leadership and management materials with questions

Bonnett C, Furnham A 1991 Who wants to be an entrepreneur?

A study of adolescents interested in a Young Enterprise

scheme. Journal of Economic Psychology 12: 465–78

Bruederl J, Preisendoerfer P, Ziegler R 1992 Survival chances of

newly founded business organizations. American Sociological

Re�iew 57: 227–42

Covin J G, Slevin D P 1986 The development and testing of an

organizational-level entrepreneurship scale. In: Ronstadt R,

Hornaday J A, Peterson R, Vesper K H (eds.) Frontiers of

Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College, Wellesley, MA,

pp. 628–39

Frese M (ed.) 2000 Success and Failure of Microbusiness Owners

in Africa: A Psychological Approach. Greenwood, Westport,

CT

Hisrich R D 1990 Entrepreneurship�Intrapreneurship. Amer- ican Psychologist 45(2): 209–22

Lumpkin G T, Dess G D 1996 Clarifying the entrepreneurial

orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy

of Management Re�iew 21(1): 135–72

McClelland D C, Winter D G 1971 Moti�ating Economic

Achie�ement. Free Press, New York

Miner J B, Smith N R, Bracker J S 1994 Role of entrepreneurial

task motivation in the growth of technologically innovative

firms. Interpretations from follow-up data. Journal of Applied

Psychology 79(4): 627–30

Olson P D, Bokor D W 1995 Strategy process–content inter-

action: Effects on growth performance in small, start up firms.

Journal of Small Business Management 27(1): 34–44

Rauch A, Frese M 2000 Psychological approaches to entrepre-

neurial success: A general model and an overview of findings.

In: Cooper C L, Robertson I T (eds.) International Re�iew of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2000. Wiley, Chi-

chester, UK, pp. 101–41

Robinson P B, Stimpson D V, Huefner J C, Hunt H K 1991 An

attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 2: 13–31

Rotter J B 1966 Generalized expectancies for internal versus

external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs

609(80): 1

Schwenk C R, Shrader C B 1993 Effects of formal strategic

planning on financial performance in small firms: A meta-

analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 17: 48–53

Sharfman M P, Dean J W 1991 Conceptualizing and measuring

the organizational environment: A multidimensional ap-

proach. Journal of Management 17(4): 681–700

Sonnentag S 1995 Excellent software professionals: Experience,

work activities, and perceptions by peers. Beha�iour &

Information Technology 14: 289–99

Swaminathan A 1996 Environmental conditions at founding

and organizational mortality: A trial-by-fire model. Academy

of Management Journal 39(5): 1350–77

Utsch A, Rauch A, Rothfuss R, Frese M 1999 Who becomes a

small scale entrepreneur in a post-socialist environment: On

the differences between entrepreneurs and managers in East

Germany. Journal of Small Business Management 37(3): 31–41

Van Gelderen M, Frese M 1998 Strategy process as a charac-

teristic of small scale business owners: Relationships with

success in a longitudinal study. In: Reynolds P D, Bygrave

W D, Carter N M, Manigart S, Mason C M, Meyer G D,

Shaver K G (eds.) Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.

Babson College, Babson Park, MS, pp. 234–48

M. Frese and A. Rauch

Environment and Anthropology

Anthropologists have been concerned with interaction between human populations and their environments since the middle of the nineteenth century. Early treatments were largely in terms of environmental determinism, replaced increasingly from around 1900 by ‘possibilist’ approaches which specified only a constraining role on society for environmental factors. A major paradigm throughout the twentieth century has been that of ecological anthropology, informed by conceptions of ecology which have been to varying degrees Darwinian, emphasizing the inter-relationship of social, cultural, biotic, and physical variables within a system, and centrally concerned with the concept of adaptation. This essentially positivist program has been augmented, and in part superseded, since the 1980s by one which uses interpretative, cognitive, and sociological approaches to understand peoples’ per- ceptions of nature, environmental problems, and collective responses to them. These methodologies are not easily brought within the framework of ecological anthropology, and in recent years the term en�iron- mental anthropology has appeared as a more inclusive description. Approaches to human ecology which are concerned only with the biological characteristics of populations are not dealt with in this article.

1. From Sociological Possibilism to Cultural Ecology

During the first four decades of the twentieth century, anthropological theory was dominated by the ideas of Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) and Franz Boas (1858– 1942), for whom environmental factors were for the most part secondary, and who accorded them a permissive rather than a determinant role. Never- theless, the period saw the appearance of a number of classic studies, including Boas’s own study and that of Mauss and Beuchat on Eskimo patterns of settlement.

