Keywords

Resource; Administration; Public entrepreneurship; Organizational development; Local organization.

Introduction

The paradigm of new public management provides the necessity for government bureaucracy to analyse current organization and rapidly reform conventional method of modern orientation. The concept of public entrepreneurship is introduced to transform public organization of high-risk acceptance, proactive working system, and innovative digital technology to enhance organizational development. In order to drive public organization to be public entrepreneurial-oriented, sufficient and effective resources as well as strategic and participative administrations seem to be significant key driving factors. Public entrepreneurship in public sector, especially for local organization, has been considered as new and essential concept to increase organizational strength and development under the dynamic change of the 21st century. Accordingly, the government agency would quickly take public entrepreneurship concept into consideration. However, although the contribution to resource, administration, and public entrepreneurship on organizational development have been found in some research explorations, the mediating role of public entrepreneurship among resource, administration, and organizational development in the context of local organization remains question. The importance of the above explanation is the cause of this research study. The objective of this research studies aims to investigate the contribution to resource, administration, and public entrepreneurship on organizational development of local organization in Thailand. The research results to seem to be expected to imply as strategic guidelines on local organization to continually enhance organizational development in the long run. This paper begins with the review of the literatures of resource, administration, public entrepreneurship, and organizational development to conceptualize the research conceptual framework and develop appropriate hypotheses. Then, the research methodology consisting of data collection and data analysis is described in the next session. Next, the research findings and implication are discussed. Finally, conclusion and future research direction are intensively explained.

Literature Review

Resource

The resource base view (RBV) is a well-known theory describing the important of internal resource on organizational success (Ahmed & Othman, 2017). The definition of resource is explained in previous research studies. Resource is defined as organizational tangible and intangible assets, employee competency, operational equipment, and budget that enhance organizational performance and competitive advantage (Hsu & Pereira, 2008; Ahmed & Othman, 2017). The resource can be included in various elements such as employee commitment, organizational culture, digital technology and tangible asset which considers in driving the organizational goal and development (Ray et al., 2004; Ahmed & Othman, 2017). It can be seen that the effective resource management; consisting of human resource, financial resource, and technological resource, enhances the transformation of public organization to entrepreneurship orientation which supports the essentially dynamic change of the 21st century. As some research studies described that there were relationships between resource and public entrepreneurship as stated by Kearney et al. (2008); Barua et al. (2016); Jianxin & Tong (2019); as results, the research study aims to investigate such relationships. This research study concentrates on resource as an antecedent factor of public entrepreneurship in the context of local organization.

Administration

The concept of new administration in public organization of public entrepreneurship is taken into consideration due to the significant of external environmental change in the competitiveness of the 21^st century. As public organization has to respond rapidly to the dynamic change; consequently, the organization needs to plan for redesigning the current operation and management practice according to the new paradigm. (Tisen et al., 2006). Administration can be defined as the organizational activities of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling toward the desired goal and success. (Jayarathna &Weerakkody, 2014). In addition, administration described as internal process to achieve organizational vision of responding to the external environment. It can be seen that organizational administration; consisting of strategic leadership, managerial autonomy, performance-based reward system, and employee participation, highly supports public organization transforming into public entrepreneurship (Fernando, 2016). Thus, public organization significantly revisits conventional operation and innovates new strategic and participative administrations toward public entrepreneurship in order to enhance organizational development. This research study focuses on the contribution to administration on public entrepreneurship and importantly investigates such relationships. As some research studies stated that there were relationships between administration and public entrepreneurship as described by Kearney et al. (2008); Ongaro & Ferlie (2020); as results, the research study aimed to explore such relationships. This research study investigates on administration as an antecedent factor of public entrepreneurship in the context of local organization.

