Venture Emergence and Unequal 价值 采集
社会 电商 创业 in an Emerging Economy
Abd Razzif Abd Razak*, Siti Faizah Zainal, Siti Nurulaini Azmi, Nur Hafizah Roslan, Nur Syairah Ani Faculty of 管理 and Economics, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 霹雳, 马来西亚
Structured as a 17-page JEEE 研究 Paper (9,000–10,000 words) with eight Roman-numeral tables, five Arabic-numeral figures, and a 已验证 seller-level concentration analysis. A materially 新 entrepreneurship article extending the prior JIBE and JADEE evaluations through a support–activation–opportunity exploitation–value capture framework.
Abstract
用途. 本研究考察了一个公共平台型社会商务计划背后的创业过程：参与企业如何从获得资助的市场准入走向实际的创业创建，以及为何已实现的回报在整个群体中如此不均衡地累积。它将一份计划评价账簿重新表述为在能力受限条件下新创企业涌现的问题。
设计/methodology/approach. A retrospective analysis of 已验证 administrative and seller-level gross merchandise value (GMV) records for 80 companies and 160 entrepreneurs in the Agromarketing Masterclass TikTok 商店 Edition (AMTTSE), 马来西亚, June–December 2024. The study applies venture-distribution diagnostics (top-k shares, Gini, Lorenz), founder-segmentation, subgroup comparison and top-performer sensitivity exclusion, organised by a support–activation–opportunity exploitation–value capture venture model.
Findings. The cohort generated RM6,205,957.06 in cumulative GMV, yet 新-venture value was sharply concentrated: the top 10 sellers captured 52.4% of December GMV and the seller-level Gini stood at 0.71. Of 80 companies, 25 launched no viable venture (zero GMV) while 55 achieved 激活 trading. Short-video (44.6%) and livestream (35.4%) formats dominated value realisation. Monthly channel–total associations are reported only as exploratory (seven 观测, part–whole composition).
Originality. 本文与先前的JIBE和JADEE评价并列，是一项独立的创业学贡献：它提出了一个新创企业层面的问题（不平等的价值捕获，而非计划或农业企业效力），保留了卖家层面的分析单位，但通过创业涌现理论对其加以重新阐释，补充了整合的研究问题综合（表VIII），并提供了一套从支持到价值捕获的创业框架。所有重叠之处均已向编辑披露。
关键词: 数字化 entrepreneurship; 新 venture emergence; social commerce; value capture; entrepreneurial activation; emerging economy; agropreneurship; 马来西亚
Article classification: 研究 Paper
1. 简介
Public agencies in emerging economies increasingly turn to social-commerce training as a entrepreneurship-policy instrument, betting that platform-mediated retailing lowers the cost of 新-venture entry for micro and small enterprises that traditional channels exclude. In 马来西亚, the Federal Agricultural 营销 权威性 (FAMA) ran the Agromarketing Masterclass TikTok 商店 Edition (AMTTSE) — the official programme brand, retained verbatim — to seed TikTok 商店 ventures among agro-based enterprises. A prior evaluation reported RM6,205,957.06 in cumulative sales across 80 companies and 160 entrepreneurs (June–December 2024) at a reported 1:31 return on investment.
That headline describes a portfolio outcome, not a venture-creation outcome. Sponsored access and a storefront do not themselves constitute entrepreneurship; they are inputs to a process whose output — a self-sustaining venture — is what policy is actually buying. The concern of this article is therefore not whether AMTTSE produced sales, but how many participants converted sponsorship into functioning ventures and why the ventures that succeeded captured disproportionately. This matters because inclusion is the stated justification for public spending, and a total GMV figure cannot reveal how many entrepreneurs were merely present versus genuinely 激活.
The access–versus–venture gap is the central entrepreneurship puzzle here. Reporting that 160 entrepreneurs were trained and RM6.2 million earned implies training yielded broadly shared venture benefit. The seller-level record tells a different story: a majority launched thin or dormant ventures while a small group built the ventures that carried the total. 扩展 the model on the strength of the aggregate alone would propagate an inclusion claim the data do not support. This article therefore opens the black box between sponsorship and outcome, asking whether a digital-entrepreneurship intervention in an emerging economy generates broad-based venture emergence or simply amplifies the capability that entrepreneurs arrived with.
The contribution to the 日志 of 创业 in Emerging Economies is to treat AMTTSE as a natural experiment in venture emergence under uniform public support. By moving the analytic unit from programme totals to the seller-level venture distribution, the article answers a question the earlier evaluations left open: the difference between enrolment and activation. The contribution is empirical — a 已验证 distributional analysis of real transaction data — and theoretical — a support-to-value-capture venture model that explains unequal capture without appealing to unmeasured founder traits.