The first explicit use of the concept of ecology in anthropology is found in the work of Julian Steward (1902–72) during the 1930s. For Steward, the concept of cultural adaptation is paramount, and the key adaptive strategies of a particular culture are located in a core of social institutions and technical arrange- ments directly focused on food-getting. The recog- nition of distinctive subsistence strategies provided the basis for the delineation of cultural types, which Steward maintained evolved multilineally, rather than in the unilinear fashion advocated by many nineteenth-century thinkers. In a modified form, Steward’s ideas have continued to be influential, through the work of scholars such as Robert Netting. However, his theory of cultural ecology (see Ecology, Cultural) depends on a definition of adaptation, and a division between organic and superorganic levels of

4556

Entrepreneurship, Psychology of

explanation, and between a core of key adaptive traits and a neutral periphery, which recent writers have rejected.

2. The Influence of Bioenergetics and Systems Ecology

Advances within biology linked to the notion of ecosystem, the empirical measurement of energy flow, and the employment of the language of cybernetics and systems theory, led during the 1960s to a new formulation of ecological problems in anthropology. The special character assigned by Steward to the superorganic was passed over in favor of a view of human behavior in many respects functionally equiv- alent to that of other animals. Descriptions of eco- logical interactions began to involve computations of carrying capacity (see Human–En�ironment Relation- ship: Carrying Capacity), and estimates of energy transfer and efficiency (Ellen 1982). Adaptation became a matter of webs of mutual causality. In particular, there developed an interest in the way in which cultural institutions might serve to regulate certain systems of which human populations are part. All of these trends are demonstrated in the seminal work of Rappaport (1968), undertaken among the New Guinea Maring.

The technical and conceptual shortcomings of such approaches have been criticized in retrospect: inad- equate samples and indices of what constituted success and adaptation and a theoretical naivete wedded to a prevailing sociological cybernetics which underesti- mated the difficulties of defining system boundaries (and thus of demonstrating feedback loops), and which neglected the role of historical contingency. This contributed to a skepticism concerning the more extreme proposition that certain kinds of small-scale society have built-in mechanisms for maintaining environmental balance through homeostasis. Al- though, other things being equal, it does seem that small populations with limited equipment and re- sources have benign effects on the environment (temptingly but erroneously interpreted as ‘harmony’), for some in the environmental movement the inspira- tion offered by such cultures has led to a degree of idealization of the extent to which the values of particular nonindustrial and animistic peoples equate with environmental practices.

This debate has been particularly apparent with respect to the native peoples of North America. However, debunking the existence of ‘ecological Edens’ is not to downplay either the extent of the inter- connections between apparently esoteric aspects of culture and the pragmatic well-being of subsistence systems, or the manifestly sophisticated knowledge- ability of many nonindustrial peoples. Two studies which capture the former in a powerful way are Lansing’s (1991) analysis of the linkage between the

Balinese temple hierarchy and irrigation decision- making, and Richards’ (1985) demonstration of the long-term rational behavior of Mende rice farmers in Sierra Leone. Both vindicate traditional local knowl- edge as against that of successive external bureau- cracies, and thereby provide an antidote to top-down development programs. This general trend is evident in the growing literature on indigenous environmental knowledge (e.g., Warren et al. 1995) (see Indigenous Knowledge and Technology).

Some human systems do maintain a degree of integrity and are relatively well defined, while it is both practically and intuitively a relatively simple matter to isolate ‘systems’ which make sense of the data and which may be used in the investigation of a wide range of problems. Recognizing the openness of human systems is not inconsistent with employing some notion of closure to determine what universe of variables to examine. The arbitrary and analytic character of most boundaries, together with the reality of exogenous intrusions of varying types, magnitudes, and origins, does not inevitably mean accepting a notion of receding causation or infinite regress where- by the critical determinants always seem to lie outside the local system being examined—a view which comes dangerously close to providing no explanation at all. Vayda (1983) has sought to circumvent the prob- lem by advocating a ‘progressive contextualization’ focusing on particular locally-significant ‘people– environment interactions’ and placing them in increas- ingly wider and denser contexts without making prior assumptions as to what the context might be. How- ever, all explanations presume some kind of context and boundary (Moran 1990).

