Search results

This study aims to explore how social entrepreneurship initiatives and rural development address various socio-economic challenges in rural communities following Indonesia’s independence in 1945.

Adopting a pragmatic research philosophy, this study uses a historical review and thematic analysis, extending from the PRISMA method to analyse articles and reports concerning social entrepreneurship initiatives and rural development in post-independence Indonesia.

This study reveals that social entrepreneurship initiatives and rural development programs have advanced hand in hand since Indonesia's independence. Social entrepreneurship initiatives and rural development mutually reinforce each other, with social entrepreneurship prominently featured in many rural development projects, promoting socioeconomic changes in rural communities.

While this review has covered the available literature in Indonesia's context and extends the social entrepreneurship concept by showcasing its impact in rural Indonesia, further theoretical models integrating social entrepreneurship and rural development are needed, especially with local or regional context and community-driven approaches to increase the research potential in the field.

This study is beneficial for policymakers in the field to consider the findings of this review on the strong association that social entrepreneurship has had with rural development in Indonesia.

This study highlights the importance of local values and community participation in social entrepreneurship initiatives for rural development. It is also highlighted that social entrepreneurship initiatives enable rural women to participate in entrepreneurial activities.

This study concludes that prior studies consistently demonstrate a strong association between social entrepreneurship initiatives and rural development, with government policies and programs increasingly leveraging social entrepreneurial approaches to tackle rural challenges. Additionally, rural development strategies in Indonesia align with three strategic pillars established by the government’s entrepreneurship programs. These pillars, integral to rural development through the social entrepreneurship approach, are critical for the formulation and future action plans adjustable to the current trends, issues and circumstances.

Rural entrepreneurship is an important vehicle to drive sustainable rural development in India. The process of planning, starting, and operating a new business is termed as entrepreneurship. It has been described as having the ability and willingness to create, plan, and manage a business enterprise while accepting any risks involved to generate a profit. In India’s rural areas, enterprise and entrepreneurship are what fuel economic progress. A rural entrepreneur is someone who uses rural resources to develop products and establish enterprises that support the development of the rural economy and its growth potential. Although, these rural business owners encounter issues similar to those faced by urban business owners due to the rural setting in which they operate amplifies their difficulties. To reduce rural people’s migration and to support rural upliftment, it is necessary to encourage entrepreneurship and new employment opportunities. Consequently, rural entrepreneurship has the potential to greatly increase employment in rural areas. It is a more effective method of eradicating poverty and hunger, sustainable health and well-being, enhancing gender equality, quality education, decent work conditions, promoting innovation in industries, and ultimately reducing the inequalities which are mapped with the important agenda of the United Nation’s sustainable development goals (SDGs 2030). To bring about change, institutions must concentrate on the interactions between education, skill, entrepreneurship, and employment. This chapter explores the challenges and skills required for rural entrepreneurship in India, proposing a framework to enhance rural development through entrepreneurship.

Policy for women's entrepreneurship is designed to promote economic growth, not least in depleted rural areas, but very little is known about the contributions of rural women entrepreneurs, their needs or how the existing policy is received by them. Using a theoretical framework developed by Korsgaard et al. (2015), the authors analyse how rural women entrepreneurs contribute to rural development and discuss the implications for entrepreneurship policy. This paper aims to focus on the aforementioned objectives.

The authors interviewed 32 women entrepreneurs in rural Sweden representing the variety of businesses in which rural Swedish women are engaged. The authors analysed their contributions to rural development by analysing their motives, strategies and outcomes using Korsgaard et al.’s framework of “entrepreneurship in the rural” and “rural entrepreneurship” as a heuristic, interpretative device.

Irrespective of industry, the respondents were deeply embedded in family and local social structures. Their contributions were substantial, multidimensional and indispensable for rural viability, but the policy tended to bypass most women-owned businesses. Support in terms of business training, counselling and financing are important, but programmes especially for women tend to miss the mark, and so does rural development policy. More important for rural women entrepreneurs in Sweden is the provision of good public services, including for example, schools and social care, that make rural life possible.

Theoretically, the findings question the individualist and a-contextual focus of much entrepreneurship research, as well as the taken-for-granted work–family divide. How gender and how the public and the private are configured varies greatly between contexts and needs contextual assessment. Moreover, the results call for theorising place as an entrepreneurial actor.

Based on the findings, the authors advise future policymakers to gender mainstream entrepreneurship policy and to integrate entrepreneurship and rural development policy with family and welfare state policy.

The paper highlights how rural women respond to policy, and the results are contextualised, making it possible to compare them to other contexts. The authors widen the discussion on contributions beyond economic growth, and the authors show that policy for public and commercial services and infrastructure is indeed also policy for entrepreneurship.

