1. Introduction

Nigeria is our country. She is the core focus of this academic discourse. According to author in[1], Nigeria is classified as a mixed economy emerging market with abundant supply of natural resources, well developed financial, legal, communications, transport sectors and has the second largest stock market in Africa. She is the 12th largest producer of crude oil and the 8th largest exporter. We were further informed by[1] but they failed to explain us that Nigeria is one of the largest importers of Generators or Power Plants. The Nigerian economy is powered by generators of all sizes, depending on the size of the business in question due to irregular and cannot be trusted supply of electricity. It was asserted by[2,3] that previously economic development in Nigeria had been hindered by years of military rule, corruption and mismanagement but the restoration of democracy and subsequent economic reforms have successfully put Nigeria back on track towards achieving its full economic potential. It is now the second largest economy in Africa (following South ), and the largest economy in the Region. They left out one assertion which is that Nigeria is the largest importer of Generators in the region. Completely we agree with the assertion that Nigeria is back on track towards achieving its full economic potential.

It started when Commerce as a subject was introduced in her secondary schools curriculum in the late 1970s because her agricultural produce needed more markets. Commerce studies the art of buying and selling. Lately as level of unemployment in the country kept increasing with its induced many other uncertainties, the Nigerian Government in 2009 using the Nigerian Accounting Standard Board (NASB) introduced Entrepreneurship as a common course in the Universities’ syllabi. Entrepreneurship is a course that teaches how to create wealth, business start up, survival in business and self employment. While Nigeria is about to inculcate the concepts and tenets of this course to her teeming unemployed graduates and undergraduates, another school of thought has come up with another course called ‘Social Entrepreneurship’. Social Entrepreneurship centres on how to create wealth for the development of the Society and to help curb societal ills of unemployment, hunger, disease and illiteracy. Our study attempts to investigate the demarcating lines between Commerce, Entrepreneurship and Social Entrepreneurship. Towards this purpose, the specific objectives of the study are;

● To carry out a critique of the place of social entrepreneurship in an economy that is lacking from provision of social amenities such as electricity, good road, and drinking water.

● Investigate current corporate preparedness to support social entrepreneurship in Nigeria.

● Seek to understand Corporate conception between Social Entrepreneurship and Business Social responsibilities in emerging economy like Nigeria.

2. Theoretical Framework

The concept of Entrepreneurship, Economics,Commerce and Marketing

In the early years when the study of economics was in vogue, entrepreneurship was seen as associated with economics. Entrepreneur was taught then as the fourth factor of economic production. That concept has not changed in the recent past. It was reiterated by[4] that economics and entrepreneurship deal with firms which are processes of production and profit and that both concepts features factors of production with entrepreneurship as the fourth factor of production. Entrepreneurship is defined by[4] as the practice of starting new organizations or revitalizing organizations, particularly new businesses generally in response to identified opportunities but[5] classified economics into different aspects not limited to but including Monetary Economics, Industrial Economics, Business Economics, Economics of International Relations and Welfare Economics. Welfare economics is the nearest representation of social economics which in other words is the social entrepreneurship of today. However[5] citing Robbins defined Economics as a social science which studies human behaviour or man’s activities in relation to production, exchange, distribution and consumption of goods and services. As level of production outgrown sales and distribution in Nigeria, the study of Commerce was introduced into the secondary schools syllabi. Commerce is the science and art of buying and selling of goods and services. An advanced commerce called ‘Marketing’ equally became a course of study in Nigerian tertiary institutions while the economy was booming. Nigeria is a developing Country with huge commercial activities. As a matter of fact the most common form of business in Nigeria is buying and selling , thus Commerce and Marketing is not new to the Nigerian polity but has sustained and contributed largely to grow the economy of Nigeria since 1960s to date.

The origin and conceptualization of Entrepreneurship in Nigeria

The infrastructural amenities in Nigeria did not keep same growth pace since 1960s with her commercial activities due to inefficiency and corruption. This assertion is supported by[2,3] when they stated that previously economic development in Nigeria had been hindered by years of military rule, corruption and mismanagement. In order to mitigate the decaying infrastructure in Nigeria, the concept of Corporate Social responsibilities became the order of governmental policies. Political office holders tried to shift public attention to corporate bodies as having duty to provide public and social infrastructures to the people. It is explained by[6] that Corporate social responsibility is an ethical ideology or theory that an entity, be it an organization or individual, has an obligation to act to the benefit of society at large. This concept led to arm-twisting of corporate bodies to keep contributing to the provisions of social projects which Government for what-ever reason could not provide. Corporate bodies refused to keep a blind eye towards that obnoxious policy, thus refusing to adhere to the corporate responsibility calls. Inept successive administration in Nigeria led to worsening supply of electricity to Corporate needs and to the country in general. Power plants of all sizes were imported and the cost of production skyrocketed, many Firms folded up and unemployment became the order of the day. Nigerian policy makers refocused their attention towards Entrepreneurship as a course that will reinforce creativity and self employment to her graduating youths.