Public Entrepreneurship

The definition of public entrepreneurship is described in many research studies. Public entrepreneurship is defined as the innovative strategy and process of public organization to develop proactive public services by launching new digital technology into operation. (Kearney et al., 2009). Public entrepreneurship is considered as innovation, creativity, and new procedure establishment (Klein’r et al., 2010). In addition, public entrepreneurship is explained as organizational public service activity based on entrepreneurial management (Syam et al., 2018). Public entrepreneurship orientation plays an essentially significant role in enhancing public organizational development, especially for dynamic change in the 21st century. Currently, local public organization faces with many challenges to the complexity of public service demands; consequently, the organizational transformation to public entrepreneurship has been realized to support proactive activities and practices. The concept of public entrepreneurship is importantly considered to introduce into the government policy. The drive of entrepreneurial orientation in public organization builds innovation, efficiency, effectiveness, competitiveness, and development. Therefore, to enhance organizational development, public organization establishes the new paradigm of operational practices such as creating proactive working system and implementing digital technology through public services (Svensson, 2019). As many previous research studies shown that there were some relationships between public entrepreneurship and organizational development as stated by Fox (2008); Moghaddama et al. (2015); Hayter et al. (2018) as results, the research study aimed to explore such relationships. This research study focuses on public entrepreneurship as an antecedent factor of organizational development in the context of local organization. The definition of public entrepreneurship is described in many research studies. Public entrepreneurship is defined as the innovative strategy and process of public organization to develop proactive public services by launching new digital technology into operation. (Kearney et al., 2009). Public entrepreneurship is considered as innovation, creativity, and new procedure establishment (Klein’r et al., 2010). In addition, public entrepreneurship is explained as organizational public service activity based on entrepreneurial management (Syam et al., 2018). Public entrepreneurship orientation plays an essentially significant role in enhancing public organizational development, especially for dynamic change in the 21st century. Currently, local public organization faces with many challenges to the complexity of public service demands; consequently, the organizational transformation to public entrepreneurship has been realized to support proactive activities and practices. The concept of public entrepreneurship is importantly considered to introduce into the government policy. The drive of entrepreneurial orientation in public organization builds innovation, efficiency, effectiveness, competitiveness, and development. Therefore, to enhance organizational development, public organization establishes the new paradigm of operational practices such as creating proactive working system and implementing digital technology through public services (Svensson, 2019). As many previous research studies shown that there were some relationships between public entrepreneurship and organizational development as stated by Fox (2008); Moghaddama et al. (2015); Hayter et al. (2018) as results, the research study aimed to explore such relationships. This research study focuses on public entrepreneurship as an antecedent factor of organizational development in the context of local organization.

Organizational Development

The definition of organizational development is well explored for various research studies. Organizational development is defined as internal process to administer change in order to enhance organizational strengths and achieve desired outcomes (Cumming & Wolley, 2014). Organizational development describes about the values, strategies, and techniques on managing organizational change in responding to the external environment (Banutu-Gomez et al., 2016). In addition, organizational development is a process of ongoing planning, operating, and evaluating current internal practice to improve organizational capability and growth in respond to the dynamic change of outside environment (Kung’u, 2020). From review of the literatures, there are many antecedent factors, including public entrepreneurship, influencing on organizational development that had been investigated in various research studies. It can be seen that public entrepreneurship causes institutional development and change (Mcgahan et al., 2009). Public entrepreneurship essentially reinvents organization, effectively transforms organizational system, and eventually develops growth (Bernier & Hafsi, 2007). In other words, public entrepreneurship has significantly influenced on organizational development. As many previous research studies shown that there were some relationships between public entrepreneurship and organizational development as stated by Fox (2008); Moghaddama et al. (2015); Hayter et al. (2018) as results, the research study aimed to investigate such relationships. This research study considerably focuses on public entrepreneurship established by the government as an antecedent factor of organizational development in the context of local organization.

Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development

According to the reviews of the literature stated above, the conceptual framework of this research study was depicted in Figure 1. It presents the contribution to resource, administration, and public entrepreneurship on organizational development of local organization in Thailand. The research model has been significantly tested for the basis of four bodies of knowledge consisting of resource, administration, public entrepreneurship, and organizational development as well as the researcher’s application about the relationship among these variables.

Based on the above conceptual framework of the reviews of the literature of the constructs with the conceptualization of the relationships of these four variables, the hypotheses development can be explained as follows.

H1: Resource, administration, and public entrepreneurship have positively influenced on organizational development of local organization.

H2: Resource and administration have positively influenced on public entrepreneurship of local organization.

These two research hypotheses can be explained in the forms of structural equations in order to describe the relationship of variables and predicted the magnitude of the dependent variable. The symbols employed to represent these variables stated as follows.

