Entrepreneurship: A critical outlook on housing developers in Malaysia

Jaafar, M; Abdul-Aziz, A R and Ali, R (2010) Entrepreneurship: A critical outlook on housing developers in Malaysia. International Journal of Construction Management, 10(4), pp. 75-99. ISSN 1562-3599

Abstract

This paper aims to explore the entrepreneurial characteristics of indigenous and nonindigenous housing developers in Malaysia. The entrepreneurial characteristic is perceived to be one of the significant factors explaining the low involvement of indigenous people in the housing industry. Indigenous refers to the native people of Malaysia while non-indigenous refers mainly to Chinese developers. Indigenous housing developers often start as hired employees who are then encouraged by their companies to open their own businesses. Most members of the non-indigenous group start their businesses on their own initiative and interest, with strong family support. Lack of government support for the industry forces indigenous developers to take various related courses to advance their knowledge. In terms of entrepreneurial psychological characteristics, significant differences between both groups exist in proactiveness and innovativeness. However, indigenous developers have the same qualities as the nonindigenous in terms of acquisitiveness, internal locus of control, independence, and tolerance for ambiguity, but not in risk-taking propensity.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: entrepreneurship; indigenous; non-indigenous; housing developers; housing industry
Index terms: entrepreneurship, Malaysia, government support, housing developer, housing, risk taking
Subjects: Geography, decision-making and reasoning, sociology, business, government bodies, construction type
Topics: Stakeholder Management, Governance, Construction Technology, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here