Can street entrepreneurs be Schumpeterian entrepreneurs? The case of food trucks as family firms in an emerging country

The culture of entrepreneurship has become a buzzword throughout the business world. It celebrates autonomy and risk-taking (Doody, Chen & Goldstein, 2016). Entrepreneurs are recognized for their posture of innovativeness, experimentation and pro-active pioneering of new markets (Zhang, Groen & Belousova, 2018).

In entrepreneurship research, economic sociologists have focused their inquiry on profit-making, proprietorship, and business creation, including what drives individuals to start businesses and what accounts for the success and failure of new firms (Doody, Chen & Goldstein, 2016). Researchers have also focused on how individual traits, institutional characteristics, and resource configurations influence entrepreneurial performance (Companys & McMullen, 2007).

However, the understanding of how entrepreneurs in emerging market enhance innovation performance is still limited (Zhang, Chen & Kane, 2018). In fact, despite the maturity of food sector, there are still relatively few studies regarding innovation-related issues (Lefebvre et al., 2015). Most of the existent researches focus on high-tech industries (Vrontis et al., 2017). More investigations are necessary in low-tech companies, as the case of entrepreneurship in street ventures (Alfiero, et al., 2017).

The key issue facing many small medium-sized enterprises as street ventures is related to how they can foster effective innovation (Farsi & Toghraee, 2014). There is a need to understand which factors contribute to successful innovation by entrepreneurial firms in emerging economies characterized by institutional uncertainty (Greeven & van de Kaa, 2013). This gap exists especially because their innovative and experimentation posture may lead to more frequent innovation failures (Zhang, Groen & Belousova, 2018).

Moreover, few studies have evaluated critically the explanations for participation in street entrepreneurship activities (Williams & Gurtoo, 2012). It is necessary to understand how economic actors purposefully enact new opportunities to create innovation in a variety of industry environments (Companys & McMullen, 2007). Scholars have yet to develop a full understanding that explains the emergence and development of entrepreneurial opportunities. It is necessary to better understand the relationship between opportunity, innovation, performance and the strategies that are needed to discover and exploit new opportunities (Companys & McMullen, 2007).

This paper aims to address this gap, specifically at deepening knowledge of street entrepreneurship as family firms. The starting point has been the prevalent premise in the literature that, due to their low technological standards, street entrepreneurs are not innovative (Reynolds et al., 2002; Bhola et al., 2006).

The question that guided this investigation is: How do street entrepreneurs discover and exploit opportunities in the low-tech food industry? And how can street entrepreneurs be Schumpeterian Entrepreneurs? To answer these questions an investigation was carried out with the case of food trucks as family firms in an emerging country. An effort was made in order to investigate the main elements behind this economic and social phenomenon, bringing forth concepts and practices that enable progress in the knowledge in order to create insights for future research.

It is hoped to contribute to the existing knowledge about street entrepreneurship by developing a better view of the nature and characteristics of entrepreneurial opportunities, as well as the strategies that should be employed to discover and exploit these opportunities. Specially, it is expected to contribute in the understanding of how street entrepreneurs can innovate in times of crises lowering failure risks.

This study presents relevance at a time when many countries are facing economic downturn and global changes in job dynamics, while the entrepreneurship discourse (or disguised self-employment entrepreneurship) returns to the forefront. Against this backdrop, a new phenomenon related to street entrepreneurship sparked research interest: street ventures, once marginalized and normally related to informal work, are now enjoying growing emphasis. Highly educated entrepreneurs, who otherwise would decide to open a store in a mall or a laundry franchise, are now seizing itinerant business opportunities with more flexibility, preparation and contact with the public as an opportunity of independence and realization. This phenomenon may give rise to new market settings and needs to be better understood. The relevance to understand the phenomena that surround an emerging country, conducting this study in Brazil, is because this country responds to the largest economy in Latin America, according to the International Monetary Fund (2017).

This term entrepreneurship can be defined at its most basic level as business creation (Doody, Chen & Goldstein, 2016). Entrepreneurship is the result of individual innovation, passion and tenacity (Kuratko, 2011). Entrepreneurial intention relates to a composite of some demographic, competencies, networks and perception factors (Khefacha & Belkacem, 2015). This behavior is related with attention to social, societal and personality factors, such as experience, education, economic and political climate (Ozaralli & Rivenburgh, 2016).

