PurposeThis paper argues that commercial entrepreneurial activities have social implications and can provide needed social spaces during the disaster recovery process, and that viewing commercial enterprises as socially valuable has implications for post-disaster public policy.Design/methodology/approachThis paper discusses themes and concepts developed through in-depth interviews conducted in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Houston, Texas, after Hurricane Katrina. Particular case studies of the personal experiences of communities that recovered after Hurricane Katrina are utilized to highlight how commercial entrepreneurship creates and maintains social spaces where community members can share resources and connect during the recovery process.FindingsEntrepreneurs need not have a specific social mission in order to make social contributions, and commercial entrepreneurship should create and maintain social spaces that are important for community recovery after disasters.Practical implicationsThe social spaces that commercial entrepreneurs facilitate should be considered when designing and implementing public policy in the post-disaster context. Policies can often hinder recovery, and policymakers should instead establish clear regulatory regimes and allow for greater space for entrepreneurs to act.Originality/valueThis paper highlights the role entrepreneurs play in advancing social goals and purposes after disasters, specifically how commercial entrepreneurs can create and maintain social spaces where community members gather to discuss their challenges and strategies for disaster recovery. It highlights the extra-economic role of commercial entrepreneurs and discusses the implications for public policy based on this broadened conception of entrepreneurship.

No abstract

Is social capital likely to be underproduced without state action? Where previous analysts have typically argued that social capital is a public good and, therefore, needs government action to be produced at an optimal level, we argue that social capital is not a public good because though often non-rivalrous, it is almost always excludable. As such, social capital is more appropriately conceived of as a club good. Further, we argue that governments are not likely to be in a position to improve a society’s social capital due to epistemic limits and the complexity of social capital. Finally, we argue that rather than a state solution, solutions to social capital-related problems are best solved through a bottom-up process. As we demonstrate throughout, this has implications for how we understand community resilience in the wake of disasters. The key role that social capital plays in facilitating community rebound after disasters has been widely acknowledged. If social capital is a public good, then policymakers could be justified in focusing on cultivating social capital as a strategy for promoting community resilience. If social capital is a club good and there are limits to top-down strategies for creating social capital, however, then social capital creation is not an available policy lever.

No abstract