It was opined by[7] that entrepreneurship originated in Nigeria when production started exceeding the consumption levels, which resulted in barter system or double coincidence of wants. She went on to state that the double coincidence led to commercialization in Nigeria. We are of the view that[7] confused ‘Marketing’ or perhaps ‘Commerce’ with ‘Entrepreneurship’. The definition of Entrepreneurship by[8] as, the process whereby an individual or group of individuals use organized efforts to pursue opportunities to create, value and grow by fulfilling wants and needs through innovation and uniqueness, no matter what resources the entrepreneur currently has supports our claim above.

We hereby restate that the study of Entrepreneurship in Nigeria was envisaged to curb growing unemployment. Entrepreneurship is seen as a course that can create innovative skills, opportunity identification and venturing. This conceptualization of entrepreneurship in Nigeria is anchored to motivating graduates to be innovative and create jobs for themselves rather than looking for employments elsewhere. It is a policy formulated to curb growing unemployment among the youths. Our view was confirmed further by[9] which opined that lack of employment and increase in the poverty levels was the origin of entrepreneurship in Nigeria. To further buttress their position as to the origin of entrepreneurship in Nigeria, they further alleged that entrepreneurial activities in the country were based primarily on necessity. Necessity in entrepreneurship is the ability to recognize the needs in the society and that is what opportunity is all about in the entrepreneurial circle. Entrepreneurship to this end is defined by[10] as a process of conceptualizing, organizing, launching and, through innovation, nurturing a business opportunity into a potentially high growth venture in a complex, unstable environment. The above definition is reinforced by[11] as he asserted that Entrepreneurs create and give birth to new technologies, products and services. They also create new markets and jobs along the way[12] citing (Kirzner, 1979) opined that entrepreneurship included not only new firm creation, but also new economic activity by established firms. Entrepreneurship was therefore summed up to opportunity recognition and exploitation. It is not only in Nigeria that there is misunderstanding of the boundaries between Entrepreneurship, Commerce, Marketing and/or Economics. The existence of these controversies is recognized by[13] when he wrote that Economics and Entrepreneurship reasonably function as agents for wealth creation in the society and can be said to be twins but not identical. In order to minimize these growing divergent conceptions of entrepreneurship, [14] took time out to analyse different conceptions and meanings of Entrepreneurship.

The origin, conceptualization and critiques of Social Entrepreneurship in Nigeria

During the 1980s and 1990s, a new concept called ‘Social Capital’ came to be vigorously discussed with entrepreneurship. The proponents argue that social capital is an important driver of entrepreneurship. Social capital is the education acquisition so as to be able to recognise and how to exploit such opportunities. Advocates of this concept are seen in the works of[15] and[16]. They are of the view that social capital facilitates and promotes economic actors’ acquisition of knowledge and useful information. Coming from the same wave length, [17] defined Social Capital as the norms and social relations embedded in social structures that enable people to coordinate action to achieve desired goals. How to measure social capital till date is still being debated. To us, it would appear that social capital accumulates rapidly where the principle of localization of firms are achieved and their exist trust within the social persons and between the social persons and existing institutional structures such as Government, Corporate bodies and Infrastructures. One of the enabling facts to sustain trust is that each interacting entity will not only function adequately but be perceived by the other as functioning effectively.

Trust is divided by[12] while citing(Dakhli et al, 2004) into generalized and institutional. According to[12] generalized trust is how much people trust each other while institutional trust is how much people trust organizations and institutions. In Nigeria, if Corporate bodies do trust the institution that supplies power that they will do so adequately and effectively is termed ‘Institutional Trust’. It would appear that where trusts and social capital exist, Firms advances societal goal by means of social responsibility and Entrepreneur persons will seek how to advance social capital. These actions will bring birth to social entrepreneurship. In the words of[18], the proponents of social entrepreneurship argue that it is instrument for improving society mainly through the non-profit and for-profit ventures. Entrepreneurship studies came first in Nigeria before Social Entrepreneurship. Nigerians are yet to grabble with the tenets of Entrepreneurship, before advanced entrepreneurship or another subject/course called ‘Social Entrepreneurship’ had been introduced into the syllabi.