This paper aims to investigate the evolution, roots and influence of the rural entrepreneurship literature.

Using a bibliometric exercise, the analysis starts with investigation of studies on entrepreneurship and gathering all (772) articles on rural entrepreneurship (from 1981 to 2020) found in both Scopus and Web of Science up to 15 August 2020. Citation analysis of the references/citations of 755 articles are listed in the abstract database, generating a citation database involving 46,432 references/citations. This paper considers 635 (out of the 772) articles on rural entrepreneurship (i.e. articles cited in one or more studies), generating a database of 10,767 studies influenced by the rural entrepreneurship literature.

This study discovers that the relative importance of rural entrepreneurship within the entrepreneurship literature has increased in the last few years, but rural entrepreneurship remains a European concern; the most frequently addressed topics include growth and development, institutional frameworks and governance and rurality, with theory building being rather understudied. Most of the studies on rural entrepreneurship are empirical, involving mainly qualitative analyses and targeting high income countries; rural entrepreneurship is rooted in the fields of economics and entrepreneurship and is relatively self-referential.

This study provides a comprehensive and updated investigation of evolution of the rural entrepreneurship literature. The assessment of the literature’s scientific roots of rural entrepreneurship had not yet been tackled before. To the best of the author’s knowledge this study can be considered as the first effort for identifying the scientific influence of the rural entrepreneurship literature.

Focussing on entrepreneurs’ experiences inhibiting them from launching a business – at the micro level – the purpose of this paper is to identify issues that limit rural entrepreneurship in Pakistan and also, to identify the cultural, social, economic and religious traditions and settings that discourage entrepreneurship thus hindering economic development

An ethnographic approach was used to obtain a picture of current problems and perspectives of rural inhabitants. Members of 84 families were interviewed.

Religious, socioeconomic and structural forces play a significant role in suppressing social and cultural capital in rural areas of Pakistan, explaining the low level of entrepreneurship in these areas. Social and cultural capital requires a certain socioeconomic context for entrepreneurship to thrive.

This study examines the determinants of very low levels of entrepreneurship in rural settings in the agro-based regions of interior Sindh, Pakistan; this contributes to the gap of understanding the context of rural entrepreneurs in agro-based economies. This study makes recommendations for policy makers to promote entrepreneurship in such areas.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how rural entrepreneurship is discussed by analyzing articles in the leading journals of the two main research fields, entrepreneurship studies, and rural studies, through the concept of rural proofing.

The systematic literature review centers on the two main fields where rural entrepreneurship is studied and covers papers in nine leading journals in entrepreneurship studies and two leading journals in rural studies, between the years 1989 and 2020. In total, 97 papers were reviewed and we utilize and operationalize the rural proofing concept based on Fahmy et al.'s (2004) 3 characteristics of rural: remoteness, accessibility, and rural locale and sense of place. The authors take stock of the dimensions of rural proofing addressed within each of the research fields to find similarities and differences; that is, if articles are rural proofed (or not) when discussing rural entrepreneurship.

The classification of articles across the three dimensions of rural proofing shows that the field of rural entrepreneurship is being addressed mainly in the dimensions of remoteness and accessibility, while few authors in rural studies journals give priority to the rural locale and sense of place dimension. The results of the authors' review reveal that out of a total of 97 articles on rural entrepreneurship, 56 articles address at least one dimension of rural proofing and 41 articles do not address any dimension. Among the 41 articles not rural proofed, rurality is not problematized when discussing rural entrepreneurship. Instead, the authors focus on specific topics such as social capital, community entrepreneurship/networks, entrepreneurs'/farmers' identity, illegality in rural areas, and institutional framework. The number of non-rural-proofed articles in entrepreneurship journals is almost double that in rural studies journals. This means that authors in entrepreneurship journals do not problematize rurality to the same extent as authors in rural studies journals when addressing rural entrepreneurship.

The authors emphasize the need for increased cross-fertilization between the fields of entrepreneurship and rural studies as an avenue to develop the entrepreneurship field in the direction towards rural proofing. A close collaboration with academia and policymakers is essential to promote interdisciplinary research in order to make a distinctive contribution to rural development. Scholars in either of the two fields will benefit from our review and identification of similarities and differences in the research. The review is one step towards promoting a closer dialog between the two fields.

Previous reviews have focused mainly on what rural entrepreneurship entails (e.g. what topics are discussed) rather than how rural entrepreneurship is discussed. This paper centers on the differences and similarities of the two main fields and provides an in-depth qualitative analysis of how rural entrepreneurship is discussed by utilizing the rural proofing concept.

The paper contributes to the debate about local food and conceptualization of rural entrepreneurship by analysing the performance of small-scale dairies departing from their relation to innovations, innovative activities and risk.

