Social Entrepreneurship, the State and National Development: A Viable
Nexus for Addressing Social Challenges in a Developing Country
Context
MATTHEW ETINOSA EGHAREVBA, STEPHEN IKECHUKWU UKENNA, OLAWALE
YINUSA OLONADE, IFEANYI PRINUEL ONYEONORU, UGBENU OKE, KASA ADAMU
GAYUS
Department of Sociology, Covenant University, Nigeria; Department of Sociology, University of
Ibadan, Nigeria; National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies, Kuru, Plateau State, Nigeria,
Standpoint Consulting Ltd, Akwa, Anambra State,
NIGERIA
Abstract: - Development denotes a society's continuous progress toward a better existence. Using
secondary data and the Conflict/Elite theory, the paper argued that the goals of social entrepreneurs
and the Nigerian State are linked and aimed at proffering solutions to societal problems. In practice,
the interaction between these actors are lopsided which result from mistrust, flawed policy synergy on
requisite social services provision and inadequate funding which have undermined successes of social
welfare programmes in Nigeria. The paper findings indicate that bad leadership, poor governance and
lack of social inclusion in public policy formulation poses challenge to promoting national/social
entrepreneurship development and socioeconomic transformation in Nigeria. The paper concludes
with the propositions that establishing mutual networking and cooperation between social
entrepreneurs and the Nigeria state elites will engender positive impact toward the implementation of
policies that target the people and engender poverty reduction, create employment opportunities and
bridge income inequalities.
Key-Words: - Development, Governance, Living Conditions, State, Social Entrepreneurs, Social Nexus
Received: June 18, 2021. Revised: April 25, 2022. Accepted: May 21, 2022. Published: June 14, 2022.
1 Introduction
Development equip individuals with the capacity to
meet essential life sustaining necessities, self-esteem
and independence. The goal of development
policies, therefore, should be to bring about higher
economic growth and reduce poverty such that its
fruits are more widely and equitably shared among
the populace. Thus, the primary responsibility of
responsible governments should be to provide as
many people as possible with the resources to
overcome their helplessness and unhappiness due to
lack of food, shelter, health, security, and protection,
including the opportunity to attain their human
potentials and entrepreneurial capabilities [1, 2].
One such core area that the State can create an
opportunity for the people to develop their
potentials is to establish an enabling environment
for entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial activities to
thrive, which is an all-encompassing phenomenon
that can affects every major sector of an economy
and development [3, 4].
A cursory examination of the state of development
in Nigeria do not portray a pleasant outlook as
evidenced by available human, socio-economic and
development indicators. For instance, the country is
regarded as the poverty capital of the world with
over 70 percent of the population living below the
poverty level of US$1.90 dollar per day;
unemployment is over 30 percent, maternal and
child/infant mortality is one of the highest in the
world; over 13 million children are out of school
and its human capital development ranked 150 out
of 157 countries in the 2020 Human Capital Index
[5]. The country continues to face other challenges,
including the need to reduce the dependency on oil
and diversity the economy, address insufficient
infrastructure, and build strong and efficient
institutions. Besides, inequality in terms of income
and opportunities remain high, which has adversely
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
708
Volume 18, 2022
affected poverty reduction, thereby triggering social
and political unrest.
These problems reflect the challenges the populace
are exposed to in Nigeria and the clamor for change
that can better their lives since the government and
the market (private companies) have not been able
resolve them in the twenty-first century. Thus, other
possibilities/alternatives should be considered that
can minimize widespread social disparities,
including poverty, social exclusion, inequality,
unemployment and all other types of discrimination
in the nation [6]. In the light of the above, social
entrepreneurship, come, in principle and practice, to
respond to the new demand of society, providing
new ways for organizations to act [7].
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
(2000-2015) and the current Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) encapsulates the
commitment of the majority of countries around the
world to make long-term efforts to eradicate
poverty, improve healthcare, gender equality,
security, freedom, and universal education etcetera.
The dimension to which these needs are addressed
and met create the platform for assessing the
commitment of countries toward providing better
life for its people and advancing socioeconomic
development. These social benefits as underlined by
the UNDP Human Development reports since the
1990s consistently presupposes the need to enhance
the quality of human life globally, stressing that
development is all about people and their well-
being, which is the most important national asset of
nation-state [8].
Essentially, social entrepreneurship can play a
pivotal role in this respect, as it represents a critical
change agents of society whose mission is to
identify areas where societies are deadlock and
provide innovative and creative solutions to
addressing them. Social entrepreneurs have an
impact on society by reforming systems or putting
in place mechanisms that effectively combat
poverty, unemployment, and inequality [9, 10].
Thus, a broad understanding of how social
entrepreneurship function and its influence on
national development will create the opening and
necessity for government of many developing
countries such as Nigeria to develop and implement
regulations that will incorporate them into the
mainstream of national economy as is the case of
developed countries such as Canada, United States,
United kingdom, to mention but a few [11].
However, since the 1980s, the dominant economic
development model in Sub-Saharan African
economies has been a struggle between proponents
of free market ideology and those who believe that
the government, private and social enterprise
sector have roles to play in accelerating economic
transformation [3]. Beyond this dichotomy, what is
important is to push for the right balance among
these sectors and to advance policies that promote
inclusiveness, equity and full employment. This
paper, therefore, seeks to interrogate how the role of
social entrepreneurs and government can be
harnessed to create a nexus that engender national
and economic development in the country, since
they both seem to share common objective of
addressing the incidence of growing poverty and
inequality.
To achieve this goal, the paper is structured into
sections. Following the introduction, statement of
the problem and the methodology adopted for the
study, section two reviews relevant literature on the
role of social entrepreneurs and government in
stimulating national and entrepreneurship
development. Section three provides the conceptual
framework for this study, the use of the
Conflict/Elite theories that forms our theoretical
base and the discussion of findings for the study.
Section four end with the conclusion.
1.1 Statement of Problem
A detailed view of a developing country like Nigeria
over the past three decades have showed that not
much has been achieved by successive governments
in transforming the lives of the people of Nigeria for
the better. With a population growth rate of 2.6
percent, over 100 million Nigerians live on less than
US$1.90 dollar a day; unemployment has reached
double digits of 30.9 percent, and more than 10
million children are out of school (Nigeria has one
out of every five out of school children in the
world); growing inequality exists between the rich
and the poor (Gini Index is 35.1); weak physical and
institutional infrastructure are common place, poor
education, healthcare and corruption amongst other
issues permeate the country [12; 13, 14].
Furthermore, years of economic deterioration,
particularly poor industrial capacity, have not been
substantially reversed by the implementation of free
market policies such as macroeconomic stabilization
programs, price liberalization, privatization,
commercialization and currency devaluation [15].
Nonetheless, it has been argued over the past three
decades that the key development challenge
confronting Nigeria is leadership and lack of social
inclusion [16; 17]. In practice, critical state and non-
state actors such as the public, private sectors
(particularly micro, small and medium-sized
enterprises) and social enterprise that are catalysts
for achieving development goals conduct their
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
709
Volume 18, 2022
activities independently of one another without any
form of national synergy, and their interactions are
frequently marked by mistrust, lack of transparency,
lack of inclusiveness, and openness in the
formulation and implementation of socioeconomic
policies, among other things. This is evident in the
failure of many social policies (i.e. People’s Bank,
National Directorate for Employment (NDE),
NEEDs, Sure-P, Social Investment program
etcetera) which successive government has
implemented to help lift a greater majority of the
populace out of poverty [13].
Furthermore, successive Nigerian governments have
not succeeded to establish an atmosphere in which
firms/businesses can be motivated to plow their
wealth and other investments into the economy in
order to stimulate job creation/opportunities, and
utilizing the populace's entrepreneurial
abilities/spirit to boost the nation's economic
productivity [12]. This is despite being recognized
as having the biggest economy in Africa; the largest
producer of crude oil in Africa and sixth oil exporter
in the world, including attaining a seven percent
economic growth from 2000-2014 [13]. Although
reforms have been undertaken to help create a
friendly business environment, including facilitating
faster business start-up to help boost Nigeria’s
ranking on the World Bank’s Doing Business
ranking to 131 out of 190 in 2020, Foreign direct
investment (FDI) inflows have nevertheless remain
stagnant, with new FDI totaling US$1billion in 2020
as a number of persistent challenges such as
corruption, poor electricity, insecurity remain [18].
