A Systematic Literature Review on Entrepreneurship for Well-Being

ABSTRACT

The scholarship on entrepreneurship has progressed as a field of social science (see Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), attracting growing scholarly attention (see Shneor, Jenssen & Vissak, 2016).More recent literature suggests that entrepreneurship is a strategic tool for revising current de-structive practices, while entrepreneurs are important in leading the way, to a future devoid of unsustainable practices (Hall, Daneke & Lenox, 2010).
Following Baumol (1990Baumol ( , 2016)), we argue that entrepreneurship has various forms (i.e., productive, unproductive and destructive) and could result in both positive and negative consequences.Albeit oftentimes unintended, even the more productive forms of entrepreneurship could have nega-tive effects on individual or  (Engelbrecht, 2014).Therefore, a simplistic assumption of the liner relationships between entrepreneurship and well-being is unwise.Our review system-atically summarises research overlapping both fields, examining how entrepreneurship and well-being have been jointly studied.We believe this review is both necessary and timely.First, since entrepreneurship is argued to be a generalisable phenomenon (Murias, Novello & Martinez, 2012) and improving well-being seems to be a universally desired goal, an analysis encompassing both phenomena is possible and worthwhile.In consistence with the literature on well-being, we see well-being as a broad category entailing analyses from multiple perspectives.For example, well-being can be viewed either as objective or subjective well-being which could potentially have mul-tifaceted effects on one another (Hjalager & Flagestad, 2012).Hence, a strategy to improve one form of well-being may adversely affect other aspects or levels of well-being.From the entrepre-neurship perspective, this implies that the relationships between entrepreneurial actions and well-being may be more complex and challenging to conceive (Warnecke, 2013), especially in light of the diverse understanding of entrepreneurship among scholars (see Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).To this end, our review systematically collates existing research that jointly studies entre-preneurship and well-being.This review suggests agenda for future research and more in-depth developments.Practically, the hope to improve or actualise well-being entails addressing policies in relation to entrepreneurial strategies at different levels, which have significant implications for policy-makers, entrepreneurs and other stakeholders (e.g., Acs & Szerb, 2007).For example, the recent strategic shift from sole focus on economic development to global shared prosperity and inclusive growth (World Bank, 2015) indicates an increased focus on the overall well-being at both a national and international level.Since entrepreneurship is a widely recognised vehicle driving eco-nomic growths (e.g., Acs & Szerb, 2007;Audretsch, Keilbach & Lehmann, 2006; for a more nuanced understanding, see Wennekers, Van Wennekers, Thurik & Reynolds, 2005), our review also helps scholars to reflect on the progress of entrepreneurship research in relation to entrepreneurs' more pertinent roles in sustainable well-being.

Method
We follow Engelbrecht (2014) to focus this review in the wider field of well-being literature.We adopted a systematic literature review (SLR) which allows objective evaluation, aggregation and synthesis of a large body of research to provide a meaningful overview (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006) in a systematic, transparent and replicable manner (Denyer & Tranfield, 2006).Accordingly, SLR is argued to reduce selection-bias (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009) and information overload by excluding irrelevant literature (Booth, Papaioannou & Sutton, 2012), and has in recent times gained in-creased acceptance within the business and management domain (Smith, Busi, Ball & Van Der Meer, 2008).Online research databases (WOS & EBSCO) were used to locate relevant literature.Since the aim was to look at entrepreneurship through well-being lenses, we searched for literature by including entrepreneurship in the 'topic' field and well-being in the 'title' field.Key search terms that took account of different terminologies used in the literature were adopted.The search terms included 'well-being', 'well being', 'wellbeing' and 'quality of life' as substitute terms for well-being and 'en-trepreneur*' was used to capture entrepreneur, entrepreneurs, entrepreneuring, entrepreneuri-al and entrepreneurship for "entrepreneurship".Note that health was not included in our search because it has been conceptualised to capture specific interests in organisational research (see Danna & Griffin, 1999).We only included full peer-reviewed journal articles as other forms of liter-ature (e.g., book reviews and other papers) do not significantly contribute to available knowledge base (Armstrong, Cools & Sadler-Smith, 2012).After removing duplications (7 articles) and non-English literature (4 articles), we included all remaining 82 entries for further analyses.
In the following sections, we will first provide a statistical breakdown of the current state of well-being research which included the concept of entrepreneurship.Subsequently, we qualitatively examine how the relationships between well-being and entrepreneurship have been reflected in the literature.

