Australia and New Zealand: separate states but path-dependent

Australia and New Zealand (Aotearoa) have shared almost two centuries of close relations created through close geographic proximity, shared membership of political associations, and frequent policy exchange. The relevant context has shifted from the British Empire and Commonwealth to a rapidly globalizing world under US military hegemony. Australia and New Zealand were among the early settler colonies of the British Empire and this article argues that, as such, the settler colonies helped shape the form of the Empire, and subsequently the Commonwealth. This history created strong, separate, if somewhat similar, traditions of independent political experimentation. This article explores different models for explaining the cross-Tasman relationship and concludes that the path-dependent approach works best. The path was also influenced by external shocks, notably the second world war and Britain's moves towards Europe, and it was these shocks that created the necessary ruptures to create change. The first world war had catapulted Australia and New Zealand towards separate nationhood, and simultaneously strengthened their cultural and political links. The second world war pushed Australia towards the USA and led both Australia and New Zealand to develop a more explicit role as regional leaders in the Pacific. For New Zealand, Britain's membership of the European Community created an economic crisis and politico-cultural stresses which are reverberating still. Such shocks created the preconditions also for closer association, exemplified in the CER Treaty, which in turn draws upon historical precedents and experiences.

Communicating entrepreneurship and ethnicity in New Zealand

In this paper, we compare entrepreneurship practice of the Maori culture with that of the other five ethnic groups or cultures in New Zealand including European New Zealanders, Europeans, Chinese, Indians and Pacific Islanders. One of the most reported findings in previous GEM reports was that Maori are every bit as entrepreneurial as other ethnicities. Some commentators were surprised by this finding, since Maori collect more than their proportionate share of benefit entitlements. But we have shown that Maori have a history of entrepreneurship and enterprise upon which to draw (Frederick and Henry, 2004). The Maori economy, though small, is "robust and poised for continued expansion", says a recent report by the Institute of Economic Research (NZIER, 2003).

Advances in self-engagement research method : the case of disadvantaged female migrant entrepreneurs in Auckland, New Zealand

The “self-engagement research method” is a set of research procedures, which aims to search latent (hidden) attitudes within a given group of individuals, such as disadvantaged women. This method also examines the research participants practises through an intensive involvement in the process of research. Research on self-regulation has also tended to emphasize having personal control over an event as the primary determinant of whether individuals can effectively monitor and alter their behaviour to attain a desired end state (W. Britt, 1999, 699).

The “self-engagement procedure” originated from fieldwork of social research, especially from the present author’s experiences as a researcher and practitioner on women’s empowerment under the micro-finance programme in Women’s Empowerment Foundation, Auckland and in Grameen Bank Micro-finance programme (Nobel prize winner Professor Mohammed Yunus on poverty reduction through micro-finance).

This technique is based on the oft-cited phenomenon of discrepancies between what research Participants say what they often believe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participant_observation). This follows on Gabriel (1991:123-126) namely that participant observation is a useful technique for gaining insight into facts and is also useful for the rural poor or marginal groups, who are unable to communicate their problems. The problem is that since the 1980s, some anthropologists and the social scientists have questioned the degree to which participant observation can give truthful insight into the minds of other people (Geertz, Clifford,1984 & Rosaldo, Renato, 1986).

This paper discusses the difficulties found in using participant observation to discover discrepancies between what participants say and what they really believe. It also discusses self-engagement research procedures which the author has developed through the long-term research experiences with disadvantaged groups of women in Auckland. These procedures discover the discrepancies between what participants say and what is in their mind.

These self-engagement procedures were used from the beginning of the fieldwork to locate research areas and get access to the study settings. It was found there are gaps in this method. For example, there are no systematic processes in which researchers can gain access into the community or be welcomed by research participants. It was also difficult to discover the insight into the facts that cause disempowerment and how micro-finance impacts everyday life on research participants. McCracken (1988 cited in Mertens, 1998:321) argued that researchers collect data directly through observation, but it is not possible to imitate, repeat involvement in the experiences of research participants.