Social Entrepreneurship according to[14] is about putting social objectives first and utilizing commercial skills to achieve them, in an entrepreneurial way. In Eastern Nigeria, this concept of social entrepreneurship is well assimilated and practiced in the development of their society. They have a long tradition of well developed voluntary community projects and institutions but the idea of studying social entrepreneurship as a course is new. To the generality of Nigerians social entrepreneurship as a course of study is not only new but the contents of the curriculum is debatable. Other issues needing to be resolved are; has Nigeria entrenched the concept of social capital build up in her policies and infrastructure to stimulate the call for social entrepreneurship? What is the conceptualization of social entrepreneurship by corporate bodies in Nigeria? Does institutional trust significantly co-exist with business policy decisions? The answers to these mind debates are the statement of problems for this research

3. Research Methods

In order to address the objectives of this study and the statement of problems aforementioned, we stipulate the following null hypotheses;

Ho1: The levels of existence of social infrastructures in Nigeria for the past ten years have not significantly impeded institutional trusts.

Ho2: Differences in current conceptualization between Social Entrepreneurship and Business Social Responsibility in Nigeria are not significant.

Ho3: The current Corporate preparedness to support social entrepreneurship in Nigeria is not significant.

Statistical Population, Samples and Data analysis techniques

Nigeria is domain of this study. States in Nigeria covered by this study include; Abia, Abuja (FCT), Adamawa, Anambra and, Enugu. The choice of these states was informed by the existence of willing and available research assistances who volunteered to administer and collect back questionnaires. Three hundred questionnaires were administered in each state to Corporate responsible employees, managers and owners. To ensure wide spread, a maximum of twenty questionnaires were administered in one company. The method of administration to ensure maximum returns is wait-and-collect. Unfilled questionnaires were re- administered to other willing respondents. Thus a total of three hundred questionnaires were administered, filled and returned from each of the plot states, which amounts to a grand total of one thousand, eight hundred valid returned questionnaires.

The questions were constructed with 5 point Likert Scale, designed to address the research objectives statements of problems and hypotheses. Data analysis technique used are; percentages to localize assertions from respondents and SPSS version 16 based MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) statistical tool was employed to produce Multivariate test, Pair-wise comparisons and Multiple comparisons statistics so as to test the significant level of assertions of respondents pertaining to stated hypothesis at chosen level of 95% confidence

4. Results and Discussions

The level of Corporate and Institutional trusts in Nigeria: The respondents’ assertion as to the current level of Corporate and Institutional trusts in Nigeria is captured as seen in table 1 below;

Testing of Hypothesis one: The levels of existence of social infrastructures in Nigeria for the past ten years have not significantly impeded institutional trusts. To test this hypothesis using the above results and running it in Multivariate Analysis for Variance, the outcome is as seen in table 2 below;

Discussion of outcome of Hypothesis one testing: Table 1 shows that the result from respondents is skewed towards low institutional trusts in Nigeria with 39% being the highest assertions. From Table 2, the result showed that this assertion is very significant as p<0.05, thus we reject the hypothesis which stated that the levels of existence of social infrastructures in Nigeria for the past ten years have not significantly impeded institutional trusts.

A contrast of the different levels of assertions as seen in table 3 showed that ‘Low assertion’ is very significant is a pair-wise comparison with other levels of assertions.

Conceptualization of Social Entrepreneurship in Nigeria

The result of survey of the level of conceptualizations of Social Entrepreneurship and others in Nigeria is shown in table 4

Testing of Hypothesis two and Discussions: This hypothesis states that differences in current conceptualization between Social Entrepreneurship and Business Social Responsibility in Nigeria are not significant. Table 4 results are spread and not skewed towards a particular level but ‘Average’, conceptualizations had the highest perceptions of 29%. In order to confirm the outcome of these responses, we processed the data using Multivariate Analysis of Variance. The results are as shown in tables 5 and 6.

Table 5 shows that the differences of conceptualizations of Social Entrepreneurship in Nigeria from Social Capital and Business Social Responsibility are not significant save that of Roy’s largest root thus we accept the null hypothesis which states that differences in current conceptualization between Social Entrepreneurship and Business Social Responsibility in Nigeria are not significant. Table 6 results indicate that multiple comparisons of ‘Very low’, ‘Low’, ‘Average’, and ‘High’ levels of assertions with others save to that of ‘Very High’ are insignificant. This means that the differences between them are insignificant thus we confirm that the level of conceptualizations of the concepts of Social Entrepreneurship from Business Social Responsibility, Social Capital and their tenets in Nigeria are very low.