3. Neo-Darwinist Approaches

One response to the perceived deficiencies of systems approaches has been inspired by economic formalism and neo-Darwinism, both characterized by methodo- logical individualism. This trend is evident in studies emphasizing how people actually cope with environ- mental hazards (Vayda and McCay 1975) (see En�ironmental Risk and Hazards), and in optimal foraging theory (Winterhalder and Smith 1981) and evolutionary ecology (Borgerhoff 1991). In this latter, adaptation and change are seen as providing an indefinite number of alternative strategies for en- hancing reproductive fitness and survival depending on particular environmental circumstances. Such approaches have been criticized for their simple- mindedness at the level of ethnographic analysis, for using ‘social’ to mean no more than observable interactions between conspecifics, and for their failure to understand the cultural significance of subsistence, or to consider that the organization of consciousness might be relevant. However, more recently it has been acknowledged that the role of genes is more complex:

4557

En�ironment and Anthropology

enabling the generation and sustenance of diverse kinds of social relationship and permitting (but not determining) the effective factors which contribute to their formation. At the same time, the properties of human social interaction themselves are seen to condition the adaptive value of strategies adopted; individuals thus adapting to the constraints of the social environment in which they develop, and the outcome of consumption influencing the value of alternative patterns of production.

4. The Ecological and the Social as Mutually Constituti�e but Separate Systems

A second response to the difficulties of ‘ecological functionalism’ has been to explicitly disaggregate post- Stewardian general ecology, to speak instead of humans being simultaneously involved in noncon- flateable ecological and social relations, and to play down possible causal connections between the two. In this model—most clearly stated in the work of Ingold (1986b)—ecological relations are those represented by material flows between individual organisms, and abstract and culture-bearing social relations are those established between persons through consciousness. Here the social and the ecological are co-extensive; both intra- and interspecific interactions simultane- ously have social and ecological aspects. For example, predation is an ecological relationship of extraction with consequences for the flow of energy and materials; hunting—which may refer to exactly the same activities—on the other hand is constituted through social relations of appropriation and ex- change. Natural selection operates at the level of ecological rather than social relations, within an effective environment of conscious internal repre- sentations and plans for action. In this model, con- sciousness lies beyond (rather than within) the field of ecological relations, social institutions and relation- ships never being incorporated within adaptationist or other Darwinist explanations.

One difficulty with this approach is a metaphysic which prevents the effective engagement of the social and ecological and which sidesteps the issue of adaptation. How one might influence the other, and how we might measure and compare different entities or sets of relations remains the major problematic of ecological anthropology, and one rarely, and then inadequately, addressed. There is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest that the social and ecological have measurable effects one upon the other. By emphasizing the continuity of the social landscape, such an ap- proach fails to acknowledge the need in any one analysis to draw boundaries around datasets and thus create ‘systems’ of interacting parts which provide insights into existential reality. Such a view places renewed emphasis on the essentially social determin- ation of modes of subsistence, acting, at most, as a

filter for the expression of an underlying ecological dynamic.

5. Historical Ecology

A third recent approach, both in biology and anthro- pology, has been to reject synchronic ecology in favor of analyses which are historical in orientation, empha- sizing contingency and process at the expense of the systemic and functional. At the highest level of abstraction, there has been expanded emphasis on the evolution of social and ecological systems (Ingold 1980), and on the co-evolution of genes, species, and culture (Durham 1991), focusing on positive feedback. Work in historical ecology has been concerned with, for example, historical demography (Netting 1981), the environmental causes and consequences of sys- temic collapses such as that of the classic Maya (e.g. Atran 1993), and the way particular human groups first make and then manage their environment (Crumley 1994). Some of the most dramatic studies have been with respect to tropical forests (Sponsel et al. 1996), long thought of as a byword for the most pristine of global ecosystems, and consequently the most vulnerable to human impact. Yet other studies have focused on how particular well-known function- alist theories of environment–social organization link- age might better be explained through particular histories (e.g. Kelly 1985). Such developments in anthropology have proceeded very much in parallel with the new emerging environmental history.

6. Percei�ing and Conceptualizing the En�ironment

Another major area of growth since the late 1970s has concerned how people conceptualize the natural world, what they know of its objective properties, how this relates to the decisions they make about en- vironmental information, and which of this might be used in pragmatic development contexts (see Nature, Concepts of: En�ironmental and Ecological, En�iron- mental Cognition, Perception, and Attitudes). Research in this area has grown exponentially over the last decade, and the shape of the problematic altered so much that it is impossible to do justice to the subject here. There has been a spectacular growth in ethno- botany in particular (see Ethnobiology), in studies of indigenous knowledge with a view to countering top- down development models (e.g., Richards 1985) and making development policy more effective, and studies in the cognitive organization and cultural represen- tation of natural kinds, and the concept of nature more generally (Descola and Palsson 1996). Research on the environmental knowledge of local peoples has shown how in looking at, say, the relations between humans and domesticates, cultural selection is im- portant, strengthening the case for reconceptualizing

4558

En�ironment and Anthropology

human evolution as the systemic co-evolution of both interdependent species, and of objects and their cultural images.

