Next Article in Journal
Determinants of Qualified Investor Sentiment during the COVID-19 Pandemic in North America, Asia, and Europe
Previous Article in Journal
The Relationship between Dividend Policy and Earnings Quality: The Role of Accounting Information in Indonesia’s Capital Market
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Economies
Volume 10
Issue 6
10.3390/economies10060142
economies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Rural Entrepreneurship: An Analysis of Current and Emerging Issues from the Sustainable Livelihood Framework

by
Alexander Tabares
1,
Abraham Londoño-Pineda
1,
Jose Alejandro Cano
1,* and
Rodrigo Gómez-Montoya
2
1
Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Universidad de Medellin, Medellin 050026, Colombia
2
Faculty of Administration, Politécnico Colombiano Jaime Isaza Cadavid, Medellin 050022, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Economies 2022, 10(6), 142; https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10060142
Submission received: 11 May 2022 / Revised: 2 June 2022 / Accepted: 7 June 2022 / Published: 14 June 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Most entrepreneurship studies have an urban focus, and it is studied mainly from the perspective of opportunity exploitation. Rural entrepreneurship presents different characteristics, and it requires analysis from a resource-based view since this kind of entrepreneurial behavior takes place in rural communities under resource constraints. The sustainable livelihood perspective represents a relevant framework in rural entrepreneurship, considering resources and capacities to face poverty in rural areas. Therefore, this study presents a literature review to identify current and emerging issues in rural entrepreneurship from a sustainable livelihood framework. The literature review identifies that the main concepts involved in rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihood are women, poverty alleviation, youth, social entrepreneurship, and institutions. Likewise, social capital and human capital prevail as the most relevant capitals in the analyzed documents. The study offers research opportunities in emerging issues related to social entrepreneurship, governance and institutions, livelihood growth, and eco-entrepreneurship for extending the boundaries of rural entrepreneurship from the sustainable livelihood framework.

1. Introduction

Over the last years, entrepreneurship literature has been mainly oriented towards urban entrepreneurship (Pato and Teixeira 2016), and it has moved its analysis from the entrepreneur’s qualities to focus on the way different actors discover, enact, evaluate and exploit opportunities to create new businesses, models, and solutions for value creation, including financial, social, and environmental (Tabares et al. 2021). However, the entrepreneurship literature has largely overlooked rural entrepreneurial activity, especially in underdeveloped countries, and theoretical and empirical studies are still limited (Pato and Teixeira 2016). As such, rural entrepreneurship plays a critical role in alleviating extreme poverty (Sutter et al. 2019) and reducing inequalities in rural areas where institutions are weak (Díaz et al. 2019; Bawa et al. 2007). Furthermore, it helps create an inclusive and sustainable future, especially in emerging economies (Mishra 2021; Mishra et al. 2020). In short, rural entrepreneurship has the potential for rural entrepreneurs/enterprises to create value for the community and create more resilient localities (Pato and Teixeira 2016). Therefore, entrepreneurship represents opportunities of self-employment to enrich and improve the life style of communities and lead them to a sustainable level of livelihood (Aggarwal et al. 2019). Likewise, it facilitates rural economic development, especially for rural women’s livelihoods in less developed countries (Akinbami et al. 2019), promoting sustainable development while meeting bottom of the pyramid needs (Molina-Maturano et al. 2020).
Rural entrepreneurship should be studied to gain insights into the effective empirical boundaries so as to obtain an in-depth understanding of pure ‘rural entrepreneurship’ occurring in rural areas (Pato and Teixeira 2016). Due to specific rural contexts, rural entrepreneurship should be studied not only from the opportunity-based perspective but also from the resource-based view (Terán and Guerrero 2020). According to Bawa et al. (2007), rural entrepreneurial activities are pursued to alleviate poverty because of the lack of resources in emerging economies. This explains why local governments provide physical and financial resources, as well as training and technical assistance to help rural entrepreneurs to be successful (Humphries et al. 2020). Unique entrepreneurial activities, such as those realized in long physical distances between places of production and markets, in the primary sector, and mutual social control (Baumgartner et al. 2013), represent potential contributions in this field.
Regarding rural entrepreneurship, the sustainable livelihood perspective represents a framework related to the measurement of rural poverty. This framework has gone beyond the traditional linear measurements of rural poverty based on income, and it has proposed a multidimensional measurement supported by the improvement of the livelihoods of vulnerable individuals and communities in rural areas (Chambers and Conway 1992). The multidimensional perspective of sustainable livelihood is relevant because poverty manifests itself in various ways, and it is influenced by diverse factors, not exclusively by income (Serna et al. 2015). Broadly, the rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihood literature coincide in two aspects: the alleviation of poverty and its application to rural areas. Accordingly, the sustainable livelihood framework becomes an ideal perspective to study the phenomenon of rural entrepreneurship.
Therefore, this study contributes to knowledge of entrepreneurship by offering research avenues for extending the boundaries of rural entrepreneurship from the sustainable livelihood framework that incorporates a multidimensional, interactive, and multilevel approach and could overcome a linear and disjointed analysis. Furthermore, this study contributes to the scholarly discussion by proposing six multidimensional factors (capitals) to foster rural livelihoods and alleviate poverty in rural areas. Accordingly, this study aims to identify current issues in the field of rural entrepreneurship from a sustainable livelihood framework. To fulfill this purpose, this study highlights the relevance of rural entrepreneurship from the sustainable livelihood framework and describes the current and emerging issues in rural entrepreneurship from the sustainable livelihood framework. Section 2 introduces the rural entrepreneurship approach from the sustainable livelihood framework. Section 3 describes the methodology by examining the documents found in the Scopus database. Section 4 depicts the current and emerging issues of rural entrepreneurship from the sustainable livelihood framework. Section 5 presents the main conclusions.