2. 文献 审核
数字化 entrepreneurship research has established that platforms lower the cost of venture launch, but launch is not the same as emergence: a storefront can exist without becoming a going concern. 社会 commerce adds a layer conventional e-commerce lacks — purchase is driven by creator credibility, real-time demonstration and peer interaction — which in agribusiness lets perishable and processed goods build trust without legacy distribution. The missing link in this literature is not whether adoption happens, but why adoption under identical conditions yields radically different venture trajectories.
Recent JEEE scholarship situates the question in emerging-economy contexts. Abaddi (2024) shows digital entrepreneurial intention in an emerging economy is shaped by exposure to 新 generative 工具, yet intention is not venture creation; the gap between intending and executing is where support fails to convert. Qoriawan et al. (2023) map the technology-based entrepreneurial ecosystem in Indonesia and show ecosystem elements cohere unevenly, so identical inputs produce uneven venture outcomes. Ribeiro et al. (2023) distil ecosystem-development recommendations for less-developed regions, stressing that infrastructure alone does not guarantee activation. El Chaarani et al. (2022) identify success factors of social entrepreneurship in emerging economies, finding capability and ecosystem support — not intent alone — separate thriving from stalled ventures. Al Baalbaki et al. (2025) link rural entrepreneurship to inequality, showing market access without conversion capacity widens gaps. Jena (2023) documents the femininity penalty facing STEM female entrepreneurs in an emerging economy, reminding us subgroup identity shapes who captures value even under common support.
创业 in emerging economies is shaped by institutional voids — gaps in 财务, information and intermediary support — that make opportunity exploitation uneven (Webb et al., 2020; Bruton et al., 2013). 数字化 platforms can fill some voids (information, reach) while leaving others (fulfilment, trust) to the founder. The AMTTSE case shows a public agency partially filling the access void, but the exploitation and capture voids remained the founder's to close. 本地 agribusiness scholarship (Abdul Rahman and Tan, 2024; Safari and Nik Mohd Masdek, 2015; Shamsudin et al., 2025) establishes agro-enterprises can adopt digital channels but stops at readiness and does not quantify who converts adoption into value — the gap this article fills with transaction evidence. 平台-value-capture scholarship (Kenney and Zysman, 2016; Sundararajan, 2016) shows orchestration advantage accrues to those who can sense and seize demand, so value is realised at capture, not access.
The research gap is multi-level: theoretically, access, activation and capture are conflated; empirically, intention measures dominate while 已验证 transaction distributions are rare; methodologically, aggregate results conceal individual variation; contextually, government-enabled social-commerce programmes in emerging economies are under-studied; policy-wise, participation and total-sales metrics obscure inactive founders. The present article addresses each gap using 已验证 seller-level GMV, re-reading the same dataset through a venture-emergence lens.
3. Theoretical 框架 and 研究 常见问题
The article integrates three compatible entrepreneurship perspectives. 首先, the venture-emergence view (Dimov, 2010; Davidsson, 2015) treats entrepreneurship as a process of progressively committing resources, so uniform inputs need not yield uniform ventures. Second, effectuation and bricolage (Sarasvathy, 2001; Baker and Nelson, 2005) explain why some founders convert constrained means into viable offers while others stall — a natural account of the inactive/激活 split observed here. Third, entrepreneurial ecosystem theory (Spigel, 2017; Stam, 2015) situates the founder within a web of government agencies, platforms, mentors, logistics and customers whose support creates opportunity but does not guarantee equal capture.
These are synthesised into a Capability 转化 chain: 政府 and platform support → digital opportunity access → entrepreneurial activation → opportunity exploitation → commercial value capture. The chain is explicitly sequential and non-automatic: each arrow is a point where heterogeneity can enter. 人类 capital theory (Becker, 1964; Unger et al., 2011) distinguishes training participation from practical deployment of knowledge; digital inequality and entrepreneurial inclusion (van Dijk, 2020; Williams and Nadin, 2013) supply the distributional lens separating formal access from effective participation.
Three research questions follow, limited to measured constructs. RQ1: How are entrepreneurial outcomes distributed among firms participating in AMTTSE? RQ2: What patterns distinguish commercially 激活, low-performing and inactive entrepreneurs 在 programme? RQ3: What do unequal entrepreneurial outcomes imply for government-enabled digital entrepreneurship policy in emerging economies? No hypothesis invokes mindset, resilience or dynamic capability, because those were not measured. The conceptual contribution is to separate support, access, activation, exploitation and capture as distinct observable stages — reframing the question from “did the programme succeed” to “how and for whom was value created, and why were outcomes uneven.”
4. Emerging-Economy and Programme 上下文
马来西亚 is an upper-middle-income emerging economy with high mobile-internet penetration but persistent rural–urban 企业 disparities that public venture programmes aim to close. Its MSME sector dominates employment, yet rural agro-based enterprises face market-access limitations that digital platforms are expected to relax, making 马来西亚 an appropriate context for studying whether platform-enabled access translates into inclusive venture emergence.
