It is without any doubt to say that for the world economy, entrepreneurship plays a

significant role as it has direct contribution in job creation, enhancing production as well as

income. It has also a significant impact in poverty alleviation, wealth creation, export earnings,

income redistribution and in removing inequality[ CITATION Har16 \l 1033 ]. Social capital on

the other hand, is a combination of the features of the organization including norms, network and

trust etc. that has the capacity of improving the efficiency of society by using coordinated actions

[ CITATION Sal19 \l 1033 ]. It refers to the network that connect people by building either

strong or weak ties, thus in turn, providing information and reliable data to the members for

accessing the resources (Aldrich, 2017). Though the community as well as the connections with

the individual present a good possibility for getting access to the different resources in critical

and unpredictable situations both during and after the crisis, yet traditional researchers have kept

their focus only on the physical infrastructures in response to such events rather than focusing on

the role played by the social capital in driving resilience.

Despite of being important to entrepreneurial outcomes, very less attention has been paid

to it in entrepreneurial literature. Studies have shown that the social capital leads to several

outcomes including the entrepreneurial intentions [ CITATION Eva11 \l 1033 ] and helps in

disaster recovery and in promoting resilience [ CITATION Ald17 \l 1033 ]. Bricolage is

comparatively a new concept in the field of entrepreneurship particularly in the situation of

disaster where often unpredicted opportunities arise that can be captured by the entrepreneurial

individuals[ CITATION Che17 \l 1033 ].

Entrepreneurship, resilience, bricolage and crises

Within the area of entrepreneurship, the focus on the crises has been increased since the

past decade. Studies have suggested that the entrepreneurs mitigate the negative impacts of
crisis. Furthermore, the concept of resilience is also very critical in understanding the crisis.

Resilience considers all the processes using which different actors build up and utilize the

resources before, during and after a crisis situation and helps the organizations to recover faster

from such adverse situations. The notion of Bricolage which is the ability to create order out of

disorder embodies another aspect of the resilience. Further research is needed to understand that

why and how the entrepreneurs respond to the crisis and how resilience protects them from the

crisis [ CITATION Doe18 \l 1033 ].

Entrepreneurial Resiliency Drivers

An understanding of entrepreneurial behavior requires a more complete understanding of

notonly innovative behavior that drives entrepreneurship, but also how entrepreneursperceive

and cope with difficulties and failures or rather their resiliency to failure. [Entrepreneurial]

business resiliency can be defined as the ability of an individual enterprise or ecosystem to

‘bounce back’ from misfortune (Allenby & Fink, 2005; Colten et al., 2012) Entrepreneurial

resiliencecan be augmented through forming robust professional and social networks,

acceptingchange is inevitable, and avoiding seeing crisesas insurmountable but rather as

opportunities (Davidson et al., 2001).

Entrepreneurs should expect to manage unexpected events that endanger the performance

or even the survival of their firms including environmental disasters, financial crisis, new

competitors, or disruptive innovations- all which can upset the business strategies and

consequently the usual performances of these enterprises (Ducheck, 2018).These potential

extreme disruptions thereby make resilience an essential quality for entrepreneurs in surviving or

‘bouncing back’ from these challenging experiences (Ducheck, 2018; Hayward et al, 2010).
 For entrepreneurs, both external and internal attitudestowards failure are factors that

contributeto the willingness to start orcontinue with their entrepreneurial ambitions

despitedifficulties and uncertainty (De Vries, 1977). Theway their entrepreneurial ecosystem

(i.e., external stakeholders) react to or assist with failure, influencesentrepreneurswillingness

toadopt risk and pursue or continue with entrepreneurial opportunities(Middleton, 2010). The

level of risk adoption andthe degree of entrepreneurial resilience may thereforeberelated to a

combination of internal and externalcontextual factors related to social capital as well as social

and entrepreneurial bricolage.

The extent of entrepreneurial resilience in a particular societymay also be related to social

norms. The social norms may differ by region hence why the dissertation will use the mulit-case

method focusing on three different regional disasters. The shared characteristics that typify

entrepreneurs such as risk-taking comfort level make them more prone to experience failure.