2. Rural Entrepreneurship from the Sustainable Livelihood Framework

Overall, entrepreneurship has been related to opportunity entrepreneurship (Cano and Tabares 2017). Conversely, rural entrepreneurship has been related to necessity entrepreneurship due to the lack of resources in rural areas (Audretsch et al. 2022). Precisely, the sustainable livelihood perspective represents an adequate framework to analyze rural entrepreneurship from the resource-based view, since it helps study the need of resources from the availability or the lack of capital (Jaramillo-Gutierrez et al. 2021; Terán and Guerrero 2020), implying the best use of resources available in hand (Debnath and Bardhan 2018), and the diversification and livelihood income-oriented towards a sustainable livelihood (Igwe et al. 2020).
Different studies show that the support given to rural enterprises is justified because it is a way to palliate, alleviate, or even eradicate rural poverty, a concept that has been measured from the multidimensional perspective of sustainable livelihoods (Abisuga Oyekunle and Sirayi 2018; Humberg and Braun 2014; Nambiar 2019). According to Scoones (1998), these livelihoods are constituted of five types of capital that are necessary to face poverty (financial, physical, human, social, and natural capital). Financial capital comprises essential elements for the creation of micro-enterprises (Remilien et al. 2018), household assets, and resources, such as money, savings, loans, and property (Kumar et al. 2019). Physical capital consists of the assets and resources of households and communities, as well as the machinery and technology involved in the production of raw materials, processed products, and the management of enterprises (Rebotier 2012). Human capital refers to the skills to do and the knowledge acquired (Scoones 1998). Social capital is related to the formal and informal connections that shape social cooperation (Apine et al. 2019). Finally, natural capital refers to natural resources, including land, water, air, living organisms, and ecosystems (Cohen et al. 2019).
In addition to these types of capital, Chipfupa and Wale (2018) propose a sixth type of capital called psychological capital, which refers to the ability of entrepreneurs to overcome difficult situations such as economic crises. This type of capital is related to a resilient mindset consisting of attitude or behavior that leads to recovery from adversity. This mindset is nourished by cognitive aspects, among which the values, beliefs, norms, and assumptions of entrepreneurs are distinguished. For Cederholm Björklund (2020), contextual factors, such as values, beliefs, and social norms, whether formal or informal, influence the success of rural entrepreneurship. Psychological capital is influenced by these contextual factors, which could have a favorable or unfavorable impact on the cognition of entrepreneurs and, therefore, on the way they take on the challenges generated by market uncertainty (Chipfupa and Wale 2018). Table 1 shows the sustainable livelihoods as a framework for resource-based entrepreneurship since the involvement in entrepreneurship activities bring positive changes in different types of livelihood assets, such as financial capital, natural capital, physical capital, human capital, and social capital (Kabir et al. 2012).
According to Andreu and Fernández (2019), there is a need for a better analysis of sustainable livelihoods from a multidimensional and interactive perspective. Thus, a dynamic approach is required in which all capitals can be considered from multiple levels (Bawa et al. 2007). One of the challenges is to study the relationship between socioeconomic and environmental variables and how rural entrepreneurship can be sustainable on a financial and ecological basis (Nandy and Aminul Islam 2010). Lang and Fink (2019) state that the interactions of the capitals can be established on a multilevel basis and that social capital is compounded by the interrelation between bonding capital and bridge capital. Bonding capital is related to the common belief and the value system of a community or a group of communities (Shaw 2017) on a contextual basis (Cederholm Björklund 2020). Bridge capital is related to exogenous conditions and manifests itself in resources and information. Hence, bridge capital can be connected both with the agents with whom there is horizontal or vertical integration. In other words, bridge capital relates to the different social groups and the power of the government, specifically in rural, local, and national areas. The latter interrelation exhibits a latent danger of corruption, especially in emerging economies where resource management by the government is urgent (Lang and Fink 2019; Londoño and Cruz 2019).
Consequently, a sustainable livelihood approach becomes an ideal framework to study rural enterprises since it encompasses a rural and poverty alleviation orientation. Therefore, a sustainable livelihood framework should overcome a linear and disjointed analysis and incorporate a multidimensional, interactive, and multilevel approach.

3. Methodology

This study conducts a review in the Scopus database from 2002 to 2022 (including articles in press in 15 April 2022) to identify scholarly studies articulating rural entrepreneurship with sustainable livelihoods. The search equation for this study was TITLE-ABS-KEY (sustainable AND livelihood AND rural AND entrepreneurship), which provided 50 document results, revealing that the research subject remains underexplored and that there is potential to generate scholarly contributions, as well as extend rural entrepreneurship research.
The main concepts and capitals involved in rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihood are identified using VOSviewer software, which generates a co-occurrence graph and detects the density of the concepts, the nodes, and their interactions based on the documents found with the search equation, and a discussion on rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihoods from the main node identified is presented. Likewise, we present the relevant concepts and capitals involved in each of the 50 documents analyzed, and a bibliometric analysis complements the study of the research topic.
For a better analysis of the current issues of rural entrepreneurship, the documents were classified into three scenarios: long, medium, and short term. The long term refers to the analysis of the 50 documents obtained from the year the first document appears (2002). In this case, the period between 2002 and 2022 represents the long term. The period between 2017 and 2022, reviewing the last five years, represents the medium-term. Finally, the short term is the period between 2020 and 2022, examining the last two years. The rationale for this 3-period analysis is that the topic is recent and dynamic; then, it is interesting to understand the changes around rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihood. To analyze the emerging themes, we take the four integrated themes identified on the current issues of rural entrepreneurship because they offer research opportunities and provide future works to extend the rural entrepreneurship literature from the sustainable livelihood framework.