Academically, there is much more than one definition of entrepreneur, as many authors have made efforts to better understand and describe the concept. The perspective adopted here is that the taxonomy of entrepreneurial theories can be classified in three major schools: a) Neoclassical of Marshall, Knight and Schultz; b) Austrian of Menger, Von Mises and Kirzner; and c) German or Schumpeterian of von Thünen, Schumpeter and Baumol (Wennekers and Thurik, 1999).

The (neo)classical stress the role of the entrepreneur in leading markets to equilibrium through their entrepreneurial activities. The Austrians concentrate on the abilities of the entrepreneur to perceive profit opportunities, usually after some exogenous shock. The “Austrian” entrepreneur combines resources to fulfil currently unsatisfied needs or to improve market inefficiencies or deficiencies. In the German or Schumpeterian tradition, economists concentrate on the entrepreneur as a creator of instability and creative destruction. The difference between the German (Schumpeterian) and Austrian tradition can be summarized as follows: according to Nooteboom (1993), the Schumpeterian entrepreneur creates the potential and the Austrian realizes it (Wennekers and Thurik, 1999).

Another widely accepted concept of entrepreneur is the one provided by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM, 2015): entrepreneurship is any attempt to create a new venture, whether to start a new company, to expand an existing one or even to practice an autonomous activity. In this view, an entrepreneur can be related to someone sophisticated, formal enterprises and higher benefit, or to those very simple businesses, whether formal or informal, aiming only to have a different source of income, whether replacing or complementing the salary.

Knowledge relates to innovations, and innovative entrepreneurship is considered an important pillar for economic development (Block et al., 2017; Kuratko, 2011). One of the possibilities for companies to innovate is by engaging in research and development activities. Another possibility, alternatively, occurs by trying to imitate other firms’ (König et al., 2016). The second option is much more likely to occur in family firms, given its nature. However, when knowledge diffusion is addressed, it is necessary to remember that, before its diffusion, knowledge needs to be developed/created.

In this sense, studies about service innovation have argued that the innovation process is more informal and ad hoc than innovation activities in the manufacturing sector (e.g. Sundbo, 1997), as in the case of the street entrepreneur. Den Hertog (2000) suggests four dimensions of novelty on service innovation: a) Service concept: a service new to its particular market (new value proposition); b) Client interface: changes in the way clients are involved in service design; c) Service delivery system: changes in the way which service worker performs his jobs delivering critical services; d) Technology: great efficiency obtained though information technology into process and delivery innovation.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines street foods as ready-to-eat foods and beverages that are prepared and sold by vendors or hawkers, especially in the street and other similar places (FAO, 2016). Food trucks are part of the broader category “street vendors” (Rishi, 2013), in which one of the important aspects is its ability to generate entrepreneurial work opportunities (Alfiero et al., 2017). An example is that the street entrepreneur movement of food trucks in the United States has a strong relationship with the crisis experienced by the country. It strongly correlates with the increase in unemployment that led many chefs from restaurants to look for more viable alternatives than opening a restaurant (Hawk, 2013; Kregor, 2015).

Food trucks family firms are responsible for the modernization of street entrepreneur, regards to the form of production, sales and communication with customers (Rishi, 2013). They have become an urban cultural phenomenon, since the demand for street vendors has sharply increased among urban populations (Shin, Kim & Severt, 2018). They are adapted trucks with kitchen equipment such as refrigerator, cookers and counters (Vedana et al., 2015), selling more sophisticated food (called “gourmet”), that differs from those sold traditionally on the street, almost approaching food offered in restaurants (Rishi, 2013). Often, their owners are highly trained chefs and, sometimes, owners of well-known restaurants (Mclaughlin, 2009). They do not have a fixed location and use communication and geolocation technologies to inform consumers about their location (Kregor, 2015). Undoubtedly, the entrance of food trucks family firms was responsible for the modernization of street food (Vedana et al., 2015). As a result, the first entrants made an incremental innovation to expand that kind of business, which resulted in a greater range of the target audience and differentiation in the customer base.

The failure of traditional street vendors is a striking contrast to the successful efforts of these entrepreneurs (Martin, 2014). In fact, there was success and a strong expansion of food trucks (Alfiero, et al., 2017; Hawk, 2013; Kregor, 2015; Williams, 2012). An inquiry on Google Trends (2018) search by the theme food truck around the globe and, in Brazil, it shows that we are facing a contemporary phenomenon that has attracted interest over the years. In fact, a survey conducted by National Restaurant Association (2011) found that food trucks are one of the most evident trends in the restaurant industry at the time. The same survey indicated that consumers show growing interest in mobile food services, and six out of ten consumers would visit a food truck if their favorite restaurant offered one. In addition, according to Rishi (2013), street sales drive the economy substantially, affecting the local economy.

