In celebration of the International Day of the World's Indigenous People that just passed on August 9th, we highlight Ana Maria Peredo's contributions. Ana Maria has been a pioneer in integrating Indigenous Knowledges into management with concepts such as community-based enterprise (CBE) and Indigenous Entrepreneurship.
In the spirit of our transformative topics newsletter and its 'behind the scenes' storytelling, Ana Maria Peredo reflects on her work in these areas, including her publications on Towards a Theory of Community-based Enterprise; Indigenous Development and Cultural Captivity of Entrepreneurship; and owards a theory of indigenous entrepreneurship amongst others:
"The paper Toward a Theory of Community-based Enterprise (AMR 2006) goes back to 1982 when I lived in the Aymara community in the Peruvian Andes for two years. There, all my learnings from the university went upside down, including what an economy is! Over a decade, living in many Indigenous communities, I witnessed not only the constant struggle of Indigenous peoples against dispossession and injustice, but also a guerrilla war. However, I also witnessed how, in the middle of adversity, Indigenous communities mobilize their knowledge and practices to protect their ways of life and rebuild their communities.
As a PhD student in Canada in the mid-nineties, I quickly came to think that what was being taught and published in entrepreneurship and the goals of enterprise simply left out what was happening in the world. It became my mission to bring those grassroots voices, particularly Indigenous voices into management scholarship.
I saw community-based enterprise (CBE) as an alternative to ‘development’ and neoliberalism with community agency at the center of it. The CBE prototype is rooted in Indigenous communities, and it applies to many Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in the global south and north. Today the study of CBE is flourishing.
Some ENT scholars identified me as too critical of entrepreneurship. Coming from where I came from how could I not speak out about its Eurocentrism? Publishing the Indigenous development and Cultural Captivity of Entrepreneurship piece was a battle. The article was rejected for 4 years before it found a home in Business and Society. Our field was entrenched in an understanding of entrepreneurship confined to individuals in markets."
Reflecting on Towards a theory of indigenous entrepreneurship, which is considered a classic, Ana Maria says:
"I was fortunate that in 2000 I kept running into Robert Anderson and Leo Paul Dana and AOM sessions. We shared ideas about the right of Indigenous Peoples to have their own path rather than just being forced into integration with the mainstream Canadian economy. As others joined our conversation, there was debate about whether there is something different about Indigenous enterprising. Out of that debate, came this piece, and then another one: Indigenous Entrepreneurship Research: Themes and Variations.
In early 2017, Rick Colbourne and Irene Henriquez started collecting historical data on the evolution of the relationship between the development of Canada as a country and its Indigenous peoples entrepreneurial activities. It was clear that the Canadian Government depended on, then suppressed Indigenous entrepreneurial activity. The rhetoric of a lack of participation of indigenous peoples in the Canadian economy needed to be set straight. Also, we needed a primer for our own field. We just had to write the article, Indigenous entrepreneurship? Setting the record straight! Dan Wadhani played an important role as editor in opening doors.
Organization has been at the forefront of writing about colonization, decolonization and grassroots organizing. The 30 anniversary was an occasion to critically reflect on the next decade. The article, The Unsettling Potential of Indigenous Organizing calls for more work in this area and offers a research agenda paying particular attention to Indigenous agency at different level of analysis.
Our collective voices are growing, and we Indigenous scholars are working together to center Indigenous knowledges and worldviews into our field. We have a network of amazing colleagues such as Ella Henry, Shelley Price, Chellie Spiller, Vijayta Doshi, Michelle Evans, Emily Salmon and a new generation of Indigenous scholars. We have also supportive allies such as Steve Cummings, Michelle Greenwood, Gazi Islam, Hari Bapuji, Bobby Banerjee and others. It is an exciting time for this research."
You can join in the International Academy for Research in Indigenous Management and Organization Studies (here) and submit your work to JBE’s new section on Indigeneity and Business ethics.
Peredo, A. M., & Chrisman, J. J. (2006). Toward a theory of community-based enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 309–328. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20159204
Abstract: In this article we develop the concept of community-based enterprise (CBE) and argue that it provides a potential strategy for sustainable local development in poor populations. We maintain that in this emerging form of entrepreneurship, typically rooted in community culture, natural and social capital are integral and inseparable from economic considerations, transforming the community into an entrepreneur and an enterprise. Drawing on interdisciplinary and multilevel approaches, we propose a theoretical model of the determinants, characteristics, and consequences of CBEs.
Peredo, Ana Maria, Robert B. Anderson, Craig S. Galbraith, Benson Honig, and Leo Paul Dana (2004) "Towards a theory of Indigenous entrepreneurship." International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 1(1/2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2004.005374
Abstract: Indigenous populations throughout the world suffer from chronic poverty, lower education levels, and poor health. The "second wave" of indigenous development, after direct economic assistance from outside, lies in indigenous efforts to rebuild their "nations" and improve their lot through entrepreneurial enterprise. This paper suggests that there is a distinguishable kind of activity appropriately called "indigenous entrepreneurship". We begin by defining the indigenous population and noting some general facts about their numbers and distribution. In an effort to discern the potential for development on indigenous peoples' own terms, we then explore three frameworks for understanding efforts at development, including indigenous development: modernisation theory, dependency theory and (at somewhat greater length) regulation theory. After distinguishing "indigenous" from "ethnic" entrepreneurship, we conclude by identifying a number of lead questions that present themselves at the outset of an enquiry into the nature of indigenous entrepreneurship.