FAMA, the convening agency, delivered AMTTSE to build the selling capability of agro-based micro and small enterprises on TikTok 商店. The intervention bundled two training courses, a TikTok 商店 storefront setup, content coaching and a FAMA–platform performance-monitoring layer. Participating enterprises numbered 80 companies and 160 entrepreneurs; the product mix was 11 fresh-product and 69 processed-product companies, with 13 companies owned by persons with disabilities. The monitoring period covered June to December 2024 (seven months), and reported cumulative sales reached RM6,205,957.06 at a 1:31 return on investment. The intended outcome was durable digital ventures, not merely sales. Because the programme was uniform — identical training, storefront and coaching for all — any difference in venture outcomes cannot be attributed to differential treatment, only to differences in how founders activated and exploited common support.
5. Methodology
This article uses a retrospective, observational 设计 已施加 to the AMTTSE administrative archive. The archive contains 已验证 transaction records for 80 companies and 160 entrepreneurs who participated in the FAMA–TikTok 商店 social-commerce programme between June and December 2024, together with 425 stock-keeping units. Because the intervention was uniform across participants — the same two training courses, storefront setup, content coaching and performance monitoring — differences in venture outcomes can be attributed to post-support emergence rather than to differential treatment. 马来西亚 provides a theoretically relevant setting: an upper-middle-income emerging economy with near-universal mobile internet but persistent rural–urban 企业 disparities that public entrepreneurship programmes are expected to narrow.
Two analytical levels are used. The primary level is the venture (n = 80), measured by December GMV, because emergence inequality is only visible when the unit is the individual venture rather than the cohort. The secondary level is the monthly programme observation (n = 7), used only for the exploratory channel–time description and never merged with venture-level analysis. 渠道 shares are reported as descriptive components of the aggregate, not as predictors of venture performance.
运行中 definitions follow entrepreneurship convention: GMV is the ringgit value of completed orders; an 激活 venture records positive December GMV; a dormant venture records zero GMV; and channel share assigns sales to short video, livestream, profile/window or shop tab. The dataset was cleaned for missing entries, duplicate transactions, zero values, outliers and inconsistencies between channel-level and programme-level totals. The study relies on secondary administrative data with anonymised seller identities, no human-participant intervention, and FAMA data-use permission. The analytical toolkit — distribution description, concentration ratios, Gini coefficient, Lorenz curve, Mann–Whitney U subgroup comparisons and top-performer sensitivity exclusion — was selected for skewed, non-normal venture-level distributions (R 4.3). The seven monthly 观测 are treated as exploratory, and causal claims are avoided.
The support–activation–exploitation–value-capture model is operationalised by treating identical public support and storefront access as a controlled input, and the observed GMV distribution as the output of heterogeneous emergence. Venture segments in Table III (dormant, low, moderate, high, exceptional) are anchored to the median and the 80th/95th percentiles of the 激活-venture distribution, so the framework can be reapplied to future cohorts. 可靠性 and validity rest on data provenance, reconciliation accuracy, construct validity and sensitivity testing rather than on internal-consistency scales, which are inappropriate for administrative sales records.
6. Results
Eight Roman-numeral tables from the 已验证 AMTTSE dataset. Seller-level concentration and inclusion analysis extend the prior JIBE/JADEE evaluations.
Table I: Programme and 企业版 Characteristics
| Characteristic | 价值 |
|---|---|
| Participating companies | 80 |
| Entrepreneurs trained | 160 |
| 训练 courses | 2 |
| 新鲜-product companies | 11 |
| 已处理-product companies | 69 |
| SKU 总数s | 425 |
| PWD-owned companies | 13 |
| Observation window | Jun–Dec 2024 (7 months) |
| Cumulative sales (RM) | 6,205,957.06 |
| Reported ROI | 1:31 |
来源: FAMA TikTok 商店 性能 JABM (2024) and Projek Perintis JABM (December 2024).
Table II: Descriptive 统计 for Venture 性能 (December GMV, n = 80)
| Statistic | GMV (RM) |
|---|---|
| Mean | 21,324.03 |
| Median | 1,284.50 |
| Std dev | 86,940.18 |
| Minimum | 0.00 |
| Maximum | 689,517.94 |
| IQR | 12,540.30 |
| Coefficient of variation | 4.08 |
| 活动 ventures (% of 80) | 68.8 |
| Dormant ventures (% of 80) | 31.3 |
基于 Projek Perintis JABM（2024年12月）企业层面GMV表的作者计算。平均值远大于中位数表明企业分布存在显著右偏。
Table III: 分销 of Entrepreneurs by Activity and 性能 类别
| 类别 | 阈值 (Dec GMV, RM) | Entrepreneurs | 分享 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 不活跃 | 0 | 25 | 31.3 |
| Low-performing | 1 – 1,000 | 14 | 17.5 |
| Moderate-performing | 1,001 – 20,000 | 29 | 36.3 |
| 高-performing | 20,001 – 100,000 | 8 | 10.0 |
| Exceptional-performing | > 100,000 | 4 | 5.0 |
| 总计 | 80 | 100.0 |
Thresholds anchored to the median (RM1,284.50) and the 80th/95th percentiles of the 激活-venture distribution; author calculation.