Possibly inspired by these initiatives from abroad, in Brazilian cities, street entrepreneurs focused on gourmet food trucks are also spreading (Ross et al., 2015). Within the expansion of gastronomy on the national scene, the street food appreciation went beyond the traditional concept of cheap food for low class people and has become a cultural element, attracting people from every stratum. In addition, their business model bases on events designed to attract people with greater purchasing power (Dorigon, Bonamigo and Malheiros, 2014).

This research bases on a qualitative approach, since this is a nascent area of study and interest in society. A search for “food truck” in Google Trends demonstrates that the subject aroused interest practically null until the beginning of 2010, considering all the searches on the subject in the internet worldwide. It is available in Fig. 2:

In the academic field, a search for “Food Truck” on Scopus, database with the more comprehensive coverage of the latest literature (Harzing and Alakangas, 2016), without any restriction of period, language, subject area or document type, resulted in only 57 documents, none of them examining the same issue.

Broadening, the search for the term “food AND truck” found 770 documents; however, most articles deal with other topics, not related to this type of business. Moreover, the search for “food AND truck AND innov*” resulted in only 20 documents, of which only six are published in peer review journals in Business, Management & Accounting and Social Sciences. The search for the terms “food AND truck AND entrepreneur” resulted in only five documents, and only two of them are published in peer review journals. Finally, the search for the terms “food AND truck AND entrepreneur AND innov *” did not match the results. This indicates it is an emerging theme. Alfiero et al., (2017), Ross et al. (2015) and Shin, Kim& Severt (2018) confirm this, since they also identified that food truck is an emerging research issue. Therefore, this is an exploratory investigation.

Case study is the research strategy chosen for the investigation. This strategy is indicated in situations when “how” or “why” questions are proposed, the researcher has little or no control over behavioral events, and the focus of study is a contemporary phenomenon (Yin, 2017).

The 11 food trucks surveyed in this study have, on average, 12 months of operation. In general, these businesses have two partners actively working and almost unanimously declared to have higher education or graduate. All interviewees have only one food truck, although some have other businesses, such as restaurants, bakery and food factory. Table 1 presents some data from the interviewed food trucks:

When seeking the explanations for participation in street entrepreneurship activities (Williams & Gurtoo, 2012), among the main reasons given for the choice of having a food truck, it was identified the personal interest to work with food, the perception that this market is growing and allows profit, the desire of having their own business, the low investment compared to opening a physical enterprise, mobility to go to the client’s meeting and schedule flexibility.

For example, regarding motivation, Food Truck owner 2 says, “My partner and I had a shoe store in the metropolitan area of Porto Alegre and with the low (customer) movement we were looking for new opportunities for greater profit”. Food Truck 6 owner says, “We realized that the food truck market has been growing. We both have experience in the kitchen, he worked in the United States making hamburger and I worked in a Japanese restaurant”. The owner of Food Truck 8, who already has a restaurant, explained that his main motivation was “to take advantage of the wave of food trucks, to use this movement as a kind of advertisement for my restaurant, once I already have the structure that facilitates the work here”. In addition, Food Truck 5 owner says that “the great difficulty I faced in my other food endeavors was the challenge of taking the customer to our establishment, here [in food trucks] we go to the place the customer is”.

The word mobility was quoted practically by all the interviewees when they were asked why they chose a street entrepreneurship. Some answers explained in more detail: “I was ‘locked’ in the office for many years and I like being on the street, the food truck gave me the possibility of mobility that I was looking for” (FOOD TRUCK 1 OWNER); “It’s more practical, because we can go where customers are” (FOOD TRUCK 2 OWNER); “I wanted mobility, not getting stuck, and going to the customer (FOOD TRUCK 5 OWNER);” “For mobility, and flexibility of schedules, that counted a lot ”(FOOD TRUCK 11 OWNER).