4. Results

4.1. Concepts and Capitals Involved in Rural Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Livelihood

Figure 1 shows the co-occurrence graph for the 50 documents obtained from the search equation in Scopus, where the nine predominant concepts are entrepreneur, entrepreneurship, sustainable development, livelihood, rural development, sustainability, sustainable livelihoods, innovation, and social entrepreneurship. The concepts indicate a similar density suggesting that they are studied or addressed in comparable proportions. Two clusters can be distinguished: the first is associated with sustainable development, and the second is associated with sustainability, which is a little more dominant.
For some authors, sustainable development and sustainability concepts can be treated as similar (Holden et al. 2018). However, sustainable development implies development as a priority, and it represents one of the alternative theories of development, while the concept of sustainability considers the environment as a priority (Cano and Londoño-Pineda 2020; Londoño-Pineda and Cano 2022). Based on this rationale, this study follows Shaker’s conceptualization (Shaker 2015), which suggests that sustainability is the goal and sustainable development is the process to reach it. In this sense, sustainability is the point of arrival, and sustainable development is one of the ways to get there.
The sustainable development node is related to the governments’ immediate actions to remedy the lack of resources (Sutter et al. 2019), which involve supplying different types of capital such as financial capital (Smith 2015), physical capital (de Guzman et al. 2020), social capital (Poon et al. 2012), human capital (Deng and Bai 2014), psychological capital (Chipfupa and Wale 2018), the interactions between them, and the natural capital (Nandy and Aminul Islam 2010). Likewise, it involves the institutional environment actions for formal and informal institutions (Escandón-Barbosa et al. 2019; Lang and Fink 2019). Formal and informal institutions are essential to implement a model favoring inclusive development (Tabares 2017), promoting the development of human, social and business competencies and capacities (Mahale et al. 2011), improving employment and household income (Nwosu et al. 2019; Zhu et al. 2015). These institutions also promote inclusive development with the participation of the communities and all the groups that comprise them (Joshi et al. 2019; Rajendran and Indapurkar 2020), such as women (Figueroa-Domecq et al. 2020), young people (Baskaran and Mehta 2016), indigenous people (Cahn 2008), children (Hetherington et al. 2017), among many others. Likewise, formal and informal institutions must include ecological experimentation to overcome the eco-entrepreneurs dilemma, in which most enterprises forget the environmental component in the attempt to overcome poverty and improve socio-economic livelihoods (Rajendran and Indapurkar 2020).
At the sustainability node, the analysis reveals that goals, such as the alleviation of poverty (Humberg and Braun 2014), or even its eradication (Sati and Juyal 2008), literacy improvement (Singh et al. 2012), inequalities reduction (Falk et al. 2009), critical natural capital conservation (Shahraki and Heydari 2019), income and food security, employment and rural-urban migration (Igwe et al. 2020), and the improvement of livelihoods (Muhamad et al. 2017), require the intervention of governments that should assume a reform approach and a revolutionary approach to change its structure (Sutter et al. 2019). As a summary, Figure 2 shows the relationships between rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihoods from the sustainable development and sustainability nodes.
On the other hand, Table 2 summarizes the most important aspects of the documents provided by the search equation in Scopus (50 documents) to identify from which perspective the concepts of rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihoods have been approached. Moreover, these documents are analyzed in the next section to identify the current and emerging issues on rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihoods, focusing on governance and institutions, social entrepreneurship, eco-entrepreneurship, and livelihood growth.
From the documents found in the literature, Figure 3 shows growth in publications in recent years, with a significant peak in 2021 (10 documents), representing that, despite still being an incipient research topic, it has increased in prominence in recent years. It is noted that the 2022 documents include those published until mid-April. The documents from Table 2 mainly belong to subject areas such as social sciences (26%), business, management and accounting (19%), environmental science (14%), economics, econometrics and finance (13%), and agricultural and biological sciences (7%).
Likewise, 78% of the documents from Table 2 are journal articles, 10% are book chapters, 6% are conference papers, 4% are literature reviews, and 2% are books. The journals with the most published documents are the Journal of Rural Studies (3 documents), International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability (2 documents), Journal of Enterprising Communities (2 documents), and Mountain Research and Development (2 documents). The most prominent authors, due to the number of published papers, are Huttunen (Huttunen 2012; Jokinen et al. 2008), Mehta (Baskaran and Mehta 2016; Schraeder et al. 2015), and Mishra (Mishra 2021; Mishra et al. 2020), each with two publications. The countries or territories with the highest participation of authors are India (22%), the United States (10%), Germany (7%), South Africa (7%), Australia (5%), and the United Kingdom (5%).