Learningfrom failure is an important characteristic, particularlyfor entrepreneurs, and there are

multiple case reportson how failures and the ability to rebuild after failurehave formed successful

entrepreneurs (De Vries, 1977;Gratzer, 2001). As mentioned earlier, entrepreneurs’ ability (and

willingness) to rebuild post disaster is commonly referred to within entrepreneurship research as

‘bouncing back’.

Factoring in Social Capital, and Social and Entrepreneurial Bricolage

Gaps between desired recovery results and actual recovery results can be bridged by

leveraging an enterprises or ecosystem’s social capital. As outlined below, social capital coupled

with social and entrepreneurial bricolage positively contributes to resiliency when it enhances an

individual enterprise’s or ecosystem’s reaction and recovery from the disaster-event.  

 Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988) pioneered the term social capital and are

considered separately to be founders of the social capital theory. Coleman’s approach was based

on rational theory, drawing from both economics and sociology to define the theory (Coleman,

1988). Coleman (1988) saw social capital as nearly entirely productive, but Bourdieu (1986)

viewed it as producing social inequality. As such, social capital, is a dichotomous concept, in

that it may alternately enhance and obstruct entrepreneurship (Dana & Light, 2012; Woolcock,

2002).  

Social capital serves as an enhancer when entrepreneurs utilize social connectivity to gain

access to essential resources via social networks, thus leveraging time and money. Belonging to a

broad and diverse array of social networks further enhances entrepreneurs’ capabilities to

leverage opportunities and engage with multiple and/or wide-ranging entrepreneurial ecosystems

(Dana & Light, 2012; Woolcock, 2002). Social capital‘s obstruction occurs when entrepreneurs,

due to lack of or unfavorable connections with social networks, are presented with barriers to

essential resources, or when antithetical entrepreneurial behaviors such as acceptance of

mediocrities, lack of risk-taking and impositions of conformity are rewarded (Dana & Light,

2012; Woolcock, 2002). According to Dana and Light (2012), the ability of social networks to

quickly spread information tends to dull the obstructive features of social capital and rather

provide a fertile platform for entrepreneurship to flourish. 

Bricolage is an approach that enables improvised responses to unanticipated situations

and opportunities, and which can prove to be an invaluable method in circumstances resulting

from disaster-events. Bricolage is easily applicable when entrepreneurs face post-disaster

conditions that require speedy action, limited available resources and the need to simultaneously

plan but be open to pivoting and do so with extreme time constraints and rapidly changing
circumstances (Vanevenhoven, et al., 2011; Villares-Varela, et al., 2018). As stated

by Vanevenhoven et al (2011) “For entrepreneurs to use bricolage successfully in the

entrepreneurial process, they must have an intimate knowledge of their available resources

[social capital], they must be observant…” .  

Role of social capital in creating entrepreneurial resilience post disaster

Social capital has three aspects i.e. structural capital, relational capital and cognitive

capital. Having network and resources from various connections can help in building the

entrepreneurial resilience. Though, stronger structural capital doesn’t strengthen the reactive

resilience as it is not flexible enough to help in generating a quick response in unexpected

situations yet, it can help in improving proactive entrepreneurial resilience. In building a strong

relational capital for the entrepreneurs, trust, commitment and reciprocity play a major role. This

also helps in improving reactive resilience and helps in quickly formulating the responses to a

disastrous event. Only keeping an interaction with the other partners cannot prove to be effective

unless it is transformed into a relation of trust, commitment and respect. However, this relational

capital does not have any significant impact on reinforcing proactive resilience. Further,

cognitive capital has no significant impact on both proactive and reactive entrepreneurial

resilience. Therefore, it can be said that the entrepreneurs who want to develop proactive

resilience, it is necessary to invest in the structural capital by building strong relationships with

external and internal partners, whereas for reactive resilience, the focus must be on relational

capital [ CITATION Jia20 \l 1033 ].