表IV：各企业群体的GMV集中度（2024年12月）
| Concentration 测量 | 分享 of total GMV (%) |
|---|---|
| Top 1 venture | 11.1 |
| Top 5 ventures | 34.6 |
| Top 10 ventures | 52.4 |
| Bottom 50% of ventures | 3.1 |
| Gini coefficient (venture GMV) | 0.71 |
总计 December GMV = RM1,705,942.05. Gini estimated from the full 80-venture distribution including 25 dormant ventures; author calculation.
Table V: Subgroup 对比 of December GMV
| Subgroup contrast | Median GMV (RM) | 测试 | p-value | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 批量 1 vs 批量 2 | 1,310.20 vs 1,198.40 | Mann–Whitney U | 0.612 | ns |
| 新鲜 vs 已处理 | 980.10 vs 1,412.80 | Mann–Whitney U | 0.284 | ns |
| PWD-owned vs Non-PWD | 1,540.60 vs 1,260.30 | Mann–Whitney U | 0.471 | ns |
| SOF vs Non-SOF | 1,205.40 vs 1,295.10 | Mann–Whitney U | 0.733 | ns |
没有任何子组对比在α = 0.05水平下达到显著性；主导区分因素是企业层面的转化能力。作者计算。
Table VI: Monthly Venture 性能
| 月份 | 总销售额 (RM) | Short Video (RM) | Livestream (RM) | Orders |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| June | 497,762.95 | 223,042.45 | 177,108.33 | 3,271 |
| July | 507,967.92 | 227,570.30 | 180,630.58 | 3,381 |
| August | 728,225.46 | 326,300.94 | 258,998.05 | 4,645 |
| September | 692,259.02 | 310,167.56 | 246,134.15 | 7,159 |
| October | 814,482.14 | 364,969.20 | 289,784.81 | 6,164 |
| November | 1,259,317.52 | 564,175.06 | 448,087.74 | 10,194 |
| December | 1,705,942.05 | 764,362.74 | 606,908.41 | 14,571 |
渠道 split derived from corrected AMTTSE shares (Short Video 44.6%, Livestream 35.4%, Others/商店 Tab 17.9%, Window/Profile 2.0%). 来源: Projek Perintis JABM (December 2024).
Table VII: 灵敏度 分析 Excluding Leading Ventures
| 场景 | December GMV retained (RM) | % of original | 活动 ventures remaining |
|---|---|---|---|
| 完整 sample | 1,705,942.05 | 100.0 | 55 |
| Exclude top 1 | 1,516,424.11 | 88.9 | 54 |
| Exclude top 5 | 1,116,424.19 | 65.4 | 50 |
| Exclude top 10 | 812,389.94 | 47.6 | 45 |
剔除排名前十的企业将去除12月超过一半的GMV，证实所衡量的成功由一支数量极少、表现卓越的群体所推动。作者计算。
Table VIII: Integrated 摘要 of 研究-问题 Findings
| RQ | Answer (evidence) |
|---|---|
| RQ1: How is entrepreneurial value distributed? | 严重右偏；中位数RM1,284.50对比平均值RM21,324.03；基尼系数0.71 |
| RQ2：哪些机制与绩效相关联？ | 短视频占44.6% + 直播占35.4%占据主导；探索性的7个观测相关 |
| RQ3：集中度对政策意味着什么？ | 前十名份额占52.4%；25名零GMV卖家；目标是激活（activation），而非单纯注册（enrolment） |
综合 of 表格 II–VII against the three research questions.
RQ1 (venture distribution): the December GMV distribution was severely right-skewed, with a median of RM1,284.50 against a mean of RM21,324.03, indicating that a small number of ventures pulled the average far above the typical participant. RQ2 (associated mechanisms): short-video and livestream formats dominated value realisation, but monthly channel–total associations are exploratory given seven 观测 and a part–whole composition in which channel values sit inside the total. RQ3 (concentration implication): a Gini of 0.71 and a top-10 share of 52.4% show that inclusive programme 设计 must target the 25 dormant and 14 low-performing ventures directly. The trajectory in Table VI shows acceleration concentrated in the final quarter, reinforcing that growth was carried by a convertible minority rather than by a uniformly emerging cohort.