4.2. Current Issues of Rural Entrepreneurship from the Sustainable Livelihood Framework

Figure 4 shows that the five most analyzed topics in the long term are women, poverty alleviation, youth, social entrepreneurship, and institutions. The topic of women is related to women’s entrepreneurship, empowerment, and employment and faces many barriers, such as lack of financial independence, access to education, and socio-cultural impediments common to a society dominated by men (Mahesh et al. 2020; Mishra 2021), and constraints related to lack of institutional support and poor government facilities (Kabir et al. 2012). Therefore, public policy and decision-making agendas should support women, highlight their needs and achievements (Anand and Josse 2002), and guarantee the same access to opportunities and resources for success as their male counterparts (Ojo et al. 2015). Women empowerment can drive rural community development (Kumari and Eguruze 2022), boost the rural economy (Dixit and Sakunia 2022), and overcome vulnerable conditions of women in rural areas since they represent powerful change agents (Nzama 2021). Consequently, empowering rural women by promoting entrepreneurship could improve the livelihood of rural communities (Muhamad et al. 2017).
Poverty alleviation, the second relevant topic, could be achieved with a combined effort of government, society, and academia to build a sustainable system (Dixit and Sakunia 2022), in which rural entrepreneurship plays a critical role in alleviating extreme poverty (Sutter et al. 2019), and where social business companies can grow access to economic resources, income opportunities, and beneficial products and services (Humberg and Braun 2014). Likewise, the incidence of poverty could be reduced through innovation platforms for smallholder farmers (Brown et al. 2021), the participation of NGOs (Amofah et al. 2021), and the stimulation of endogenous power of rural households to generate positive livelihood acceleration (Deng et al. 2020), and the combination of land system reform and policy innovation to provide a rural land consolidation (Wang et al. 2021). Similarly, considering variables that affect the sustainable development of rural livelihoods is required, such as participatory approach, socio-cultural space, process sustainability, rural infrastructure, access to public services, local institutions, convergence, targeting of poor, and governance (Kumar et al. 2020).
Youth appears as the third most relevant topic in the long term since they represent the significant agents in entrepreneurial ecosystems, considering that youth in developing countries are often exposed to entrepreneurial activities early on in their lives (Baskaran and Mehta 2016). Rural youth represent the future food sovereignty of a nation by being the natural successors of family farming businesses; however, rural youth show a decline in farming (Igwe et al. 2020) and face risks of abandoning agriculture due to lack of land access, income uncertainty, and dependence on chemical fertilizers (Ningrum 2018). Rural youth have the potential to make unique contributions to business development (de Guzman et al. 2020), enabling micro-entrepreneur business opportunities (Brown et al. 2021). Therefore, multiple efforts could provide sustainable employment to the youth in villages (Dixit and Sakunia 2022) by offering a regular and sustainable self-employment opportunity to the unemployed rural youth (Choudhury and Sarma 2020), and creating efficient and market-oriented jobs for the youth (Chakravarty et al. 2021).
About social entrepreneurship, it is devoted to dealing with people’s unmet needs in core areas, such as health and education, and social entrepreneurs are motivated to provide sustainable solutions to neglected problems (COVID-19 pandemic challenges, rural women’s economic and social upliftment, among others) with the help of positive externalities (Mishra 2021; Mishra et al. 2020). Social entrepreneurship addresses basic human needs not satisfied by existing markets and institutions (Bhandari 2017) and is directly related to rural development for resources allocation in rural communities (Lang and Fink 2019). This topic is related to the issue of women since most studies of social entrepreneurship are oriented to the study of women’s entrepreneurship (Poon et al. 2012; Shaw 2017) and women empowerment (Kumari and Eguruze 2022).
The institution issue is among the five most relevant topics in the long term, and this theme revolves around regional organizations that foster sustainability and play a critical role in the rural economy, and require the social and human capital for their development (Baumgartner et al. 2013; Bawa et al. 2007). Likewise, institutions affect rural entrepreneurs by generating regulatory and social conditions that must support social entrepreneurs to foster innovations in vulnerable regions (Lang and Fink 2019). In the case of informal institutions, such as culture and social structures, these affect the entrepreneurial motivation to a greater extent in rural than urban contexts (Escandón-Barbosa et al. 2019). In this sense, supporting the creation of market-oriented institutions to enhance rural resilience and build up sustaining rural communities is required (Li et al. 2019).
In the medium-term scenario shown in Figure 4, our results indicate that topics such as women, poverty alleviation, and youth are still the most prevalent. In the last five years, topics about institutions and governance have gained more relevance, while the topic of participation is moved to secondary analysis. Concerning governance, the study indicates that government contexts must be considered to overcome the structural barriers to rural entrepreneurship (Futemma et al. 2020). Our analysis reveals that governance is also articulated with other issues related to political cooperation and citizen participation, since greater participation of communities leads to inclusion and entrepreneurship promotion (Joshi et al. 2019), contributing to poverty alleviation (Nambiar 2019). Likewise, corporate governance is devoted to provide a foundation for comprehensive resource managing practices to promote enterprise development in small businesses (Dixit and Sakunia 2022; Nzama 2021).
The results indicate that other topics, such as social entrepreneurship and migrations, are ranked as the third group of topics discussed most in the medium term. Regarding the migration topic, our analysis reveals that this occurs due to different factors, among which interregional or intraregional flows in search of more fertile lands and greener pastures can be distinguished (Oteng-Ababio et al. 2019). Interestingly, our study shows that the youth population is in constant pursuit of better opportunities, because they emigrate to the city in search of jobs that offer them better income and life quality (Ningrum 2018).
In the short-term scenario shown in Figure 4, our results confirm that women, poverty alleviation, youth, and institutions continue to be the most prevalent topics. The second place is shared by the issues of social entrepreneurship, governance, and collaboration. Collaboration is related to the organization of actors and social networks to promote social entrepreneurship (Deka et al. 2021), make the most of limited resources in resource-constrained environments in collaboration with the local government (Debnath and Bardhan 2018), and create an inclusive, secure, and sustainable future (Mishra 2021). It is achieved through joint work between local farmers, industries, government, non-governmental organizations, private sector investments, research associations, and conducive policy frameworks to maintain livelihood security (Chakravarty et al. 2021; Futemma et al. 2020).
Although the analysis of the topics on an individual basis allowed identifying of the most relevant topics in the three scenarios, it is important to understand how they are related. Table 3 shows the classification of the articles from Table 2 into four categories or integrated topics and indicates the authors who carried out their research by combining several of the individual topics shown in Figure 4.
Figure 5 indicates that the three scenarios outline similar classification patterns. Therefore, social entrepreneurship is the most discussed topic, followed by governance and institutions, livelihood growth, and eco-entrepreneurship. We remark that the women topic was the most relevant issue in the individual analysis, while social entrepreneurship was the most relevant in the integrated analysis.
Regarding the capital involved to remedy the lack of resources in rural entrepreneurship mentioned in Table 2, Figure 6 shows that social capital is the most important in the three periods of analysis, involving the formal and informal connections that shape social cooperation between women, youth, and institutions to achieve poverty alleviation. Similarly, social capital is the foundation of social entrepreneurship and can be supported by a suitable environment generated by formal and informal institutions. Human capital is the second most relevant capital in the analysis periods, and it is fundamental for the development of skills and knowledge and its application to generating livelihood growth. Likewise, this capital refers to entrepreneurial skills in women and young people to support rural entrepreneurship, which besides guaranteeing poverty alleviation and livelihood, provides market-oriented businesses. Notably, social and human capital stand out among the main determinants of rural households’ transitions to employment and entrepreneurship on farms (Wang et al. 2020).
Financial capital ranks third in the long and short term, while physical capital ranks third in the medium term. Financial capital represents resources such as money, savings, loans, and property that are key to poverty alleviation and to attracting young people to participate in agribusiness, thus being an incentive to improve the living conditions of the community, ensure participation of different actors, and the possibility of exploring new markets. This capital gains its importance if people do not have a high level of social capital (Remilien et al. 2018). Physical capital involves the resources of households and communities and the technology involved in business operations that depend on the availability of financial capital to acquire those resources. Natural capital ranks fourth in the long, medium, and short term and encompasses the natural resources that must be preserved under an eco-entrepreneurship approach, which may involve clean technologies, renewable energy, preservation of forests, and reduction of climate change impacts. Psychological capital is addressed to a lesser extent in the long and medium-term, having more relevance in the short term than physical capital. This capital refers in part to the ability to overcome crises and adverse situations, which can be permeated by culture and supported by collaboration and aligned participation between agents of the rural entrepreneurship system.