Corporate preparedness to support Social Entrepren- eurship in Nigeria

Test of Ho₃ and Discussions: Results from respondents’ assertions as shown in table 7 had 35% (Average) as the highest of such assertions of corporate preparedness to support social entrepreneurship in Nigeria. To test whether ‘Average’ level of assertions is significant, we ran a multiple comparisons using multivariate analysis of variance. The outcome is as shown in table 8 below.

Discussions on the outcome of test of Hypothesis three: This hypothesis states that current corporate preparedness to support social entrepreneurship in Nigeria is not significant. The multiple comparisons of ‘Average’ assertions with other levels indicate that it is not significant, thus we conclude that current corporate preparedness to support social entrepreneurship in Nigeria is of average.

Table 1. Responses to questions pertaining to Corporate/Institutional trusts S/No Questions Respondents’ rating of their perceptions to the question Very High High Average Low Very Low i. In the last ten years, how will you rate the state of infrastructure in Nigeria which helps positively in your business decisions? Example availability and regular supply of Electricity, Security, Good network of roads etc. 110 180 300 705 505 ii. What is the level of your Company’s trust of other companies’ ability to deliver as and when due on ethical, social contractual and other business dealings? 100 81 399 900 320 iii. In Nigeria, how can you rate the trust of your company decisions based on Governmental corporations and agencies to function/deliver as and when due? 62 146 298 700 594 iv. Within your Company, how will you rate the level of trusts between Managers and heads of departments? 291 246 554 509 200 Total 563 653 1551 2814 1619 %age (Computed from response frequencies) 8% 9% 21% 39% 23%

Table 2. Multivariate Tests on the levels of social infrastructures in Nigeria effects on Institutional trusts Effect Value F Hypothesis Error df Sig Intercept Pillai's Trace .937 1.046E2a 2.000 14.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .063 1.046E2a 2.000 14.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 14.949 1.046E2a 2.000 14.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 14.949 1.046E2a 2.000 14.000 .000 Respondents Pillai's Trace .761 2.304 8.000 30.000 .047 Wilks' Lambda .239 3.661a 8.000 28.000 .005 Hotelling's Trace 3.187 5.178 8.000 26.000 .001 Roy's Largest Root 3.187 11.950b 4.000 15.000 .000

Table 3. Pair-wise Comparison of different levels of assertions on the effect of Institutional trusts in Nigeria Dependent Variable (I) Respondents' Level of Perceptions (J) Respondents' Level of Perceptions Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Frequency of responses Very Low Low -298.750* 93.188 .006 Average 17.000 93.188 .858 High 241.500* 93.188 .020 Very High 264.000* 93.188 .013 Low Very Low 298.750* 93.188 006 Average 315.750* 93.188 .004 High 540.250* 93.188 .000 Very High 562.750* 93.188 .000 Average Very Low -17.000 93.188 .858 Low -315.750* 93.188 .004 High 224.500* 93.188 .029 Very High 247.000* 93.188 .812 High Very Low -241.500* 93.188 .013 Low -540.250* 93.188 .000 Average -224.500* 93.188 .018 Very High 22.500 93.188 .812 Very High Very Low -264.000* 93.188 Low -562.750* 93.188 Average -247.000* 93.188 High -22.500 93.188

Table 4. Responses to questions pertaining to Conceptualization of Social Entrepreneurship in Nigeria S/No Questions Respondents’ rating of their perceptions to the question Very High High Average Low Very Low i. How well do you understand the meaning and tenets of Social Entrepreneurship? 102 263 438 598 399 ii. To what extent, can you be able to differentiate between Business Social Responsibility from Social Entrepreneurship and Social Capital? 110 330 710 300 350 iii. If we define Social capital as the education acquisition so as to be able to recognize opportunities and how to exploit such opportunities, Corporate social responsibility as an ethical ideology or theory that an entity, be it an organization or individual, has an obligation to act to the benefit of society at large and SocialEntrepreneurship as a study and art of putting social objective first and utilizing commercial skills to achieve them, in an entrepreneurial way. How will you rate their level of differences between Economics, Commerce and Social welfare? 98 290 421 371 620 Total 310 883 1569 1269 1369 Percentage 6% 16% 29% 24% 25%

