MAORI ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR: LACHMANNIAN INSIGHTS Merata Kawharu, PhD Director, Research James Henare Maori Research Centre University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland New Zealand Paul Tapsell, PhD Te Tumu School of Maori, Pacific & Indigenous Studies University of Otago Dunedin New Zealand Christine Woods, PhD* Senior Lecturer Management and International Business University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland New Zealand [email protected] *Corresponding Author

Authors listed in alphabetical order

SUMMARY In Maori communities, entrepreneurial activity occurs through the interaction of potiki (opportunity seeking entrepreneur) and kaumatua (senior lore-specialists), all the while mediated and guided by visionary leadership (rangatira). The mediated interplay between these actors in the Maori community is illustrated by takarangi – a double spiral of innovation (Tapsell & Woods, 2008a, 2010). We continue the development of the takarangi framework drawing upon the work of economist Ludwig Lachmann. Lachmann emphasised the evolving and transformative nature of the market process. Lachmann (1971) also argued that entrepreneurial behaviour is embedded in broader institutional contexts that are timedependent. In the first part of the paper we discuss key Lachmannian insights before providing an example of contemporary Maori entrepreneurship in the second part. We discuss the various boundaries that provide(d) order to entrepreneurial behaviour since first engagements between Maori and outsiders and consider the institutional context of the marae and the role of tikanga.

1

INTRODUCTION The development of an understanding of entrepreneurial behaviour in an indigenous context is an emerging area of research. Such an understanding is vitally important to the social, economic and political future of New Zealand. Maori, the indigenous people of New Zealand, are re-establishing themselves as key economic players in New Zealand with entrepreneurial opportunities emerging at the intersection of economic development and cultural identity. In this paper we build on the work that understands entrepreneurial behaviour from a framework we have called takarangi. In the Maori world of symbolism (particularly depicted in wood carving), takarangi is a spiral that represents creation. We argue that entrepreneurial tribal Maori leadership has three essential features that represent three key players within a Maori (tribal) community. These may be illustrated by the takarangi spiral (Tapsell & Woods, 2008a, 2010; Kawharu, Tane, Tapsell & Woods, 2011). Entrepreneurial activity in Maori communities occurs through the interaction of potiki (opportunity seeking entrepreneur) and kaumatua (senior lore-specialists), all the while mediated and guided by visionary leadership (rangatira). The mediated interplay between these two actors in the Maori community is illustrated by takarangi – a double spiral of innovation.

Theoretically, the takarangi has drawn on a Schumpeterian and complexity-inspired understanding of entrepreneurial behaviour whereby opportunities emerge as the result of new combinations of existing resources (Tapsell &Woods, 2008a, 2010). In a Maori context, these resources include in particular: communities (capacity and capability), cultural values represented by the institutional context of marae (ceremonial courtyard and buildings), western values and practices and ancestral land.

For Maori, like indigenous peoples

worldwide, land provides the continuum between a people’s past and present, the source of identity and wellbeing and hence, the reasons why groups defined their existence in defence and celebration of land. Two conclusions emerge from our research so far. First, culture and heritage guide the path to innovation while entrepreneurs create the opportunities for new ideas to take shape along this path. Second, the cultural context within which entrepreneurial behaviour occurs is fundamental to understanding contemporary Maori leadership (Tapsell & Woods, 2008a,b, 2010). What do we mean by ‘contemporary’? We mean the Maori world, defined by its own cultural principles and practices, and also influenced by norms and practices of the western world. Furthermore, the ‘western’ (values, practices etc.) have been

2

‘extracted’, integrated and applied to a Maori world of innovation.

This is the

‘contemporary’ reality for Maori.

In this paper we continue the development of the takarangi framework and draw upon the work of economist Ludwig Lachmann.1 Like Schumpeter, Lachmann saw the combination and recombination of resources as a vital part of economic development and progress (Lachmann, 1978; 1986). However, unlike Schumpeter, who saw this as an episodic process, Lachmann argued that entrepreneurial behaviour was a continuous process of combining and recombining resources (Chiles, Bluedorn & Gupta, 2007). Lachmann’s understanding of the market process was based on an understanding of capital theory that saw the entrepreneur exploit opportunities by the continuous combining and recombining of capital goods to produce consumer goods (Lachmann, 1986). In discussing entrepreneurial behaviour specifically, Lachmann emphasised the evolving and transformative nature of the market process. That is, resources may be combined and recombined in response to changing circumstances for future benefit. And finally, Lachmann (1971) argued that entrepreneurial behaviour is embedded in broader institutional contexts that are time-dependent. Institutions provide common signposts or points of orientation that enable the actions of entrepreneurs to be coordinated and assist in bringing about both flexibility and order in the market process.

