Call for Papers: A Special Issue on “Inclusive Entrepreneurship in the Asia-Pacific Region: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions”

Guest Editors

Yiyi Su, Tongji University, China. Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Shaker A. Zahra, University of Minnesota, USA. Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Vikas Kumar, University of Sydney, Australia. Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Sihong Wu, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The global entrepreneurial landscape is being reshaped by geopolitical tensions, realigning supply chains, technological disruption, digital progress, and long-term climate and demographic trends (Wu et al., 2024; Zahra, 2020). As a leading engine of global economic growth, the Asia-Pacific is a critical arena in which these transformations unfold. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide both a normative compass and an actionable framework for addressing these changes. Several key SDGs—no poverty (SDG 1), gender equality (SDG 5), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), industry, innovation, and infrastructure (SDG 9), reduced inequalities (SDG 10), and sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11)—are particularly relevant to entrepreneurship in the region. However, traditional scale-up models of entrepreneurship are not well equipped to meet these challenges. As Aldrich and Ruef (2018) observe, much of the scholarship continues to center on a narrow, elite-driven model that prioritizes high-growth, well-capitalized firms and frames entrepreneurial action as a linear path toward IPOs and venture capital. Yet, this focus stands in sharp contrast to realities of the Asia-Pacific, where entrepreneurship offers many ordinary individuals a path to improve their livelihoods and achieve social integration (Bruton, Ahlstrom, & Si, 2015; Su et al., 2023).

Inclusive entrepreneurship extends beyond growth orientation to emphasize access, equity, and empowerment. Unlike conventional entrepreneurship, which prioritizes scale and profitability, inclusive entrepreneurship centers on participation and opportunity creation for marginalized groups, measuring success through social as well as economic outcomes. Despite this growing recognition, much of the existing scholarship remains anchored in traditional entrepreneurship models that overlook inclusivity. In response to this gap, scholars have advocated for inclusive entrepreneurship and sustainable development, urging recognition of diverse modes of entrepreneurial participation rather than assessing ventures solely through traditional performance metrics (Bakker & McMullen, 2023). This inclusive lens foregrounds the plurality of entrepreneurial logics and, in doing so, unlocks the potential of nontraditional or marginalized entrepreneurs, such as women, migrants, refugees, and “underdog” entrepreneurs, rather than stigmatizing them (Bakker & McMullen, 2023; Su et al., 2022). The literature shows that, despite social stigma and stereotypes, these marginalized entrepreneurs often cultivate work discipline, resilience, risk tolerance, and creativity to meet the challenges (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2017; Su et al., 2023). Within supportive institutional environments, they are better able to overcome social stigma and stereotypes and exhibit distinctive advantages in entrepreneurship (Ault, 2016; Stephan, Uhlaner, & Stride, 2015). Complementing this perspective, the International Labour Organization outlines a six‑domain approach to developing inclusive entrepreneurship ecosystems: policy, finance, culture, support, human capital, and markets.

Yet, much of the research on inclusive entrepreneurship remains rooted in Western contexts (Dutta & Forbes, 2025), which may misalign with the socio-cultural and institutional realities of the Asia-Pacific (Bakker & McMullen, 2023). Carney (2008) points out that these differences highlight the underdevelopment of entrepreneurial ecosystems in the Asia-Pacific, constrained by insufficient regulatory and institutional frameworks, local socio-cultural norms, and labor practices. For example, in India, patriarchal family structures often limit women’s access to entrepreneurial education and opportunities (Agrawal et al., 2023). China’s pervasive “996” work culture undermines the autonomy and flexibility essential for young entrepreneurs. In small open economies like Bangladesh and Vietnam, fragmented institutions and entrenched social barriers further hinder the development of inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystems (Mair et al., 2012; Zahra & Hashai, 2022). These highlight the critical importance of reassessing the social role of entrepreneurship (Zahra & Wright, 2016), particularly in promoting inclusive and sustainable initiatives in the region.

At the same time, the region’s diversity offers fertile ground for the emergence and growth of inclusive entrepreneurial practices. These contextual factors function not only as constraints but also as catalysts for novel solutions (Foo et al., 2020; Girma Aragaw et al., 2025). Singapore, for instance, has witnessed the growth of migrant entrepreneurship alongside expanding cross-border business activities, leveraging its strategic location and regional connectivity. In Japan, demographic pressures such as population aging have fostered a distinctive ecosystem for elder entrepreneurs, converting societal challenges into economic opportunities (Liang, Wang, & Lazear, 2018). Similarly, in Australia, the success of family business entrepreneurs reflects the growing recognition of the social context in entrepreneurship, with increasing emphasis on supporting local employment and the integration of immigrant entrepreneurs into the broader economy (Chavan et al., 2023). As the largest emerging economy in the Asia-Pacific region, China’s diverse ethnic composition highlights the ways in which ethnic minority entrepreneurs engage in entrepreneurial activities, illustrating significant intra-regional differences in inclusive entrepreneurship (Howell, 2019). Collectively, these diverse, emergent, and often informal practices demonstrate how inclusive entrepreneurship unfolds across diverse cultural, institutional, and social landscapes (Ault, 2016).

Despite these insights, empirical and theoretical research specifically examining inclusive ventures in the Asia-Pacific remains limited. This Special Issue therefore aims to provide a platform for advancing theories, methodologies, and practices that enhance understanding of inclusive entrepreneurship in the region. We welcome submissions addressing, but not limited to, the following themes:

Theme 1: Conceptualizing and Theorizing Inclusive Entrepreneurship

1. How is inclusive entrepreneurship defined and practiced across the Asia-Pacific’s diverse cultural, economic, and institutional contexts? How do traditions, national sentiments, spiritual beliefs, and community norms shape entrepreneurial behavior and priorities?
2. What contextual factors influence the transferability of Western entrepreneurial models to Asia-Pacific settings?
3. How do intra-regional differences, both between countries and within major economies of the Asia-Pacific region, influence the emergence, strategies, and performance of inclusive ventures, and what insights do these differences offer for advancing theory? We particularly invite studies that clarify the theoretical boundaries between inclusive and non-inclusive entrepreneurship.

