
hand, some researchers (Brockhaus, 1976; Brockhaus and Nord, 1979) have
concluded that the differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs or
managers in risk-taking skills are insignificant (Stewart and Watson et al., 1998). One
study (Pang and Nair, 1994) on women entrepreneurs in Fiji showed that risk-taking
ranked sixth among the critical entrepreneurial attributes.
Although many researchers have identified financial, social and psychological risk-
taking as part of entrepreneurial behaviour, a drawback of this approach is that risk-
taking experiments have been part of the general risk-taking propensity, and not the
type of risks taken by entrepreneurs. Although some studies (Begly and Boyd, 1987;
Stewart and Watson et al., 1998) established that founders or entrepreneurs have
higher risk-taking propensity than non-founders, a conclusive causal relationship
between the two concepts has so far proved elusive. There is little empirical evidence
to show that risk-taking is part of the entrepreneurial process, though entrepreneurs do
appear to take a considerable risk when they borrow money to finance business
expansion.
Researchers on entrepreneurial risk-taking behaviour have concluded that risk-taking

and entrepreneurship are generally absent in developing countries because traits such
as risk-taking, imagination and frugality are generally associated with Anglo-Saxon
people (Furnham, 1992). This conclusion is rather unsustainable because the success
of entrepreneurship amongst non-Anglo Saxon populations such as Japan, Korea,
Taiwan and China since the 1970s, is based on a wide range of social, cultural and
entrepreneurial traits.
3.11 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP
One school of thought has advocated that entrepreneurship is influenced by

demographic factors such as family background, age, experience, sex, education
levels of potential entrepreneurs and their parents, socio-economic status, previous
work experience, birth order, and work habits. While this approach could provide
some criteria for locating typical entrepreneurs, it also has some drawbacks. There is
an assumption that identifying the demographic features of entrepreneurs could lead
to the prediction of the incidence of entrepreneurship in the general population.
Superficially such an approach offers general applicability. However it is deemed by
the present researcher to be unreliable, because potential entrepreneurs come from
diverse backgrounds and exhibit a variety of motivations. It is not easy to identify
other entrepreneurs from a small sample using demographic criteria (Robinson and
Stimpson et al., 1991).
Robinson and Stimpson et al. (1991a) have advanced three challenges to the
demographic approach. They state firstly that it assumes that human personality is
strongly influenced by demographic characteristics such as sex, race, or birth order.
According to Rychlak (1981), psychologists have argued that even though
demographic characteristics lead to similar life experiences, they are not the only
experiences that an individual accumulates in life. Life experiences as such are less
important than the conclusions drawn from such experience which may influence
future actions (Robinson and Stimpson et al., 1991). Robinson and Stimpson et al.
cited the case of twins of an entrepreneur raised under identical circumstances. One
twin may eventually decide to become an entrepreneur, while the other twin opts for a
different profession. The decisions of the siblings to follow two different paths are too
complex to be explained exclusively on the basis of the simple demographic variables
such as sex, race, or birth order. Secondly, some researchers have used demographic
profile as ‘surrogates for personality characteristics’ (Robinson and Stimpson et al.,
1991, p. 16). The problem with this perspective is that it is not the demographic
characteristics that have been assessed, but the personality traits of a successful
entrepreneur who may possess the demographic features. Thirdly, entrepreneurship
research based on a demographic profile does not meet the criteria that are generally
accepted in social science research and theory. According to Bowen and Hisrich
(1986), Deivasenapathy (1986), and Hisrich (1990) prediction of entrepreneurial
behaviour based on birth order, education, or parentage background has been
inconclusive (Robinson and Stimpson et al., 1991). Finally, it has been argued that
demographic profiles reflect the past, and cannot be used effectively to predict future
behaviour.
The value of the personality and demographic approaches to entrepreneurship has so