Lachmann provides important insights into entrepreneurial behaviour and the market process. We draw on these insights and the takarangi framework to explore more deeply our understanding of entrepreneurial Maori leadership.

The Maori entrepreneurial leader is

engaged in capital and resource (re)formation. These processes are embedded within institutional contexts and are guided by community-focused plans (kaupapa). Furthermore, these plans are underpinned by long-term aspirations and expectations, which are often intergenerational. Given the long-term horizon, it means that the steps to achieve the anticipated outcomes may have to be altered or readjusted, and resources ‘combined’ or ‘recombined’ again in new ways in response to changing circumstances. Our paper has two parts. We first discuss key Lachmannian insights in relation to a Maori context of entrepreneurship. In this section we explore the institutional context of the marae and the role of tikanga, or lore/customary law and the influence on entrepreneurial leadership. We also consider how marae/tikanga provides a framework for shaping decisions and planning in determining how 1

Lachmann is considered to be a leading figure in the Austrian school, albeit one who has, at times, been on the fringes (Vaughn, 1994)

3

and what resources are innovatively combined to form value (social, economic and political). These ideas extend our thinking on takarangi. The second part of our paper provides an example of contemporary Maori entrepreneurship on the basis of the theoretical arguments presented so far. However, before looking at Lachmann’s ideas in more detail and applying them further, we need to outline some observations and qualifications for applying his ideas. Lachmann’s work and the issues to which he directed his attention were far from New Zealand and from indigenous societies. He was not interested in tackling problems encountered by indigenous communities, for example, their plight or the upheaval to their economy and community following the establishment of colonial structures and processes in their ancestral lands, or the effects of western values and processes on indigenous communities.

But neither were

these Lachmann’s intentions nor purpose. If we return to what his theoretical approaches were and how he applied them, which were market-focussed, we may still consider some of that thinking and how they might apply to contemporary Maori society. And so although Lachmann’s work was not community-focussed (any community-focussed; indigenous or otherwise) and was instead concerned with the individual (and ‘his’ response) to opportunities and constraints within a market context, there are still key principles that do help us to unravel the complexity of entrepreneurship in an indigenous (Maori) context. We acknowledge, therefore, the limitations of Lachmann, as well as his strengths. We also acknowledge our own limitations where Lachmann is concerned where we extract only some parts of his discourse on the economy and the market and ignore others.

LACHMANNIAN INSIGHTS AND THE MAORI CONTEXT Vaughn’s (1994) systematic review of the history of the Austrian school of economics, from its Mengerian beginnings in the 1870s through to the closing stages of the twentieth century, describes Lachmann as one of “the intellectual leaders” of the modern Austrian tradition (p.7). This tradition emphasises the need to understand the market as a process. Human action takes place in real time and is context specific. In particular, Lachmann followed the subjectivist insights stressed in Austrian understanding of human action:

autonomy of

4

individual choice and plan-making, inherent uncertainty concerning the future, and the notion of human action as purposeful.2

The future is unknowable, though not unimaginable. Future knowledge cannot be had now, but it can cast its shadow ahead. In each mind however, the shadow assumes a different shape, hence the divergence of expectations is an act of our mind by means of which we try to catch a glimpse of the unknown (Lachmann, 1976, 59.) Lachmann spent a great deal of time exploring ‘the divergence of expectations’ and the impact on the market process, in particular exploring the action of entrepreneurs. Indeed, Lachmann was described as the “leading voice” within the radical subjectivist wing of the modern Austrian school (Lavoie, 1994, p. 1).

While Schumpeter and Kirzner are generally regarded as the two most valuable contributors from the Austrian school in terms of entrepreneurship research (Venkataraman, 1997; Shane, 2000), more recent work by Chiles and others (Chiles et al. 2007, 2008; Chiles et al, 2010; Matthews, 2008; Streb & Gupta, 2011) suggests that a Lachmannian-inspired understanding of the market process, grounded in radical subjectivism, can contribute to a better understanding of entrepreneurial process. The following quote provides an entrance into Lachmann’s thinking and an illustration of several insights that we wish to examine further: … when men act they carry in their minds an image of what they want to achieve. All human action can be regarded as the carrying out of projects that are designed to give effect to imagined ends. But every man pursues a multiplicity of ends, the achievement of at least some of which precludes that of other ends. Moreover, the scarcity of means at the disposal of each actor imposes further restraints upon his choice. In other words, men have to choose the purposes they wish to achieve, that they have to make such choice within the constraints of a given situation. To act at all, men have to make plans, comprehensive surveys of the means at their disposal and