[19].
As a result, the country's economic expansion over
the last two decades has not resulted in the
development of industrialization, which is necessary
for producing productive employment and building
the groundwork for long-term poverty reduction and
development. For instance, according to the African
Development Report [20], the African continent (of
which Nigeria is a major player) has experienced
deindustrialization over the last two decades, as
evidenced by the fact that manufacturing's share of
total value added to the world economy has
decreased from 13% in 1990 to 12% in 2000 and
10% in 2011. Since then, the continent has
continued to house the majority of the world's poor
(with Nigeria being the poverty capital of the world)
with rising inequality [20]. It is therefore an
indisputable evidence that the achievement of
inclusive and sustainable industrialization drives
sustained economic growth, reduce hunger, ensure
equity and equal opportunity, stimulate the creation
of decent jobs and income, improve health and well-
being, increasing resource and energy efficiency,
and reduce green gas and other pollution emissions
[21; 22; 23; 24].
Correspondingly, while the government of advanced
countries see social entrepreneurs as crucial to the
continued growth and development of their
societies, the same cannot be said of Nigeria where
the government does not have a deliberate clear-cut
policy to harness the hidden potentials that lies
within this sector that can foster sustainable
development, including the creation of value, decent
chance to job opportunity for all. This situation has
hindered their smooth functioning, capacity and
operations, since all efforts and policy is focused
more on business entrepreneurship. While scholars
have argued governments and the free markets
mechanisms cannot adequately resolve modern
developmental challenges in the twenty-first
century, additional options should be explored to
reduce social inequities in societies (i.e. high
unemployment, urban poverty and social exclusion)
[24]. This is where social entrepreneurs respond to
society's new demands by combining a passion for a
social mission (i.e. poverty reduction) with
traditional economic procedures such as
productivity, discipline, efficiency, innovation, and
determination to achieve results. Interconnecting
government with social entrepreneurs is believed to
help galvanize the sector's innovative approaches
and strategies for addressing our internal (local)
social challenges [7]. Since social change is
participatory, it has been argued that
interconnectivity, collaboration, partnership, and
scaling innovative solutions are required to address
social problems of societies [25; 26].
1.2 Methodology
The research method used in this study was
conceptual analysis discourse. This is vital as the
purpose is to analyze concepts in their constituent
elements in order to gain insights and deeper
understanding of the issue under examination. We
describe, interpret, and analyze the concepts of
social entrepreneurship, the state, and national
development with a sociological lens in order to
elicit a better understanding of their relationships
and interconnection in the context of a developing
country like Nigeria, using secondary sources of
information such as textbooks, articles, government
statistics, reviews from researchers, international
institutions and agencies, and so on [27]. The major
critiques leveled at this analytical method revolve
with definitions and interpretations.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
710
Volume 18, 2022
2 Problem Formulation
Entrepreneurial growth is a vital key to socio-
economic development. Entrepreneurship involves
creation and use of innovative ideas, maximization
of output from given resources and development of
managerial skills which are critical factors for
driving overall development. It has been described
as the driving force for decentralizing and
restructuring an economy. An entrepreneur is
someone who is continually looking for new
ventures and is willing to take on the risk and
uncertainty that comes with running a business [28].
Traditionally, small enterprises, scalable start-ups,
huge firms, and social entrepreneurs are the four
main forms of entrepreneurship that have existed
over time.
Thus, social entrepreneurship is the identification
and utilization of existing opportunities, as well as
the recruitment of necessary resources for
overcoming social challenges in societies [29; 30;
31; 32]. Accordingly, the Centre for Advancement
of Social Entrepreneurship (CASE) [33] sees social
entrepreneurship as “recognizing and resourcefully
pursuing opportunities to create social value or
crafting approaches to address critical social needs
of societies. Although, a social entrepreneur follows
the same path to success as business entrepreneurs,
their objectives are radically different. By applying
entrepreneurial concepts to build, coordinate, and
manage social ventures, social entrepreneurs seek to
make beneficial changes in the world first and
foremost (i.e. Grameen Bank in Bangladesh). They
are crucial social change agents whose duty is to
discover areas where societies are stuck and offer
novel and creative ideas to solve them i.e.
education, health, social and legal services,
transportation, vocational, communication and
financing [30; 31]. Social entrepreneurs carry out
activities that improve and sustain the livelihood of
their communities and organizations. Their
operations in various parts of the world go beyond
simple product and service commercialization to the
expansion of options for individuals to become self-
emancipated and earn revenue [34]. Social
entrepreneurs are not primarily for profit initiatives,
but persons in search of alternative funding
strategies or management approaches to create
social value or impact [35]. For social
entrepreneurs, wealth is a tool for them to solve
social problems, and success is defined by the good
social impact they create in lifting the poor out of
poverty. This action corresponds to Emerson's [36]
blended-value bottom-line conceptual framework
for creating a value creation system that
incorporates both financial rewards and social
impact. Conversely, business entrepreneurs are
individuals who take the risk of starting a new
company. Their purpose is to maximize the use of
finite resources to create value or wealth [37]. The
business entrepreneur establishes their firm with the
intention of profiting from it and their ideas about
how the world should be are not connected with
their company's actions. Be that as it may, the
product and/or services given by an entrepreneur
can clearly identify the company's goals and
determine whether it is a business or a social
enterprise. While these two forms of businesses can
be similar, there are key differences between them
and these include:
a. Who is investing in the entrepreneurship?
Many social entrepreneurships seek their
first phase of funding from philanthropists.
Although these investors want to see a
return-on-investment (ROI), they are more
likely involved in the business due to its
social mission. A traditional business
entrepreneurship usually seek capital from a
venture capitalist firm and they are about
the ROI and nothing else.
b. How are profits used? A business
entrepreneurship uses their profits to grow
the company and pay shareholders. They
get into the business for the sake of making
money and increasing their personal wealth.
Although, social entrepreneurship engages
in for-profit activities, their profits may be
donated to charity or used for other
philanthropic efforts.
c. How do you define wealth? A business
entrepreneurship defines wealth as naira or
dollars made through their actions. Money
is the goal of their business. A social
entrepreneurship values wealth
accumulation and the profits generated by
their company. However, they see money as
just a tool to affect real change throughout
the world [38; 39].
Overall, entrepreneurs (social or business) are
influenced by a variety of factors, the most
important of which are personal factors (i.e.
initiative, proactivity, perseverance, problem
solving, persuasion, self-confidence, self-critical, a
planner, and risk taker) and environmental factors
(which include the political climate, economic and
social conditions, market situations, legal system
and land tenure policy, amongst others).
Furthermore, high income levels of people, desire
for new products and sophisticated technology and
faster means of transport and communication are
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
711
Volume 18, 2022
factors that stimulate entrepreneurship development
while political instability, unrests, strikes,
inconsistent economic policies, unfair trade
practices, lack of infrastructure, irrational monetary
and fiscal policies stifle the growth of
entrepreneurship in the developing country like
Nigeria.
2.1 The Role of Government in Promoting
National and Entrepreneurial Development
It is believed that the disparity between the
industrialized and developing countries stems not
just from lack of gap in resources but also gap in
knowledge, which is the consequence of
investments in education, infrastructure, technology,
and entrepreneurship development [4]. The political
economy of development becomes a critical
discourse in this context because it focuses on the
interplay between politics and economics, with a
particular focus on the role of political power
holders in influencing socioeconomic decision-
making of nations. In this sense, we should examine
the social and institutional processes by which
economic and political elites affect the allocation of
most nation’s scarce resources now and in the
future; create and implement policies that are either
for their own profit or for the benefit of the greater
populace.