4.3. Issues Emerging from the Rural Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Livelihood Frameworks

To analyze the emerging themes, we take the four integrated themes of the previous section—social entrepreneurship, governance and institutions, livelihood growth, and eco-entrepreneurship—since they represent research opportunities to extend the rural entrepreneurship literature from the sustainable livelihood framework.

4.3.1. Social Entrepreneurship

Social entrepreneurship is a strong stream of rural entrepreneurship to create an inclusive, secure, and sustainable future (Mishra 2021). This includes forms of entrepreneurship, such as women entrepreneurship (Bhandari 2017), women empowerment (Kumari and Eguruze 2022), youth entrepreneurship (Anand and Josse 2002), and entrepreneurship of indigenous communities (Cahn 2008). In this sense, social entrepreneurship can provide poverty reduction strategies based on the farmers’ initiative and their resilience (Adeyonu et al. 2022), and promote sustainable livelihood solutions through group-based organizations (Chowdhury et al. 2017). According to scholarly research, these types of entrepreneurial actions take place to help society in times of crisis and overcome barriers to obtaining access to education and training leading to fewer opportunities (Mishra 2021; Shaw 2017). Considering that education plays the most significant role in all types of employment options (Igwe et al. 2020), these types of entrepreneurship require the support of governments (Figueroa-Domecq et al. 2020), especially in the early stages (Chipfupa and Wale 2018).
Since women entrepreneurship was the relevant topic in the three-scenario individual analysis, future research studying this topic may continue, either from the livelihood perspective, from the livelihood environment, or the livelihood accelerators (Deng et al. 2020). Consequently, there would be a better understanding of the missing resources, the context in which they operate, and the factors that would boost the livelihoods of women and other groups hitherto marginalized in rural territories.
Studies should continue analyzing how insecurity affects rural business activity and provide solutions based on collective actions to face the adverse effects on business development that can cause violent conflicts (Escandón-Barbosa et al. 2019; Ekanem et al. 2021). Likewise, social entrepreneurship and governance should be considered simultaneously since the governance of these rural territories requires the inclusion of formal and informal institutions that promote social entrepreneurship (Addinsall et al. 2016).

4.3.2. Governance and Institutions

The governance and institution interrelation is related to the interactions between the entrepreneur and the environment (Deng et al. 2020), the convergence of local institutions and an enclosing institutional environment (Kumar et al. 2020), and horizontal and vertical relationships (Lang and Fink 2019). Then, formal and informal institutions should be considered in the analysis (Escandón-Barbosa et al. 2019), as well as policies and government interventions (Otoijamun et al. 2021). Similarly, there is a need for a better understanding of the rural context, in particular, the value system and the traditions of the entrepreneurs and the community that surrounds them (Cederholm Björklund 2020).
Most of the work in rural-based communities raises the need for the association as a strategy for the success of ventures, either as cooperatives (Sati and Juyal 2008; Zhu et al. 2015) or community associations (Mbaiwa 2004). Some studies conducted in developing countries have shown that individual work is preferred to associative work in many communities. This occurs for different reasons, such as lack of trust in institutions, no confidence in third parties, and the disapproval of economic models that ignore the realities of the territories (Tabares et al. 2021). A call for a model of capitalism and conscious leadership have been made (Mishra et al. 2020), and it is required to consider entrepreneurial action based on the territories (Joshi et al. 2019), and on the environmental conditions, since these exogenous factors can enable or restrain successful entrepreneurship (Baskaran and Mehta 2016). Therefore, more research is required to examine the context, institutions, and governance of rural entrepreneurship.

4.3.3. Livelihood Growth

Livelihood growth is related to the criterion of acceleration of livelihoods, which considers those factors contributing to a substantial improvement in livelihoods (Deng et al. 2020). These factors can be technology and market links (Mahale et al. 2011). The technology is expected to be ecological (Samal et al. 2016) and plays an important role in rural entrepreneurship productivity (Mahesh et al. 2020) to exploit opportunities of electronic commerce. In this regard, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, an e-marketplace, such as Amazon, has achieved historical growth in its sales (Kshetri 2020). In the case of rural enterprises, most of the entrepreneurial actions are in the family business or in micro-business that are usually characterized by the inability to respond quickly to economic and financial recessions (Robbins and Pearce 1993). The challenge is to transform subsistence-orientated smallholder systems into more sustainable, efficient, and market-orientated ones (Chakravarty et al. 2021), promoting formal agricultural employment or agricultural entrepreneurship (Wang et al. 2020), and improving productive capacity to reach broader markets (Ashby et al. 2009).
Hence, more research on how electronic markets help to increase sales would be an interesting direction (Hoyos-Estrada and Sastoque-Gómez 2020), as well as the integration of frameworks, such as the technology adoption model and the sustainable rural livelihoods (Molina-Maturano et al. 2020). Likewise, future research could study how to orient a country’s institutions toward markets (Li et al. 2019), and how institutions could support rural venture initiatives to grow locally and internationally (Ashby et al. 2009). Since a large part of rural communities feel fear of opening up to the unknown (de Guzman et al. 2020), an emerging research line consists of studying the internationalization of rural enterprises and articulating it with governance and institutions perspectives.