Lachmann was described as the “leading voice” within the radical subjectivist wing of the modern Austrian school (Lavoie, 1994, p. 1), 2

5

the way in which they might be used, and let their actions be guided by them (Lachmann, 1971, p. 30). Human action is purposeful; it is directed toward imagined ends – ends that cannot be known today, only imagined. According to Lachmann, the entrepreneur has the imaginative capacity to envision the future and does so by forming plans based on potential opportunities – the result of creative imagination. The subsequent carrying out of projects unfolds over time. The realisation of opportunities is the outcome of the conscious plans of entrepreneurs; some plans succeed and some fail resulting in the continuous revision of plans based on new information and expectations. Capital is a constantly evolving structure involving the combination and recombination of resources, the purpose of which is to yield a return in the future.

How are these plans coordinated? Lachmann argues that human action is guided by institutions that provide an “orientation” enabling entrepreneurs to “coordinate their actions by means of orientation to a common signpost (1971, p. 49 – 50). Institutions both facilitate and constrain entrepreneur’s action, shaping the way in which means can be used. Entrepreneurial action thus employs both creative imagination and capital resources.

In summary, we suggest three Lachmannian insights are of relevance to our discussion on Maori entrepreneurial leadership: 1) the need for an imaginative capacity to envision the future; 2) the formation of capital through the continual combining and recombining of resources and 3) the institutional context as both the constraint and enabler of entrepreneurial action. We now turn to further explore these insights and then apply them to contexts that have seen Maori entrepreneurial leadership emerge. Let us further consider the idea that economic events are “elements within an ongoing process dependent on human actions in a world where the future is, though not unimaginable, unknowable.” (Lachmann 1986, jacket cover). When the first Europeans arrived in New Zealand, Maori engaged in new relationships with missionaries, traders and settlers with a view to creating new alliances and trade opportunities (Petrie, 1986). The Maori kin-based world was vastly and quickly changing following the arrival and settlement in their lands of Europeans and others. The new cross-cultural alliances and relationships were ‘unknown’ in terms of the outcomes they would present, but they were ‘imaginable’ in terms of the 6

outcomes that the Maori leaders were seeking or hoping for (for example, improved livelihoods brought about by new trade avenues and markets, access to new materials (metal implements, muskets, tobacco etc.) and access to new values and practices – literacy, among other things). Similarly, when Te Tiriti o Waitangi, or the Maori text of the Treaty of Waitangi, was discussed and then signed by Maori leaders and the British Crown throughout 1840, Maori could not ‘know’ precisely what British laws and modes of governance were. But they could ‘imagine’ a new world where their authority remained firmly intact and was recognised (Article Two of the Treaty/Te Tiriti) while they permitted the British to establish governance (Article One of the Treaty/Te Tiriti) (Kawharu, 2006). The new engagements between Maori and Europeans were not simply ‘economic events’ if we are to use the terms referred to above. They were far more. From a Maori point of view, they were also events that were about forming political relationships, wrapped in cultural expectations and values that hoped for the improved cultural and economic wellbeing of Maori kin communities.

It was this new cross-cultural environment that Maori

entrepreneurial leaders saw opportunities to engage in new ventures, new markets and so on, all of which were to arise out of new relationships with Pakeha (i.e., the new British authority that was established in the country following the signing of the Treaty in 1840; missionaries, settlers, whalers, traders). But to follow ideas given in the overview, Maori-European engagements were ‘ongoing processes dependent on human action’. Of course the ‘human action’ in the case of Maori-European relationships was dominated heavily by European practices. The salient point, however, about ongoing human action in a period of change and uncertainty that was relevant in the mid-nineteenth century remains as much relevant now as it was then. We will return to these ideas in discussing the ways in which entrepreneurial leaders have created new and innovative responses to circumstances later in this paper. We now turn to consider our three Lachmannian insights in a Maori context in more detail.