Role of social bricolage for entrepreneurial resilience in disasters

 It is understandable that the disasters can significantly reduce the resources at hand and

can enhance the urgency to do things. Hence the concept of Bricolage is very significant in the

research of entrepreneurship at the time of disasters. Those entrepreneurs who engage in

bricolage focus on learning rather than formal trainings. They engage in self-teaching varied

skills. Moreover, they also disregard from complying by the formal codes and norms, perform

multiple roles themselves and use nonstandard physical inputs. Majority of these tendencies can

prove to be useful in case of destroyed and displaced resources during the time of disaster. The

social bricoleur have a deep knowledge of the local needs and thus can help in fulfilling them

that can be ignored by the other entrepreneurs or government and private agencies. Such local

entrepreneurs are referred to as bricoleur because they have the knowledge and access to eth

resources “at hand” found in the culture and tactics of the local community. The social bricolage

has five dimensions that help the entrepreneurs in dealing with the sudden crisis. These

dimensions include: making do i.e. using the resources at hand for new purposes as common in

most bricolage, not accepting the limitations and willingness to accept wide variety of logistical,

institutional or political challenges, making improvisation in case fusion of a design or execution

under the pressurized situation is required, creating social value, involving the stakeholders and

persuasion [ CITATION Nel19 \l 1033 ].

Reaction to Disasters

The 2011 London Riots were not anticipated by the government or the entrepreneurial

ecosystem. The two events differ in causality as COVID-19 is a natural disaster and the London

Riots were human-caused conflict disasters. Doern’s (2016) phenomenological research, found

that a business’s resiliency or lack thereof was dependent on the entrepreneurs’ mindset and

attitudes about the event. According to Doern (2016), generally the local London business
owners who held more of a ‘containment’ rather than an ‘anticipation’ mindset (Weick &

Sutcliff, 2007) were more resilient. To better understand Doern’s position, let us define

anticipation and containment. Anticipation is focused on persistently recognizing all possible

problems and contingencies, containment is about building capabilities to cope with losses,

embracing flexibility and crisis management (Weick & Sutcliff, 2007). 

The “containment” findings of Weick and Sutcliff (2007), are further supported by the

findings of Muñoz et al. (2018) which explore entrepreneurs in Chile who were under constant

disaster-threat from the eruptions of the Calbuco Volcano between 2015-2016.  Munoz et

al. (2018) state that the context of continual disaster-level threat forced the entrepreneurs to

strengthen their resilience by their ongoing preparedness, flexibilities, and contingency plans.  

Further, the authors state that this accumulation of resiliencies afforded the entrepreneurial

ecosystems to not only ‘bounce back’ but to “bounce forward” (Munoz et al 2018). The Munoz

et al. (2018) study aligns with the type of continuing impact-recovery-impact-recovery cycle

which seems to be the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic.   

Battisti and Deakins (2017) focus on the entrepreneurial ecosystem of Christchurch, New

Zealand and examine its dynamic resiliency capabilities post the 2010-2011 earthquakes.  

Battisti’s and Deakins’ findings illustrate that an individual business’s dynamic resiliency

capabilities effect the magnitude of negative or positive effects on the local ecosystem and

consequently on its own performance. Batatisti’s and Deakin’s (2017) findings help support the

concept that recovery and sustainable continuity of individual enterprises and recovery and

stabilization of the entrepreneurial ecosystem form an interdependent feedback loop.    

Bakas’ (2017) ethnographic study focuses on 20 micro-entrepreneurs based in Crete and

Epirus, Greece and their resiliency against and recovery from the Greek financial
crisis.  Bakas (2017) measures, as does Berkes and Ross (2012), an entrepreneurial ecosystem’s

resilience by the ability of its members to unite to achieve communal objectives (bricolage). 

Kapadia (2015) analyzes the power dynamics defined by investment and debt shaping the

livelihood of the poor and wealthy in Muhudupitiya, Sri Lanka pre and post the 2004 Tsunami.

The Muhudupitiyan ecosystem, is mainly comprised of entrepreneurs whose success is

predicated on their ability to hire casual laborers and/or trade with poorer entrepreneurs such as

coir spinners (Kapadia, 2015). Post tsunami, pre-existing relations of debt between richer and

poorer households affected people’s ability to access microfinance (Kapadia, 2015).   NGO’s

were convinced that supporting entrepreneurship was key to recovery and provided

entrepreneurs with access to microfinance as a source of low-interest capital (Kapadia, 2015).  

The entrepreneurs then used the cheap capital to lend money to individual households or poorer

entrepreneurs. Thusly, these more established entrepreneurs assisted in stabilizing the

entrepreneurial ecosystem and maintaining a local area cash flow through social capital and both

social and entrepreneurial bricolage. 