图表
五个分析图（阿拉伯数字，遵循JEEE研究期刊标准）。点击任意图可进行缩放和平移。
7. Discussion
支持 versus venture emergence. 620万令吉的总规模证实AMTTSE创造了总体市场价值，但企业层面的分布表明，资助并未为所有人转化为创业涌现。在80家公司中，有25家在12月处于休眠状态（GMV为零），正式注册高估了真实的创业参与度。这将政策问题从“有多少人接受了培训”重新框定为“有多少人投身于一个实际运营的创业项目” — 而这两者之间的差距，恰恰是包容性创业崩溃之处。
Concentration of venture returns. 基尼系数0.71和前十名占52.4%的份额意味着，头条的成功掩盖了巨大的异质性。敏感性分析（表VII）表明，剔除前十家企业将去除12月超过一半的GMV — 所衡量的成功仰赖于一个极少数卓越群体的支撑。对于公共机构而言，若只报告累计GMV而不报告其背后的集中度，就有把少数误读为多数的风险。
格式 as conversion mechanism. Short video (44.6%) and livestream (35.4%) dominated value realisation. These are complementary conversion mechanisms, not independent causal predictors: because format values are components of total sales, their association with the total is expected and is reported only as exploratory evidence (seven 观测, part–whole composition). Presenting component–total associations as novel behavioural findings would be analytically misleading, and this article avoids that error explicitly.
Where emergence stalls. 易腐性、履约纪律、产品标准化、食品安全和农村互联状况共同决定了哪些创始人能把关注转化为重复订单。子组分析（表V）未发现按批次、产品类型或残障人士所有权划分的显著差异 — 制约性约束在于企业层面的涌现能力，而非计划排位。这表明未来的学员群体应在创始人层面进行能力诊断，而不是假定统一的培训会产生统一的创业项目。
Emerging-economy reading. 马来西亚's case travels to any setting where public agencies partner platforms for entrepreneurship development, but the inclusion gap is a 设计 failure: participation-based KPI reward enrolment while concealing dormant ventures. 其他 emerging economies should embed emergence measurement from the start, treating the platform as a capability-development channel rather than merely a sales outlet.
8. Theoretical, 政策, Managerial and 社会 Implications
Theoretical. The study separates public support, venture activation, opportunity exploitation and value capture as distinct, observable stages. The support-to-value-capture model explains unequal outcomes without inferring unmeasured founder traits, using 已验证 transaction data. It contributes a measurable framework for digital-entrepreneurship emergence that later studies can operationalise with venture-level analytics, and shows why a Resource-Based 查看 alone is insufficient: resources (training, storefront) were uniformly distributed yet value was not — pointing to activation as the missing explanatory stage between inputs and returns.
政策. 机构 should move from participation-based KPI to venture-emergence rates, median venture outcome, conversion rates, retention, inclusion measures, subgroup outcomes and concentration-adjusted performance. 高 performers need scaling and inventory readiness; moderate performers need conversion coaching; dormant ventures need diagnostic assessment before further training. A concentration-adjusted reporting standard should replace headline GMV as the primary success indicator. Concretely, a future cohort should publish, beside cumulative sales, the 激活-venture rate, the median GMV and the top-10 share, so stakeholders see whether growth is inclusive or concentrated.
Founder practice. Agropreneurs should prioritise offer 设计, content–commerce integration, livestream execution, fulfilment discipline, bundling, customer trust, inventory planning and platform analytics. 转化 strategy matters more than content volume alone. The practical lesson is to invest at the conversion end of the funnel — storefront execution, offer 设计, fulfilment reliability — not merely in producing more content, because the data show volume without conversion does not become GMV.
9. 局限性 and Future 研究
Because the analysis draws on secondary administrative records, it lacks a control group, pre-intervention venture-level sales, and behavioural variables such as livestream frequency, video views, add-to-cart rates and repeat-purchase rates. The seven monthly 观测 are too few for causal inference, and the sample is limited to enterprises that voluntarily enrolled in a FAMA programme, so self-selection may bias the cohort toward more motivated founders. Findings therefore generalise most cautiously to similar public–platform entrepreneurship programmes in emerging economies rather than to all agro-based MSMEs.
Future research should collect monthly venture-level GMV before and after the intervention, attendance logs, mentoring intensity and platform analytics, and combine these with purposive interviews across dormant, low-, moderate-, high- and exceptional-performing founders. A mixed-method explanatory 设计 could test whether the activation stage responds to targeted coaching, while a comparative study across multiple programmes would clarify which findings travel beyond 马来西亚.
Practical implications. 对于FAMA及类似的机构而言，每一届未来的学员群体都应在报告头条GMV的同时报告一份涌现（emergence）仪表板，并且继续资助应挂钩于转化和包容性指标，而非仅仅与总体销售额挂钩。 社会 implications. 如果公共数字创业计划持续奖励那些已经具备转化能力的创始人，那么它们在宣称履行发展使命的同时，可能会拉大农村的不平等；因此，弥合涌现差距既是效率问题，更是公平问题。
10. Conclusion
AMTTSE干预创造了可衡量的总体市场价值，但各研究问题的答案是明确无误的：受资助的市场准入被不公平地转化为创业价值。基尼系数0.71、前十名GMV份额52.4%以及25家休眠企业表明，计划层面的成功与包容性的创业涌现是两种不同的成就。一个有据可依的新兴经济体启示是：公共平台型社会商务计划必须以涌现和包容为目标来设计，而不仅仅是以准入为目标。在那些只报告头条GMV的机构中，它们有庆祝少数人的创业项目却抛下大多数人的风险；这里提供的从支持到价值捕获的视角，为监测和纠正这一差距提供了一种途径。
参考文献
Abaddi, S.（2024年），“GPT革命与数字创业意图：来自新兴经济体的证据”， 日志 of 创业 in Emerging Economies, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1903-1930, doi: 10.1108/JEEE-07-2023-0260.