1) The need for an imaginative capacity to envision the future

From a Lachmann perspective, entrepreneurial actions involve decisions about capital that are informed by expectations. Entrepreneurs might invest in an immediate sense, in response to an immediate opportunity to profit, but they also invest over a longer-term period, possibly a number of years. Whatever opportunity they see, it is one that might take some time before 7

profitable results materialise. Investment is made on the basis and expectation that something beneficial will ultimately result. The entrepreneur envisions, or imagines, future possibilities. This notion is an important one for entrepreneurial leadership. Whilst straightforward in principle, there is much between the principle and the actual reality of achieving a potential opportunity. This is especially the case in an indigenous context when multiple cultural, economic and political issues require considered attention and planning. Furthermore, the success of the entrepreneurial leader may depend on his or her ability to properly balance what may be complicated, or even conflicting, (political, economic and cultural) agendas. For example, often one of the difficult and time-consuming tasks in Maori communities is obtaining sufficiently-wide support or mandate from a dispersed community to progress a major idea. In many, if not most, cases today, only a minority of descendants live in the papakainga or home settlement.

The majority live elsewhere in cities or places where

employment lured them or their parents or even grandparents in the early post-World War 2 era. Communicating effectively with, and receiving feedback from, the dispersed community is important, not least if the representative group or organisation (a tribal ‘authority’, usually a type of trust board, corporate or charity) of the community is to be seen to be properly representative, accountable and effective. Dialogue and communication also serves to help maintain a sense of collectivity, community cohesion and cultural identity in the face of competing or different interests (relating to, for example, school, sports, other extra-curricula activities or other community organisations). Mandate and communication issues are one related set of challenges.

Another challenge is for the representative group, which in Maori communities is often legal entities such as trusts to maintain accountability to this scattered community. On the one hand, the trust consists of trustees who are elected by the community, to make decisions on behalf of that community. On the other hand, there is expectation by community members that they (the community) be consulted on major issues affecting them. Drawing the line on when, and on which, issues the community should be consulted can be tricky, especially when there is no precedent if the issues at hand are new. Too little consultation could cause dissatisfaction by the community of the trustees and worse, no confidence in them. Too much consultation could hinder decision-making or curtail an opportunity completely. When major economic or business issues are being dealt with, time is often limited for decisions to be made. A trust’s constitution usually provides enabling powers to trustees to make significant decisions but that might not be well understood or accepted entirely by 8

community members (or even trustees). Whatever the situation, a key issue for entrepreneurial leadership to be effective is to be accountable in the immediate sense to the community, while also keeping an eye, or a focus, on the long-term aspirational goals. We discuss related issues concerning the relationship between a tribal authority and kaumatua or elders below.

In addition, the idea of planning for a future horizon may extend well beyond that considered typical in a business sense. Instead of a five or ten year planning cycle, planning may encompass several generations. The Ngati Whatua o Orakei railway land development is a case in point of the ideas discussed so far as will be described in more detail below. The development was an innovative response to a significantly economically constrained descendant community. Lachmann explains that the “human imagination as a source of expectations” plays a significant role in entrepreneurial thinking, behaviour and action. There is no prescribed set of actions to follow in entrepreneurial leadership. As stated above, subjectivism plays a key role in entrepreneurship (Lachmann, 1978, pp.14-15). The imagination of the entrepreneurial leader who has a role in relation to tribal development, is guided by both cultural values including accountability to the descendant community and recognition of historically-applied kaitiakitanga (trusteeship) principles (see discussion below on cultural capital), and economic values. The case of long-term future goal setting certainly requires some imagination, if not also an element of risk-taking when it is impossible to predict what will be so far into the future, and instead know only what could be. Again, the ‘unknown, but imaginable’ is an important dictum in entrepreneurial leadership.

2) Capital combinations

What can be said about long-term planning is that visionary leadership in scoping the idea and then putting in place the frameworks, resources and plans, or combining and recombining resources, to achieve the goals takes something out of the ordinary.

In building on

Schumpeter’s ideas on entrepreneurship, Lachmann explains:

9

“… innovating entrepreneurs [are those] who create ‘new combinations of resources’, men [sic] of action and not merely of reaction. What distinguishes them from most of their fellow men is their ability to imagine future states of affairs and market circumstances which differ from those presently existing not just by marginal quantities, but which by quality and magnitude are completely different from them. Entrepreneurs, and only entrepreneurs, are capable of forming expectations of future circumstances altogether different from the present, and to act in accordance with them.” (Lachmann, 1978)

It is not simply resources that are required to achieve goals, but as Lachmann emphasises, determining the complementarity between resources when combining them.

He further

explains:: “… heterogeneous capital resources do not lend themselves to combination in any arbitrary fashion.

For any given number of them only certain modes of

complementarity are technically possible, and only a few of these are economically significant. It is among the latter that the entrepreneur has to find the ‘optimum combination.’ The ‘best’ mode of complementarity is thus not a ‘datum’. It is in no way ‘given’ to the entrepreneur who, on the contrary, as a rule has to spend a good deal of time and effort in finding out what it is.” (Lachmann, 1978, p.3).

