Comparative Analysis of Social vs. Traditional Entrepreneurship Performance Across Regions

Thesis Abstract

This study addresses the growing concern that social entrepreneurship and traditional entrepreneurship exhibit divergent performance patterns across diverse regional contexts, challenging the assumption of uniform entrepreneurial impact on development. The objective is to compare performance outcomes—growth, sustainability, and social impact—between social and traditional ventures across multiple regions, and to identify contextual factors that modulate these performances. Specific objectives include (1) to quantify differences in revenue growth, survival rates, and social impact metrics between social and traditional enterprises; (2) to assess regional variations in performance using a cross-regional framework; (3) to examine the mediating role of access to finance, networks, and institutional quality; and (4) to test theories of social entrepreneurship and resource-based view in explaining performance differentials. The study adopts a cross-sectional, mixed-methods design combining quantitative and qualitative strands. The population comprises registered social enterprises and traditional startups operating in four economically heterogeneous regions across a national landscape. A stratified random sampling approach yields 320 firms (160 social and 160 traditional) stratified by region and sector, supplemented by 40 in-depth interviews with founders and senior managers to capture contextual nuances. Data collection uses a structured survey instrument developed from validated scales for venture growth (Ali et al., 2014), sustainability and social impact (Zahra et al., 2009), and institutional support (North, 1990). Financial performance indicators include annual turnover, year-over-year growth, and break-even timelines, while social performance indicators cover beneficiary reach and measured social outcomes. Secondary data from regional economic reports and firm registries are triangulated to enhance reliability. The instruments are evaluated for content validity through expert panel review and pilot tested with 20 firms, with reliability assessed via Cronbach’s alpha (? > .70) for all scales. Qualitative data from interviews are analyzed using thematic analysis to reveal contextual mechanisms. Quantitative analysis employs multivariate multiple regression to compare performance outcomes, controlling for firm age, size, sector, and region, with interaction terms to capture regional effects. ANOVA is used to test mean differences in performance by venture type within regions. Structural equation modeling (SEM) is applied to assess a theoretical model linking access to finance, networks, and regulatory quality to performance, with social mission alignment treated as a moderator. Qualitative findings are coded and synthesized to triangulate and explain quantitative results, informing a refined conceptual model. Theoretical framing integrates the social enterprise theory and the resource-based view, augmented by institutional theory to account for regional heterogeneity. Expected findings indicate that traditional ventures demonstrate higher short-term financial growth in high-market-regulation regions, while social enterprises achieve greater social impact and longer-term sustainability in regions with robust civil society and supportive ecosystems. Regional context is anticipated to significantly moderate the relationship between venture type and performance, with access to finance and network density mediating the effect of regional quality on outcomes. The study contributes to knowledge by offering a nuanced, region-adapted understanding of entrepreneurship performance, bridging a gap between macroeconomic regional analyses and firm-level performance in both social and traditional paradigms. It advances methodological practice by integrating rigorous quantitative comparison with qualitative contextualization in a cross-regional framework. Practically, the findings are expected to inform policymakers and development agencies about region-specific entrepreneurial support policies, including financial instruments, regulatory simplifications, and ecosystem-building initiatives that optimize both financial viability and social impact. Recommendations address tailoring of funding programs to venture type and regional maturity, fostering cross-sector collaboration, and enhancing measurement frameworks for social impact accountability. The study concludes that aligning regional ecosystem development with the intrinsic strengths of social and traditional enterprises yields complementary growth, urging a dual-track policy approach to maximize inclusive regional development.