diminished that it has led Robinson and Stimpson et al. (1991) to conclude:
The two traditional approaches for studying entrepreneurship, personality characteristics and
demographic variables, have provided substantial background on entrepreneurship based on a
psychological paradigm that assumes temporal and situational stability. The field has advanced
within the limits of that paradigm to a point that further effort will yield diminishing returns.
(Robinson and Stimpson et al., 1991, p. 17)
3.12 ASSESSMENT OF ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR
3.12.1 1ntroduction
Research into any aspect of human behaviour is likely to generate controversy. When
such research involves studying the nationals of a multi-ethnic country, the challenges
are greater. This is particularly the case in Fiji where the relationship between Fijians
and Indo-Fijians has been tense in the aftermath of the 1987 coups and subsequent
'civilian coup' of 2000. Attitudinal research might lead to assertions of ethnic
superiority on the part of one group over another. To overcome such pitfalls, the
researcher will need to articulate the research objectives clearly, and demonstrate that
the findings are intended to encourage entrepreneurial activity across all ethnic groups
and not in an exclusive manner. Since entrepreneurship is difficult to define, a further
difficulty is that it will also be difficult to identify existing and potential entrepreneurs
and to measure their personality traits.
Moran (1998) wrote that it ‘appears that when it comes to understanding the
‘entrepreneur’, we are confronted not just by multiple definitions but by diverse
findings concerning personality correlates stemming from diverse and often highly
dubious methodologies’ (p. 19). It was shown previously that research into
personality traits has lost its intensity and that researchers have now focused on other
factors to understand the entrepreneur’s motivation and achievements. As Aldrich and
Zimmer (1986) have stated:
… rigorous empirical research has had trouble identifying any traits strongly associated with
entrepreneurship .… Most research on entrepreneurs suffers from selection bias – picking
successful people and not evaluating their attributes against a comparison group. Research
using appropriate comparison groups and other controls has uncovered inconsistent and weak
relationships between personality characteristics and entrepreneurial behavior. (Aldrich and
Zimmer, 1986, p. 5)
Many of the prevailing entrepreneurial measures have not been successful in isolating
entrepreneurial traits and have been accused of lacking international validity and
reliability (Folger, Timmerman, Wooten, 1992). They may, however, be useful in
distinguishing entrepreneurial types from their less enterprising counterparts. Despite
the difficulties encountered in accurately isolating entrepreneurial traits, some
progress has been made in understanding the nature of entrepreneurial disposition.
Researchers have identified particular personality traits as drivers of entrepreneurial
traits. Other personality traits include anxiety/neuroticism, decisiveness, flair and
vision, leadership, self-confidence, self-realisation and actualisation, and versatility
(Morrison, 1998). Some commentators have assumed that individuals who possess
these traits are likely to be successful entrepreneurs. But how does one acquire these
traits? Can traits such as flair and vision, self-confidence and decisiveness be isolated
exactly and ‘administered’ to potential entrepreneurs? What measure of these traits
should a potential entrepreneur possess before crossing the threshold into the world of
entrepreneurship? Because of the difficulty of obtaining answers to such questions,
entrepreneurship researchers are showing less interest in personality traits and more in
the stimuli attributable to cultural values. In view of these limitations, any attempt to
measure the personality characteristics of the three major ethnic groupings in Fiji is
likely to fall short of the desired results. For this reason, the present research will
focus on a broadly based assessment of the enterprising dispositions of the three
ethnic groupings. This approach is similar to the psychological tests used by
employers and employment agencies to ascertain the presence of critical management
skills amongst job applicants.
Research into entrepreneurship is still in its infancy with little evidence of definitional
consistency having been achieved. Given the widespread acceptance of the view that
social science research should begin with clear concepts and variables this is a
problem. Research into entrepreneurship became a subject of legitimate academic
inquiry during the 1980s but, in the absence of ‘a substantial theoretical foundation’
(Bygrave and Hofer, 1991, p. 13), made limited progress. According to Bygrave and
Hofer (1991), theory building in entrepreneurship faces many obstacles ‘some of
which are enormous enough to faze even the foolhardy’ (p. 13). Thus, one of the
major obstacles in entrepreneurship research relates to conceptualisation – the use of
certain words, or concepts to explain meaning (Babbie, 2001).
3.13 THEORY BUILDING AND TESTING
Theory building or the development of conceptual frameworks attempt to provide an