Even though Lachmann went to some lengths to explain capital, and he was thinking in particular about material resources (1978, p. 11), in the case of entrepreneurial tribal Maori leadership, capital also includes cultural capital, which encapsulates the body of lore or marae-based values. The marae and all contained within it, is a symbolic and practical manifestation of a descendant community’s mana (authority) to exercise trusteeship and progress sustainable resource development within a defined territory. Finding the ‘optimum combination’ as Lachmann stressed, in a tribal context, means combining both material, nonmaterial and human resources and combining past and present values, principles and ideas. The past is essential from a Maori point of view as it provides the rationale for present action. The well-known aphorism ‘walking into the future facing the past’ reminds us of how and why we progress into the unknown with the past, and all that it contains, guiding us. Much more can be said about the past and as mentioned above in relation to marae-based values, we will return to these ideas later in this paper. Our emphasis on the past or historical origins, is 10

then a counter-point to Lachmann who argued that ‘Historical origin is no concern of ours.” (Lachmann, 1978, p.11).

In summary, although the entrepreneurial Maori leader may be

navigating the unknown especially when the unknown is so far into the future, there will be important guides – or resources to use Lachmann’s terms – that can be used to help inform decision-making. In a Maori context, these resources include: the marae; the associated cultural values of kaitiakitanga or guardianship that tie the innovation or venture to an ancestral landscape, which includes marae (Kawharu, 2009, 2010), to former trustees (ancestors) and to the living and scattered community; business, finance, legal and administrative skills; finance and land. These general principles continue to underpin much, if not most, tribal (which we mean to include sub-tribal/hapu or whanau/extended family level) development initiatives. However, as discussed below, the institution of the marae and the network of mutually enforcing actors – the rangatira, the kaumatua and the potiki – representing three levels of the takarangi spiral, is not always applied in a contemporary tribal business context.

3) Institutional contexts

The planning element that Lachmann refers to, is also a relatively straightforward idea, but warrants attention in relation to institutions. Lachmann (1978, p.13) outlines, “The plan … provides a scheme of orientation, a frame of reference for subsequent action.” But, as highlighted earlier, plans ostensibly need to adjust to changing circumstances.

And as

Lachmann notes, “…changes in environment did not appear on the horizon of any of the entrepreneurial planners at the time when the plan was conceived (Lachmann, 1978, p.18). But what can offer signposts to the entrepreneurial leader is institutions – both the enabler and constraint on action.

In contemporary times in a tribal context, an entrepreneurial leader often serves the community from an ‘institutional’ position as a member or as a trustee of an elected board or committee. Trustees fulfil their roles and responsibilities as trustee as required (and at varying levels of success and commitment). This does not necessarily mean that they are innovative or entrepreneurial, but the leader in an elected, trustee sense usually has an additional leadership role such as being the chairperson of a board, or has some other position that carries delegated authority to act. In terms of delegated authority today, there may be a contrast to how delegated authority worked in a customary sense. Simply, the authority to a 11

trustee or perhaps to a sub-committee 'to act' may by and large come from the wider committee/board, as prescribed by the entity's constitution or enabling law. Compared to a customary context, it was the marae and associated laws that together formed the customary ‘institution’ where leaders of the kin group, particularly elders, set and monitored the boundaries for action. Today, elders do not necessarily play a significant role in major tribal development decisions, which are instead made by legal entities/boards. Exceptions may be cases that are principally concerned with culture, or where an entity’s constitution specifically outlines kaumatua (elder) input in decision-making. And so in building on our discussions relating to takarangi where the three mutually enforcing, and interacting roles of rangatira (chiefly leader), kaumatua and potiki (younger or junior (in genealogical terms) innovator or entrepreneur) work, we also argue that that combination does not always play out clearly. Purely from a customary values perspective, few tribal groups (inclusive of iwi, hapu or whanau levels) would actually say that kaumatua and rangatira do not have a role in tribal development, but the actual involvement of kaumatua in particular is not always obvious, and they may not necessarily undertake any specific function at all in the development of tribal level initiatives, as mentioned above. Many reasons can be suggested and include:

the relatively fast pace in which decisions need to be made by tribal authorities/entities and the consequent difficulties of obtaining advice from kaumatua in time; the limited availability of kaumatua generally as they may be preoccupied with other iwi/hapu affairs; the decreasing cadre of kaumatua; the lack of mechanism or clear communication pathway between the network of elders (which might meet as a group from time to time) and the tribal authority/entity; and the lack of policy guiding a tribal authority/entity for how kaumatua should be involved.