Theme 2: Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Inclusive Entrepreneurship

4. How do inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystems emerge and evolve across different Asia-Pacific contexts, and how can regional entrepreneurship hubs, such as those major established hubs in Australia, Singapore, India, and China, generate spillover effects to support neighboring countries?
5. How does infrastructure development, such as the adoption of digital technologies, facilitate or constrain inclusive entrepreneurship across regional ecosystems?
6. How do entrepreneurial ecosystem elements (e.g., policy, finance, culture, support systems, human capital, and markets) and characteristics (e.g., connectivity, diversity, heterogeneity, and collaboration) shape the growth and performance of inclusive ventures?

Theme 3: Anchored in Entrepreneurial Actors and Organizations

7. How do socio-structural characteristics of the marginalized entrepreneurs, such as gender, ethnicity, migrant status, and age, influence their entrepreneurial motivation, opportunity recognition, and resource mobilization in the Asia-Pacific?
8. How do non-traditional or marginalized entrepreneurs define “success,” and in what ways do their criteria differ from conventional financial performance metrics?
9. Can solutions developed by inclusive entrepreneurs in the Asia-Pacific be transferred “in reverse” to inform innovative approaches or models for addressing similar challenges in Western contexts?
10. How do marginalized or peripheral firms, such as family-owned, migrant-led, or minority-controlled enterprises, pursue corporate entrepreneurship and innovation to overcome institutional disadvantages?

Theme 4: Inclusive Entrepreneurship, Multi-Dimensional Impacts, and Systemic Change

11. Which challenges under the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., poverty, inequality, and community development) can inclusive entrepreneurship help address?
12. How does inclusive entrepreneurship influence systemic change, including impacts on local labor markets, global and regional innovation ecosystems, and governance practices?
13. Through what mechanisms or pathways does inclusive entrepreneurship generate economic, technological, and societal impacts, and how does it drive the co-evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems and institutional frameworks in the Asia-Pacific and beyond?
14. How do national innovation policies, digital inclusion programs, or state-led industrial strategies foster or constrain inclusive entrepreneurship and shape regional competitiveness in the Asia-Pacific? 

The timeline.

References

Agrawal, A., Gandhi, P., & Khare, P. (2023). Women empowerment through entrepreneurship: Case study of a social entrepreneurial intervention in rural India. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31(4), 1122-1142.

Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2018). Unicorns, gazelles, and other distractions on the way to understanding real entrepreneurship in the United States. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 458-472.

Ault, J. K. (2016). An institutional perspective on the social outcome of entrepreneurship: Commercial microfinance and inclusive markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(8), 951-967.

Bakker, R. M., & McMullen, J. S. (2023). Inclusive entrepreneurship: A call for a shared theoretical conversation about unconventional entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 38(1), 106268.

Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Si, S. (2015). Entrepreneurship, poverty, and Asia: Moving beyond subsistence entrepreneurship. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(1), 1-22.

Carney, M. (2008). The many futures of Asian business groups. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(4), 595-613.

Chavan, M., Chirico, F., Taksa, L., & Alam, M. A. (2023). How do immigrant family businesses achieve global expansion? An embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Discoveries, 9(2), 210-237.

Dutta, S., & Forbes, D. P. (2025). Fostering entrepreneurship in nonmetro areas: Ecosystem architects as conduits of knowledge spillovers. Academy of Management Journal, 68(3), 735-759.

Foo, M. D., Vissa, B., & Wu, B. (2020). Entrepreneurship in emerging economies. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(3), 289-301.

Girma Aragaw, Z., Haag, K., & Baù, M. (2025). Contextualizing corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic review and future research agenda. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 37(1-2), 1-37.

Howell, A. (2019). Ethnic entrepreneurship, initial financing, and business performance in China. Small Business Economics, 52(3), 697-712.

International Labour Organization. (2023). Women and men in the informal economy: A statistical update. https://www.ilo.org/publications/women-and-men-informal-economy-statistical-update.

Liang, J., Wang, H., & Lazear, E. P. (2018). Demographics and entrepreneurship. Journal of Political Economy, 126(S1), S140-S196.

Mair, J., Marti, I., & Ventresca, M. J. (2012). Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 819-850.

Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2017). Underdog entrepreneurs: A model of challenge-based entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice, 41(1), 7-17.

Stephan, U., Uhlaner, L. M., & Stride, C. (2015). Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(3), 308-331.

Su, Y., Song, J., Lu, Y., Fan, D., & Yang, M. (2023). Economic poverty, common prosperity, and underdog entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 165, 114061.

Su, Y., Zahra, S. A., & Fan, D. (2022). Stratification, entrepreneurial choice and income growth: The moderating role of subnational marketization in an emerging economy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(6), 1597-1625.

Wu, S., Chirico, F., Fan, D., Ding, J., & Su, Y. (2024). Foreign market exit in family firms: Do historical military and cultural frictions matter? Journal of World Business, 59(1), 101504.

Zahra, S. A. (2020). International entrepreneurship (IE) in the age of political turbulence. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(2), 172-175.

Zahra, S. A., & Hashai, N. (2022). The effect of MNEs’ technology startup acquisitions on small open economies’ entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of International Business Policy, 5(3), 277-295.

Zahra, S. A., & Wright, M. (2016). Understanding the social role of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 53(4), 610-629.