Findings
In total, the articles we reviewed examined 15 national contexts with studies focusing on the USA being the most common (13 articles).In terms of geographic regions, Europe, North America, and Asia have received the most attention.Our results show that more than 70% of them published during the past decade.The recent surge in the articles indicates an increasing interest among business and management scholars in well-being related outcomes.Within business and manage-ment domains, there is vastly diverse journal outlet for the articles.While some journals (i.e., Work & Stress, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Vocational Behavior) published the most cited articles compared to other journals, the numbers of articles found in each of these journals remain low (4 and below).This finding is contrary to prior reviews of business and management research which often noted skewed distributions of articles across journals (e.g., Kiss, Danis & Cavusgil, 2012).The implication of the observed distribution is that there has not been a predominant outlet for research linking well-being and entrepreneurship.We found the most cit-ed paper being Doef and Maes'  Purohit, Godshalk and Beutell's (1996) work on family, work and entrepreneurial career success published in the Journal of Vocational Behavior followed with over 200 citations.Other papers more frequently cited included Sparks, Faragher and Cooper ( 2001), Kim and Feldman (2000) and Srivastava, Locke and Bartol (2001).It is worth noting that emerging economies have received little research attention with none from China, India, or South Africa.Our more in-depth analyses suggest that explicitly linking well-being and entrepreneurship is a growing yet nascent area of research.

Distribution of articles by regions, time, publication outlet and citation
In total, the articles we reviewed examined 15 national contexts with studies focusing on the USA being the most common (13 articles).In terms of geographic regions, Europe, North America and Asia have received the most attention.Our results show that more than 70% of them published during the past decade.The recent surge in the articles indicates an increasing interest among business and management scholars in well-being related outcomes.Within business and manage-ment domains, there is vastly diverse journal outlet for the articles.While some journals (i.e., Work & Stress, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Vocational Behavior) published the most cited articles compared to other journals, the numbers of articles found in each of these journals remain low (4 and below).This finding is contrary to prior reviews of business and management research which often noted skewed distributions of articles across journals (e.g., Kiss, Danis & Cavusgil, 2012).The implication of the observed distribution is that there has not been a predominant outlet for research linking well-being and entrepreneurship.We found the most cit-ed paper being Doef and Maes' (1999) review paper published in the Work & Stress journal, gen-erating over 600 citations.Parasuraman, Purohit, Godshalk and Beutell's (1996) work on family, work and entrepreneurial career success published in the Journal of Vocational Behavior followed with over 200 citations.Other papers more frequently cited included Sparks, Faragher and Cooper ( 2001), Kim and Feldman (2000) and Srivastava, Locke and Bartol (2001).It is worth noting that emerging economies have received little research attention with none from China, India, or South Africa.Our more in-depth analyses suggest that explicitly linking well-being and entrepreneurship is a growing yet nascent area of research.

Construct use
The majority of the articles involved empirical, mostly quantitative, data and studied individual well-being.
Because the methods of this review were not designed to assess well-being literature in general, we briefly and indicatively summarise how well-being was used and studied in part to pave our way to the later analyses relating to context issues and links with entrepreneurship.In consistence with earlier observations (e.g., Danna & Griffin, 1999), our collated literature is com-posed of diverse, oftentimes naive, or even contradictory, interpretations of well-being (Imamoğlu & Beydoğan, 2011;Anderson, 2010), with the majority not providing a definition.The papers ad-dressed different levels of well-being, such as individual (Becchetti & Castriota, 2010), community (Moscardo, Konovalov, Murphy & McGehee, 2013), global (Ger, 1997) and general wellbeing (Kin-nunen, Geurts & Mauno, 2004).