The emphasis on cognition, on how different cul- tures represent and ‘construct’ their worlds, the questioning of the objective notion of system, and developments in modern biology, have led to the emergence of a critical questioning of what is meant by the terms ‘nature’ and ‘environment’ (e.g., Ellen and Fukui 1996). Increasing knowledge of the extent to which even hunter-gatherer populations can modify their surroundings and the growing literature in historical ecology has led to further erosion of the nature–culture divide. A persuasive anthropological critique of the organism–environment distinction is to be found in Ingold’s borrowings (e.g. 1986a) from the ecological psychology of Gibson (1979): the concept of environmental niche as a set of affordances, and the idea that organisms fit the world to themselves rather than being ‘constructed’ by them.

7. The En�ironment as a Political Agenda

The development of anthropological and social science theories of human ecology over the last 30 years has taken place against the backdrop of an emerging political agenda, one which has intruded into eco- logical theorizing, as in discussions on ‘indigenous environmental knowledge’ (Milton 1996) (see Ecology, Political). Under the guidance of figures such as Garrett Hardin and Kenneth Boulding, economic thinking has been placed in a more biospheric context, and the ‘growth model’ rejected both in relation to advanced industrial and developing societies. Practical concern for environmental degradation, the profligate use of finite resources, the calculated advantages of ‘alternative’ technologies, and anxieties about bio- diversity conservation have spawned theories of sustainable development (Oldfield and Alcorn 1991, Redclift 1987). It has led to the interrogation of definitions of ‘sustainability,’ asking at what level systems are sustainable (local, regional, say); whether economic, ecological, cultural, and social sustain- ability are compatible; whether long-term ecological sustainability is to be preferred to shorter term economic sustainability; whether we want to sustain some aspects of a system at the expense of others (say, biodiversity over sustainable food production); whether we wish to sustain systems which derive their dynamic from human interventions rather than change an environment through conservation, and so on (see Sustainable De�elopment). Some writing in this vein is distinctively Utopian; some is concerned with practical matters of implementing specific controls; some seeks to modify the existing world-system though retaining capitalist relations of production; other writing seeks a rapprochement between Marxism and environmentalism; and some seeks to interrogate the very notion of ‘environmentalism’ (e.g. Milton 1996).

A specific but well-articulated debate in this subfield concerns what Hardin had called ‘the tragedy of the commons,’ the ecological consequences of economic development on the management of collectively owned resources (McCay and Acheson 1987). Specific sub- stantive issues which have contributed to our under- standing here include that relating to pastoralism and overgrazing (Homewood and Rodgers 1987) and the extent to which foraging is a sufficient lifestyle to survive in tropical rainforests (Headland 1987).

8. Merging Paradigms

Understanding the way in which human ecological relations interact with social consciousness is increas- ingly seen to require the simultaneous application of two apparently antithetical approaches: one which emphasizes the systemic character of interactions looked at spatially and in the short-term, and one which emphasizes linear change in the long-term. The first is about ecological and social context, the second concerns biological and cultural history (including, but not exclusively, the working out of the key mechanisms of natural selection and cultural adap- tation). Human action in the environment is, there- fore, inevitably the product of a subtle combining of genetic and cultural process. While these are his- torically the product of previous action, they go on to contribute to the context in which further action takes place, and neither culture nor environment, neither genes nor social relations, are independent variables.

It should be noted that approaches which confine the environment to relativistic internal conceptions, methodologically undermine the notion of environ- ment as an objective backdrop or set of relations, the basis of ecological analysis hitherto. It is necessary, therefore, to recognize that ecological and social relations have both an existence externally as part of the context, and internally as part of a system of ideas and meaning. There is, if you like, a kind of ‘triple duality’ (pace Giddens): a theoretical notion of context and process, an empirical recognition of genes and social consciousness, and a methodological distinction between objective environment and its various cultural conceptions. All of these interact recursively to re- produce and to change the systems of which they are part.

Moreover, material relationships between humans (those we describe as economic) are predicated by a notion of value, and value which is not reducible to matter is based on a cultural division of tasks, on exchange between persons rather than individual biological organisms, and which can affect material transactions, including the flows of energy, nutrients, objects, and information between individuals of the same species. Through the increasing dependence on value, culture, and consciousness in human pro- duction and consumption, the economic becomes differentiated from the ecological, and as—through

4559

En�ironment and Anthropology

exchange—economic relations become more separ- ated from other status relations in local social forma- tions, so the economy as a separate phenomenal form emerges.