Table 5. Multivariate Tests on conceptualization of the Concept of social Entrepreneurship in Nigeria Effect Value Intercept Pillai's Trace .951 87.421a 2.000 9.000 .000 .951 Wilks' Lambda .049 87.421a 2.000 9.000 .000 .951 Hotelling's Trace 19.427 87.421a 2.000 9.000 .000 .951 Roy's Largest Root 19.427 87.421a 2.000 9.000 .000 .951 Respondents Pillai's Trace .695 1.332 8.000 20.000 .285 .348 Wilks' Lambda .305 1.825a 8.000 18.000 .138 .448 Hotelling's Trace 2.279 2.279 8.000 16.000 .076 .533 Roy's Largest Root 2.279 5.699b 4.000 10.000 .012 .695

Table 6. Multiple Comparisons of levels of understanding between the concept of Social Entrepreneurship in Nigeria Dependent Variable (I) Respondents' Level of Perceptions (J) Respondents' Level of Perceptions Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Very Low Low 33.33 122.365 .998 -512.41 579.08 Average -66.67 125.152 .979 -627.18 493.85 High 162.00 85.297 .494 -424.43 748.43 Very High 353.00 83.122 .150 -283.91 989.91 Low Very Low -33.33 122.365 .998 -579.08 512.41 Average -100.00 129.779 .927 -677.45 477.45 High 128.67 91.952 .679 -512.97 770.31 Very High 319.67 89.938 .204 -369.88 1009.22 Average Very Low 66.67 125.152 .979 -493.85 627.18 Low 100.00 129.779 .927 -477.45 677.45 High 228.67 95.630 .365 -443.33 900.66 Very High 419.67 93.695 .137 -298.89 1138.22 High Very Low -162.00 85.297 .494 -748.43 424.43 Low -128.67 91.952 .679 -770.31 512.97 Average -228.67 95.630 .365 -900.66 443.33 Very High 191.00* 19.779 .027 49.17 332.83 Very High Very Low -353.00 83.122 .150 -989.91 283.91 Low -319.67 89.938 .204 -1009.22 369.88 Average -419.67 93.695 .137 -1138.22 298.89 High -191.00* 19.779 .027 -332.83 -49.17

Table 7. Responses to questions pertaining to Corporate preparedness to support Social Entrepreneurship in Nigeria S/No Questions Respondents’ rating of their perceptions to the question Very High High Average Low Very Low i. In the last ten years, what is the level of your Company’s budget for staff development? 441 310 521 465 63 ii. What is the level of your Company’s preparedness to support Social Entrepreneurship in Nigeria for now? 323 201 792 284 200 iii. What is the level of other things your Company has done or is about doing which contributes to Social Entrepreneurship? 271 365 591 120 453 Total 1035 876 1904 869 716 Percentage 19% 17% 35% 16% 13%

Table 8. Multiple Comparisons on the level of Corporate preparedness to support Social Entrepreneurship in Nigeria Dependent Variable (I) Respondents' Level of Perceptions (J) Respondents' Level of Perceptions Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Very Low Low -298.75 119.523 .210 -748.84 151.34 Average 17.00 99.991 1.000 -405.03 439.03 High 241.50 95.377 .250 -189.58 672.58 Very High 264.00 102.613 .216 -155.14 683.14 Low Very Low 298.75 119.523 .210 -151.34 748.84 Average 315.75 99.991 .104 -68.88 700.38 High 540.25* 86.914 .015 157.62 922.88 Very High 562.75* 94.798 .010 185.71 939.79 Average Very Low -17.00 107.429 1.000 -439.03 405.03 Low -315.75 99.991 .111 -700.38 68.88 High 224.50 69.349 .365 -59.25 508.25 Very High 247.00 79.006 .137 -51.97 545.97 High Very Low -241.50 95.377 .250 -672.58 189.58 Low -540.25* 86.914 .015 -922.88 -157.62 Average -224.50 69.349 .111 -508.25 59.25 Very High 22.50 61.626 .104 -219.95 264.95 Very High Very Low -264.00 102.613 . .216 -683.14 155.14 Low -562.75* 94.798 .010 -939.79 -185.71 Average -247.00 79.006 .104 -545.97 51.97 High -22.50 61.626 .995 -264.95 219.95

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Institutional trusts among Corporate bodies and Governmental agencies in Nigeria from years 2000 to 2009 were very low, thus impeding the flourishing evolution of Social Entrepreneurship to a large extent for the past ten years. Cost of production in a Generator powered economy is huge thus limiting the contribution of corporate bodies to Social Entrepreneurship. Also the conceptualization between Social Entrepreneurship and Corporate Social Responsibility in Nigeria was not high within the same period; however Corporate preparedness to support Social Entrepreneurship in Nigeria is on the average for now. In conclusion there is a place for Social Entrepreneurship in a developing economy and this will continue to be on an increasing scale as the increase in Institutional trusts gains more momentum.