RES = Resource

ADM = Administration

PES = Public entrepreneurship

ODV = Organizational development

The structural equations can be laid out as follows:

(1)

(2)

Research Methodology

Sampling and Data Collection

The research studies aims to investigate the contribution to resource, administration, and public entrepreneurship on organizational development of local organization in the upper northeastern region in Thailand. This research study is to employ a quantitative research method of a cross-sectional design as the data were collected at a single point of time of the specific respondents. The samples of 240 government officials of local organization of Sakon Nakhon and Udon Thani provinces in Thailand were determined by applying simple random sampling based on Taro Yamane formula (Yamane, 1973). In terms of the instrument quality testing, content validity was applied to ensure the accuracy of a questionnaire as an assessment tool. The Cronbach’s alpha was conducted to test for reliability of an instrument. Data were collected through 5-point Likert scale questionnaire surveys with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of four variables consisting of resource, administration, public entrepreneurship, and organizational development stated at 0.930, 0.929, 0.947, and 0.947, respectively as shown in Table 1. As Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale of all variables is greater than 0.700, so it explains that the questionnaire has a very high reliability for further investigation. The research study can be significantly analyzed with the 95% confidence interval.

Table 1 Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient of Variables
Variables	Cronbach’s alpha
Resource (RES)	0.930
Administration (ADM)	0.929
Public entrepreneurship (PES)	0.947
Organizational development (ODV)	0.947

Data Analysis

The research study was analyzed by using the statistical package for social science. Data were analyzed by employing descriptive statistics described as follows; percentage was used for presenting description of the respondents; mean, and standard deviation were used for explaining the levels of respondents’ opinion on resource, administration, public entrepreneurship, and organizational development of local organization in Thailand. In addition, data were analyzed by applying inferential statistics stated as follows; Pearson’s product-moment correlation was used for testing the relationship of the four variables. Path analysis was used for hypotheses testing for the contribution to resource, administration, and public entrepreneurship on organizational development of local organization in Thailand.

Reasearch Results

The research results from the hypotheses testing of the contribution to resource, administration, and public entrepreneurship on organizational development of local organization in Thailand were described as follows.

Description of the Respondents

For description of the respondents, the research finding stated that 240 questionnaire surveys from government officials of local organization were female up to 66.30%. The average ages of respondents were more than 40 years old up to 38.30%. Most of the respondents have earned Bachelor’s degree for the educational background up to 70.00%. The average monthly income of the respondents is in between 10,001-20,000 Baht up to 38.30%. The respondents employed in the position of government officials up to 53.80%. The respondents have worked for Sakon Nakhon and Udon Thani local organization with less than 6 years’ experience up to 27.50% as stated in Table 2.

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of the Respondents
Characteristics	Percentage
Gender
Male	33.70
Female	66.30
Age (Years)
Less than 21 years	0.80
21 – 30 years	26.30
31 – 40 years	34.60
More than 40 years	38.30
Educational background
Lower than Bachelor’s degree	14.60
Bachelor’s degree or equivalent	70.00
Higher than Bachelor’s degree	15.40
Monthly income
Less than 10,001 Baht	22.10
10,001 – 20,000 Baht	38.30
20,001 – 30,000 Baht	22.50
More than 30,000 Baht	17.10
Position
Government official	53.80
Employee	36.70
Staff	6.30
Others	3.20
Work experience
Less than 6 years	27.50
6 – 10 years	26.70
11 – 15 years	22.90
More than 15 years	22.90

Hypotheses Testing

For descriptive statistics, the collected data were analyzed by applying mean and standard deviation. The mean scores of government officials’ opinion on resource, administration, public entrepreneurship, and organizational development were at high levels with the average scores of 4.06, 4.10, 4.00, and 4.08 with standard deviation scores of 0.54, 0.56, 0.49, and 0.56, respectively.

For inferential statistics, the analysis of the relationship of these variables consisting of resource, administration, public entrepreneurship, and organizational development was essentially investigated based on the correlation coefficient according to the relationship assumptions. Pearson's product-moment correlation was employed to determine the relationship of these variables. The objective of correlation analysis was to find the magnitude of correlation between each variable and to test for multi-collinearity problem in order to further conduct hypotheses testing based on path analysis, a linear model structure. Correlation analysis among these variables was described in Table 3.

