Much of the behavioural research that has examined the link between national cultures and entrepreneurship was based-on Hofstede's (1 980; 1 99 1 ) conceptualisation of national culture; subseq uently h is cu ltural dimensions 10 have been used to measure and explain level s of entrepreneurial activity. Entrepreneurship literature within the Western context suggests that entrepreneurial activity flourishes where values such as individualism, rationality, risk-taking, wealth generation, self-interest, autonomy, achievement and self-reliance and long-term orientation are prevalent. However, the assumption that such values are un iversal is unsubstantiated and unwarranted (Kikooma , 2002; Thomas & Mueller, 1 998). As cultures d iffer, their entrepreneurship orientations differ a ccord ingly
Altho ugh there is a surge in entrepreneurship research , Thomas and Mueller (1 998) drew attention to the paucity of entrepreneurship research in non-AmericanlWestern context and noted that the majority of this research is being conducted using Western standards, parameters and methodolog ies even when the research is carried out in non-Western environments. They further warned non-Western nations against relying on "prescriptions" hailed in the Western entrepreneurship literatu re as remedies for their q uest for economic development and growth . Lingelbach, De La Viria and Asel (2005) high lighted the immense lack of research specially desig ned to promote entrepreneursh ip in developing cou ntries. They further emphasised the need for such research to be indigenous so as to mirror the realities of its environment and describe how entrepreneurship is conceived and carried out in respective countries.
The transferability of Western-based research and the attempts to implement Western theories and practices of development in non-Western environme nts are not trouble free or straig htforward applications, a nd might prove to be counter productive (Russell, 1 997). The difficu lty is more evident where differences in value systems between countries do exist and have a predominant impact on other social, economic and legal systems (Kiggundu, Jorgenson & Hafsi, 1 983). For instance, central to the modernisation theories is the spirit of individualism, wh ich is linked to strong
entrepreneurial orientation within the Western context, but this is not compatible with the Asian values that emphasise family ties. Furthermore, Muslims view the over emphasis on individ ualism and its association with free market p rinciples as a threat to their fa mily and community values and to the very basics of their socio-economic structure. Therefore , it seems inappropriate to use individ ualism as a sta ndard measure of entrepreneu rial orientation in Asian or Islamic contexts. The sa me argument could be bu ilt regarding other entrepreneurship dimensions: rationality, risk taking, power distance and masculinity within different cultural contexts.
The inconveniences of applying these instru ments to non-Western cultu res were caused by cu ltural insensitivity and the failure of such instru ments to accou nt for non Western value systems. The apparent scarcity in research methodology addressing entrepreneurship in non-Western cu ltu res prom pted several scholars to argue for the need to explore and develop new, independent, and cu ltu rally sensitive models of indigenous entrepreneurial attitude (Hay ton , George, & Zah ra, 2002 ; Lindsay, 2005).
Hofstede's (1 99 1 ) analysis of the cu ltu ral dimensions of the Arabic speaking countries including Saudi Arabia revealed that these cou ntries were collectivist, mascu line, high in power distance, strong in uncertainty avoidance and have a preference to short-term o rientation. Judging the Saudi Islamic cu ltu re by Hofstede's cu ltu ral dimensions unsu rprisingly ind icates that the Saudi culture is anti-entrepreneurial. This expected outcome could be explained by the fact that the essence of Hofstede's dimensions and Weberian principles are embedded in the spirit of modernisation theories, which are highly contested by the Islamic worldview.
This unfold ing argu ment leads to the core of the thesis. Western conventional wisdom as evidenced by mod ern isation theories of development, explicitly calls on countries faced with low levels of economic development and growth to undertake major transformation of their cultures towards modernity. Yet, is there an alternative for countries that do not see in cu ltu ral transformation an option? Conseq uently, is there a need for different cu ltu rally based models of entrepreneurship, such as an Asian model, African model, Islamic model or Latin American model, as an alternative to the Western model?
Literatu re points out that the US leads the world in entrepreneurship in part due to its individualistic orientation where internal locus of control is prevalent and individual in itiative is encouraged . What distinguishes entrepreneurial societies from the rest is
their acceptance of failure as part of the learning process and as a step towards success coupled with the positive attitude which holds that rewards of succeeding far outweigh the risk of failing (Ross, 2000). The Western emphasis on key cu ltural dimensions for entrepreneurship promotion , especially 'individualism' and 'risk taking' have been challenged : Japan is "a group-oriented cu lture" and its society by no means is "an individualistic society" , as the emphases are on organisational belonging (institutions, corporations, government agencies) rather than individual achievement (Ross, 2000; Mueller & Thomas, 200 1 ). The family-centred Chinese entrepreneurship and the rewarding experience of the East Asian countries have proved that prosperity could be achieved through customised entrepreneurship wh ile preserving national collectivist values and without going 'Western'.