Intersections between well-being and entrepreneurship
The papers we examined show important but complex relationships between well-being and en-trepreneurship.
The contribution of entrepreneurship to well-being has been demonstrated pri-marily at the community level.For example, Jasek-Rysdahl (2001) suggests that local communities may examine the available entrepreneurial abilities from within, which could then become crucial to improve the well-being of the community.Similarly, a recent study showed the possibility of filling the entrepreneurial need of a given community by people who migrate to the place (Mos-cardo, et al., 2013), indicating the perceived positive influence of entrepreneurial activities on community well-being in general.This is reiterated and emphasized by Cruz-Doña and Martina (2000), who argue for the co-dependence of available entrepreneurial abilities and well-being strategies in a given context.The authors discovered that the relevance and potential of credit markets to improve well-being hinges largely on the degree and nature of entrepreneurial ability available within the focal context.In this regard, it is suggested that alternative strategies to im-proving well-being may be appropriate in contexts with different levels of entrepreneurial abilities (Cruz-Doña & Martina, 2000).Aside the link between entrepreneurship and well-being at the communal level, the review con-sists as well of studies that examined the link from a micro-level.Carter (2011) examined how en-trepreneurship contributes to well-being from the perspective of the household and business lifecycle.Carter (2011) suggests that entrepreneurs attracted by anticipated future needs may be willing to accept different entrepreneurial endeavours at different business growth stages or household contexts.Depending on the entrepreneurial choice, the resultant outcome could affect well-being in multiple directions.For example, Ger (1997) used a case in Sudan to show how en-trepreneurship could have negative effect on social and ecological well-being while increasing eco-nomic well-being for few individuals.In a similar vein, Custance, Hingley and Wilcox (2011) looked at the link between entrepreneurial activities and patient's well-being in the rural areas.They pointed out a scenario that can be referred to as the well-being paradox -a situation where which well-being in a given dimension may conflict with well-being in another dimension or well-being for a given individual/entity may conflict with the well-being of another individual/entity.In the au-thors' study, an entrepreneurial initiative that positively affected the health well-being of patients was not further supported and hence terminated due to its argued negative impact on the eco-nomic well-being of the programme's overseeing organisation.Their findings seem to confirm an earlier observation of the negative influence of power asymmetry in rural areas, where the posi-tive potential of entrepreneurship on well-being was stifled by powerful individuals and organisa-tions (Clark, Goss & Kosova, 2003).This empirical evidence is in line with McCann (2004) in high lighting that entrepreneurial policies overly focused on one group may threaten the well-being of other groups.
This leads to the need to engage multiple stakeholders to ensure holistic well-being in a given context.In this light, Ger (1997) showed how entrepreneurs and other stakeholders worked together to help preserve local cultures and biodiversity in the Amazon, collaboratively improving social, economic and ecological wellbeing.Another excellent example of collective efforts by entrepre-neurs and stakeholders to improve wellbeing at several levels we identified is in Pozzebon and Mailhot's (2012) study.Pozzebon and Mailhot (2012) positioned well-being as a societal problem needing collaboration by a multiplicity of stakeholders and explained their position by using the case of Nossa Sao Paulo in the South America.Since the programme included 'more than 650 or-ganizations, …neighbourhood and professional associations, cooperatives, nonprofit organiza-tions, religious or pastoral groups, foundations, unions, NGOs, universities, federations, and also private enterprises ' (pp. 309-310), it enhanced the information sharing strategic to several compo-nents of well-being.By using surveys in different locations and making the results available in real-time to concerned parties, the programme provided a comprehensive and informative background used to evaluate policies and address certain threats to general and individual well-being.
Most of the above issues seem to be reflected in a recent study, which touches on the well-beingentrepreneurship cycle by showing that well-being may motivate and direct entrepreneurial pro-cesses by stimulating innovations even under challenging conditions, which in turn enhance well-being (Hjalager & Flagestad, 2012).Hjalager and Flagestad (2012) suggest that different forms of well-being, such as health, ecological and economic well-being, may be addressed through various types of innovations.They cited a case that demonstrated the contradictions and conflicts that may arise in improving well-being through entrepreneurship, and hence argued for a collective compromise by different stakeholders to ensure the realization of well-being goals.All in all, the articles we reviewed examined multiple dimensions of well-being and entrepreneurship.The articles highlighted the imperative to involve and consider different stakeholders if en-trepreneurship is to effectively contribute to goals of well-being across contexts.We further dis-cuss these issues in the next section in suggesting a dynamic view of entrepreneurship for a better understanding of the relationship between these two phenomena.