It has therefore, been stressed that rapid
development and growth with equity is possible
through the institutionalization of effective
governance. Governance encompasses the
mechanisms, processes, and institutions that
determine how power is exercised, how decisions on
public issues are made, and how citizens express
their interests, exercise their legal rights, fulfill their
obligations, and mediate their differences [40; 41].
Governance, especially good governance has been
regarded as the single most important factor in
tackling poverty, inequality and promoting all-round
development [42; 41]. However, the quality of a
country's public institutions is a significant
component in determining how decisions are made
and in whose interests they are made, which
ultimately reflects the type and character of
government and the country’s level of development
(whether developed or developing). This is so since
the locus of power in any society lies within the
State and the State will definitely have a say in how
the economy is run and the quest for national and
entrepreneurship development [16; 41].
This bring to light the rationale for democratic
governance. Conceptually, democratic governance
is the expression of integrated and effective
management of humans and resources. It allows for
wider participation in the social institutions and
rules that affect people’s lives in order to achieve
equitable economic and social outcomes.
Democratic governance exists when government
institutions pursue pro-poor policies that promote
sustainable development of all citizens and are
underlined by the principles of public participation,
openness, representation, accountability and
protection of individual and group rights [43].
Democratic governance further states that rules,
institutions and practices that govern social
interactions should be inclusive, fair, equitable, and
that the people are free from discrimination,
including promoting the needs of future generations.
As a result, the proposition by proponents of the
Washington Consensus neoliberal policy demand
for government to have a minimal role in the
economy of emerging countries like Nigeria are not
sustainable. Their belief in the trickle- down effect
of free market economy policy where people would
benefit from the growth of a country’s GDP has not
been realized as indicated by existing poor human
and social development indicators earlier
highlighted [44]. It is argued that poorly developed
markets which is the make-up of most developing
countries like Nigeria are marked by monopolies
and oligopolies resulting in high prices in accessing
vital social services like education, healthcare,
telecommunications, housing, transport, raw
materials and electricity that may ultimately hinder
development. Similarly, most academics agree that
markets alone do not lead to efficiency, and that a
complete reversal of the state's role in economic
development is unachievable [3]. However, the
essential issue being canvassed in this study is that
there is the need to define and determine what is the
right form and extent of government engagement for
socioeconomic growth in a developing economy.
These realities do not undermine the importance of
the markets, but simply emphasize that markets had
to be created, measured and paced, governed, and
that sometimes private firms might not do what
needs to be done given the enormity and
complexities of social problems confronting the
global south [4].
From the foregoing, it is critical to highlight the
critical role that government should may play in
fostering entrepreneurship and long-term national
development. These responsibilities include:
i. Provide security to safe guard life and
property; maintain law and order and the
freedom to do business.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
712
Volume 18, 2022
ii. Ensure conducive environment for
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial
ecosystems to thrive.
iii. Invest in and support social enterprise
research in order to perform cost-benefit
analyses and measure the value of people-
oriented social enterprises.
iv. Adherence to effective policy
implementation and development of critical
infrastructural facilities such as roads, ports,
bridges, telecommunications, electricity,
amongst others.
v. Incorporate social entrepreneurship into
entrepreneurship education activities in
schools, vocational education and training
colleges and universities in order to
stimulate socioeconomic development
vi. Promotion of savings culture to stimulate
capital for investment, including growth
vii. Promotion of appropriate laws and
regulations for promoting corporate
governance.
viii. Assist in the formation of a social enterprise
association, which will serve as a
centralized database and network for social
entrepreneurs.
ix. Encourage public policy that supports the
growth of social enterprises by developing
precise legal definitions of social enterprises
to manage problems such as taxation and
access to public markets.
x. Provide long-term funding to help social
enterprises grow from start-up to scale-up.
xi. Establish suitable mechanism for
monitoring, impact assessment and
evaluation [45].
From the above, it is clear that the government's
involvement in enabling growth, particularly the
establishment of a basic framework for
stimulating efficient markets to boost productivity,
is critical. However, since 1980s in Nigeria,
successive government has tried to promote
specifically business entrepreneurship without any
attention given to social entrepreneurship in order to
engender economic productivity. This has been
done through the enactment of the National
Productivity Centre Act 1987, introduction of
entrepreneurship studies into Nigeria’s educational
system, establishment of the Centre for
Entrepreneurship Development (CED), the defunct
Peoples’ Bank, National Directorate of
Employment, (NDE), National Programme for the
Eradication of Poverty (NAPEP), National Open
Apprenticeship Scheme (NOAS), Small and
Medium Enterprise Development Agency of Nigeria
(SMEDAN) set up in 2003, and SMEEIS amongst
others. These programmes were targeted to boost
growth, generate income, and provide job
opportunities in order to solve the country's poverty
and unemployment issues.
As vital as they were, the initiatives have not been
able to achieve the key objective of solving the
poverty and unemployment challenges confronting
the populace, particularly the underprivileged,
marginalized and vulnerable groups out of their
vicious cycle of poverty [46]. In the fields of health,
education, economics, and social welfare, the
majority of programmes devote little attention to the
poor. The provision of social services, in particular,
frequently excludes the poor [46]. Furthermore, the
challenge with promoting national and
entrepreneurship development in Nigeria by
successive government has been attributed to their
undemocratic character in pursuing economic
development which has largely been an exercise in
alienation between the leaders and the governed
[15]. What is happening presently in a developing
nation like Nigeria tends to be development against
the people, their psyche, ingenuity, resourcefulness
and self-esteem through the institutionalization of
harsh economic policies such as Structural
Adjustment Programme (SAP) market policies
which are insensitive to the social condition of the
people, traumatize them and break down their social
consensus
Also, the social policies of government have not
succeeded in fostering an enterprise culture that
vigorously stimulate the growth of social
entrepreneurs, promote innovators and risk takers;
provide and maintain a supportive environment,
identify and remove barriers to entrepreneurial
growth at all stages of development. Government’s
inability to address issues of inadequate capital, lack
of access to bank credits/financial markets, erratic
power supply, infrastructural shortcomings,
bureaucratic fees, multiple taxation, and inadequate
business skills training centers, among other
challenges, are suffocating the growth of
entrepreneurship, particularly social entrepreneurs
in Nigeria.
Consequently, successive government has not
mustered sufficient political will to place the
people’s interests at the centre of the national
development agenda through the construction of
roads, bridges, infrastructure, educational and
healthcare facilities and industrial development
zones that will enhance access to job opportunities,
improve the people’s well-being and promote
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
713
Volume 18, 2022
overall national development. It has also failed to
bring about the diversification of the economy with
active investment in the promotion of social
entrepreneurship development. Rather, Nigeria's
development issues have mostly been a struggle
between State elites on the one hand and the people
on the other for control and appropriation of the
dwindling country's scarce resources, as well as the
disarticulation of the economy to the disadvantage
of the poor and vulnerable as evidenced by the
growing incidence of poverty, unemployment,
inequality in the country.
2.2 The Contribution of Social
Entrepreneurs in Promoting National
Development
The transformation of nations to become a robust
and prosperous economy requires that the leadership
adopts the culture of productivity, innovation,
improvements and proper management of human
and material resources which are the drivers of
development. Be that as it may, most societies are
dealing with socio-economic challenges of
unemployment, poverty, inequality, energy
problems, infrastructural decay, to mention but a
few [47]. All these issues negatively undermine the
living conditions of the people. Thus, all efforts
must be galvanized to come up with strategies for
tackling them. One sector that can help overcome
these challenges in order to achieve economic
transformation is the social entrepreneurs.
Social Entrepreneurship focuses on the
identification of social challenges and the adoption
of innovative and entrepreneurial approaches
targeted at proffering short and long term solutions
[48]. Social entrepreneurs serve as the active
catalyst that can adequately combat poverty and
lack of job opportunities in the public and private
sectors and engender sustainable economic
development when adequately harnessed.
Accordingly, Schumpeter [49] refer to social
entrepreneurs as "change agents" in the larger
economy. For him, economic development is a
process of carrying out new combinations in the
production process and entrepreneurs are precisely
the person whose role it is to implement these new
combinations [50]. Entrepreneurs are not necessarily
the owners of a company, but they are responsible
for introducing changes in an at least one of the
following ways: the introduction of a new products
or new market, the acquisition of a new source of
raw materials or the reorganization of a sector of
activity.