The lower cost compared to the physical enterprise was also pointed out by respondents, specifically citing cost reducing on rent and maintenance of workers in low demand times. The owner of Food Truck 2 says that “The cost to make a food truck is less than to open a physical store, also you do not need to pay rent”. The owner of Food Truck 11 says that for him it is an “alternative rather than opening a restaurant”. The owner of Food Truck 6 explains that cost and mobility questions were determinant for their decision: “lower cost than opening a fixed enterprise, and does not have the cost of staff, rent”. The possibility of mobility and efforts to reduce costs indicated in the interviews allow to infer that, in the food truck option, there is less need for knowledge compared to the physical development, because in the second option there is a need to assess the feasibility of the product offered for region where the enterprise is established.

Interestingly, as some of the above quotations demonstrate, among the 11 food trucks, in four of those the owners already run their own business: three of them in the food area, one of them with international experience and another case of a restaurant owner for 11 years (which saw the food truck as a business opportunity, a way of “advertising” his restaurant). Another food truck owner works with food for over 20 years. He was a chef, and always had projects in the food industry. Among people with this profile, the main reason to build an entrepreneurship business on the street is the perception of profitability. For example, the owner of Food Truck 5 explains that:

“I've always enjoyed cooking; I have been working with food for more than 20 years. I had a bakery in the 1990's, took a chef's course, worked in restaurants, and went out on a routine issue that bothered me. I lived in Los Angeles for 2 years and followed the appearance of Food Trucks in 1997, as well as in other trips I made. After 2012, already in Brazil, I decided to return to the food sector and started to market pizzas. At this time, I went to a food event, which aroused my attention to the food trucks, this business was almost nonexistent here in the south of Brazil yet, and so I did a market research and thought it would be a profitable business. Therefore, I decided to make a hamburger food truck because I have experience in this type of cuisine and saw a good profit opportunity” (FOOD TRUCK 5 OWNER).

These entrepreneurs can be classified as opportunity-based entrepreneurs (GEM, 2013; 2014; Reynolds et al., 2002) since they saw a business opportunity motivated by profit purpose. As proposes (Doody, Chen & Goldstein, 2016) these food trucks owners seek a new lens to engage with a longstanding focus on small-business proprietorship (Doody, Chen & Goldstein, 2016). Considering the classification of GEM (2015; 2013; 2014), it is possible to consider most of these activities as entrepreneurs in early stage (new, because they are already generating income to the owners) and with influences of education and training of owners in business.

Those entrepreneurs, who mentioned the recognition of a business opportunity in food trucks, conducted market research before opening their business. In some cases, the research took up to one year of analysis using external consultants, observing food truck events and monitoring their movement in other states of Brazil, as well as researching on the internet for inspirational insights on Brazilian trucks and especially outside the country where the activity is more consolidated.

In this sense, Food Truck 1 owners reported that they conducted market research for 6 months before starting food truck activities. They said, that in this period, “We took courses at Sebrae (a Brazilian institution that offers small business consulting services), used the internet to research business options, evaluate other food trucks in São Paulo (financial capital of the country), because at that time still there were not many food trucks in operation here in the city, it was all unknown and we needed to understand what was happening in other markets. We were trying to understand everything that was possible about this market, management errors, news, everything […]”.Food Truck 2 owner said that “We came up with ideas that we saw about food trucks operation outside Brazil”. The owner of Food Truck 3 reports that “We researched in websites, at the time there was very few [food truck] in São Paulo, here in Porto Alegre there were only two food trucks operating. We went to São Paulo to ask for information and together we researched in internet about food trucks outside Brazil that were successful”. The owner of Food Truck 4 reports that “I searched everywhere you can imagine, especially in other states of Brazil”. Food Truck 5 owner says that “I researched about food trucks in the United States, taking advantage of the learning of the time that I worked there and completing with new researches via internet”. Food Truck 10 owner said that “We conduct our own research in several places such as websites and fairs in São Paulo, we did gastronomy courses and then we started the business plan”.

From these findings it is possible to identify that, in the absence of knowledge or ventures of this type in the city or region analyzed, a significant part of the entrepreneurs sought their knowledge in other Brazilian states and/or in other countries. In these places they investigated, the market already showed a higher level of maturity according to the interviewees’ speech, which sought to understand, in addition to opportunities, the points that led to the failure of businesses of the same type.