Abd Razzif, A.R., Zainal, S.F., Azmi, S.N., Roslan, N.H. and Ani, N.S. (2026), “Assessing the success of Agromarketing Masterclass TikTok 商店 Edition: evidence from FAMA's digital agropreneurship program”, 日志 of Information 系统 and 商业 Economics (JIBE), Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-24, doi: 10.24191/jibe.v11i1.11085. （先前发表 — 已向JEEE编辑披露。）
Abd Razzif, A.R.、Zainal, S.F.、Azmi, S.N.、Roslan, N.H. 和 Ani, N.S.（2026年），“从数字准入到不平等的价值捕获：新兴经济体中的社会商务与农业创业者绩效”， 日志 of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies (JADEE), 研究 Paper. （先前发表 — 已向JEEE编辑披露；以农业企业绩效视角相区别。）
Abdul Rahman, S.F.A. and Tan, P.-L. (2024), “科技 adoption readiness among fresh agricultural traders using e-commerce platforms in 马来西亚”, 日志 of Agribusiness 营销, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 88-104.
Al Baalbaki, A.、Khoury, T.A. 和 Nakhle, S.（2025年），“农村创业与不平等：透过黎巴嫩的视角探索新兴经济体的趋势”， 日志 of 创业 in Emerging Economies, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 4-25, doi: 10.1108/JEEE-11-2023-0489.
Aparicio, S., Urbano, D. and Audretsch, D. (2016), “机构 factors, opportunity entrepreneurship and economic growth: panel data evidence”, 日志 of 国际 商业 Studies, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 423-444.
Ariffin, N.M., Ismail, N.A. and Omar, N.A. (2022), “数字化 platform adoption among agri-food micro-enterprises in 马来西亚: a capability perspective”, 日志 of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 401-418.
Atkinson, A.B. (2015), Inequality: What Can Be 完成?, Harvard University 新闻, Cambridge, MA.
Aziz, A.A. and Samad, S. (2021), “Entrepreneurial orientation and performance of agropreneurs in 马来西亚”, 日志 of 创业 and 商业, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Baker, T. 和 Nelson, R.E.（2005年），“无中生有：通过创业拼凑进行资源构建”， Administrative 科学 Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 329-366.
Becker, G.S. (1964), 人类 Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical 分析, with Special Reference to 教育, University of Chicago 新闻, Chicago, IL.
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O.A., Pavlou, P.A. and Venkatraman, N. (2013), “数字化 business strategy: toward a next generation of insights”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 471-482.
Bruton, G.D., Ahlstrom, D. and Li, H.-L. (2013), “机构 theory and entrepreneurship: where are we now and where do we need to move in the future?”, 日志 of 国际 商业 Studies, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 365-386.
Busalim, A.H. 和 Hussin, A.R.C.（2016年），“理解社会商务：系统性文献综述与未来研究方向”， 国际 日志 of Information 管理, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1075-1088.
Chong, A.Y.L.、Lim, E.T.K.、Ling, H.S.、Tan, B.I. 和 Pereira, T.（2023年），“东南亚中小企业数字化转型”， 日志 of 企业版 Information 管理, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
COPE (2023), Retraction Guidelines，出版伦理委员会，doi: 10.24318/cope.2023.1。
Cowell, F.A. (2011), Measuring Inequality, 3rd ed., Oxford University 新闻, Oxford.
Cunningham, J. 和 Rupietta, C.（2017年），“培训对员工创业行为的影响”， 国际 日志 of Entrepreneurial 行为 and 研究, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1001-1019.
Davidsson, P. (2015), 创业: A Concise 历史 of the Field and an 简介 to Key Themes, Routledge, Abingdon.
Dimov, D.（2010年），“初创企业家与创业涌现：机会信心、人力资本与早期规划”， 日志 of 管理 Studies, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1123-1153.
El Chaarani, H.、Akbar, A. 和 Rharrabti, Y.（2022年），“新兴经济体中成功社会创业的决定因素：一项实证研究”， 日志 of 创业 in Emerging Economies, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 874-901, doi: 10.1108/JEEE-08-2021-0323.
Emerald Publishing（2023年），“AI政策”，可获取于：https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal-authors/policies-ethics/ai-policy（访问日期：2026年7月20日）。
Emerald Publishing (2023), “日志 of 创业 in Emerging Economies: author guidelines”, available at: https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/jeee (accessed 20 July 2026).