This research draws on and extends the long traditional of participant observation in social research. In field research practises, participant observation was used in different ways for gaining insight into different aspects. A good example is the use and mis-use of the “field journal” in this type of research. The journal typically explained and analysed experiences and understanding of participant observation, in-depth interviews and group discussions on the impact of micro-finance on women’s lives. However, researchers later realised that there were gaps in collected knowledge that needed to be filled. This led to “self-engagement procedures” which developed greater confidence that collected data could truly give insight into patterns of behaviour.

This paper addresses sensitive issues of women’s empowerment under the micro finance programmes and makes a contribution to the literature. The “self-engagement method” detects the “silent facts” of women’s lives. In research conducted amongst disadvantaged women in Auckland, New Zealand and Grameen Bank micro-finance programme in Bangladesh. The method of self-engagement led to better data when participants (both research and subjects) clearly perceived the purpose of the research, when participants have control over providing personal information, and when subjects can build trust with researchers. One overall lesson of this research is that research data and findings are more generalisaable and valid when the participants in the research process understand the relevancy to his/her disadvantaged position and the causes of this, and when participants perceive that it is an opportunity to voice his/her disadvantages and causes.

The “self-engagement research method” involves a variety of behavioural activities. This paper also attempts to discuss in detail, these activities. This paper attempts to discuss the process of the “self-engagement method” in a systematic way. This has been addressed in the research process, in which research participants and researchers become self-engaged to detect the reality of the impact of micro finance to empower the disadvantaged. The stages of self-engagement procedures were developed and followed throughout field research into entrepreneurial behaviour of disadvantaged women in Auckland.

Research on self-regulation has also tended to emphasize having personal control over an event as the primary determinant of whether individuals can effectively monitor and alter their behaviour to attain a desired end state (W. Britt, 1999, 699).

A suitable research method could identify the empowerment/disempowerment of a disadvantaged group of individuals. The self-engagement procedures create a process, in which research participants and researchers become ‘self-engaged’ and gain insight into facts.

Entrepreneurship in Mexico : lessons for stakeholders in New Zealand

A “neighbour” separated by 6,000 km of Pacific, Mexico is by far New Zealand’s largest trading partner in Latin America and its 15th largest overall. With two-way trade worth NZ$584 million in 2002, many Mexicans grow up on New Zealand milk powder and baby formula. Not only is Mexico’s population of 100 million a huge potential economic partner in its own right, through its network of free trade agreements, Mexico has preferential access to 860 million consumers in 32 countries covering sixty percent of the world’s GDP.

Like New Zealand, Mexico is a “New World” country open to new ideas and innovation. Also like New Zealand, Mexico is known internationally for economic reforms that have created two outward-looking, world-trading, and competitive economies. During the last 50 years, the Mexican economy has shifted away from the once dominant sectors of agriculture and mining toward more industrial activities, especially in the major urban centres of Mexico City, Monterrey, Guadalajara, and other regional centres, where entrepreneurs are concentrated. With this shift, a new class of entrepreneurs arose with the support of the government.

One of those regional centres is the State of Sinaloa, with its capital city, Culiacán. Spearheaded by a visionary government and personified by the Secretary of Economic Development, Heriberto Felix Guerra. Secretary Felix is himself restaurant entrepreneur who owns a growing chain of “concept food” restaurants in the region.

It is no accident that when New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark visited Mexican President Vicente Fox Quesada on 15 November 2001, one of the topics of conversation was the fact that very day their two countries had been benchmarked as two of the world’s most entrepreneurial countries in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2001 survey.

More germane, both countries have low-aspiration entrepreneurs who generate low levels of wealth and have low potential for growth. Both are dominated by micro-businesses that do not have high-value-added components and are not investment-ready and pre-qualified for risk capita.

This leads to the question, what can New Zealanders learn from the experience of Mexican entrepreneurship?