We are, however, reminded by the importance of the close relationship between trusts or other legal structures that represent a community, and the community itself by the Waitangi Tribunal in reporting on the Auckland city-based Waipareira Trust’s Treaty claim: 12

Rangatiratanga resides in a community. While legal structures may be established by Maori groups for their own purposes, they merely reflect or approximate the locus of rangatiratanga, and the legal structure should not be mistaken for the community. A group that does not act as a community (whatever its legal constitution) cannot properly be said to exercise rangatiratanga (Waitangi Tribunal 1998, 25).

For those familiar with Treaty of Waitangi cases, claims, or policies, rangatiratanga needs little explanation. But, to put into context the discussion so far, including the takarangi network of actors, rangatiratanga is the exercise of customary authority over all affairs. It is trusteeship. It requires leaders (trustees) and beneficiaries working in a mutually-beneficial, reciprocal relationship (New Zealand Maori Council 1983). And so from the point of view of exercising rangatiratanga, the entrepreneurial leader often plays a significant role in navigating new and innovative pathways to ensuring rangatiratanga is applied effectively. But, to follow the Waitangi Tribunal above, the locus of rangatiratanga in the case of Maori (descendant/tribal or pan-tribal) communities is in the dual, mutually-enhancing relationship between trustees and beneficiaries. It does not simply reside in the leader alone.

CASE STUDY: TRIBAL RAILWAY LAND VENTURE The Ngati Whatua hapu (sub-tribal community), whose customary lands extend across much of Auckland city, embarked on a courageous land business venture in the early to mid-1990s. They purchased 50 acres of land for $40 million and spent further monies to add value to the land (for example, parks, sculpture, trees and streets that have historic Ngati Whatua names), which was otherwise relatively derelict.

The horizon envisioned was 150 years whereby all

assets developed on this central business district land would, in 150 years time, be returned ‘lock, stock and barrel’ to the community. In the meantime, the community would collect the financial returns annually, from the rent paid by the leaseholders, starting from year fifteen. The first fifteen years was a ‘rent-free’ holiday where the leaseholders, who have developed retail, other business, apartment, health clinic, stadium and other ventures, would not pay any rent to the Ngati Whatua landowner. The reason for the 15 year holiday was to encourage prospective individuals and groups to purchase leaseholds of sections of the 50 acre block. The fifteenth year came up in August 2011.

13

That is a basic outline of what land is involved and what kinds of business and other enterprises have been developed on it. The reasons for the development can be explained more deeply. As one entrepreneurial Ngati Whatua leader who was intimately involved in devising the plans, put it, in respect of the railway land development, there were certainly risks for the tribe in undertaking a significant land venture when they had no business experience of the type required, let alone finance. However, there were greater risks of doing nothing. The opportunity presented by the land and the government’s policy of selling off surplus railway land as could not be wasted. It was an opportunity for Ngati Whatua to regain mana or authority over their ancestral land and to once again become a major economic player in the region (Kawharu, 2004).

The land in question is reclaimed land. Prior to that, it was an important fishing area for Ngati Whatua as their settlement called Waipapa, which was located on the fringe of the railway land, illustrated the close association and use of the resources of the area to them. From a Ngati Whatua perspective, mana whenua or authority of and over land includes land beneath water as well. By directly engaging in the land again, and as recognized land owners following the purchase, the hapu could take a significant step in re-establishing a cultural footprint in the area as well. The commercial and cultural incentives were equally important. And so to return to the idea of realizing the opportunity: imagination – great imagination – as well as astuteness in figuring out what combinations of resources were needed, were essential factors.

As Lachmann argued, what marks out entrepreneurial behaviour from other

leadership behaviour is the ability of the entrepreneur to envision new possibilities, combine resources and recombine them in new ways, continuously, in order to meet long-term aspirations. To explore further the ideas of imagination and long-term planning, Ngati Whatua’s had no precedent in business or cultural terms to follow in relation to doing something on the railway land. Their vision for the land was not only to create business that would cover the costs of investing in and on the land to make it attractive to potential leaseholders, but more importantly, to create ventures that would enable a return to the descendant community. This idea of returning something to the community is a basic, but significant, one. First, and realistically speaking, it was known that nothing could be returned to the community within the first fifteen years. But, from that moment onwards, there would be significant return as the tribal authority began collecting rent. Those monies could then be invested back into 14

other tribal ventures, and to individuals. In terms of the long-term horizon, at the conclusion of 150 years, a major return to the tribe would occur: all the development on the land. In effect, it meant that the creators of the railway land plan were thinking about a timeframe of several ‘great’ grandchildren.