4.3.4. Eco-Entrepreneurship

Rural entrepreneurship considers the entrepreneur as an agent that is influenced by a series of socio-ecological conditions (Díaz et al. 2019); then, there is a need to identify the key factors for the success or failure of these rural ventures (Papzan et al. 2008; Pato and Teixera 2018). Regarding climate change, most of the women involved in crop farming have high levels of awareness of changes in their climate, recognizing that climate change had greatly affected soil fertility, caused less predictability, and prolonged the dry season (Akinbami et al. 2019). Therefore, rural entrepreneurship productivity must be ecological if the productivity of migratory crops is expected to be longer in different rural areas globally (Samal et al. 2016), especially when traditional rural livelihoods are disappearing due to natural resource decline, climate pressure, and modernization (Kimbu et al. 2022).
One of the ways to achieve sustainable rural livelihoods is through agritourism, rural tourism, and sustainable tourism that require contemporary tourism affairs and tourism strategies to change the livelihoods of the local community, enhance sustainable local development, and provide individual and community well-being (Ramaano 2021; Kimbu et al. 2022; Milán-García et al. 2019). Tourism could be a vehicle for community development and poverty alleviation, promoting economic growth, and just and equitable benefits for local communities to meet their household needs (Stone et al. 2021). Likewise, community forest enterprises could foster community development through sustainable utilization of forest resources, facilitating the achievement of financial, social, and environmental goals in the forest sector (Siegner and Kozak 2021).
On the eco-entrepreneurship issue, we suggest further research to solve the eco-entrepreneurs dilemma to provide eco-innovation while ensuring a focus on farmers’ daily income and alleviating poverty (Humphries et al. 2020; Palmas and Lindberg 2013).
Thus, the ecological sense of rural entrepreneurship must not be neglected if it is expected to support sustainable development. Research lines on preservation and regeneration of critical natural capital would become relevant to enrich the discussion, offer insights to alleviate poverty in the long term (Shahraki and Heydari 2019), and preserve natural resources depleted or endangered resources.

4.4. Discussion

When analyzing each topic’s results, we found that the most interesting topic for the long, medium and short-term scenarios is women’s entrepreneurship, poverty alleviation, and youth entrepreneurship. This analysis is consistent with the topic integration results and the types of capital described in Section 4.2 since they all refer to social entrepreneurship and social capital. Based on the previous analysis, the most vulnerable entrepreneurs are women (Gangadhar 2020; Rajendran and Indapurkar 2020; Kumari and Eguruze 2022) and young people (Ningrum 2018; Chakravarty et al. 2021; Dixit and Sakunia 2022).
Thus, it is necessary not only to guarantee a minimum base of financial, physical, and technological resources (financial and physical capital), but also a series of resources aimed at the formation of knowledge and skills (social capital) (Futemma et al. 2020; Deka et al. 2021). Additionally, it is necessary to provide vulnerable populations and rural enterprises with spaces to articulate the different types of capital. In this sense, institutions should integrate these groups of vulnerable people vertically with the different levels of government and horizontally with the actors in the society (Lang and Fink 2019). Furthermore, it is required to develop governance systems that promote participation based on the inclusion of the value systems of those who live in rural areas and the formal and informal institutions in which they operate (Addinsall et al. 2016; Cederholm Björklund 2020).
This framework of sustainable livelihoods is understood as a resource-based view that is useful for analyzing rural entrepreneurship, which is presented as a form of necessity entrepreneurship aimed at alleviating poverty in rural areas. Since alleviating poverty is one of the highest goals in terms of sustainability, it is inevitable for an eco-entrepreneur to fall into the dilemma of alleviating poverty and taking the risk of sacrificing part of the natural resources (Humphries et al. 2020). One key to avoiding this situation is for governments to design the right incentives to guarantee at least critical natural capital.
Regarding emerging issues, future research opportunities can be developed on social entrepreneurship, particularly about cultural aspects keeping vulnerable social groups in rural areas such as women, youth, and indigenous people from making entrepreneurial actions. Regarding governance and institutions, research avenues should be oriented to conduct case studies and quantitative research that account for the success or not of those governance models that include formal and informal institutions. Likewise, other research opportunities can be explored on the relationship between sustainable livelihood and the internationalization of rural markets and the mediation of technological platforms for the commercialization of the production in rural areas. Finally, eco-entrepreneurship presents study possibilities concerning the measurement of the trade-off between poverty alleviation and the preservation of critical natural capital, in short, medium, and long-term scenarios.