The relationship between Homo sapiens and the environment cannot be reduced to essences or imperatives—not environmentalism, biologism, socio- logism, nor ecologism. Ecology, as human ecology, cannot ever be an autonomous discipline, except in the limited sense of an understanding of the dynamics of human populations in their ecological context. Ecol- ogy is rather a problematic—a discursive practice— which brings into focus the articulation and inte- gration of several fields of knowledge, skills, and disciplines.

See also: Human–Environment Relationships; Nature–Society in Geography

Bibliography

Atran S 1993 Itza Maya tropical agroforestry. Current Anthropology 34: 633–700

Borgerhoff M M 1991 Human behavioural ecology. In: Krebs J R, Davies N B (eds.) Beha�ioural Ecology: an E�olutionary Approach, 3rd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, UK

Crumley C L (ed.) 1994 Historical Ecology: Cultural Know- ledge and Changing Landscapes, 1st edn. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM

Descola P, Palsson G (eds.) 1996 Nature and Society: An- thropological Perspecti�es. Routledge, London

Durham W H 1991 Coe�olution: Genes, Culture, and Human Di�ersity. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

Ellen R 1982 En�ironment, Subsistence and System: The Ecology of Small-Scale Social Formations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Ellen R, Fukui K (eds.) 1996 Redefining Nature: Ecology, Culture and Domestication. Berg, Oxford, UK

Gibson J J 1979 The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA

Headland T N 1987 The wild yam question: How well could independent hunter-gatherers live in a tropical rainforest ecosystem? Human Ecology 15: 463–91

Homewood K M, Rodgers W A 1987 Pastoralism, conservation and the overgrazing controversy. In: Anderson D, Grove R (eds.) Conser�ation in Africa: People, Policies and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Ingold T 1986a The Appropriation of Nature: Essays on Human Ecology and Social Relations, 1st edn. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City

Ingold T 1986b E�olution and Social Life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Kelly R C 1985 The Nuer conquest: The Structure and De�elopment of an Expansionist System. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI

Lansing J S 1991 Priests and Programmers: Technologies of Power in the Engineered Landscape of Bali. Princeton Uni- versity Press, Princeton, NJ

McCay B J, Acheson J M (eds.) 1987 The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ

Milton K 1996 En�ironmentalism and Cultural Theory. Rout- ledge, London

Moran E F (ed.) 1990 The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: From Concept to Practice. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI

Netting R McC 1981 Balancing on an Alp: Ecological Change and Continuity in a Swiss Mountain Community. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Oldfield M L, Alcorn J B (eds.) 1991 Biodi�ersity: Culture, Conser�ation and Ecode�elopment. Westview Press, Boulder, CO

Rappaport R A 1968 Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

Redclift M 1987 Sustainable De�elopment: Exploring the Contra- dictions. Routledge, London

Richards P 1985 Indigenous Agricultural Re�olution: Ecology and Food Production in West Africa. Allen and Unwin, London

Sponsel L E, Headland T N, Bailey R C (eds.) 1996 Tropical Deforestation: The Human Dimension. Columbia University Press, New York

Vayda A P 1983 Progressive contextualism: Methods for re- search in human ecology. Human Ecology 11: 265–81

Vayda A P, McCay B J 1975 New directions in ecology and ecological anthropology. Annual Re�iew of Anthropology 4: 293–306

Warren D M, Slikkerveer J, Brokensha D (eds.) 1995 The Cultural Dimension of De�elopment: Indigenous Knowledge Systems. Intermediate Technology Publications, London

Winterhalder B, Smith E A (eds.) 1981 Hunter-Gatherer For- aging Strategies: Ethnographic and Archaeological Analyses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

R. Ellen

Environment and Common Property

Institutions

The twentieth century witnessed many efforts to increase the sustainability of natural resource systems through reforms of property-rights systems. Many of these reforms have not achieved their intended out- comes. Instead, some have generated counterproduc- tive results. Since many reforms of property-rights systems are based on a conventional theory of how property-rights systems affect the incentives of those using natural resource systems, the multiple failures need to be viewed as evidence for an insufficient theoretical understanding of the relationship between diverse forms of property and the incentives and behavior of resource users. The currently accepted theory is based on idealized models of private property and government property. Researchers frequently equate common property with the absence of any property rights.

1. Conceptual Confusion

The debate about the relative merits of government, private, and common property has been clouded by

4560

En�ironment and Anthropology

Copyright � 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences ISBN: 0-08-043076-7