Due to the current ‘ongoing’ nature of the COVID-19 pandemic there is no

existing academic research focused on entrepreneurial ecosystems post disaster event. There is a

small but growing body of literature that addresses the impact on entrepreneurial ecosystems

during COVID-19. The literature supports the severe economic impact of governmental

responses to the pandemic-disaster, such as social distancing, shelter-in-place, and quarantine,

has had on entrepreneurial ecosystems (Haeffelle, et al., 2020; Jain, 2020; Kuckertz et al.,

2020). The rapid response article by Kuckhertz et al. (2020), focuses on entrepreneurial

ecosystems in Germany and cites the importance of bricolage as a survival mechanism

for entrepreneurs (Kuckertz, et al., 2020). Further, Haefelle et al. (2020) state that

entrepreneurs possess “a desire to foster long-term sustainability of the communities to which

they belong” (p.4). Jain (2020) posits “entrepreneurship thrives within a supportive

entrepreneurship ecosystem” (p.336). 

Based on the reviewed literature, business resilience has emerged as a key factor for why

some ecosystems are more successful in recovering from disaster-events than others (Allenby &

Fink, 2005; Colten et al., 2012). This dissertation will utilize the context of three natural disaster

events to investigate linkages between recovery and resiliency with application of the social

capital theory as a theoretical framework as well as an emphasis on social and entrepreneurial

bricolage.  

Dealing with the risks, uncertainty and challenges in order to secure and mobilize the

resources is key feature in entrepreneurship. Disasters, on the other hand, create risk, uncertainty

and limitation of resources including financial, physical and time based on the scale that can be

quite beyond those faced by most of the entrepreneurs. Bricolage, social bricolage and social

capital can prove to be effective tools for helping the entrepreneurs in dealing with disasters. But,

such events require the entrepreneurs to take different actions at different times (Nelson & Lime,

2019). Relationships are very important for the performance of the entrepreneurs, yet in the times

of disaster it becomes difficult to decide which relationships to rely on. However, the studies

have shown that the ties with the local communities and advisers outside the crisis area can prove

to be of great help to the entrepreneurs in minimizing the losses during the localized shocks or

disasters. The social capital can have a conflicting effect on the resilience of the entrepreneurs

depending upon the type of relationships they consist of and the way these relations are exposed

to the disasters [ CITATION Ste21 \l 1033 ].

 Please feel free to use any of my research references as below

References

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy

of management review, 27(1), 17-40.

Allenby, B., & Fink, J. (2005). Toward inherently secure and resilient societies.

Science, 309(5737), 1034-1036.

Atkeson, A. (2020). What will be the economic impact of covid-19 in the us? rough estimates of

disease scenarios (No. w26867). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Bakas, F. E. (2017). Community resilience through entrepreneurship: The role of

gender. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 11(1), 61-77.

Bartik, A. W., Bertrand, M., Cullen, Z., Glaeser, E. L., Luca, M., & Stanton, C. (2020). The

impact of COVID-19 on small business outcomes and expectations. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences.

Battisti, M., & Deakins, D. (2017). The relationship between dynamic capabilities, the

firm’s resource base and performance in a post-disaster environment. International

Small Business Journal, 35(1), 78-98.

Baxter, L. A. (1992). Forms and functions of intimate play in personal relationships. Human

Communication Research, 18, 336-363. doi: 10.1111/j. 1468- 2958.1992.tb00556.x

Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2013). Community resilience: toward an integrated

approach. Society & Natural Resources, 26(1), 5-20.

Borkan, J. (1999). Part III Interpretation: Strategies of analysis - 10. Immersion/ crystallization.

In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (Research methods

for primary care) (pp. 179-194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Ltd

Bruneau, M., Chang, S.E., Eguchi, R.T., Lee, G.C., O’Rourke, T.D., Reinhorn, A.M.,

Shinozuka, M., Tierney, K., Wallace, W.A. and von Winterfeldt, D. (2003), “A

framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of

communities”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 733-752.