From what could be considered as humble beginnings from a comparative economic perspective, when a little more than 150 years ago the ‘land’ was covered by sea water, to the present and to 150 years time from now, where the land has on it a mixed business set of enterprises, the foresight required to think differently and to prepare differently was considerable. Despite the vast difference in scale and economy, Ngati Whatua’s former uses of the area and their current enterprises provide the same outcomes: a return to the community that contributes to kin group survival, development and mana. Lachmann’s point about plans in Ngati Whatua’s case needs some explanation. First, unlike any ‘normal’ or usual business planning where anywhere between one to ten years is considered typical practice, those drafting the railway land ‘deal’ needed to consider both the immediate business needs and issues, which meant also considering potential opportunities and constraints over many years, some generations in fact, as well. Lachmann’s dictum “the future is unknowable, though not unimaginable” was very much a reality for Ngati Whatua. Of course it was recognized that it would be impossible to predict exactly what the future might hold, but it was considered a necessary priority to think about creating a vibrant future for tomorrow’s descendants. The entrepreneurs’ vision for the railway land was based on core cultural and economic principles. Central to the thinking was the emphasis on the marae community, who are the descendants of the founding ancestor Tuperiri (who lived in the mid-eighteenth century and who led the major battles in the isthmus followed by occupation). Already urban-based, Ngati Whatua’s future diaspora would be mostly urban as well, and most would live outside of the Orakei resident community that is focused by its marae, as is the case now. And at the heart of the planning was the incentive to retain and build on the sense of tribal community and tribal identity, despite and perhaps because of the fact that the Ngati Whatua hapu is a geographically scattered community (some 90% or more of the descendant community live outside of Orakei). In 150 years time many thousands more descendants of Ngati Whatua o Orakei would live. The question of how to retain tribal community cohesion and relevance amongst 15

the descendants would be important issues, as they are now. So in the railway land venture planning, setting in place a clear focus on the community of descendants of Tuperiri (all of whom have Orakei marae as their physical, if not also spiritual/cultural tribal base), would provide the fundamental philosophical foundations to guide future Ngati Whatua members: to maintain a secure tribal identity and wellbeing. The returns from the railway lands provide important financial means to realizing these cultural and economic aspirations.

Issues of communicating effectively to the scattered community and developing a wider sense of Ngati Whatua community mana and identity would also be issues for descendants in 150 years time. The railway venture plays an important part in keeping the focus on these things as well as in communicating a Ngati Whatua presence amongst a wider community in the region. The ‘resources’ required in terms of combining and recombining were principally the marae, the land (the railway representing an expanded ancestral estate now owned by Ngati Whatua), finance, and people. The ‘people’ resources were the experts both from within and outside the hapu.

The people resource in particular changes considerably over time. The

combinations of skills and expertise that Orakei has at any one time to oversee and guide the railway development policy and planning. There are also changes in governance (in the trust board and corporate board membership for example), which impacts on directions taken.

The marae, in principle and theory, is the glue that holds things together. It is the place where discussion and debate occur. And it is the place where all can reconnect. The railways development provides an opportunity or kaupapa (plan or reason) to return to the marae to discuss, to hear from the trust board and from kaumatua. The marae also provides the forum for the trust’s board and the entrepreneurial leaders to be held accountable in a face to face setting. In reality though, the marae, and the mediating role played by kaumatua, have not always played a central part in discussions relating to the railways for some of the reasons noted above.

In the early days when the railway venture was first discussed, the

entrepreneurial leaders were also kaumatua who have since moved on or passed away. Written annual reports by the trust board and newsletter updates are other mechanisms that the trust board employs to keep descendants up to date with issues. These strategies of course have great benefits in terms of communication, but they are generally one-way communication. The role of the marae and elders still remains an outstanding question. 16

CONCLUDING COMMENTS We started our paper outlining key elements of Lachmann’s thinking on entrepreneurship. These were 1) the need for an imaginative capacity to envision the future; 2) the formation of capital through the continual combining and recombining of resources and 3) the institutional context as both the constraint and enabler of entrepreneurial action. We ended our paper looking at these ideas as they apply within a contemporary Maori tribal context. For Ngati Whatua, a key question that guided their entrepreneurial leadership was how does a tribal group re-establish itself in and on a landscape? The issues then became how to shape their vision with this question in mind, whereby the railways venture could provide a return to the descendants.