5. Conclusions

Since the 1980s, the primary focus in entrepreneurship has been how to exploit opportunities. However, due to the lack of resources for rural enterprises, the entrepreneurship literature should consider resource-based views to understand how to discover or create opportunities and how to obtain resources to exploit those opportunities. In this sense, the framework of sustainable livelihoods is based on resources and capacities to face poverty in rural areas, and constitutes an ideal framework to address the phenomenon of rural entrepreneurship. Arguably, this framework must transcend from the linear approach to a multidimensional, interactive, and multilevel one.
The result of a general mapping of rural entrepreneurship from the framework of sustainable livelihoods allowed the identification of two nodes: sustainable development and sustainability, where the first refers to the process and the second to the goal. Additionally, we examined the documents addressing rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihoods to identify current research topics. The analysis showed that the topic of women represents the most relevant, and that it was associated with different concepts, such as women’s entrepreneurship, women’s empowerment, and women’s employment, among others. The results allowed us to identify that social entrepreneurship is the most relevant topic, which is associated with the solution of basic human needs not satisfied by existing markets and institutions in core areas such as health and education. This topic focuses on resource allocation in rural communities to provide sustainable solutions to neglected problems. Likewise, social capital is the most relevant capital, representing the foundation of social entrepreneurship and the connections that support social cooperation between women, youth, and institutions to achieve poverty alleviation.
The emerging themes were constructed from the four integrated lines. Our study suggests future works in social entrepreneurship related to women entrepreneurship in rural areas, addressing three perspectives: the lack of resources, the context, and the growth of livelihoods. Regarding governance and institutions, our study suggests exploring factors constraining cooperative and associative models in communities. Regarding livelihood growth, future research can study how electronic markets enable livelihood growth and the internationalization of rural enterprises. Finally, more research is required around eco-entrepreneurship to provide eco-innovation and ecological solutions while ensuring poverty alleviation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.T. and A.L.-P.; methodology, A.T., A.L.-P. and J.A.C.; software, A.L.-P. and J.A.C.; validation, J.A.C. and R.G.-M.; formal analysis, A.T., A.L.-P. and J.A.C.; investigation, A.T., A.L.-P. and J.A.C.; resources, R.G.-M.; data curation, J.A.C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.T., A.L.-P. and J.A.C.; writing—review and editing, J.A.C.; visualization, J.A.C.; supervision, J.A.C.; project administration, A.T. and A.L.-P.; funding acquisition, J.A.C. and R.G.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abisuga Oyekunle, Oluwayemisi Adebola, and Mziwoxolo Sirayi. 2018. The role of creative industries as a driver for a sustainable economy: A case of South Africa. Creative Industries Journal 11: 225–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Addinsall, Cherise, Kevin Glencross, Norah Rihai, Leimon Kalomor, Grahame Palmer, Donald Nichols, and Geoff Smith. 2016. Enhancing agroforestry in Vanuatu: Striking the balance between individual entrepreneurship and community development. Forests Trees and Livelihoods 25: 78–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Adeyonu, Abigail G., Olubunmi L. Balogun, Ifeoluwapo O. Amao, and Timothy O. Agboola. 2022. Does farmers’ entrepreneurial competencies explain their household poverty status? Evidence from rural areas of Kwara State, Nigeria. Cogent Economics and Finance 10: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Aggarwal, Shalini, Anurag Pahuja, and Ruchi Sharma. 2019. Samriddhii: A Case of Integrated Social Entrepreneurship in Bihar. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management 19: 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Akinbami, C. A. O., J. E. Olawoye, A. Adesina, and V. Nelson. 2019. Exploring potential climate-related entrepreneurship opportunities and challenges for rural Nigerian women. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research 9: 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Amofah, Seth, Lily Agyare, and Triin Roosalu. 2021. Social Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Livelihood Empowerment: Study of an Estonian NGO’s Operations in Ghana. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social and Community Studies 17: 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Anand, Anita, and Ojaswi Josse. 2002. Celebrating mountain women: Moving mountains, moving women. Mountain Research and Development 22: 233–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Andreu, Alberto, and Joaquín Fernández. 2019. Los ODS y sus (posibles) lagunas. El País. Available online: https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/02/08/planeta_futuro/1549628983_409880.html (accessed on 7 April 2022).
  9. Apine, Elina, Lucy M. Turner, Lynda D. Rodwell, and Ramachandra Bhatta. 2019. The application of the sustainable livelihood approach to small scale-fisheries: The case of mud crab Scylla serrata in South west India. Ocean and Coastal Management 170: 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ashby, Jacqueline, Geoffrey Heinrich, Gaye Burpee, Thomas Remington, Kim Wilson, Carlos Arturo Quiros, Marco Aldana, and Shaun Ferris. 2009. What farmers want: Collective capacity for sustainable entrepreneurship. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7: 130–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Audretsch, David B., Maksim Belitski, Farzana Chowdhury, and Sameeksha Desai. 2022. Necessity or opportunity? Government size, tax policy, corruption, and implications for entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics 58: 2025–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Baskaran, Shruthi, and Khanjan Mehta. 2016. What is innovation anyway? Youth perspectives from resource-constrained environments. Technovation 52–53: 4–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Baumgartner, Daniel, Marco Pütz, and Irmi Seidl. 2013. What Kind of Entrepreneurship Drives Regional Development in European Non-core Regions? A Literature Review on Empirical Entrepreneurship Research. European Planning Studies 21: 1095–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bawa, Kamaljit S., Gladwin Joseph, and Siddappa Setty. 2007. Poverty, biodiversity and institutions in forest-agriculture ecotones in the Western Ghats and Eastern Himalaya ranges of India. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 121: 287–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bhandari, Vandana. 2017. New directions for social enterprises: The role of design in empowerment. Scope: (Art and Design) 15: 24–28. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bradley, Tamsin, Avijit Chakravarti, and Jane Rowan. 2013. What Happened When the Corporates Met the Artists of Rural West Bengal? A Critical Analysis into Art as Social Enterprise in India. Journal of South Asian Development 8: 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Brown, Peter, Mazhar Anwar, Shakhawat Hossain, Rashadul Islam, Nur-E.