Rural proofing entrepreneurship in two fields of research

Abstract

PurposeThe 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.Design/methodology/approachThe 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.FindingsThe 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.Research limitations/implicationsThe 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.Originality/valuePrevious 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 relationship between digital orientation, organizational ambidexterity, and growth strategies of rural SMEs in time of crisis

“…In the discourses of digitalization, rural areas are positioned as continuously catching up to urban areas in terms of the availability of the latest technologies but also as potentially benefiting from increased connectivity, assuming the required infrastructure is in place (Salemink et al, 2017). Rurality is in part understood through the characteristic of remoteness, implying a disadvantage vis-à-vis metropolitan regions (Gashi Nulleshi and Tillmar, 2022), yet the advantages of digitalization may overcome this characteristic to a degree for the rural areas that enjoy good access. Digitalization both brings new opportunities within reach and increases competition as isolated rural markets become accessible to online retailers and service providers.…”

Rural Entrepreneurship Development in Southwest China: A Spatiotemporal Analysis

“…Understanding rural entrepreneurship in its particular context is in this light important [18] and a growing research field is exploring rural entrepreneurship in China [19,20] and elsewhere [21,22]. Understanding the spatial and temporal distribution and the determinants of rural entrepreneurship helps properly respond to and utilize the central government's policies on rural development in conjunction with local context, and is also an emerging theme in this research [23].…”

Creating a sustainable ripple in rural entrepreneurship – the case of Deserttulip in resource-constrained rural Jordan

“…While rural entrepreneurship research has witnessed significant growth in the past two decades (e.g. Newbery et al, 2017;M€ uller and Korsgaard, 2018;, this article contributes to calls for further research on agricultural entrepreneurship (Gashi Nulleshi and Tillmar, 2022), and more specifically sustainable agricultural entrepreneurship (Lupoae et al, 2023). Additionally, rural entrepreneurship research has thus far largely focussed on developed economies (Newbery et al, 2017), with lesser more recent examples from developing ones, particularly within Arab nations (e.g.…”