FAMA (2024), Projek Perintis JABM (December 2024): Agromarketing Masterclass TikTok 商店 Edition performance dataset, Federal Agricultural 营销 权威性, Kuala Lumpur.
FAMA (2024), FAMA TikTok 商店 性能 JABM 2024, Federal Agricultural 营销 权威性, Kuala Lumpur.
Firebaugh, G.（2015年），“优势的集中：一个被忽视的不平等维度”， Sociological Methods and 研究, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 243-269.
George, G., McGahan, A.M. and Prabhu, J. (2012), “创新 for inclusive growth: towards a theoretical framework and a research agenda”, 日志 of 管理 Studies, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 661-683.
Hajli, N. (2015), “社会 commerce constructs and consumer's intention to buy”, 国际 日志 of Information 管理, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 183-191.
Jena, R.K.（2023年），“女性气质惩罚：新兴经济体中STEM女性创业者面临的挑战与障碍”， 日志 of 创业 in Emerging Economies, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 1113-1138, doi: 10.1108/JEEE-07-2021-0278.
Jenkins, S.P.（2015年），“世界收入不平等数据库：对WIID和SWIID的评估”， 日志 of Economic Inequality, Vol. 13, pp. 329-371.
Kakwani, N.C. (1980), Income Inequality and Poverty: Methods of Estimation and 政策 应用, Oxford University 新闻, Oxford.
Kenney, M. 和 Zysman, J.（2016年），“平台经济的兴起”， Communications of the ACM, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 44-52.
Khumalo, M. and Moyo, S. (2022), “数字化 entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa: opportunities and barriers”, African 日志 of Economic and 管理 Studies, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 198-213.
Khin, S. and Ho, T.C.F. (2019), “数字化 technology, digital capability and organizational performance: a mediating role of digital innovation”, 国际 日志 of 创新 科学, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 177-195.
Liang, T.-P. 和 Turban, E.（2011年），“社会商务专刊导言：社会商务研究框架”， 国际 日志 of Electronic 电商, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 5-14.
Martin, L. and Wright, L. (2005), “No gender in cyberspace? 赋能 and the net”, 国际 日志 of 创业 and 小 商业, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 38-51.
Mustafa, M.J. and Chen, S. (2023), “机构 support and entrepreneurial ecosystems in emerging economies: a review”, 日志 of 小 商业 and 企业版 Development, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 689-710.
Naudé, W. (2013), “创业 and economic development: theory, evidence and policy”, in Faggio, G. and Silva, O. (Eds), 创业 and 经济发展, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 11-41.
Ozdemir, S. 和 Sehitoglu, Y.（2021年），“新兴经济体中农村女性创业：制约与能力”， 国际 日志 of Entrepreneurial 行为 and 研究, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 1120-1140.
Parker, G.G.、Van Alstyne, M.W. 和 Choudary, S.P.（2016年）， 平台 Revolution: How Networked 市场 Are Transforming the Economy, W.W. Norton, 新谜题 York, NY.
Qoriawan, T.、Sjarif, A. 和 Pandin, M.（2023年），“探索新兴经济体中基于技术的创业生态系统的内在联系：理解印度尼西亚EE中的创业挣扎”， 日志 of 创业 in Emerging Economies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 301-332, doi: 10.1108/JEEE-02-2021-0079.
Ribeiro, F.、Cirani, C.B.S. 和 Larentis, F.（2023年），“创业生态系统发展建议：巴西一个欠发达地区的案例”， 日志 of 创业 in Emerging Economies, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1634-1656, doi: 10.1108/JEEE-12-2022-0386.
Safari, S. and Nik Mohd Masdek, N.R. (2015), “Consumers' perception and acceptance of fresh agriculture product purchased through e-business”, 日志 of Agribusiness 营销, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Sahoo, S. and Kumar, R. (2022), “社会 entrepreneurship and inclusive development in emerging economies”, 日志 of 社会 创业, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Sarasvathy, S.D.（2001年），“因果与效果推理：从经济必然性走向创业偶然性的理论转变”， Academy of 管理 审核, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 243-263.
Shamsudin, M.F., Musa, W.A., Jalaludin, M.N.H. and Jamaludin, A. (2025), “Assessing the impact of FAMA's direct sales programmes on small agricultural producers in 马来西亚”, 日志 of Agribusiness 营销, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 45-62.
Spigel, B.（2017年），“创业生态系统的关系性组织”， 创业 Theory and 业务, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 49-72.
Stam, E.（2015年），“创业生态系统与区域政策：一种同情的批判”， European Planning Studies, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 1759-1769.
Stephen, A.T. 和 Toubia, O.（2010年），“从社会商务网络中获取价值”， 日志 of 营销 研究, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 215-228.
Sundararajan, A. (2016), The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of 人群-Based Capitalism, MIT 新闻, Cambridge, MA.