Social enterprises, unlike the traditional non-profit
organizations are normally not engaged in advocacy
as a major goal or in the redistribution of financial
flows (i.e. grant–giving foundations), but they are
directly involved in the production of goods or
provision of services to the people on a continuous
basis. In most developed countries where social
enterprises exists, they operate in two broad spheres
of activity: on the one hand, the training and
reintegration into employment of persons excluded
from the labour market and, on the other hand, the
rapidly developing sector of personal services.
Social enterprises main contributions is to bring
about the transformation of existing welfare
systems, employment creation, local development,
building of social capital and social cohesion. It is
the desire to drive positive social change with its
lasing, transformational benefit to society that
distinguishes social entrepreneurs from
other practitioners [51].
The importance of social entrepreneurs is fully
recognized in industrialized countries as
representing the new or renewed expression of civil
society against a background of economic crisis, the
weakening of social bonds and difficulties of the
welfare State. It is broadly associated with the major
economic roles of the public authorities: with the
allocation of resources through production of quasi-
public goods and services; with the redistributive
function through the provision, free or almost free
of charge, of a wide range of services to deprived
people, including helping poorly qualified
unemployed people, who are at the risk of
permanent exclusion from the labour market, back
to work [52]. Today, most societies particularly the
developed ones are moving towards a redefinition of
relationships between the individual, the inter-
mediate structure of the civil society and the state.
In any case, the world is moving from a “welfare
state” to a new “welfare mix” where responsibility
should be shared among public authorities, for-
profit providers and third sector organizations
(which include social entrepreneurs) on the basis of
efficiency and fairness.
However, the idea of a distinct ‘third sector’, made
up of most social enterprises and organizations
which are not purely seeking profit nor are part of
the public sector, really began to emerge in the mid-
1970s. Such organization were certainly very active
in many areas of activity and were subject of
specific public policies. As the problems caused by
economic crisis deepened, the awareness of the
limitations of the traditional public and private
sectors steadily grew. Against this background, the
interest in other kinds of economic organizations
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
714
Volume 18, 2022
was strongly advocated, a bit like the search for a
“third way” of development between capitalism and
state socialism by newly independent countries
during the 1950s and 1960s, though on a different
scale.
The value of a social entrepreneur is to assist a
population that is underserved, neglected, or
severely disadvantaged and lacks the financial or
political weight to deliver the transformative effect
on their own. They identify a stable but
fundamentally unjust equilibrium that causes a
segment of society to be excluded, ostracized, or
suffer. They perceive an opportunity in the
inequitable balance of society, create a social value
proposition, and use inspiration, ingenuity, daring,
direct action, and courage to contest the state's
hegemony. Furthermore, they create a new, stable
equilibrium that unleashes stored potentials or
alleviates the suffering of the target group they have
identified, and secure a better future for them and
the society at large. (.i.e. Grameen Bank). Social
entrepreneurship is a business model used by
national government, individuals, and organizations
to help solve some of the world’s greatest problems.
It is using business as a force for good and the way
the business can influence positive change.
They are mainly the founders of micro, small, and
medium businesses, which account for more than
25% of jobs in the country [49]. The poll also
indicated that Nigeria has 17 million small and
medium-sized businesses, which employ 32.41
million people and contribute 46.54 percent of the
country's GDP. According to the World Bank [53],
formal SMEs account for 45 percent of total
employment and up to 33 percent of GDP in
emerging economies (GDP). The goal of social
entrepreneurship is to create a positive social impact
through addressing societal problems [49; 54]. They
are individuals who adopt a mission to create and
sustain social values; relentlessly pursue new
opportunities to serve that mission; continuously
innovate, adapt, and learn new ideas and skills; act
boldly and beyond their resources; and demonstrate
a high sense of accountability for their contributions
to society [49; 55; 56]. They have been described as
not for profit initiatives but in search of alternative
funding strategies. This is not to say that social
entrepreneurs always avoid profit-generating value
propositions. Social entrepreneurship ventures can
generate revenue and can be formed as non-profit or
for-profit organizations [57]. A good examples of
social entrepreneurs include North Star Alliance in
South Africa, ASAFE in Cameroun, Sanjit Roy, the
founder of BAREFOOT College, a solar-powered
college for the poor in India; Mark Koska, who
redesigned medical tools by introducing a non-
reusable, low-cost syringe to be used in under-
funded clinics; Jeff Kurtzman, co-founder of
Incubation, which provides low-cost, low-
maintenance incubators; and Scott Harrison, founder
of Charity Water, a non-profit organization that
provides safe and portable water in 28 countries
around the world [58; 59].
Social entrepreneurs are involved in giving practical
reality to many noble ideals-helping the poor,
homeless, physically, psychologically or mentally
challenged people, and not limited by constraints of
resources currently available in their drive to proffer
solutions to social challenges. Nigeria, for example,
has a wide range of social and environmental issues.
These include high rate of poverty, weak
governance and accountability issues, a poor
healthcare system, poor waste management
practices, lack of electricity, a large housing deficit
etcetera, all of which have implications for health,
employment, and financial inclusion [60]. All of
these problems present huge opportunities for social
entrepreneurs who can assist to help the economy
recover. They stand between the private and public
sectors, applying new tools and approaches to the
work governments have traditionally done without
results and bring forth innovative solutions to solve
them. Most of them are change agents who think
outside the box to produce changes in the short term
that reverberate through existing social systems and
engender large changes in the long term.
They can also work with government rather than
against it by improving the government's
willingness or ability to invest in a specific
government function "by rethinking the way its
value is expressed." For instance, when social
entrepreneurs collaborate with government, they can
provide additional public good, such as data on an
integrated public-private transit system or
information on improved healthcare service
delivery, better ways in which the resources of the
nation can be utilized to better the well-being of the
people, among other things. For instance, in 2016,
the Buhari government launched its #500 billion
Social Investment Programme (SIP) that involves
direct cash transfers of #5,000 monthly to one
million beneficiaries in poor vulnerable households;
school feeding of 5.5 million primary school
children; training of 500,000 graduates as teachers
and 100,000 non-graduates as artisans and other
special intervention projects. However, concerns
have been raised on how these projects will be
carried out without an authentic database of
potential beneficiaries. With a vibrant social
enterprise sector involvement and collaboration,
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
715
Volume 18, 2022
these funds could have been channeled to achieve
better results of pulling the poor out of poverty
through the use of credible social enterprises such as
Live Above Poverty Organization (LAPO), Mobility
Aid and Alliances Research and Development
Centre (MAAARDEC), Solar Sister Nigeria, Project
Enable Africa, Seed Tracker, The Cece Yara
Foundation, Junior Achievement Nigeria etcetera.
Social entrepreneurs’ goal seeks to target social
issues such as reducing barriers to employment for
disenfranchised groups and individuals; the
elimination of homelessness in the community;
improve the health outcomes for members of the
community etcetera, by weaving them into the core
of their business in order to create positive social
value and impact for all. Thus, the social value
created by social entrepreneurs' actions
demonstrates how much of an influence they have
had on the lives of people who need it, as well as
providing a ray of hope for achieving Sustainable
Development Goals 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 through creating
jobs, driving economic growth and innovation,
improving social conditions and addressing social
and environmental challenges.
In the light of this, Zahra et al [61] outlined four
factors fueling the globalization of social
entrepreneurs and these include global wealth
disparity, the corporate social responsibility
movement, the market, institutional and state
failures, and the technological advances and shared
responsibility. In all, because their services are
oriented to the poor, social entrepreneurs, like
governments, markets, and communities, can be
considered as one of the pillars of a successful
development plan.