explanation of the reasoning which has led to a particular research investigation.
Theory building entails the formulation of propositions in the context of past studies
with a view to confirming, disproving or extending the existing research. Theory
provides a ‘roadmap’ that enables a researcher to make observations that may have
been missed from past studies or cannot be obtained through normal experience
(Gartner, 1989).
The testing of a theory or model involves the design of a research instrument, and
then gathering and analysing data. After the accumulation and interpretation of
relevant data, it may then be possible to test the theory by predicting the observable
phenomena in the ‘real world’. Research which explores the traits of entrepreneurs,
compared to those of non-entrepreneurs, would be expected to specify personality
traits which are likely to predict future entrepreneurial success. Apart from testing
hypotheses or propositions, the model should also show the causality between
personality characteristics and entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1989). Since entrepreneurs
do not form an homogenous group, researchers should state clearly which type of
entrepreneur is the subject of comparison (Gartner, 1989). The comparison could
include successful versus average entrepreneurs; indigenous versus non-indigenous
entrepreneurs; urban versus rural entrepreneurs and minority female versus minority
male entrepreneurs.
In formulating a theoretical framework in entrepreneurship research, it is important to

state clearly those who will be considered as non-entrepreneurs. If the distinctions
between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs lack clarity, this will lead to faulty
theoretical construction with adverse implications for the research outcomes. While a
person possessing entrepreneurial disposition may be studied as a component of the
entrepreneurial process, the entrepreneurial process itself is ‘more holistic and
dynamic in nature’ (Morrison, 1998, p. 1), and involves ‘the application of distinct
entrepreneurial strategies and entrepreneurial management’ (Morrison, p. 1). Whilst
the entrepreneur is central to any study of the entrepreneurial process, the study of
‘part-whole’ relations has some attendant risks. The so-called ‘Gestalt’ principle - that
the whole is more than the total of its parts - has implications for social science
research. Moghaddam (1998) stated that ‘by studying a few parts of the whole, the
research is being limited because the characteristics of the many parts taken separately
are not equivalent to the characteristics of the whole’ (p. 45). Although a
comprehensive (‘whole’) examination of entrepreneurship in Fiji’s small tourist
business sector would generate wide interest, it was not possible to accomplish this
within the time frame available for the present research. A number of textbooks have
provided a comprehensive exploration of the entrepreneurial process (examples Kao,
1989; Cannon, 1991; Timmons, 1994; Legge and Hindle, 1997; Morrison, 1998),
albeit not related to Fiji’s small tourism business sector. Only a few variables that
have been found to significantly influence entrepreneurship will be examined.
3.14 CHAPTER SUMMARY
Recently, the original meaning of the concept of entrepreneurship appears to have

been lost and there has been a tendency to describe people involved in any type of
business as an entrepreneur. For the purposes of the present research, entrepreneurs
are considered to be individuals who start a business from scratch and expand it using
the profits generated out of the business or build on an existing business. The process
of innovative planning, organising and marketing the product or service is called
entrepreneurship. Though entrepreneurs have existed since at least the Middle Ages,
Say and, subsequently, Schumpeter were primarily responsible for popularising the
concept.
As has been identified in this chapter, the study of entrepreneurship is problematic

because researchers have been unable to identify the variables that stimulate
entrepreneurial disposition and entrepreneurship. Early research assumed that
successful entrepreneurs possessed certain personality traits absent in the general
population. Despite years of intense activity, researchers have failed to isolate these
elusive traits. Meanwhile the economic success of South Asian countries has
stimulated new thinking on entrepreneurship, including consideration that
entrepreneurial success in these countries could have a cultural base. The low level of
entrepreneurial achievements by individual Fijians may be attributed to colonial
policies and to culture. This debate provides a valuable context for the current
research. In the next chapter the controversy surrounding the role of culture -
individualism and collectivism - either in influencing or retarding entrepreneurship
will be discussed with reference particularly to the Seychelles, Malaysia and some
selected South Pacific countries.