Table 3 Correlation Analysis Among Variables
Variables	RES	ADM	PES	ODV
MEAN	4.06	4.10	4.00	4.08
S.D.	0.54	0.56	0.49	0.56
RES	1
ADM	0.720**	1
PES	0.742**	0.698**	1
ODV	0.628**	0.629**	0.872**	1

Table 3 described the relationship between the independent variables that correlation coefficients (r) are not exceeding 0.800. As Hair et al. (2010) explained the relationship between the variables that must be less than 0.800 otherwise it may cause multi-collinearity problem according to the relationship assumptions (Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson, 2010). It can be seen that relationship among resource, administration, and public entrepreneurship was significantly correlated at the highest value of 0.742, which was not exceeding 0.800, accordingly multi-collinearity problem was not found in this relationship. Consequently, the research study can be tested the hypotheses by applying path analysis, a linear model structure, in order to investigate the contribution of resource, administration, and public entrepreneurship on organizational development of local organization at 0.050 significant levels.

The research result from hypotheses testing for the contribution to resource, administration, and public entrepreneurship on organizational development of local organization were described in Table 4. It reveals that public entrepreneurship has a positively influenced on organizational development of local organization in Thailand. In addition, resource and administration have positively influenced on public entrepreneurship of local organization of Thailand as presented below.

Table 4 Research Results from Hypotheses Testing
Model	Cooefficients
	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
	Beta	Std.Err.	Beta
H1: Model 1: RES	-0.077	0.054	-0.074	-1.429	0.154
ADM	0.069	0.049	0.069	1.421	0.157
PES	0.997	0.057	0.879	17.440	0.000***
Dependent variable: ODV
Adjusted R2=76.10% S.E.E=0.273 F=254.532
H2: Model 2: RES	0.456	0.054	0.498	8.483	0.000***
ADM	0.299	0.052	0.340	5.787	0.000***
Dependent variable: PES
Adjusted R2=60.30% S.E.E=0.310			F=182.595

Table 4 described the research results from hypotheses testing. For H1, the research result reveals that resource, administration, and public entrepreneurship can predict organizational development of local organization up to 76.10% (Adjusted R-Square 0.761) at 0.050 significant levels. Public entrepreneurship has a significantly influenced on organizational development with the standardized coefficient of 0.879. However, resource and administration have not influenced on organizational development. In addition, for H2, resource and administration can predict public entrepreneurship of local organization up to 60.30% (Adjusted R-Square 0.603) at 0.050 significant level. Resource and administration have significantly influenced on public entrepreneurship with the standardized coefficient of 0.498 and 0.340, respectively. It can be seen that public entrepreneurship plays an essentially important mediating role of resource, administration, and organizational development. These research results have significantly analyzed with the 95% confidence interval. The research results from hypotheses testing can be explained in the following structural equations as presented as stated below.

(3)

(4)

Research Result Implications and Discussions

The research result from hypotheses testing according to the conceptual framework by employing path analysis reveals that public entrepreneurship has a significantly influenced on organizational development at 0.050 significant levels. Resource and administration have not influenced on organizational development. However, resource and administration have significantly influenced on public entrepreneurship at 0.050 significant levels. According to the research findings, public entrepreneurship plays an importantly mediating role of resource, administration, and organizational development. The recommendation policies and practices for local organization implications to enhance organizational development are discussed as follows.

Firstly, the public local organization should focus on changing conventional work practice into proactive orientation towards public entrepreneurship; for example, building risk-taking organization, creating innovation in operation, and enhancing competitive organizational capacity. Public entrepreneurship plays a significant role in establishing organizational value, strength, and competitiveness. Accordingly, public entrepreneurship employs an essentially mediating role of organizational development as well as responds to the dynamic change of the 21st century.

Secondly, the public local organization should effectively manage the internal resource in order to support the organizational transformation to be entrepreneurial-oriented according to rapidly changing external environment. The preparation of human resource; in terms of knowledge, skill, and attitude, to be ready to encounter with disruptive technology in a digital era needs to be promptly considered as well as appropriate financial budget has to be provided for enhancing public entrepreneurship. It can be seen that the local organization would substantially take organizational internal resource development into consideration.

Thirdly, the public local organization should pay attention to strategically internal administration development in order to innovatively manage operational practice and working system. Strategic administration seems to be more suitable for enhancing public organization competitiveness as well as participative administration will support the management of internal function in all aspects to establish public entrepreneurship. It can be seen that strategic and participative administrations in public organization seem to be practical for achieving the desired outcome of the local organizational transformation towards public entrepreneurship orientation.

In conclusion, organizational development is an ultimate achievement of local public organization of a dynamic change of the 21st century. Effectively managing resource, suitably shaping strategic and participative administration, and intensely establishing public entrepreneurship orientation seems to be critical factors of transforming local public organization of conventional establishment of practicable institution. Managerial implications and suggestions, stated above are applicable to all levels of local organizations in public sector.