Today, social entrepreneurs are present in virtually
all sectors or segments of the society. Their
footprints can be found in organizations that work
for child rights, women empowerment, safe
environment programs, housing, transport, health
problems, waste management, and financial issues
of rural and marginalized groups, amongst others. In
addition, social entrepreneurs have particular
obstacles they are faced with in generating social
value, social returns, or social impact [62]. These
challenges include funding, lack of proper channel
for communicating their business idea, lack of a
central governmental agenda, lack of structure and
plan, government approval, competition from
others, acquiring technologies, and raising
awareness etcetera, are just a few of the hurdles
social entrepreneurs have to confront and overcome.
In all, this study brings to fore the fundamental role
that social entrepreneurs play in the world through
the creation of social value and widespread
improvement of people where society or the
community benefits.
2.3 Conceptual Framework
The proposed model utilized for this study as shown
in figure1 (see appendix section) posits the best
approach for solving social problems in a
developing society like Nigeria. The model
primarily argues that the quest of government for
sustainable socio-economic development through
solving socio- economic problems are better
attained through sustainable nexus between the State
and the input of social entrepreneurs. This synergy
will expedite the quest for national economic
diversification of the country which will go a long
way in addressing the problems of poverty,
unemployment, inequality and social exclusion. For
instance, youth unemployment has diverse
implications which can impact on the security of the
country as we are already witnessing today. Many
of the cases of kidnapping, ritual killings, banditry,
terrorism etcetera which are rife in Nigeria are
perpetrated by unemployed youths, who have taken
to these heinous crimes in order to make a living
[63].
The study conceptual framework shows that there
are three possible routes to attaining sustainable
socio-economic development when resolving
societal social problems. The first route is when
social entrepreneurs’ attempt to solve social
problems alone even though they have the skills to
craft innovative, viable and pragmatic solutions.
However, the study posits that such lone attempt
will not yield the desired result given the complexity
of the social environment in which they operate i.e.
bad leadership, corruption, lack of legal regulation
and poor governance. This is denoted with the doted
arrow, which shows that social problems cannot be
successfully solved unilaterally by one sector
without collaboration with other key stakeholders in
other sector including State actors.
The second route is the attempt by government
trying to solve societal problems alone particularly
as it relate to the framing and implementation of
policies to address the problem of poverty
eradication programmes in a developing country
like Nigeria. We argue that this route will yield no
meaningful solution given the problems of lack of
requisite expertise and skills, corruption, bad
leadership, lack of pro-poor policies, social
exclusion, lack of openness and transparency that
characterize the governance process in many
developing countries, including Nigeria. This is
because social problems, such as poverty, cannot be
tackled effectively by a one-size-fits-it-all solution
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
716
Volume 18, 2022
by government such as the adoption of free market-
enterprise based policy and the manifestation of its
eventual failure to reduce the incidence of poverty,
inequality and unemployment in many low-income
economies such as Nigeria [64; 65]. The third route
is the interconnection between social entrepreneurs
and the government, which we call the nexus. This
nexus shows the interaction between the government
and the social entrepreneur in collectively
addressing societal based problems. In this context,
the relationship nexus is collaboratively driven by
social entrepreneurs and the government, wherein
the social entrepreneurs are recognized as having a
better grasp of the knowledge and innovation in
proffering solutions to the existing social problems
given their expertise, albeit not holistic when
addressed alone. As for the State, their role is to
create the enabling environment by formulating
policies that better acknowledge the specificities and
potentials of the role of social entrepreneurs in
carrying out their social responsibility of addressing
societal social problems. This study averred that it is
the nexus between the two sectors that provides
optimal and attainable solutions to societal problems
that will ultimately results to sustainable socio-
economic development for the country as it is done
in the developed countries of the world. This nexus
emphasized the need for interconnectivity,
partnership and scaling innovative solutions if social
problems are to be addressed, since social change is
participatory [26].
This is very fundamental given the fact addressing a
social problem such as poverty requires social
inclusiveness. Poverty is a multidimensional
problem embedded in a complex and interconnected
political, economic, cultural and ecological system
[56]. Owing to its large scope and multiplicity of
actors, there is no single guaranteed approach to the
eradication of poverty. Within this context,
therefore, solutions are as multifaceted as the
causes. Problems and solutions are not isolated
phenomena but occur within an interconnected
system in which actors and actions have reciprocal
consequences and ramifications. Thus a system’s
approach which incorporate both the government
and social entrepreneurs is critical in creating an
enabling environment for sustainable poverty
eradication to subsist. Thus, the fact that poverty
eradication is a complex mission, requires the
commitment, cooperation and cohesion at all levels-
individual, household, community, local, national
and global collaboration. It will encapsulate the
efforts by government, Non-Governmental
Organization (NGOs) such as social entrepreneurs
and international development agencies directed
towards improving the conditions of the poor. This
will create a general condition which allows people
to live in dignity where they are free to make their
own decisions in life and participate actively in
social, economic and political activities.
2.4 Theoretical Framework
The attainment of socio-economic and national
development requires the application of innovative
approach, engaging appropriate systems and
strategies in addressing societal problems. Tackling
challenges such as poverty, unemployment,
inequality, poor infrastructure and low enterprise
growth requires the institutionalization of viable
social policies by the government to create a better
society. When public social policies are properly
conceived and implemented by government and its
institutions, they go a long way to influence the
social conditions of the people and the entire society
at large [66]. This will invariably determine the state
of economic development in most societies
including Nigeria. Without the provision of pro-
poor social policies, sustainable growth and
development cannot be attained. As such, the roles,
values and attitudes of the political and economic
elites is fundamental in interrogating the question of
poverty, inequality, unemployment and its attendant
consequences for individuals and the society at
large. This fact is corroborated by [67] who averred
that poverty occurs due to inability of individuals to
achieve the minimum capacity needed to gain
fundamental freedoms of life, including economic
freedom. Available data revealed that over 100
million Nigerians live below the poverty level of
US$1.90 per day and unemployment has reached
double digit of 30.9 percent [13]. Though certain
social policies such as the People’s Bank, National
Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP), NEEDS,
Sure-P and the National Social Investment
Programme, to mention but a few, have been
implemented by successive governments in Nigeria,
however, issues of poverty has not abated, with the
country declared as the poverty capital of the world
[21]. Besides, most of the policies formulated to
address the challenge of poverty always tend to
subscribe to a top-bottom approach rather than a
bottom-up approach in conceiving and
implementing them. To properly situate the success
or failure of governmental social policies in the
Nigerian context, the Conflict and Elite theory was
employed to evaluate the processes of decision
making by the political elites in order to interrogate
whether those decisions made by them were in the
interests of the larger society or for their own
narrow selfish interests. This is quite different from
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
717
Volume 18, 2022
the activities of social entrepreneurs, whose goal is
to tackle social and economic problems in the
society, thereby creating enabling economic
opportunities for the poor and thereby combating
poverty [68].
The conflict theory as developed by Karl Marx,
focuses on how power and domination operate in
the society and ultimately influence social policies
in most societies [69] [70]. Conflict theory sought to
explain a wide range of social phenomena, including
poverty, inequality, discrimination, wars,
competition and conflict that exists among different
socioeconomic classes. The theory investigates the
causes and implications of social class conflict
arising from the continual struggle for scarce
resources. A basic premise of conflict theory is that
individuals and groups within society will work to
maximize their own wealth and power. According
to the conflict theory proponents, power imbalances
exist in all human relationships and societal
structures, and social order is maintained by
economic dominance and power rather than by
consensus and compliance [71]. The theory views
social and economic institutions as tools of the
struggle among groups and classes, used to maintain
inequality and the dominance of the ruling class.
From the conflict theory perspective, power can be
seen as the control of material resources and wealth
accumulation, control of politics and institutions
that make up societies.
Those who benefit from a particular structure of
society tend to work to maintain those structures as
a way of retaining and enhancing their power. In
this way, individuals and groups inherently develop
more power and reward than others. Adherents of
these this theory tend to believe in a pyramid
arrangement in terms of how goods and services are
distributed in society. At the top of the pyramid is a
small group of elites that dictates terms and
conditions to the larger portion of society because
they have an outsized amount of control over
resources and power. Conflict theory assumes that
the elite will set up systems of laws, traditions and
other societal structures in order to further support
their own dominance while preventing others from
joining their ranks. Conflict theorists believe that
competition is a constant, and at times, an
overwhelming factor in nearly every human
relationship and interaction. Competition exists with
respect to material resources such as money,
property, commodities etcetera and intangible
resources which include lecture time, dominance,
and social status. An important position of the
conflict theory is that human relationships and
social structures all experience inequalities of
power. Following this, those individuals and groups
who benefit from a particular structure of society
tend to work to maintain those structures as a way of
retaining and enhancing their power.