However, there are also indications, in lower degree, of entrepreneurs motivated by necessity. For example, one of the enterprises interviewed stated that he was fired from his job and decided to start a food truck as an alternative of income:

I have always enjoyed cooking, I made recipes on weekends at home, but I had never worked with it. I wanted to have my own business, but I worked in the trade as an employee. At one point, I was fired and, in an impulse, I decided to begin working with the food truck, because before leaving the job I thought about it. (FOOD TRUCK 4 OWNER).

As it is possible to see in his speech, he had no previous experience with food or street entrepreneur. In this case, the entrepreneur behavior is not related with previous experience, which differs from Ozaralli & Rivenburgh’s (2016) proposition. Therefore, he can be classified as a typical street vendor, i.e., a necessity-based entrepreneur (GEM, 2013; 2014) since he started the business because employment options were unavailable or unsatisfactory (Reynolds et al., 2002). This finding is aligned with the proposition of Morelix, Fairlie & Tareque (2017) that entrepreneurs coming from unemployment are more likely to start new companies for necessity reasons rather than for opportunity reasons.

In any case, it is possible to perceive elements pointed out by Khefacha & Belkacem (2015), Kuratko (2011) and Ozaralli & Rivenburgh (2016): demographic, competencies, networks, perception factors (such as passion for food), education, economic and political climate. However, none of them indicated they were seeking to be free to coordinate the development of a business, as proposed by (Doody, Chen & Goldstein, 2016).

None of them reported the use of new technologies in its production process. In fact, due to its low technological nature, food trucks rely mainly on people work. As Brouthers and Brouthers (2003) point, once services tend to be people intensive, the result is that the competitive advantage tends to be derived from idiosyncratic assets. An example is investments in training and knowledge. Undoubtedly, as proposed by Brouthers and Brouthers (2003), once services are people intensive, they tend to be inseparable and perishable because production and consumption are normally linked geographically, and the service firm needs to be present at the time of production and use, and services cannot be inventoried. Most entrepreneurs reported using existing technologies in their communication processes. The eleven food trucks reported making use of social media to inform their location to customers and publicize the events. These finding is related to the proposition of Doody, Chen & Goldstein (2016) that these entrepreneurs tend to relate to innovative technologies and forms of service provision as end users rather than developers.

Exploring characteristics that differentiate a food truck from a street entrepreneurship and situating it as a niche market, the respondents cited: a) food trucks generally offer products with better quality, which adds more value compared with regular street food; b) food trucks have more elaborated appearance; c) there are several forms of payment available; d) investment is higher than other street endeavors; e) stronger regulation leads to a greater hygiene and quality; f) the mobility and possibility to use refrigerators and freezers also have a great influence.

For example, food truck owners made the following statements: “Of course, there is the financial difference of those who can afford to build a car because the investment is high. It also has a more hygienic and clean structure, but we, for example, came from the tent.” (FOOD TRUCK 1). “The food is more elaborated.” (FOOD TRUCK 2). “Food truck is distinguished by the structure, has refrigerator, freezer and others that your tent has not, besides mobility, once we have wheels.” (FOOD TRUCK 3). “Food trucks differentiate themselves by the whim, car’s appearance and the form of payment.” (FOOD TRUCK 4). “The normal street entrepreneur has a product that almost everyone has the same by a cheaper price. Food truck has the concept of serving quality food on the street, it is a differentiated product on the street.” (FOOD TRUCK 5). “It is different because the concept of food truck is an easily accessible gourmet food, so the food truck adds value to food compared to the common street entrepreneur.” (FOOD TRUCK 6). “The street projects in general are very retrograde; in this sense, food trucks are super innovative in comparison with others.” (FOOD TRUCK 11).

They best sales performance happens at events in public spaces, together with other activities such as fairs, music festivals and other trucks, than in isolated spots. Their target consumer are middle-class young people who participate in these street events and are capable and willing to pay more for “gourmet” food, i.e., higher quality food than those usually sold on the street, very similar to those sold in restaurants, in terms of quality and variety.

As an example, follows the speech of some food trucks owners: “Before, there was a boom in shopping malls. Now people are coming out more, turning more to their neighborhoods, something that was once gone and is now coming back” (FOOD TRUCK 1). “Our audience has been the event staff, willing to pay more for quality product” (FOOD TRUCK 6). Both food truck owners 9 and 10 reinforced many times that their larger public has been young people who attend these street events. In addition, “I thought our audience would initially be anywhere, but now we see events as a great opportunity” (FOOD TRUCK 11).

