Author:
Korsgaard Steffen,Müller Sabine,Tanvig Hanne Wittorff
Abstract
Purpose
– 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.
Design/methodology/approach
– 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.
Findings
– 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.
Research limitations/implications
– 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.
Originality/value
– 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.
Subject
Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)
Reference91 articles.
1. Achtenhagen, L.
,
Naldi, L.
and
Melin, L.
(2010), “Business growth” – do practitioners and scholars really talk about the same thing?”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 289-316.
2. Alsos, G.A.
and
Carter, S.
(2006), “Multiple business ownership in the Norwegian farm sector: resource transfer and performance consequences”,
Journal of Rural Studies
, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 313-322.
3. Alsos, G.A.
,
Carter, S.
and
Ljunggren, E.
(2014), “Kinship and business: how entrepreneurial households facilitate business growth”,
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development
, pp. 1-26.
4. Anderson, A.R.
(1998), “Cultivating the garden of Eden: environmental entrepreneuring”,
Journal of Organizational Change Management
, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 135-144.
5. Anderson, A.R.
(2000), “Paradox in the periphery: an entrepreneurial reconstruction?”,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development
, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 91-109.
Cited by
264 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献