People, land, marae and finance were the key resources that have been

combined and recombined, and will continue to be, over succeeding generations, in order to bring fruition to the vision. The leadership required to set in train an innovative strategy to meet both economic and cultural goals was something out of the ordinary. While the entrepreneurs had an idea of what they were planning for, they were also heading into the unknown. The successors of the first entrepreneurs will need to continue to find ways to respond to circumstances as they arise, not least unexpected change, by forming and reforming new combinations. The Ngati Whatua aphorism ‘Ko nga kuri purepure o Tamaki, e kore e ngaro i te po’, meaning, those wearing the spotted dogskin cloak (an allusion to chiefly leaders) never rest, will continue to have relevance if the railway land venture is to provide the returns that the entrepreneurs first imagined.

REFERRENCES Chiles, T., Bluedorn, A., & Gupta, V. (2007). “Beyond creative destruction and entrepreneurial discovery: a radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship.” Organization Studies, 28 (4), 467-493.

Chiles, T., Bluedorn, A., & Gupta, V. (2008). “On Lachmann and effectual entrepreneurship” a rejoinder to Sarasvathy and Dew (2008).” Organization Studies, 29 (2), 247-253.

Chiles, T., Tuggle, C., & McMullen, J., Bierman, L. & Greening, D. (2010). “Dynamic Creation: Extending the Radical Austrian Approach to Entrepreneurship” Organization 17

Studies, 31 (1), 7-46. Kawharu, M. (2004). “Sustainable Development, Partnerships and Mana Whenua”, In I. Carter, D. Craig and S. Matthewman (eds.), Almighty Auckland?., Palmerston North: Dunmore Press, pp.75-88.

Kawharu, M. (2006). Te Tiriti and its Northern Context in the Nineteenth Century. A report commissioned by Crown Forestry Rental Trust. pp. 1-429. Kawharu, M. (2009). “Ancestral landscapes and World Heritage from a Maori viewpoint.” Journal of the Polynesian Society Vol 118 (4): 317-338. Kawharu, M. (2010). “Environment as marae locale.” In Selby, R., Moore, P., and Mulholland, M., (eds.), Kaitiaki: Maori and the Environment. Wellington: Huia.

Kawharu, M., Tapsell, P., Tane, H., & Woods, C.R. (2011). Leadership and Indigenous Entrepreneurship, Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Massey University, Auckland, 1st – 3rd December.

Lachmann, L. (1971). The legacy of Max Weber. Berkeley, CA: Glendessary.

Lachmann, L. (1976). From Mises to Shackle: and Essay on Austrian Economics and the Kaleidic Society, Journal of Economics Literature, 14(1): 54 – 62.

Lachmann, L. (1978). Capital and Its Structure. Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel Inc.

Lachmann, L. (1986). The market as an economic process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Lavoie, D (ed). (1994). Expectations and the Meaning of Institutions, Routledge: London.

Matthews. J. (2010). “Lachmannian Insights into Strategic Entrepreneurship; Resources, Activities and Routines in a Disequilibrium World.” Organization Studies, 31(2), 219-244. 18

New Zealand Maori Council (1983). Kaupapa: Te Wahanga Tuatahi. Wellington: The Council.

Petrie, H. (2006). Chiefs of Industry, Maori Tribal Enterprise in Early Colonial New Zealand. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Shane. S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: the individual-opportunity nexus. Nothampton, MA : Edward Elgar Streb, C. & Gupta, V. (2011). “Toward a hermeneutical methodology for entrepreneurship research in a radical subjectivist paradigm” In Rapaso, M. Smallbone. D, Balaton, K & Kartovanyi, L. (eds), Entrepreneurship Growth and Economics Development : Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 262287. Tapsell, P., & Woods, C. (2008a). “A Spiral of Innovation Framework for Social Entrepreneurship: Social Innovation at the Generational Divide in an Indigenous Context.” Emergency: Complexity and Organisation, 10(3), 25-34. Tapsell, P., & Woods, C. (2008b). “Potikitanga: indigenous entrepreneurship in a Maori context.” Journal of Enterprising Communities, 2(3), 192-203.

Tapsell, P., & Woods, C. (2010). "Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation: self-organisation in an indigenous context.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 10(5), 1-22. Vaughn, K., (1994), Austrian Economics in America: The Migration of a Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: An Editor's Perspective. In J. Katz & R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth (Vol. 3, pp. 119-138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Waitangi Tribunal, (1998). Te Whanau o Waipareira Report. Wai 414. Wellington: GP Publications. 19

20