Consequently, this theory is further complemented
by the elite theory, which seeks to interrogate the
role of the State and political elites in the advancing
national and socio-economic development in
Nigeria. The Elite theory seeks to describe power
relationships in contemporary societies as uneven.
The theory lays out a blueprint for a healthy society,
one in which competent elites can promote
individual dignity, widespread social welfare, and
political stability when they adhered to prescribed
rules of engagement. The Elite theory proposition is
based on Pareto's and Mosca's work on wealth,
distribution of power and the impact of the ruling
class in driving societal development.
Political elites, according to this theory, are
individuals who are able to significantly influence
political and economic outcomes at the national
level due to their strategic positions in government,
powerful large-scale organizations and social
movements where they are the main decision-
makers. These elites are a separate group of people
in a society who have privileged status (i.e. they are
at the top of the pyramids of political, economic and
social ladder) and have control over how the society
is constituted [72].
To understand the nature and dynamics of
development in most societies, nation-state,
institutions and institutional persistence or
decadence, we must consider the motives,
coherency and overall dynamics of these elites.
While elites are frequently the unavoidable result of
competing interests in social systems and complex
collectivities, their composition changes depending
on existing political and social circumstances.
Because political elites in different societal cultures
wield disproportionate power, their decisions have
disproportionate societal consequences and effect,
and they almost always enjoy excessive benefits and
protections. Thus, the basic stability or instability of
political regimes, the shapes and workings of
political, social and economic institutions, and the
principal policies pursued by national governments
are all outcomes that elites influence [73].
3 Discussion
From the foregoing theories, we can assess the
nature and state of growth of social entrepreneurship
development in Nigeria since independence given
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
718
Volume 18, 2022
that the country has not made considerable progress
in social and economic development as earlier
mentioned.
At the core of the many reasons adduced for the
dismal development performance including the lack
of promotion of social entrepreneurship
development in Nigeria is the issue of bad
leadership, lack of pro-poor policies and poor
governance, which are critical elements necessary
for advancing the processes of national
development. This is fundamentally so given the
fact that governance is seen as critical factor in
tackling poverty, inequality and unemployment. The
fact that political power is concentrated within the
state, it is incumbent on political elites in positions
of 'leadership' to devise social policies that are
responsive to people's needs and aspirations which
will result in improved living conditions for the
populace.
This is significantly so as the goal of development
interventions is to move society from a perceived
condition of deprivation to a one of prosperity.
Thus, development discourse has grown
multidisciplinary, incorporating policy analysis that
focuses on the key symptom of failed development,
and asserting that development is not an objective in
itself, but rather a method of improving the living
conditions of humans. Unfortunately, the Nigerian
“leadership” since independence has not been able
to deliver on this premise. The Nigerian ‘leaders’
have not been able to see the people as key
stakeholders with collective mindfulness in the
running of the affairs of the nation [74].
Mindful leaders are “courageous”, they perceive the
‘big picture’ and “create environments of trust and
safety”, which would ignite innovation [72]. It has
been argued that no nation has overcome the
challenges of poverty reduction and development
without proving its ability to be creative and
innovative. In the case of Nigeria, the leaders appear
to have a fixed mind-set that do not accommodate
alternative ideas. The leaders do not seem to
understand that empowering the people will change
the future of the society for better. It has been
stressed that no society can separate poverty from
the political and economic forces of the society as
well as the mind-set of the leaders because they
determine the state of human condition in every
country [74].
The challenges facing Nigeria today appear to be
deep-rooted in the mind-sets of the leaders and the
nation’s extractive political and economic
institutions, which has consistently fail to
incorporate the activities of the social entrepreneurs
into the mainstream economy and see them as key
stakeholders in the process of proffering solutions to
the myriad of social problems confronting the
country. The failure of our leaders to change their
mind-set and embrace creative and innovative ideas
which the social entrepreneurs can engender to
transform and restructure the system, will continue
to threaten the growth and development of the
nation, including the touted drive for economic
diversification. Thus for the country to advance,
there is the necessity for the leaders to create
inclusive political and economic institutions to
empower the citizens to reach their full potentials,
of which social entrepreneurs can play a pivotal role
when incorporated into the mainstream of the
national economy.
Furthermore, evidence abound of how the political
elites and their collaborators in the private sector use
state power to promote their self-centered interests
and exploit the masses through policies formulation
and decision-making such as adoption of SAP
reforms, increases in the price of electricity, gas and
petrol, basic foodstuffs, social goods and services,
which ultimately hurt the people and further plunge
them into worsening poverty [15]. In Nigeria, there
is no national community, only a groups of political
elites competing among themselves to capture
power and use it to appropriate state resources for
their personal aggrandizement, thereby exacerbating
the condition of poverty and inequality in the nation.
This condition virtually nullifies any prospect of
evolving and carrying through any national project
including development. Where any attempts are
made to seek development, policies tend to be
hampered by political and social contradictions such
as the divorce of public policy from social needs of
the people.
Furthermore, the ruling political elites in Nigeria
have consistently failed to play the role of a
development entrepreneur in promoting the social
transformation of the country. The country lacked a
determined developmental elite, a powerful,
competent and insulated economic bureaucracy that
can explore for opportunities internally for setting
up industries and enterprises that are engine of
growth such as social entrepreneurs and non-state
actors in the agriculture, textiles and SMEs sectors.
This goes to explain the apparent failure of
successive government to have the political will to
incorporate social entrepreneurs into the mainstream
of the economy to help chart the process of
structural and economic transformation, by tapping
into their expertise, ingenuity and innovation in
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
719
Volume 18, 2022
designing policies that address the core social
problems of poverty and unemployment. As such,
the historical record of most developing societies
including Nigeria shows overwhelmingly that
politics normally approximate an unrestrained
struggle among distrustful elites to defend and
advance their interests with little regard for the costs
and consequences of their actions, impropriety,
including the welfare of the populace.
These realities ultimately explain why the various
attempts by successive governments to address the
prevailing incidence of poverty through the
enunciation of various poverty reduction initiatives
such as NAPEP, SURE-P and the National Social
Investment Programmes since 1999 have
consistently failed to deliver on their mandate, as
they do not directly target the poor, such that today
Nigerians are more impoverished, disadvantaged
and socially bankrupt [75]. There are more jobless
graduates today than ever, poverty is on the
increase, and many children are out of school as the
parents cannot pay their tuition even in the
perceived free education scheme. In addition, the
value of the naira is at its lowest ebb, prices of food
and commodities is on the high side. Many have
gone into the field of armed robbery, kidnapping,
banditry, money rituals and other vices.
Consequently, all efforts at poverty alleviation in
Nigeria are essentially ad hoc in nature and not
integrated into a well-defined national development
objective that directly target the poor [76]. Much
more critical is the issue of lack of social inclusion
which undermined the energy and resourcefulness
of the target population in seeing themselves as key
stakeholders in the poverty alleviation programmes
which heightened the mistrust of whether their
interests are being promoted or ignored. Also, some
of those programmes addressing poverty do not
focus on the vulnerable groups particularly women
and children that constitute a greater majority of
those who suffer more from the poverty trap. This is
so as gender relations constitute a prime factor in
explaining social differentiation and inequalities in
the Nigerian society and provide the platform for
social/policy reforms in the pursuit of national,
social entrepreneurship and sustainable development
[77].