Discussion: A Dynamic View of Entrepreneurship for Well-Being
Our review of the articles suggests that individuals engage in entrepreneurial activities, usually not for a single purpose and often resulting in several outcomes.People use their entrepreneurial abil-ities for economic, political and social purposes, such as to preserve forests, protect indigenous cultures, influence public decisionmaking and improve the overall image of cities and communities (e.g., Ger, 1997;Pozzebon & Mailhot, 2012).In this regard, entrepreneurship is essentially a dy-namic tool which could be used for different purposes at various levels.Similarly, entrepreneur-ship is relevant across various domains, including the institutional, health, ecological, social, work life, technological, economic and political (Morris & Lewis, 1991).From this vantage point, we ar-gue that it is necessary to view entrepreneurship as dynamic, whereby entrepreneurs are capable of utilising entrepreneurship across domains to influence various aspects of well-being.This argu-ment is consonant with the increasing attention paid to the social value of entrepreneurship (e.g., Mair and Marti, 2009;Santiago, 2013), responding to calls for making 'room for entrepreneurship as part of the society and not simply the economy' (e.g., Hjorth, 2013;p.35).
ASHREJ e-ISSN: 2636 -9109 r One way to view entrepreneurship as dynamic is by taking a process stance, whereby individuals' entrepreneurial journey encompasses the enactment of various entrepreneurial manifestations depending on time and context (cf.Alvarez, Young & Woolley, 2015).Since it is argued that individ-uals can alternate between entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial modes of behaviour (Morris & Lewis, 1991), it is reasonable to expect that entrepreneurs may leverage on their own entrepre-neurial abilities to alternate between, for example, different entrepreneurial roles (Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000), which in turn can result in different entrepreneurial manifestations or outcomes relating to well-being.Here, entrepreneurial efforts or roles may vary in response to context (Gioia et al., 2000), such as the entrepreneur's life needs changes (Spedale & Watson, 2014), work-life balance (Mathew & Panchanatham, 2011), household or business lifecycle (Carter, 2011), available access to resource (Aarstad et al., 2016), social economic conditions (Chuluunbaatar, Ottavia & Kung, 2011), or other contextual constraints (Alvarez et al., 2015).In turn, the alternation between entrepreneurial roles, for functional or symbolic purposes (Gioia et al., 2000), may have varied ef-fects on well-being.Moreover, although entrepreneurs may have a dominant entrepreneurial role (Levie & Lichtenstein, 2010), they can simultaneously engage in more entrepreneurial roles (Mair & Marti, 2009;Phillips, Tracey & Karra, 2013), especially in light of the fact that social and economic benefits are not mutually exclusive (Dacin et al., 2011).
The view of an entrepreneur being able to navigate through different entrepreneurial roles during his/her personal journey draws insights from the identity literature (e.g., Barvosa-Carter, 2001), which suggests that doing so may be imperative for good functioning (Phillips et al., 2013).Because 'entrepreneurial journeys are dynamic processes requiring continual adjustments by actors' (Garud & Giuliani, 2013;p.159), the adopted entrepreneurial role is suggested to vary in response to context, making the dynamic view of entrepreneurship situational and relational in nature (Mair & Marti, 2009).In consonance with our findings, this view of unique values or logics with corre-sponding meanings and practices pertaining to different entrepreneurial roles may provide a theo-retical lens, in better understanding the multiplicity, contradiction (Kodeih & Greenwood, 2014), mutual conditioning (Alvarez et al., 2015) and context-specificity of entrepreneurship (Barvosa- Carter, 2001) and thus its multifaceted contributions to well-being.Recent research evidence from the entrepreneurship literature seems consistent and supportive of a proposed dynamic view, implying that entrepreneurship's impact on varied aspects of well-being varies through a continu-ous process (e.g., Santiago, 2013;Alvarez et al., 2015).
Based on the above views, we further argue that it is potentially unwise to name an individual en-trepreneur by a fixed label (e.g., social entrepreneur, economic entrepreneur, etc.), which implies a rather static view of his/her entrepreneurial journey.The existing entrepreneurship literature characterised by a rise in different labels for entrepreneurs is perhaps particularly unbeneficial in understanding well-being through entrepreneurship.For example, Phillips, et al., (2013) argue that the current trend in the entrepreneurship literature restricts the possibility of positively contrib-uting to a wider range of well-being dimensions to a narrow or select group of entrepreneurs, con-sequently overshadowing the possibility of other groups of entrepreneurs.
As indicated by our findings, a more conceptually coherent approach to study well-being through the lens of entre-preneurship requires a multifaceted view of well-being and dynamic view of entrepreneurship, albeit research in this area remains nascent and restricted to social entrepreneurs(hip).