Conclusion and Future Research Direction

The concluding remark from this research study on the contribution to resource, administration, and public entrepreneurship on organizational development of local organization in Thailand are summarized as follows; public entrepreneurship plays an essentially mediating role between resource, administration, and organizational development. Effective management of internal resource brings about transforming organization to be entrepreneurial-oriented as well as strategic and participative administrations support practical guideline to implement entrepreneurial activity and procedure in local organization. Public entrepreneurship is an important concept in the 21st century as this concept incorporates into the public sector, especially for local organization. Public entrepreneurship could increase high-risk acceptance, create the innovative solution, predict future direction, and enhance organizational development. The contribution to this research study is to provide some implications for theoretical and managerial perspectives. However, there are many other antecedent factors of the researcher to explore for future research in order to enhance organizational development of local organization.

References

Ahmed, A., & Othman, I. L. (2017). Relationship between organizational resources and organizational performance: A conceptualize mediation study. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 6(1), 10-27.

Banutu-Gomez, M. B., & Banutu-Gomez, S. M. (2016). Organizational change and development. European Scientific Journal, 12(22), 56-67.

Barua, E. N., Gichira, R., & Iravo, M. (2016). Influence of organizational resources and environment social entrepreneurship factors on performance of enterprise based Parastatals in Kenya. International Journal of Business and Management Review, 4(4), 13-26.

Bernier, L., & Hafsi, T. (2007). The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 67 (3), 488-503.

Cumming, G. T., & Wolley, G. C. (2014). Organization development and change. (10th ed.). Stamford, USA: Cengage Learning.

Fernando, L. (2016). Entrepreneurship in public management: The case of Sri Lanka administrative service. The Chinese Public Administration Review, 3, 80-93.

Fox, J. M. (2008). Organizational entrepreneurship and the organizational performance linkage in university extension. USASBE 2008 Proceedings, 429-459.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. (7th ed.). Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.

Hayter, C. S., Link, A. N. and Scott, J. T. (2018). Public-sector entrepreneurship. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 34(4), 676-694.

Hsu, C. C., & Pereira, A. (2008). Internationalization and performance: The moderating effects of organizational learning. [Review]. Omega-International Journal of Management Science, 36(2), 188-205.

Jayarathna, S.M.D.Y, & Weerakkody, W.A.S. (2014). Impact of administrative practices on job performance with reference to public banks in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 3 (4), 162-169.

Jianxin, G., & Tong, L. (2019). Entrepreneurial resources, complementary assets, and platform sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1-20.

Kearney, C., Hisrich, R. D., & Roche, F. (2009). Public and private sector entrepreneurship: similarities, differences or a combination? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 16(1), 26-46.

Kearney, C., Hisrich, R., & Roche, F. (2008). A conceptual model of public sector corporate entrepreneurship. Int Entrep Manag J, 4, 295-313.

Klein’r, P. F., Mahoney, T. J., McGahan, M. A., & Pitelis, C. N. (2010). Toward a theory of public entrepreneurship. European Management Review, 7, 1-15.

Kung’u, G. K. (2020). Organizational development, organizational culture, and organizational change. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1, 1-19.

Mcgahan, A., Klein, P., Mahoney, J., & Pitelis, C. (2009). The economic organization of public entrepreneurship. Copenhagen Business School Summer Conference 2009, DENMARK, June 17-19, 1-33.

Moghaddama, J. Y., Khorakianb, A., Maharati, Y. (2015). Organizational entrepreneurship and its impact on the performance of governmental organizations in the City of Mashhad. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 169, 75-87.

Ongaro, E., & Ferlie, E. (2020). Strategic management in public organizations: Profiling the public entrepreneur as strategist. American Review of Public Administration, 50(4-5), 360-374.

Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. A. (2004). Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource‐based view. Strategic management journal, 25 (1), 23-37.

Svensson, P. (2019). Formalized policy entrepreneurship as a governance tool for policy integration. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(14), 1212-1221.

Syam, H., Lamangida, T., Madubun, J., Norwawati, & Akib, J. (2018). Public entreprenuership perspective in management of the Limboto Lake in Gorontalo Regency, Indonesia. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 24(4), 1528-2686.

Tisen, R., Andrisen, D., & Depre, F. L. (2006). Dividend knowledge. Adizes: Novi Sad.

Yamane, T. (1973). Statistics an Introduction Analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.