Peredo, A. M., & Anderson, R. B. (2006). Indigenous Entrepreneurship Research: Themes and Variations. In C. S. Galbraith & C. H. Stiles (Eds.), Developmental Entrepreneurship: Adversity, Risk, and Isolation (pp. 253-273). Elsevier. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1197725
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to offer an overview of the current study of indigenous entrepreneurship. First, while there is broad agreement on the application of the term "indigenous," there are differences of emphasis and outright controversies about empirical description of indigenous people, especially concerning the role of ownership and private property in their culture and traditions. Second, the concept of entrepreneurship is as controversial in this field as elsewhere in management studies. There are fundamental disagreements as to how flexible the requirements of entrepreneurship are, and whether true indigenous entrepreneurship can transform entrepreneurship into an authentic and distinctive form. Third, the concept of indigenous entrepreneurship as a total concept is open to debate and discussion. Not only does it inherit the question of whether the notion of entrepreneurship can be culturally transformed, there is also a difference of approach concerning the location and ultimate goals of indigenous entrepreneurship. Fourth, there are a number of critical discussion points related to indigenous populations, and in turn, their relationship to entrepreneurial activities and enterprises. These include, but are not limited to, the pursuit of multiple goals, including social objectives; the notion of collective organization, ownership and outcomes; and a population's association with the land, characteristically leading to a high degree of environmental sensitivity, drawing on traditional knowledge and fostered by a sense of spiritual connection with the land and its resources. The theme of partnerships involving indigenous enterprises with other indigenous enterprises and non-indigenous bodies, is recognized as a vital topic demanding further attention.
Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2013). Indigenous development and the cultural captivity of entrepreneurship. Business & Society, 52(4), 592-620. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503093562
Abstract: This article argues that thinking about entrepreneurship as a potential instrument for relief from endemic poverty and disadvantage, especially among the Indigenous, has all too often been captive to a concept of entrepreneurship that is built out of constrained economic and cultural assumptions. The authors develop this argument from a critical discussion of contributions by Karl Polanyi and Robert Heilbroner. The result is that approaches to venture have been encouraged that are sometimes a poor fit for the circumstances of those they are meant to benefit, and other forms that could have considerable promise have gone unexplored. This article outlines some features of Indigenous culture and build on the analysis of David Harper to construct an improved notion of entrepreneurship that allows for these distinctive features. The article concludes that research and policy making concerning entrepreneurship as an instrument of development among the Indigenous need to be undertaken with this reconstructed understanding of entrepreneurship that is a better fit for the realities of Indigenous culture.
Peredo, A. M., McLean, M., & Tremblay, C. (2019). Indigenous social innovation: What is distinctive? And a research agenda. In G. George, T. Baker, P. Tracey, & H. Joshi (Eds.), Handbook of Inclusive Innovation: The Role of Organizations, Markets And Communities In Social Innovation (pp. 107-128). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/edcoll/9781786436009/9781786436009.00016.xml
Abstract: The focus in this chapter is on the connection between the promise of social innovation and a particular population that is especially acquainted with the kinds of problems that social innovation is supposed to tackle: Indigenous peoples around the world. Rather than consider what forms of social innovation not yet identified or attempted might be employed to address the difficulties faced by Indigenous peoples, the authors raise the question of what specifically Indigenous social innovation might look like, and whether something like that is already taking place. They ask further what we can learn from distinctively Indigenous social innovation (ISI) that could inform our attack on social problems faced not only by the Indigenous but by other disadvantaged peoples and communities. The authors begin with a brief exploration of the concept of social innovation. They then proceed to look at two main literature streams to inform the search for what is distinctive about ISI. These streams suggest three aspects in which they might expect ISI to be grounded: (1) traditional knowledge and practices; (2) distinct cosmology and culture; and (3) struggles for decolonization and Indigenous resurgence. The authors consider a specific case of Indigenous innovation that illustrates how those distinctive aspects work in practice and the possibilities that opens for Indigenous communities. They conclude the chapter with a research agenda.
Read: Colbourne, R., Peredo, A. M., & Henriques, I. (2023). Indigenous entrepreneurship? Setting the record straight. Business History, 66(2), 455-477.
Abstract: We provide an historical essay synthesising the macro societal processes that affected Indigenous peoples’ entrepreneurial and trade activities in Canada from pre-contact to 1920. Adopting Indigenous entrepreneurship and institutional theory lenses, we find that the evolution of legal, political, and socio-economic forces converged to undermine Indigenous peoples’ entrepreneurial activity and well-being in Canada. Our narrative suggests a dynamic view of the relationship between entrepreneurship and institutions and the role of power. Whereas Baumol’s view is that institutions shape entrepreneurship by determining the relative payoffs to productive or unproductive entrepreneurship, our narrative shows the ways in which unequal benefits to various entrepreneurs change institutions over time. This advances the field of entrepreneurship by historically situating entrepreneurial processes in settler society and exposing the role of power in the relationship between entrepreneurship and institutions in society over time.
Peredo, A. M. (2023). The unsettling potential of Indigenous organizing. Organization, 30(6), 1211-1221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508423118926
Abstract: Despite its long-standing interest in alternative economies and decolonization, Organization’s pages have seen little attention to Indigenous organizing. The journal’s 30th anniversary is the occasion to call for a remedy for this deficit. This piece outlines the trajectory, future research, and possibilities of learning from Indigenous organizing, and calls for contributions that bring together Organization’s established interest in alternative economies and decolonization with a consideration of Indigenous organizing especially as that is embodied in Indigenous entrepreneurship. Paying attention to the features of Indigenous agency in enterprising, broadly conceived, would enlarge understanding of that vital but neglected topic and contribute to the unsettling of orthodox assumptions about management and organization that Organization takes pride in.
Comments