Concerning the regulation, all the respondents said it is important, though opinions differ when they answered if it helps or restricts their businesses. Those who see the legislation as favorable mentioned the need of caring with food safety. The biggest concern among the critics regards to the highly bureaucratized processes within all areas in which there is government involvement. One respondent reported that, at the beginning, the lack of regulation was a great barrier during the business opening process. Another interviewee explained that they are prohibited to work on street regularly, because of the absence of specific law. Therefore, their options are to take part on an event, or work in partnership with a regular shop, parking in front of it. However, the same respondent affirmed that events bring their biggest sales.

Since entrepreneurs are recognized for their posture of innovativeness and pro-active pioneering of new markets (Zhang, Groen & Belousova, 2018), to understand how entrepreneurs in low-tech food companies in emerging countries enhance innovation performance (Alfiero, et al., 2017; Zhang, Chen & Kane, 2018), it is important to clarify what these entrepreneurs understand as innovation. The answers were multiple, and mostly used the expressions creativity, novelty and “small details”. When asked to explain further, they presented examples related to changes in menus and recipes in food as innovation. Excerpts from the answers are available in Table 2.

Based on their understanding of what is innovation, the entrepreneurs answered if they think the offered product is new or not, and whether they consider if the product has some different characteristics. Most answered that their product are not new, and only a small group believes to offer new products, justifying the novelty as linked to the fact that the product is handmade and has a different recipe.

Similarly, when asked if the product they sell is unique, almost everyone responded affirmatively, still under the justification of recipe. Only one of the owners replied that, at first, his product was unique because it was the only one made that way in Brazil, but it was widespread and no longer represents a unique product.

About their food truck business being innovative, most answers were affirmative and, again, justified by differences in menu and product presentation. This indicates a predominantly divergent understanding of “innovation” proposed by Schumpeter (1961), the main assumption underlying this research. For the public studied in this research, innovating can be simply having a “different recipe from others”, “bringing something new” or “seeing what the market wants and what is not available”. Such propositions are much more aligned with the concepts of Hawk (2013) and Kregor (2015), or essentially the search for viable and cost-effective economic alternatives, especially considering a crisis scenario, as can be found in GEM (2013; 2015). Nevertheless, as proposes Doody, Chen & Goldstein (2016) and Johnston (2008) such characteristics refer to the communication of these products as artisanal and local, and it is essential to the success of these ventures.

Table 2 summarizes the most explanatory excerpts given by the respondents regarding the concept and self-perception of innovation by the interviewees:

When asked about how they update their information about food trucks business and market trends, some answers received were: “We look for updates with Sebrae (a Brazilian institution that offers small business consulting services), seek information with the Food Institute Trucks located in São Paulo on market trends, news, research about management errors in internet, and new possibilities of action, as well as looking for international trends on the internet” (FOOD TRUCK 1 OWNER); “We update our market knowledge mostly through the internet, television programs and business books” (FOOD TRUCK 3 OWNER); “We seek to update ourselves through Sebrae consultancies and researching about news on the internet. Travel abroad helps us to see what is happening outside [Brazil] and what we can bring here as a business (FOOD TRUCK 5 OWNER)”.

Finally, when they were asked whether the products sold in the food truck had changed since the beginning of the business, the respondents responded positively. The main changes made in descending order were: adaptations/improvements in product offering and insertion of new products. The adaptations/improvements were originated in customer feedback and owner observations. The insertion of the new products was the result of consulting or research about trends in other Brazilian states or other countries.

As found by Alfiero et al. (2017), our results, from the observations and the interviews, indicate that, in the beginning, these food trucks represented an innovative service, mainly implemented by the gourmet tradition, and this lead them to be more competitive in the food sector. Wennekers and Thurik (1999) also have a good insert that fits well with this picture found through interviews, understanding that Schumpeterian entrepreneurs are found mostly in small firms. They own and direct independent firms that are innovative, creatively destroying existing market structures - and these Schumpeterians often develop into managerial business owners, but some may start again new ventures or firms.

The first entrants in the food truck market, especially those motivated by opportunities, can be classified as the German or Schumpeterian tradition, since, as proposes Wennekers and Thurik (1999) and Nooteboom (1993), these entrepreneurs create potential, instability and creative destruction. In the analyzed situations, they incorporated ideas that were already practiced in other countries and inserted as innovations in their regional context. Here is a theoretical contribution of this paper: the Schumpeterian innovation of these street entrepreneurs is highly geographically and contextual.