Educating generationE in Australasia : US lessons, New Zealand experience

Australasian countries have huge numbers of young entrepreneurs. Yet the state of entrepreneurship education in this region has yet to come to grips with their needs. Elsewhere in the world, the growth and development in the curricula and programs devoted to raising the level of enterprise and new venture creation has been remarkable. The researcher undertook field study in North America and Europe to examine inter-disciplinary initiatives that take the study of entrepreneurship and personal enterprise out of the Business School, integrate it across the campus and make it available to the widest range of students. The paper first describes GenerationE in Australasian countries and in New Zealand. It then classifies and categorises best-practice models of enterprise education, focussing especially on non-business entrepreneurship and university-wide enterprise requirements. The paper summarises these data and formulates “models of enterprise education” outside the business school environment. It offers generalisations that may prove helpful to educationalists and government policy planners about how to accelerate the development of personal enterprise within individuals and thereby to increase the supply of young people who launch their own businesses and social enterprises. The goal of this paper is to help universities in our region and elsewhere move toward infusing entrepreneurship throughout the curriculum.

Entrepreneurship and economic growth : why is New Zealand an outlier? A preliminary analysis

The literature indicates that entrepreneurship and economic growth are closely and positively associated. For four years running, New Zealand has had the developed world’s highest rate of “Total Entry-Level Entrepreneurial Activity” (Acs et al. 2005; Frederick et al. 2004; Reynolds et al., 2004), yet it has slid to the lower ranks in the OECD in measures of economic development. At its level of entrepreneurial activity, New Zealand should have a higher level of economic development if it were to emulate other countries.

We make use of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data set, including nascent entrepreneurship rates for 45 countries over the 2000-2004 period as well as variables from standardised national statistics.

The paper uses two approaches. This research first finds evidence for “U-shaped curve” associating entrepreneurship with economic growth. It notes that New Zealand has the greatest deviation from this association compared to other developed countries with similar entrepreneurial rates (e.g. United States, Australia and Iceland). The second approach looks at nascent entrepreneurship as a function of non-economic conditions such as technology, demography, culture and institutions.

This short paper develops the hypotheses and carries out the “U-shaped curve” test. For the time being it leaves the factor analysis of non-economic conditions for another opportunity.

The importance of informal investing to New Zealand's new and growing firms

As part of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor project, we asked 2,000 adult New Zealanders if they have made a personal investment in a new firm in the past three years as well as the magnitude of their supPort, the nature of the businesses they sponsored, and their relationship with
the recipient. We compared these data on informal investment to data on venture capital obtained from national sources. We are thus able to compare New Zealand's performance to cross-national measures. We also surveyed 20 key informants/experts on questions on financing.
In New Zealand, venture capital accounts for only 0.80/o of total investment in new and growing start-ups. Yet New Zealand is world-ranked in terms of informal investment. In New Zealand, informal investment activity is 3.5olo of the national GDP amount. New Zealand is also a world leader in the prevalence of informal investors (percentage in the adult population). Seventy-three percent of informal investors put their money into a relative's or a friend's business. Fifty-eight Percent of New Zealand's informal investors are female, quite the reverse of the world pattern.

When we compare Australia and New Zealandlo the rest of the GEM world, Australia ranks favourably with the GEM globat measures in terms of venture capital as a percentage of GDp, while New Zealand does poorly. Australia also does about 40olo better than New Zealand in terms
of the amount of VC invested in individual companies. But New Zealand is clearly higher in the measures of informal investment.

We conclude with implications for entrepreneurs, policy makers, educators, researchers, and journalists. In a nutshell, they should pay more attention to the critical role of the four F's - family friends, founders, and "foolish" investors - in start-up ventures. Informal investment is a critical component of New Zealand's entrepreneurial process and thus to its economic growth. Perhaps fifty superstars with extraordinary opportunities will receive financing from the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund to launch their businesses. Meanwhile, the vast majority of firms rely on the 4Fs - friends, family founders, and "foolish" lnvestors.

Indigenous entrepreneurs in Australia and New Zealand : a test of social marginality theory

Focusing on the original inhabits of Australia and New Zealand, we examine the basic precept of social marginality theory, namely whether socially marginalised and disadvantaged entrepreneurs might actually be more likely to start a new venture. Using survey data and in-depth interviews, we find mixed results. For Mäori, their position of disadvantage coupled with a history and cultural attitudes favouring enterprise has led to one of the world’s highest rates of entrepreneurial activity. However, for Indigenous Australians, their disadvantage and marginal status within Australian society, compounded by a continued legacy of inequity and by internal factors, has not encouraged an enterprising culture.