4 Conclusion
From the foregoing discourse, it has become
imperative that social entrepreneurship development
can foster a sound sustainable approach towards
national and entrepreneurship development in
Nigeria. This is imperative because social
entrepreneurship's goal is to advance human and
social well-being. Given the complexities of the
social challenges such as poverty, housing deficit,
unemployment, inequality, urban congestion, out of
school children, poor electricity access, etcetera that
requires meticulous construction of antidote in
societies, the task seems too weighty to be solely
dealt with by the state. It needs the input of social
entrepreneurs who are strategically positioned to
provide unique innovative solutions and
intervention to societal challenges and stimulate
economic revitalization and diversification.
Therefore, it is imperative for the Nigeria
government to put in place proper legislation and
sustainable implementable social policy at the core
of its development agenda that addresses
interlocking factors with strong connection to social
issues, such that can stimulate the emergence of
highly inspired social entrepreneurs. The causal
loop towards socioeconomic underdevelopment in
Nigeria can be addressed by adding more social
enterprises to the economy that can boosts social
innovation and impact through creation of social
services and addition of value to products in the
agricultural, extractive, communication,
educational, health, and environmental sectors. The
social benefits of social entrepreneurs in Nigeria,
however, remain a source of substantial uncertainty
when the political will of the leaders of the nation to
diversity the economy of Nigeria is lacking. To this
end, the government's involvement in social
entrepreneurship finance in Nigeria will help to
draw more individuals, institutions, and
organizations to the field.
Similarly, it is instructive to state that the
engagement method of social ventures are
community based. Thus, government should employ
the bottom-up approach to development, where
government policy makers engage the services of
social entrepreneurs to scientifically ascertain from
members of various communities across the country
what their needs are and then examined where
further support can be created or leveraged on to
solve them.
Consequently, the leadership of the country must
realize that the development of entrepreneurship
spirit in the populace will not come by wishful
thinking but through the promotion of human capital
development which will require active government
intervention in investing massively in funding
education and research, infrastructure, vocational
training in partnership with industries and
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
720
Volume 18, 2022
organization with the requisite capacity for skills
development in technology and social services. It is
also imperative to state that making development
work in ways that enrich the people particularly the
poor and vulnerable in society is to make the
economy work for all the people. Thus, the success
of any public social policy is measured by how
many jobs it creates, improvement in health and life
expectancy and literacy rates of the citizenry.
Finally, the incidence of poverty, inequality and
unemployment is an issue that needs dedicated and
on-going action that includes but is by no means
limited to growing social enterprises.
References:
[1] Fosu, A. K. (2010) Growth, inequality,
and poverty reduction in developing countries:
recent
[2] Goulet, D. (1971) The Cruel Choice: A
New Concept in the Theory of Development.
New York: Atheneum
[3] Todaro, M. P and Smith, C. S. (2015)
Economic Development 12th Edition, United
Kingdom: Pearson Education limited.
[4] Stiglitz, J. E. (2007) Making Globalization
Work, New York, W.W. Norton and Company
Inc.
[5] World Bank (2021) The World Bank in
Nigeria report. World Bank.
[6] Antonio, O. G., Carla, R. F. F. G, Talles,
V. B., Maria, J. V. F and Rogerio, R. S. (2014)
New business opportunities in social
entrepreneurship: a case for Portugal,
International Review of Business and Social
Sciences, Vol 1 (4): 57-73.
[7] Ferreira, J.M. Carvalho (2007),
“Atualidade da Construção do Objeto Científico
da Sociologia Econômica”. RAE eletrónica,
Fórum- Sociologia Econômica, v.6, no. 1, Art.
8, Jan.-July, 1-22.
[8] Sen, K. A. (1999) Development as
Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[9] Abhishek, D. and Jay, W. (2018)
Conceptualizing and Operationalizing the Social
Entrepreneurship Construct, Journal of Business
Research, 86: 32-40
[10] Addou, E., Fahmy, A., Greenward and
Nelson, J. (2010) Social Entrepreneurship in the
Middle East towards sustainable development
for the next generation. The Presidential
Summit on Entrepreneurship held in
Washington, 26-27
[11] Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2011)
Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Sustainable
Innovation: Categories and Interactions,
Business Strategy and the Environment 20:222-
237
[12] National Bureau of Statistics (2018)
Demographic Statistics Bulletin, Abuja: NBS
[13] Nigerian Economic Outlook (2015) Nigeria
2015. www.africaneconomioutlook.org
[14] National Bureau of Statistics (2021) Nigeria
Gross Domestic Production report, Abuja: NBS
https://nigerianstat.gov.ng/elibrary
[15] Ake, C. (2003) The Feasibility of
Democracy. Dakar, Senegal: CODESRIA
[16] Egharevba, M. E., Eguavoen, A., Azuh, D.,
Iruonagbe, C. T. and Chiazor, I. A. (2016)
Microfinance and Poverty |Reduction Strategy
for Promoting National Development in
Nigeria: The Challenge of Social/Financial
Inclusion, The Social Sciences, 11(22): 5373-
5386
[17] Chiazor, I. A., Egharevba, M. E., and
Ozoya, M. I. (2016) Widening Inequality and
Poverty in the Developing World: Micro
Finance as a Viable Solution, The Social
Sciences, 11(13): 3286-3293
[18] U.S Department of State (2021) Investment
Climate Statements: Nigeria.
https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-investment-
climate-statements/Nigeria.
[19] World Bank (2019) Nigeria Economic
update: Jumpstarting inclusive growth:
Unlocking the productive potentials of Nigeria’s
people and resource endowment, Washington
D.C.: The World Bank
[20] African Development Report (2014)
Regional Integration for Inclusive Growth.
Development Research Department, Abidjan,
Cote d’Ivoire.
[21] Schoch and Lakner (2020) the number of
people continues to rise in sub Saharan Africa,
World Bank.
https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/number-
poor-people-continues-rise-sub-saharan-africa-
despite-slow-decline-poverty-rate
[22] UNIDO (2020) Inclusive and industrial
sustainable development. UNIDO.
Http://www.unido.org
[23] Adeleye, B. N., Gershon, O., Ogundipe, A.,
Owolabi, O., Ogunrinola, I., & Adediran, O.
(2020) Comparative investigation of the growth-
poverty-inequality trilemma in Sub-Saharan
Africa and Latin American and Caribbean
Countries. Heliyon, 6 (2020), e05631. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon. 2020.e05631
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
721
Volume 18, 2022
[24] Upadhyaya, S. and Kepplinger, D. (2014).
How industrial development matters to the
wellbeing of the population - Some statistical
evidence. Working Paper. Vienna: United
Nations Industrial Development Organization.
[25] Dias, I. (2009) “Social entrepreneurship: un
novo paradigm”, in Caeiro; Joaquim Croca
(org), Economia e Politica Social: Contributos
para a aintervencao Social no Seculo XXI,
Lisbon: Universidade Lusiada Editora.
[26] Brilliant, L. (2013) Fifty years of Social
Change, Stanford Social Innovation, 10th
Anniversary Essays, 25-27 Retrieved January
25, 2014.
[27] Garrard, J. (2011) Health sciences literature
review mad easy: The matrix method, 3rd
Edition, United States of America: Jones and
Bartlett.
[28] Lurtz, K. and Kreutzer, K. (2017)
Entrepreneurial orientation and social venture
creation in nonprofit organizations: the pivotal
role of social risk taking and collaboration.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
46(1): 92-115
[29] Qian, W. and Iiris A. (2017) Social
Entrepreneurship, Discourses and
Contributions: A literature Analysis, EJBO
Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and
Organization Studies, Vol. 22 (2): 14-23
[30] Tsai, J. (2013) Strategies for implementing
education for Sustainable Development in
Business Schools, the Journal of Human
Resources and Adult learning, Vol. 9(2): 172-
183
[31] Prieto, L. C., Phipps, S. T. A. and Friedrich,
T. L. (2012) “Social Entrepreneur Development:
An Integration of Critical Pedagogy, the Theory
of Planned Behaviour and the CAS model”,
Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 18
(2): 1-15
[32] Dees, J. G. (2012) “A tale of two cultures:
charity, problem solving and the future of Social
Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 111(3): 321-334.
[33] Center for the Advancement of Social
Entrepreneurship, (2008). Developing the Field
of Social Entrepreneurship (Report). Durham,
USA: Duke University, Fuqua School of
Business.