These street entrepreneurs of food trucks also introduced an incremental innovation to improve production processes and logistics in the food sector. One of the reasons for that may be related to the fact that the entry and enhancement of gourmet food in the street entrepreneurship brought a new consumption pattern. It added value to the street venture allowing its development and products sale at a higher price. Now acquires importance aesthetics, quality of the ingredients, refinement of the food offered, the cleanliness of the place and the consumption experience. This is relevant and cannot be forgotten, as it indicates the insertion of innovation at a certain level.

In this sense, these food trucks provided a product with higher value to the street entrepreneurs market and were able to identify where to reach the target consumer. This caused a significant impact on the pricing structure. As proposes, this was a new and creative solution for the crises faced by the country. These enterprises innovate, according to Den Hertog (2000), in three of the four dimensions of novelty on service innovation: service concept, client interface and service delivery.

In fact, these food trucks were actual Schumpeterian entrepreneurs when they first appeared. And it happened because there was a novelty on the street business that allowed reaching new audiences, creating and developing a market, where new features aggregated value to an archaic business. Since they created, changed and destructed constructively the street food market, they are Schumpeterian entrepreneurs as well. As proposes Shi and Dana (2013), our results indicate that market orientation is somehow related to entrepreneurship and innovation, but these family firms were less radical in their entrepreneurial processes and innovations.

In summary, an innovation process occurred in this particular market, based on very specific characteristics. The point is that innovation is highly linked with the fact that the environment itself is low-tech, that is, the available resources (invested) and the level of technology required for this type of innovation are compatible, as support Williams (2012) and McLaughlin (2009). In other words, probably this kind of venture, in another market, could not be seen as innovative, more so under the terms of Schumpeter, primarily focused on the fusion on the economic aspects of market relations.

Finally, one of the interviewed owners sees food truck as a good market opportunity nowadays and in the future. However, for her, it is an illusion to think that someone can earn a lot of money with a food truck. Doody, Chen & Goldstein (2016) have also identified that this type of business allows for financial independence, although it rarely allows large-scale income. Besides that, the interviewee understands that, despite the high quality, it is just a niche of a street entrepreneurship. Also, she adds that, in her view, 2016 was the year of the culmination of profitability, because there was not as much dissemination of projects of this type as nowadays, and in that year major events were carried out. Only one of the respondents said that he, at first, thought the market was wider and now realizes that there is much competition. Another interviewee understands that this type of business is living its moment of maturation in the city and those who successfully pass through this time will remain in the long-term market.

Therefore, based on observations and interviews, we understand that the diffusion of knowledge and expertise allowed the entry of new competitors in the market, just repeating the activity, without adding new value. So, the next entrants, even though having their own differentiations of brand, recipes, marketing strategies and so on, are mainly on the neoclassical paradigm, moving to this status also those who were once considered innovative.

In this way, it is understood that the “current” food truck market in that context is already on its early majority. The speech of one of the respondents supports this understanding: “We already had a 50% reduction on sales. It is clear that this crisis will separate those trucks that will be able to pass through and those who will not.” It was used the term “current” food truck market, because it is understood that there is still a great opportunity for the street entrepreneurs to create new markets and their mobility characteristic is a great asset, through an innovation cycle.

Therefore, as previously said, their innovation is incremental, and improving a food truck production capacity seems one strategy for a market that is not innovative anymore, where a great flux of competitors with similar products will soon “kill themselves” on a price competition. One could contest that food trucks fulfil a niche between the regular street food entrepreneur and restaurants with better infrastructure and capacity to have more elaborated products. However, what once was a “blue ocean” due to its success, novelty, publicity and low entry barriers, will change, and those without strategies of differentiation/innovation will certainly perish.

Tiwari, Bhat & Tikoria (2017) propose that creativity is also an antecedent that explains social entrepreneurial. Following this line, it is proposed that a new “wave” of creativity will be required for these ventures to succeed. If they cannot bring innovations to the market they are inserted, the great option that arises from these paper contributions is to change the context they are inserted. For example, food trucks are more widespread in Brazilian capitals, as Porto Alegre. Therefore, cities located in the interior of the State still represent potential places to enter as innovators. Even in the interviews, there was already an indication that the market was starting to have many players and entrepreneurs were starting to organize fairs in the interior of the State, where food trucks had this factor of novelty and innovation, no longer existent in the capital.