04 Chapter 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

04 Chapter 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

04 Chapter 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter Three: Entrepreneurial development 43

Mr Ah Koy* said entrepreneurs were not born, they were made,

He said the technicalities of running a business were simple,

A positive mental attitude, definiteness of purpose, going the

Reported in the Fiji Times (1 April 1995, p.9)

The case for undertaking a comprehensive literature review in entrepreneurship

Although Fiji has a relatively developed tourism industry, there is a paucity of

3.2 THE DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGE

In comparing the search for a universal definition of entrepreneurship to ‘hunting the

Other researchers have also highlighted the vagueness of the concept of

different animal (Brazeal and Herbert, 1999). Wilken (1979) compared

Who then is a genuine entrepreneur? Webster’s Dictionary defines entrepreneurship

Based on the literature survey, it appears that entrepreneurship is generally associated

A synthesis of the various perspectives on entrepreneurship leads to two conclusions:

Considerable advances have been made in developing a better understanding of the

The absence of a standard definition of the terms ‘entrepreneur’ and

3.3 THE ROLE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN NATIONAL

Schumpeter (1942) popularised the concept of entrepreneurship in his book

of large corporations would eventually ‘socialize’ the individualistic, capitalistic

Despite the positive contribution made by entrepreneurs to the national economy,

3.4 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLANS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Some governments have used specific entrepreneurship policies to narrow perceived

3.5 THE NATURE AND EVOLUTION OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Say (circa 1800) is widely regarded as having introduced the concept of

Schumpeter’s work stimulated a range of subsequent studies on entrepreneurship such

Table 3.1: Contributors to the theory of entrepreneurship

Year Contributors Important definitional attributes

1810 Say -Many different talents are required to be a

1890 Marshall -The abilities to be an entrepreneur are different

1934 Schumpeter -Entrepreneurship is an innovation and develops

1960 Penrose -Managerial capacities should be distinguished

1961 McClelland -Entrepreneur is an energetic moderate risk-

1964 Drucker -Entrepreneurs maximise opportunities

1977 Gasse -Personal value orientation

1980 Vesper -Entrepreneurs seen differently by economists,

1982 Dunkelberg -Growth oriented; independence oriented;

1987 Begley and -Tolerance of ambiguity

Although Schumpeter did not associate risk-taking propensity with entrepreneurship,

including why some societies show entrepreneurial disposition and development

Although they cannot be said to constitute a minority community with approximately

Figure 3.1. Approaches to an understanding of entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurial Central focus or Assumption Behaviors Situation

Psychological Entrepreneurs have People behave in Personal Start-up

Classical School The central The critical aspect of Innovation, Start-up

Management Entrepreneurs are Entrepreneurs can be Production Early

Leadership Entrepreneurs are An entrepreneur cannot Motivating, Early

Intrapreneurship Entrepreneurial skills Organisations need to Alertness to Maturity

3.6 ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE FIJIAN SOCIETY

Entrepreneurship existed in Fiji prior to the arrival of colonialism in the nineteenth

Despite the chiefly antipathy towards entrepreneurship, the colonial authorities

Figure 3.2: Yearly work programme for able-bodied Fijians

Source: National Archives of Fiji, reproduced in Lal (1992, pp. 24-25).

greater individual freedom to the Fijians:

Fijian participation in business is generally in the form of ‘portfolio investment’ (or

Table 3.2 Classification of Fijian capital formation

Communal semi-subsistence Communal capitalism Individualism

- Produce for consumption - Mobilisation of kinship - Individual

Fijian Affairs Board