[34] Fischer, R. M. and Comini, G. (2012)
Sustainable Development: from Responsibility
to Entrepreneurship. R. Adm., Sao Paulo, vol.
47 (3): 363-369
[35] Nandon, M. and London, M. (2013)
“Interdisciplinary Professional Education:
Training College Students for collaborative
Social change”, Education + Training, Vol. 55
(8/9): 815-835.
[36] Emerson, J. (2003) The blended value
preposition, California Management Review,
Vol 45 (4): 35-51
[37] Oteh, A. (2009) The role of
Entrepreneurship in Transforming the Nigerian
Economy, 7th Convocation Lecture presented at
Igbinedion University, Okada, Edo State.
December 4.
[38] Oliveira, E. M. (2004), “Empreendedorismo
social no Brasil: atual configuração,
perspectivas e desafios – notas introdutórias”.
Ver. FAE, Curitiba, v.7, n.2, p. 9-18, July-Dec.
2004.
[39] Melo Neto, Francisco Paulo de; Froes,
César (2002), “Empreendedorismo social: a
transição para a sociedade sustentável”. Rio de
Janeiro: Qualitymark.
[40] UNDP (2010) Human Development Report,
Oxford: Oxford University Press
[41] Egharevba, M. E. (2017) Demographic
dynamics, governance and attainment of
democratic development: the case of Nigeria,
African Population Studies, Vol 31 (2): 3814-
3833
[42] Anan, K. (1998) Kofi Anan on Africa’s
Development Problems. Population and
Development Review Vol. 24 (2): 411-418.
[43] UNDP (2008) Human Development Report,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[44] Amsden, A. H., DiCaprio, A. and Robinson,
J. A. (Eds.) (2012) The Role of Elites in
Economic Development. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
[45] Olajide, O. (2016) Developing the social
sector in Nigeria.
Http://www.financialnigeria.com
[46] Holmes, R. et al (2012) ‘Social Protection
in Nigeria: Mapping Programmes and their
Effectiveness’. ODI/UNICEF Nigeria.
[47] Maloney, W. F. (2004) “Informality
Revisited”. World Development, Vol. 32 (7):
1159-1178
[48] Ihrig, J. and Moe, K (2004) Lurking in the
Shadows: The Informal Sector and Government
Policy. Journal of Development Economics,
Vol. 73 (2): 541-557
[49] Dees, J. G. (1998) The Meaning of Social
Entrepreneurship: Comments and Suggestions
contributed from the Social Entrepreneurship
Founders Working Group, Durham NC: Centre
of Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship,
Fuqua School of Business, Duke University
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
722
Volume 18, 2022
{Online}
http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/center/case/files
[50] Schumpeter, J. A. (1934), The Theory of
Economic Development, 3d printing, 1963,
Oxford University Press, New York
[51] Roger, M. L and Osberg, S. (2007) Social
Entrepreneurship: The case for Definition,
Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring.
[52] World Bank (2015) Small and Medium
Enterprises (SMEs) Finance, Washington D.C:
World Bank.
[53] Enterprise Baseline Survey (2012)
Enterprise baseline survey report, Abuja,
Nigeria.
[54] Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2011)
Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Sustainable
Innovation: Categories and Interactions,
Business Strategy and the Environment 20:222-
237
[55] Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Weiskillern, J.
(2006) Social and Commercial
entrepreneurship: same, different or both?
Entrepreneurship: Theory and practice, 30:1-22
[56] Chinnoye, L. M. and Olokundun, M. A.
(2014) Social Entrepreneurship: An Effective
Tool for Meeting Social Challenges and
Sustainable Development, Entrepreneurship
and Innovation Management Journal, Vol. 2
(3): 158-169
[57] Garima, S. and Saxena, S. (2013) Social
entrepreneurship in sustainable development:
The role of Social entrepreneurs in modelling
today’s practice of sustainable development.
[58] OECD (2011) Fostering Innovation to
address Social Challenges, Workshop
Proceeding
Http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/47861327
[59] Borzaga, C. et al (2013) Social Economy
and Social Entrepreneurship, Social Europe
Guide, Vol. 4.
[60] Oyero, O., & Salawu, A. (2018). Building
media capacity for children sustainability in
Africa: Educational and partnership imperatives.
SAGE Open, 8(1):1-10
doi:10.1177/2158244018763930
[61] Zahra, S. A., Rawhouser, H. N., Bhawe, N.,
Neubaum, D. O and Hayton, J. C. (2008)
Globalization of Social Entrepreneurship
Opportunities, Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, vol. 2: 117-131
[62] Shahid, M. (2016) Social Entrepreneurship:
Challenges faced by Social Entrepreneurs.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary
Research Review, Vol. 1 (5): 50-53.
[63] The Guardian Newspaper, August 9th, 2021.
[64] Dees, J. G. (2008a) Philanthropy and
Enterprise: Harnessing the Power of Business
and Social Entrepreneurship for Development.
Innovations, 3(3): 119-132.
[65] Oghojafor, B. E. A., Aduloju S. A., &
Olowokudejo, F. F. (2011). Social
Entrepreneurship as an Instrument for Curbing
Youth Gangsterism: A Study of the Nigerian
Urban Communities. Journal of Economics and
International Finance, 3 (11): 616-623.
[66] Handelman, H. (2006) the Challenge of
Third World Development. 4th Edition, New
Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
[67] Sijabat, R. (2015) The role of social
entrepreneurship in enabling opportunities for
the poor: A synthesis of the literature and
empirical works, International Journal of
Business and Social Science, Vol 6 (11): 35-41
[68] Rodney, S. W. (2007) Sociology (10th
edition), Australia, Thomas Higher Education.
[69] Hirsheifer J. (2001) The dark side of the
force: economic foundation of the conflict
theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
[70] Scharmer, C. O. & Kaufer, K. (2013).
Leading from the emerging future: From ego-
system to eco-system economies. San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler.
[71] Moore, B. (2012, July 20). Mindfulness and
the bottom line: Five
benefits of mindful leadership. Retrieved
fromhttps://www.saybrook.edu/rethinkingcompl
exity/posts/07-20-12/mindfulness-
and-bottom-line-five-benefits-mindful-
leadership.
[72] Higley, J and Burton, M. (2006) Elite
Foundation of Liberal Democracy. Boulder:
Rowman and Littlefield.
[73] Dike, V. E. (2015) “Why Nations Fail to
develop: The Case of Nigeria, Sage, Open
Journal, 1-12.
[74] Dweck, C. S. (2007, December 26).
Mindset: The new psychology of success. New
York, NY: Ballantine Books—An Imprint of the
Random House
[75] Rodrik, D. (1997) “The ‘Paradoxes’ of the
Successful State”, European Economic Review,
41: 411-442
[76] Obadan, M. I. (2004) Poverty Reduction in
Nigeria: The Way Forward. Central Bank of
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
723
Volume 18, 2022
Nigeria (CBN) Economic Financial Review, 39:
159-188.
[77] Aina, O. I. (2012) Two Halves make a
Whole: Gender at the Crossroads of the
Nigerian Development Agenda, Inaugural
Lecture delivered at Obafemi Awolowo
University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, 25th September.
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
-Matthew Egharevba, Stephen Ukenna drafted and
wrote the manuscript
-Olawale Olonade edited and organised the
manuscript
-Ifeanyi Onyeonoru proofread the manuscript
-Ugbenu Oke and Kasa Adamu Gayus sourced for
the literature and analysed the manuscript.
-John Smith, Donald Smith carried out the
simulation and the optimization.
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
The authors appreciate the management of Covenant
University through the Centre for Research Innovation
and Discovery for providing the enabling environment
and for payment of article processing charges of this
manuscript.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
Fig. 1: Egharevba-Ukenna Social Entrepreneurship-Government Nexus Model
Source: Authors compilation 2022
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.67
Matthew Etinosa Egharevba,
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna,
Olawale Yinusa Olonade,
Ifeanyi Prinuel Onyeonoru,
Ugbenu Oke, Kasa Adamu Gayus
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
724
Volume 18, 2022