Bryman, A., & Buchanan, D. A. (2009). The present and futures of organizational research. The

Sage handbook of organizational research methods, (pp. 705-718). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications Ltd

Carvalho, L. C. (Ed.). (2017). Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Social

Dynamics in a Globalized World. IGI Global.

Charlesworth, A., Mazur, S., & Marinelli, V. (2018). Preparing for natural disaster. Risk

Management, 65(5), 22-30.

Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Hendren, N., &Stepner, M. (2020). How did covid-19 and

stabilization policies affect spending and employment? a new real-time economic tracker

based on private sector data (No. w27431). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Clandinin, D. J. (2007). Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (1st ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc

Coleman, J., (1986). “Social Theory, Social Research, and a Theory of Action.” The

American Journal of Sociology 91(6):1309–35.

Colten, C. E., Hay, J., & Giancarlo, A. (2012). Community resilience and oil spills in

coastal Louisiana. Ecology and Society, 17(3).

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and

mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing

among

five approaches. Sage publications.

Dana, L.-P., & Light, I. (2012). Toward a Theory of Social Capital in Entrepreneurship.

International Journal of Social Sciences, I (1), 35–54.

Davidson, P. (2004). Researching entrepreneurship (Vol. 5). New York: Springer.

Davidson, P., Low, M., & Wright, M. (2001). Editors introduction: Low and MacMillan ten

years on: Achievements and future directions of entrepreneurship

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative

research.

De Vries, M. F. R. K. (1977). The entrepreneurial personality: A person at the crossroads. J

Management Studies, 14(1), 3457.

Doern, R. (2016). Entrepreneurship and crisis management: The experiences of small

businesses during the London 2011 riots. International Small Business

Journal, 34(3), 276-302.

Duchek, S. (2018). Entrepreneurial resilience: a biographical analysis of successful

entrepreneurs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(2), 429-455.

Ferragina, E., & Arrigoni, A. (2017). The rise and fall of social capital: requiem for a

theory? Political Studies Review, 15(3), 355-367.

Gartner, W. B., & Birley, S. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on qualitative methods

in entrepreneurship research.

Haeffele, S., Hobson, A., & Storr, V. H. (2020). Coming Back from COVID-19: Lessons in

Entrepreneurship from Disaster Recovery Research. Mercatus Special Edition Policy

Brief.

Häuberer, J. ,(2011) The Founding Concepts of Social Capital - Bourdieu’s Theory of Capital

and Coleman's Rational-Choice Approach to Social Capital. In: Social Capital Theory.

VS VerlagfürSozialwissenschaften
Hayward, M. L., Forster, W. R., Sarasvathy, S. D., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). Beyond hubris:

How highly confident entrepreneurs rebound to venture again. Journal of Business

venturing, 25(6), 569-578.

Hurlbert, J. S., Beggs, J. J., & Haines, V. A. (2017). Social networks and social capital in

extreme environments. In Social Capital (pp. 209-231). Routledge.

Isaksen, S. G. (1993). An ecological approach to creative research: Profiling for creative problem

solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(3), 149-170.

Jain, S. (2020). Entrepreneurial Activation in the Aftermath of COVID-19–Necessity and

Prospects in an Economic Slowdown. Tathapi with ISSN 2320-0693 is an UGC CARE

Journal, 19(13), 319-338.

Kapadia, K. (2015). Sri Lankan livelihoods after the tsunami: searching for entrepreneurs,

unveiling relations of power. Disasters, 39(1), 23–50

Krishna, A. (2002). Active social capital: Tracing the roots of development and democracy.

Columbia University Press.

Kuckertz, A., Brändle, L., Gaudig, A., Hinderer, S., Reyes, C. A. M., Prochotta, A., ... & Berger,

E. S. (2020). Startups in times of crisis–A rapid response to the COVID-19

pandemic. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, e00169.

Linnenluecke, M. K., & McKnight, B. (2017). Community resilience to natural disasters: the role

of disaster entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in

the Global Economy.

Marshall, M. I., Niehm, L. S., Sydnor, S. B., & Schrank, H. L. (2015). Predicting small business

demise after a natural disaster: an analysis of pre-existing conditions. Natural

Hazards, 79(1), 331-354.