The authors use phenomenography to identify representative categories, and to draw conclusions about how these are consistent or different from dominant definitions of rural entrepreneurship and self-employment. The authors conducted semi-structured interviews, participatory workshops and compiled a database of all small-scale dairies established between 1968 and 2020.

A focus on innovations contributes to differentiate between rural entrepreneurship and self-employment and how these interact in the process of economic growth. Innovations are seldom disruptive. Instead, innovative behaviour is strongly related to business models and to imitation. Social capital and collective action play a key role for the innovative capacity of small businesses, especially to realize disruptive innovations, such as the establishment of a new market.

The innovative capacity of rural businesses can be understood through their ability to break patterns, alter institutions and turn embededdness into assets. Rural entrepreneurship and self-employment are intertwined in the economic growth process.

Innovative behaviour is a significant aspect for firm survival over time, and it is also strongly related to new business models. Most rural firms can be characterized as self-employment, the latter are essential because they provide rural livelihoods and help bring maturity to newly established markets.

The right type of support, e.g. adopting enabling industrial regulations and granting access to constructive experiences of others, contributes to the innovative behaviour of small-scale rural firms.

This study differentiates rural entrepreneurship from rural self-employment by analysing the role of innovation. The authors show how innovations and innovative behaviour work their way through the process of economic growth and how innovation can break patterns by turning rural embeddedness into assets; and how innovative behaviour related to self-employments contributes to the creation of value and interacts with entrepreneurship in the process of economic growth.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how rural entrepreneurship engages with place and space. It explores the concept of “rural” as a socio-spatial concept in rural entrepreneurship and illustrates the importance of distinguishing between ideal types of rural entrepreneurship.

The paper uses concepts from human geography to develop two ideal types of entrepreneurship in rural areas. Ideal types constitute powerful heuristics for research and are used here to review and link existing literature on rural entrepreneurship and rural development as well as to develop new research avenues.

Two ideal types are developed: first, entrepreneurship in the rural and second, rural entrepreneurship. The former represents entrepreneurial activities with limited embeddedness enacting a profit-oriented and mobile logic of space. The latter represents entrepreneurial activities that leverage local resources to re-connect place to space. While both types contribute to local development, the latter holds the potential for an optimized use of the resources in the rural area, and these ventures are unlikely to relocate even if economic rationality would suggest it.

The conceptual distinction allows for engaging more deeply with the diversity of entrepreneurial activities in rural areas. It increases our understanding of localized entrepreneurial processes and their impact on local economic development.

This study contributes to the understanding of the localized processes of entrepreneurship and how these processes are enabled and constrained by the immediate context or “place”. The paper weaves space and place in order to show the importance of context for entrepreneurship, which responds to the recent calls for contextualizing entrepreneurship research and theories. In addition ideal types can be a useful device for further research and serve as a platform for developing rural policies.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a new gender- and class-sensitive framework for research on rural women entrepreneurship by focusing on the women’s agricultural cooperatives in Turkey. Although these cooperatives have been promoted as ideal bottom-to-top organizations to integrate women into economy as entrepreneurs, there has been significant decline in their numbers. This paper tackles with this contradictory situation and intends to offer an alternative research framework on the viability of the women’s agricultural cooperatives in Turkey.

The paper is built on a critical assessment of the existing literature. It argues that a framework that brings together macro-, meso- and micro-factors will provide a springboard to unfold the gendered processes integral to rural female entrepreneurship in Turkey. Drawing on intersectional theory, the multilayered factors which operate to rural women’s (dis)advantages through the cooperatives are unfolded as policymaking, policy implementation and everyday experiences.

For policymakers and implementers, it points out the need for a holistic and integrated understanding of rural female entrepreneurship and for re-formulation of policies at the state level. For rural women, it draws attention to the measures required to be taken at the cooperative level to overcome inequalities.

This paper is original in making explicit social, political and economic embeddedness of female entrepreneurship in rural Turkey.

Despite the interest in non-profit and sustainable ways of connecting farms to society, less is known about how to conduct this through digital technology and communication. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to discuss how to connect farms to society through digital technology and communication.

In-depth interviews of 15 Australian farmers were conducted in order to understand their perceptions of how to engage in digital forms of social entrepreneurship and thematic analysis techniques were utilized to understand the content from the interview transcripts.

The findings suggest that digital social farm entrepreneurship can be categorized into social bricoleurs, social constructionists and social engineers.

This typology helps to understand the contextual role farm entrepreneurs play in rural economies and their place in global societies.

Many Australian farms are in remote locations far from urban centers, which makes digital forms of social entrepreneurship an important way that farmers can promote social entrepreneurial ventures.

This paper highlights how there has been a growing interest in developing social entrepreneurship in Australian farms due to their connection with rural communities and environments.