Implications And Future Research
In the face of long existed belief of entrepreneurship contributing to at least certain aspects of well-being, there is still a dearth of research in this area.Our results show that a potential reason for this is the lack of conceptual frameworks systematically linking different types of entrepre-neurship with well-being.A dynamic view of entrepreneurship that pays attention to alternating entrepreneurial roles during the entrepreneurial journey is argued to provide a potential concep-tual lens for future research.From this perspective, practitioners and scholars are suggested to understand entrepreneurship as a process, and thus its effects on well-being as contextual and constantly changing.Entrepreneurship education needs to take into consideration that entrepreneurial opportunities are dynamic and cannot always be pre-determined but constantly re-imagined by the entrepreneur whose contextual conditions are not static.Entrepreneurs need to be aware of the availability of the different entrepreneurial resources and roles available to them, paying attention to potential effects on different aspects and levels of well-being.
In terms of national context, there is little research in emerging countries in light of well-being and entrepreneurship.This is surprising in light of the growing literature on international entrepre-neurship in emerging economies, especially China (cf., Kiss, et al., 2012) in light of its leading eco-nomic status (World Bank, 2015) and increasing investment ties with the rest of the world (e.g., Luo, et al., 2010).There is also urgent need to look into other large emerging economies such as South Africa and India, which have been similarly least studied in the international entrepreneur-ship literature (Kiss et al., 2012).Although r e-ISSN: 2600 -9109 entrepreneurship activities might be better supported in developed countries based on the skew in the majority of articles reviewed, we urge scholars to look into the nexus between well-being and entrepreneurship in less developed nations in future research.This is needful considering that developed nations consist arguably of nations with the least incidence of poverty in comparison to developing ones.Moreover, future research may ben-efit from having an explicit definition of well-being, especially in light of the still less integrated wellbeing literature.
Based on the strategic necessity of alternating between or simultaneously enacting multiple en-trepreneurial roles, studies looking into how entrepreneurs switch entrepreneurial roles with the resultant implication across levels and domains of well-being seem timely.Also, there is a need to examine more in-depth the likely tradeoffs between entrepreneurial needs and certain aspects of well-being.Lastly, there is potential value for future reviews looking at well-being from the en-trepreneurship perspective and, accordingly, embedding the review in the entrepreneurship liter-ature in complementing this present review.

Concluding Remarks
Entrepreneurs should become more active players in promoting the wellbeing of societies and in-dividuals by employing their multi-faceted roles and resources.However, in light of the diverse literature on both entrepreneurship and well-being, the intersections of entrepreneurship and well-being still remain nascent and conceptually little integrated.In light of the growing interest in both areas, and the popular belief on their interconnections, it is timely that more attention be paid to this area of research.Our review and discussions provide a conceptual ground on the dy-namic view of entrepreneurship for further efforts on more in-depth theorising of well-being from the entrepreneurship's perspective.It is our hope that scholars will generate more conceptualised research on well-being and entrepreneurship, paying particular attention to the multifaceted nature of both phenomena and the emerging economies context.