The Power of Connections: Social Capital-Based Reconstruction of The Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Hatay After The 2023 Earthquake

Abstract

This study examines the reconstruction process of the entrepreneurial ecosystem that emerged in Hatay after the earthquake on February 6, 2023, from the perspective of social network theory. It sheds light on post-disaster entrepreneurship in the context of developing countries and analyzes entrepreneurial behavior and social dynamics at the micro level. In the research, in-depth interviews were conducted with 17 entrepreneurs who started their activities or restructured their businesses after the earthquake. Data collected using qualitative research methods were analyzed with a thematic analysis approach. The findings show that post-earthquake entrepreneurs mobilize resources by using different social network structures, and local and national network connections play a critical role in entrepreneurial processes. The bonding social capital that was dominant before the earthquake was supported by bridging and linking social capital after the earthquake. Especially the increasing importance of weak ties provided an advantage in accessing new information, resources, and opportunities, in line with Granovetter's theory. In addition to this information, it is among the findings that digital platforms were used as an important tool in expanding social networks and mobilizing resources after the earthquake.

Keywords

• Post-disaster entrepreneurship
• social network theory
• economic recovery
• resilience
• resource mobilization.

Bağlantıların Gücü: 2023 Depremi Sonrası Hatay'da Girişimcilik Ekosisteminin Sosyal Sermaye Temelli Yeniden İnşası

Öz

Bu çalışma, 6 Şubat 2023 tarihinde meydana gelen deprem sonrasında Hatay'da ortaya çıkan girişimcilik ekosisteminin yeniden yapılanma sürecini sosyal ağlar teorisi perspektifinden incelemektedir. Gelişmekte olan ülke bağlamında afet sonrası girişimciliğe ışık tutmakta, hem de mikro düzeyde girişimci davranışlarını ve sosyal dinamikleri analiz etmektedir. Araştırmada, deprem sonrası faaliyete başlayan veya faaliyetlerini yeniden yapılandıran 17 girişimci ile derinlemesine görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nitel araştırma yöntemi kullanılarak toplanan veriler, tematik analiz yaklaşımıyla çözümlenmiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgular, deprem sonrası girişimcilerin farklı sosyal ağ yapılarını kullanarak kaynak mobilizasyonu sağladıklarını, yerel ve ulusal ağ bağlantılarının girişimcilik süreçlerinde kritik rol oynadığını göstermektedir. Deprem öncesinde baskın olan bağlayıcı sosyal sermaye, deprem sonrasında köprü kurucu ve bağlantı sağlayıcı sosyal sermaye ile desteklenmiştir. Özellikle zayıf bağların öneminin artması, Granovetter'in teorisiyle uyumlu şekilde yeni bilgilere, kaynaklara ve fırsatlara erişim avantajı sağlamıştır. Bu bilgilere ek olarak dijital platformların deprem sonrası sosyal ağların genişletilmesi ve kaynak mobilizasyonunda önemli bir araç olarak kullanıldığı bulgular arasında yer almaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Afet sonrası girişimcilik
• sosyal ağlar teorisi
• ekonomik toparlanma
• dayanıklılık
• kaynak mobilizasyonu.

Kaynakça

1. Adger, W. N. (2003). Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Economic Geography, 79(4), 387-404. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30032945
2. Aghion, P. ve Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323-351. https://tinyurl.com/3a4baz62
3. Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. University of Chicago Press.
4. Aldrich, D. P. ve Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 254-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299
5. Alesch, D. J., Holly, J. N., Mittler, E., ve Nagy, R. (2001). Organizations at risk: What happens when small businesses and not-for-profits encounter natural disasters. Public Entity Risk Institute.
6. Avdar, R. (2017). 1999-2011 arası dönemde Türkiye’de meydana gelen depremlerin ekonomik etkileri. Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 27–44. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/econder/issue/32844/367064
7. Baycan-Levent, T. ve Nijkamp, P. (2009). Planning and management of urban green spaces in Europe: Comparative analysis. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 135(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2009)135:1(1)
8. Braun, V. ve Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

9. Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D. ve Obloj, K. (2008). Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Where are we today and where should the research go in the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00213.x
10. Bullough, A., Renko, M. ve Myatt, T. (2014). Danger zone entrepreneurs: The importance of resilience and self‐efficacy for entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(3), 473-499. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12006
11. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.
12. Chamlee-Wright, E. ve Storr, V. H. (2009). Club goods and post-disaster community return. Rationality and Society, 21(4), 429-458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463109337097
13. Cheng, Y., Liu, X. ve Li, Y. (2022). Social network utilization strategies of entrepreneurs during COVID-19: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Research, 148, 401-414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.005
14. Comfort, L. K. (2007). Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public Administration Review, 67(s1), 189-197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00827.x
15. Creswell, J. W. ve Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
16. Cuaresma, J. C., Hlouskova, J., ve Obersteiner, M. (2008). Natural disasters as creative destruction? Evidence from developing countries. Economic Inquiry, 46(2), 214-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2007.00063.x
17. Davidsson, P. ve Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00097-6
18. Doern, R., Williams, N. ve Vorley, T. (2019). Special issue on entrepreneurship and crises: Business as usual? An introduction and review of the literature. Entrepreneurship ve Regional Development, 31(5-6), 400-412. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1541590
19. Dutta, S. (2017). Creating in the crucibles of nature's fury: Associational diversity and local social entrepreneurship after natural disasters in California, 1991-2010. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(3), 443-483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216668172
20. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
21. Elliott, J. R., Haney, T. J. ve Sams-Abiodun, P. (2010). Limits to social capital: Comparing network assistance in two New Orleans neighborhoods devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Sociological Quarterly, 51(4), 624-648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2010.01186.x
22. Galbraith, ve Stiles, C.H. (2006). Disasters and Entrepreneurship: A Short Review. C.S. Galbraith ve C.H. Stiles (Ed.) Developmental Entrepreneurship: Adversity, Risk, and Isolation içinde (s. 147-166). Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1074-7877(06)05008-2
23. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
24. Grube, L. E. ve Storr, V. H. (2018). Embedded entrepreneurs and post-disaster community recovery. Entrepreneurship ve Regional Development, 30(7-8), 800-821. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1457084
25. Hoang, H. ve Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00081-2
26. Hawkins, R. L. ve Maurer, K. (2010). Bonding, bridging and linking: How social capital operated in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. The British Journal of Social Work, 40(6), 1777-1793. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcp087
27. Jack, S. L. (2005). The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1233-1259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00540.x
28. Johannisson, B. ve Olaison, L. (2007). The moment of truth---Reconstructing entrepreneurship and social capital in the eye of the storm. Review of Social Economy, 65(1), 55-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346760601132188
29. Karagöz, K. (2007, 5-7 Aralık). 1999 Marmara depremlerinin ekonomik etkileri: Ekonometrik bir yaklaşım. TMMOB Afet Sempozyumu içinde (s. 423-432). Ankara, Türkiye. https://tinyurl.com/2s3fpuvp
30. Krishna, A. (2002). Active social capital: Tracing the roots of development and democracy. Columbia University Press.
31. Linnenluecke, M. K. ve Griffiths, A. (2013). The 2009 victorian bushfires: A multilevel perspective on organizational risk and resilience. Organization & Environment, 26(4), 386- 411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026613508126
32. Linnenluecke, M. K. ve McKnight, B. (2017). Community resilience to natural disasters: The role of disaster entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 11(1), 166-185. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-01-2015-0005
33. Martinelli, E., Tagliazucchi, G. ve Marchi, G. (2018). The resilient retail entrepreneur: Dynamic capabilities for facing natural disasters. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(7), 1222-1243. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2016-0386
34. Monllor, J. ve Murphy, P. J. (2017). Natural disasters, entrepreneurship, and creation after destruction: A conceptual approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(4), 618-637. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2016-0050
35. Nakagawa, Y. ve Shaw, R. (2004). Social capital: A missing link to disaster recovery. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 22(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/028072700402200101
36. Newman, E., Risch, E. ve Kassam-Adams, N. (2006). Ethical issues in trauma-related research: A review. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(3), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.3.29
37. Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F. ve Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1-2), 127-150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6
38. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
39. Peng, M. W. ve Heath, P. S. (1996). The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 492-528. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9605060220
40. Peng, M. W. ve Luo, Y. (2000). Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 486-501. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556406
41. Santoro, G., Bertoldi, B., Giachino, C. ve Candelo, E. (2020). Exploring the relationship between entrepreneurial resilience and success: The moderating role of stakeholders' engagement. Journal of Business Research, 119, 142-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.052
42. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1
43. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon ve Schuster. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers.
44. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448-469. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602
45. Shane, S. ve Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611
46. Skidmore, M. ve Toya, H. (2002). Do natural disasters promote long-run growth?. Economic Inquiry, 40(4), 664-687. https://doi.org/10.1093/ei/40.4.664
47. Stam, W., Arzlanian, S. ve Elfring, T. (2014). Social capital of entrepreneurs and small firm performance: A meta-analysis of contextual and methodological moderators. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 152-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.01.002
48. Szreter, S. ve Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(4), 650-667. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh013
49. Şen, S. (2023). Kahramanmaraş depremlerinin ekonomiye etkisi. Diplomasi ve Strateji Dergisi, 4(1), 1-55. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/dsd/issue/76561/1274416
50. Tierney, K. (2012). Disaster governance: Social, political, and economic dimensions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 341-363. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020911-095618
51. Torres, A. P., Marshall, M. I. ve Sydnor, S. (2019). Does social capital pay off? The case of small business resilience after Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 27(2), 168-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12248
52. Williams, T. A. ve Shepherd, D. A. (2016). Building resilience or providing sustenance: Different paths of emergent ventures in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 2069-2102. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0682
53. Woolcock, M. (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 11-17. https://tinyurl.com/yksy5h5p
54. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
55. İnmez, İ. (2005). Doğal afetlerin ekonomik etkisi: 17 Ağustos 1999 Marmara Depremi örneği (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek lisans tezi). Kocaeli Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Kocaeli.
56. Özbudak, M. (2000). 17 Ağustos 1999 Marmara Depreminin Sakarya ili ekonomisi üzerindeki etkileri (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek lisans tezi). Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Sakarya.
57. Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186
58. Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı. (2023). 6 Şubat Kahramanmaraş depremleri: 1 aylık durum raporu. https://tinyurl.com/etjwdwt8