Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery for Small Family Businesses

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery

In the previous sections we have discussed post-disaster recovery and social capital separately, and also understand their different definitions and dimensions. In this section on Table A4, we lay out the evidence where social capital is found to be the central point in post-disaster recovery.
The deeper we dwell into the field of post-disaster recovery, the more it reveals that social capital is the main driving force for post-disaster recovery (Aldrich, 2012; Nakagawa & Shaw, 2004). An explanation to this is because social capital focuses on the network and relationship between actors as compared to other types of capital where the possession is mainly focused on the individual. This nature has an implication: when the society as a whole are being threatened—moreover when it is not just any threat, but a threat of survival—it triggers collective actions to respond to the disruption and reproduces the social capital within the community (Johannisson & Olaison, 2007). Consequently, communities with strong social While many of the research on social capital in post-disaster recovery have been investigated in the level of the communities (Kaniasty & Norris, 1995; Norris et al., 2008; Wachtendorf & Kendra, 2004), there are limited studies when it comes to the social capital of small businesses in post-disaster recovery. The closest study on this regard is performed by Johannisson and Olaison (2007) where they looked into the entrepreneurship that covers— among other parties—the small businesses as a way to cope with rupture in everyday life.
Hence, given this limitation in the literature, our study can bring value by pu$ing together social capital and post-disaster recovery with small businesses as the subject.

Social Capital in Family Business

The recent development on family business research is also revolving around the concept of social capital as the crucial part in determining firm’s performance. Carr, Cole, Ring, and Ble$ner (2011) argue that internal social capital represented by the family members can create unique and valuable firm capabilities. In this line, family social capital is a driver of organizational social capital (Arregle et al., 2007). de Massis, Kotlar, and Fra$ini (2013) further elaborate that internal and external social capital bring not only competitive advantage, but also competitive disadvantage to the family firm. It corresponds to the paradox proposed by Granove$er (1973) where social capital—the weak ties and the strong ties—may lead to integration and fragmentation at the same time.
If internal social capital is understood as a concept that is internally developed within family firms and is largely dependent upon the family members themselves (Carr et al., 2011), then the notion of family capital—as a unique feature of family business—is derived primarily from the ties that are present within the family relationships (Pearson, Carr, & Shaw, 2008). In other words, family capital is a special form of social capital (Hoffman, Hoelscher, & Sorenson, 2006). Studies have found that family capital contributes positively significant to firm achievements and sustainability (Danes, Stafford, Haynes, & Amarapurkar, 2009; Sorenson, Goodpaster, Hedberg, & Yu, 2009).
As social capital gain tractions in family business research, it shows the omnipresence and, again, the versatility of social capital theory in defining various phenomenon. Family business scholars have long tried to show the distinct behavior of family firms through the very notion of family business: family. Regarding to this, several concepts such as family social capital, family capital, and familiness seem to be a tautology. They are all rooted in social capital theory in which the focus is on the network and its utilization to achieve certain ends, only that it is limited to the relationships within the family.

READ  Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Problem Discussion
1.3 Purpose of Study
2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
2.1 Social Capital and Post-Disaster Recovery
2.2 Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery for Small Family Businesses
2.2.1 Community Support and Institution Support in Post-Disaster Recovery
2.3 Socioemotional Wealth and Social Capital
3. Methods
3.1 Research Design and Sample
3.2 Variables and Measures
3.3 Control Variables
4. Results
5. Discussion
5.1 Community Support and SEW on Family Business Recovery
5.2 Institution Support and SEW on Family Business Recovery
5.3 SEW as a Source for Sustainable Advantage
6. Conclusions
6.1 Limitations
6.2 Implications for Theory and Future Research
Epilogue
References
Appendix A: Additional Literature Review
A.1 Small Family Business
A.2 Post-Disaster Recovery
A.3 Social Capital
A.4 Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery
A.5 SociaCapital in Family Business
A.6 Sociomotional Wealth
Appendix B: Methodology

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
After the Ground Stopped Shaking: Socioemotional Wealth and Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery of Small Family Businesses

Related Posts