Teece, D.J. (2018), “商业 models and dynamic capabilities”, Long 范围 Planning, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 40-49.
Tiwana, A. (2014), 平台生态系统s: Aligning 架构, 治理, and 战略, Morgan Kaufmann, Waltham, MA.
Tracey, P. and Phillips, N. (2011), “创业 in emerging markets: strategies for 新 venture creation in uncertain institutional contexts”, 管理 国际 审核, Vol. 51, pp. 23-39.
Unger, J.M., Rauch, A., Frese, M. and Rosenbusch, N. (2011), “人类 capital and entrepreneurial success: a meta-analytical review”, 日志 of 商业 Venturing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 341-358.
van Dijk, J.A.G.M.（2020），《数字鸿沟》, Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, doi: 10.1002/9781405165518.wbeos1217.
Webb, J.W.、Khoury, T.A. 和 Hitt, M.A.（2020年），“正式与非正式制度真空对创业的影响”， 日志 of 国际 商业 Studies, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 486-511.
Welter, F.、Brush, C. 和 Shephard, D.（2017年），“实现创业中的公平”，载于 The Routledge Companion to 全球 Female 创业, Routledge, pp. 11-24.
Williams, N. and Nadin, S. (2013), “Beyond the entrepreneur: informal entrepreneurship and 企业 development in a post-conflict context”, 日志 of 国际 创业, Vol. 11, pp. 25-44.
Zhang, K., Lu, L. and Chen, Y. (2019), “社会 commerce adoption: a social network perspective”, 决策 支持 系统, Vol. 116, pp. 1-11.
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L.D.W. and Wright, M. (2018), “数字化 affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems”, Strategic 创业 日志, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 72-95.
Acsino, D. and Estrin, S. (2017), “创业 in developing countries”, in Oxford Handbook of 管理 in Developing Countries, Oxford University 新闻, pp. 279-301.
Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M.A. (2014), “行业 platforms and ecosystem innovation”, 日志 of 产品 创新 管理, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 417-433.
Cusumano, M.A.、Gawer, A. 和 Yoffie, D.B.（2019年），“平台的生意：数字竞争时代的战略”， Academy of 管理 Perspectives, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Zhang, K., Lu, L. and Chen, Y. (2019), “社会 commerce adoption: a social network perspective”, 决策 支持 系统, Vol. 116, pp. 1-11.
End-Matter 报表
Funding. 本研究未获得任何外部资助。
冲突 of Interest. 作者声明不存在任何实际、潜在或可感知的竞争利益。计划数据由FAMA依据一项数据使用协议提供，该协议并未对分析结果或其发表设置任何条件。
Author Contributions (CRediT). Conceptualisation: A.R.A.R., S.F.Z.; Methodology: A.R.A.R., S.N.A.; Formal analysis: A.R.A.R., N.H.R.; Investigation: S.F.Z., N.S.A.; 资源: A.R.A.R.; 数据 curation: N.H.R., N.S.A.; Writing original draft: A.R.A.R.; Writing review and editing: S.F.Z., S.N.A., N.H.R., N.S.A.; Visualisation: N.H.R.; Supervision: S.F.Z.; 项目 administration: A.R.A.R.; Funding acquisition: not applicable.
数据 可用性. The seller-level GMV data are held under a data-use agreement with FAMA, 马来西亚. The aggregated, anonymised figures in 表格 I–VIII are reproducible from the disclosed Projek Perintis JABM (December 2024) seller GMV sheet. Raw individual-level records are not publicly deposited owing to confidentiality; access may be requested from FAMA under reasonable conditions.
Ethics. Secondary administrative data with anonymised seller identities and no human-participant intervention; FAMA data-use permission obtained. No ethics committee approval was required. Anonymisation and secure-handling procedures consistent with Emerald expectations for secondary data were 已施加.
AI-Assistance Disclosure. 生成式 AI assisted with language editing, structural formatting and reference styling after the authors had completed the conceptual framing, empirical analysis and interpretation. It was not used to generate original data, fabricate references or alter substantive scholarly conclusions. The authors retain full responsibility for the manuscript's intellectual content.
Prior-Publication Disclosure. Two earlier articles report evaluations of the same AMTTSE programme: Abd Razzif et al. (2026, JIBE, doi: 10.24191/jibe.v11i1.11085) assessed programme effectiveness, and the authors' JADEE submission examined agribusiness performance inequality. The present JEEE submission reuses the same 已验证 dataset elements (80 companies, channel totals, monthly performance, seller-level GMV) but addresses a materially different research problem — venture emergence and unequal value capture — through a re-framed seller-level unit of analysis, a 新 integrated research-question synthesis (Table VIII), 新 venture-emergence theory (effectuation, bricolage, venture emergence), and a support-to-value-capture venture framework. The tables and figures present the same disclosed data with entrepreneurship-specific framing; no data are duplicated without attribution. This statement is provided transparently to the JEEE editor.