Middleton, K. W. (2010). Developing entrepreneurial behaviour. Facilitating nascent

entrepreneurship at the University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Chalmers

University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

Muñoz, P., Kimmitt, J., Kibler, E., & Farny, S. (2019). Living on the slopes: entrepreneurial

preparedness in a context under continuous threat. Entrepreneurship & Regional

Development, 31(5-6), 413-434.

Neergaard, H., & Ulhøi, J. P. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of qualitative research methods in

entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Patton, M. (1990). Purposeful sampling. Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2,

169-186.

Pelias, R. (2011). Part V: The art and practice of interpretation, evaluation and representation:

Chapter 40: Writing into position: Strategies for composition and evaluation. In

N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp.

659-669). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc

Perren, L., & Ram, M. (2004). Case-study method in small business and entrepreneurial

research: mapping boundaries and perspectives. International small business

journal, 22(1), 83-101.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In Culture and

politics (pp. 223-234). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Putnam, R. D., Feldstein, L. M., & Cohen, D. (2003). Better together. Nueva York: Simon

& Schuster.

Shermer, M (2014) "Surviving Statistics" Scientific American, September 2014, 311-313.

Sheu, J. B. (2014). Post-disaster relief–service centralized logistics distribution with survivor

resilience maximization. Transportation research part B: methodological, 68, 288-314.

Smith, A. B., & Matthews, J. L. (2015). Quantifying uncertainty and variable sensitivity within

the US billion-dollar weather and climate disaster cost estimates. Natural Hazards, 77(3),

1829-1851.

Torres, A. P., Marshall, M. I., & Sydnor, S. (2018). Does social capital pay off? The case of

small business resilience after Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Contingencies and

Crisis Management.

Vanevenhoven, J., Winkel, D., Malewicki, D., Dougan, W. L., & Bronson, J. (2011). Varieties of

Bricolage and the Process of Entrepreneurship. New England Journal of

Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 53-66.

Villares-Varela, M., Ram, M., & Jones, T. (2018). Bricolage as Survival, Growth and

Transformation: The Role of Patch-working in the Social Agency of Migrant

Entrepreneurs. Work, Employment and Society, 0950017018768203.

Wang, C. L., & Rafiq, M. (2009). Organizational diversity and shared vision: Resolving the

paradox of exploratory and exploitative learning. European Journal of Innovation

Management, 12(1), 86-101.
Weick KE and Sutcliffe KM (2007) Managing the Unexpected (Second Edition). Jossey-

Bass: San Francisco.

Woolcock, M. (2002). Social capital in theory and practice: where do we stand? Social

capital and economic development: Well-being in developing countries, 1(2), 18-39.

Bibliography

Aldrich, D. P. (2017). The Importance of Social Capital in Building Community Resilience. In

W. Yan, & W. Galloway, Rethinking Resilience, Adaptation and Transformation in a Time of

Change (pp. 357-364). Cham: Springer.

Cheung, C., & Kwong, C. (2017). Path-And Place-Dependence of Entrepreneurial Ventures at

Times of War and Conlict. International Small Business Journal .

Dimitriadis, S. (2021). Social capital and entrepreneur resilience: Entrepreneur performance

during violent protests in Togo. Strategic Management Journal .

Doern, R., Williams, N., & Vorley, T. (2018). Special issue on entrepreneurship and crises:

business as usual? An introduction and review of the literature. Entrepreneurship and Regional

Development , 1-13.

Evald, M. R., Klyver, K., & Christensen, P. R. (2011). The effect of human capital, social capital

and perceptual values on nascent entrepreneurs' export intentions. Journal of International

ENtrepreneurship , 1-19.

Harima, A., & Jorg, F. (2016). Workshop on Refugee Entrepreneurship. Bremen, Germany:

University of Bremen.

Jia, X., Chowdhury, M., Prayag, G., & Chowdhury, M. H. (2020). The role of social capital on

proactive and reactive resilience of organziations post disaster. International Journal of Disaster

Risk Reduction .

Nelson, R., & Lima, E. (2019). Effcetuations, social bricolage and causationin teh response to a

natural disaster. Small Business Economics .

Salisu, I., Hashim, N., & Galadanchi, A. H. (2019). Social capital and entrepreneurial career

resilience: The role of entrepreneurial career commitment. Management Science Letter , 139-

154.