-Alam Siddquie, Mamunur Rashid, Ram Datt, Ranvir Kumar, Sanjay Kumar, Kausik Pradhan, and et al. 2021. Application of innovation platforms to catalyse adoption of conservation agriculture practices in South Asia. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 10: 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cahn, Miranda. 2008. Indigenous entrepreneurship, culture and micro-enterprise in the Pacific Islands: Case studies from Samoa. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 20: 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cano, Jose Alejandro, and Abraham Londoño-Pineda. 2020. Scientific Literature Analysis on Sustainability with the Implication of Open Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6: 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cano, Jose Alejandro, and Alexander Tabares. 2017. Determinants of university students ’ entrepreneurial intention: GUESSS Colombia study. Espacios 38: 22. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cederholm Björklund, Jennie. 2020. Value Creation for Sustainable Rural Development Perspectives of Entrepreneurship in Agriculture. (Issue 68). Halmstad: Halmstad University. [Google Scholar]
  22. Chakravarty, Amit, Anthony Whitbread, Pooran Gaur, Aravazhi Selvaraj, Saikat Datta Mazumdar, Jonathan Philroy, Priyanka Durgalla, Harshvardhan Mane, and Kiran Sharma. 2021. Benefitting Smallholder Farmers in Africa: Role of ICRISAT. In India–Africa Partnerships for Food Security and Capacity Building. International Political Economy Series. Edited by Renu Modi and Meera Venkatachalam. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 73–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chambers, Robert, and Gordon R. Conway. 1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Available online: https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/sustainable-rural-livelihoods-practical-concepts-for-the-21st-century/ (accessed on 7 April 2022).
  24. Chidanand, Fabien, L. M. Frey, and Gyanendra Singh. 2021. Village development framework through self-help-group entrepreneurship, microcredit, and anchor customers in solar microgrids for cooperative sustainable rural societies. Journal of Rural Studies 88: 432–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chipfupa, Unity, and Edilegnaw Wale. 2018. Farmer typology formulation accounting for psychological capital: Implications for on-farm entrepreneurial development. Development in Practice 28: 600–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chirambo, Dumisani. 2019. The Roles of ICT and Social Innovation in Enhancing Forestry Governance and Forestry Entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Advances in Environmental Research. Edited by J. A. Daniels. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., vol. 68, pp. 103–29. [Google Scholar]
  27. Choudhury, Smritishikha, and Nripendra Narayan Sarma. 2020. Value Chain Interventions Imperatives for Livelihood Development. Pacific Business Review International 13: 121–26. [Google Scholar]
  28. Chowdhury, Abhiroop, Alliya Naz, and Subodh Kumar Maiti. 2017. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Health risk assessment of ‘tiger prawn seed’ collectors exposed to heavy metal pollution in the conserved mangrove forest of Indian Sundarbans: A socio-environmental perspective. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 23: 203–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cohen, François, Cameron J. Hepburn, and Alexander Teytelboym. 2019. Is Natural Capital Really Substitutable? Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44: 425–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. de Guzman, Maria Rosario T., Surin Kim, Sarah Taylor, and Irene Padasas. 2020. Rural communities as a context for entrepreneurship: Exploring perceptions of youth and business owners. Journal of Rural Studies 80: 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Debnath, Ramit, and Ronita Bardhan. 2018. Resource Symbiosis Model through bricolage: A livelihood generation assessment of an Indian village. Journal of Rural Studies 60: 105–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Deka, Nabajyoti, Kishor Goswami, and Kumar Anurupam. 2021. What will drive the small tea growers towards environment-friendly cultivation? Implications from the tea sector in Assam, India. Climate and Development 10: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Deng, Qingqing, Erling Li, and Pengyan Zhang. 2020. Livelihood sustainability and dynamic mechanisms of rural households out of poverty: An empirical analysis of Hua County, Henan Province, China. Habitat International 99: 102160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Deng, Xiangzheng, and Xuemei Bai. 2014. Sustainable urbanization in Western China. Environment 56: 12–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Díaz, David Gortaire, Migdalia Díaz Chong, and Enrique Diaz Chong. 2019. Effect of rural entrepreneurship and innovation adoption in the reduction of inequalities. Journal of Science and Research 4: 268–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dixit, Krishna, and Debashish Sakunia. 2022. Start-up Village Entrepreneurship Programme: ‘From Local to Vocal’. Contemporary Voice of Dalit 10: 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ekanem, Ignatius, Terence Jackson, and Ayebaniminyo Munasuonyo. 2021. The Effect of Militancy on Local and Informal Enterprises in Developing Countries: Evidence from Niger Delta. Journal of African Business 22: 532–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ellis, Frank. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Escandón- Barbosa, Diana Marcela, David Urbano, Andrea Hurtado-Ayala, Jairo Salas Paramo, and Alvaro Zapata Dominguez. 2019. Formal institutions, informal institutions and entrepreneurial activity: A comparative relationship between rural and urban areas in Colombia. Journal of Urban Management 8: 458–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Falk, Thomas, Bernadette Bock, and Michael Kirk. 2009. Polycentrism and poverty: Experiences of rural water supply reform in Namibia. Water Alternatives 2: 115–37. [Google Scholar]
  41. Figueroa-Domecq, Cristina, Anna de Jong, and Allan Morgan Williams. 2020. Gender, tourism & entrepreneurship: A critical review. Annals of Tourism Research 84: 102980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Futemma, Célia, Fabio De Castro, and Eduardo Brondizio. 2020. Farmers and Social Innovations in Rural Development: Collaborative Arrangements in Eastern Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy 99: 104999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gangadhar, Bongurala. 2020. Involving Women in Farm Mechanisation for Improving Livelihoods of Farmers in Odisha. Journal of Rural Development 39: 96–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hetherington, Erin, Matthijs Eggers, Joyce Wamoyi, Jennifer Hatfield, Mange Manyama, Susan Kutz, and Sheri Bastien. 2017. Participatory science and innovation for improved sanitation and hygiene: Process and outcome evaluation of project SHINE, a school-based intervention in Rural Tanzania. BMC Public Health 17: 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Holden, Erling, Kristin Linnerud, David Banister, Valeria Schwanitz, and August Wierling. 2018. The Imperatives of Sustainable Development: Needs, Justice, Limits. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hoyos-Estrada, Sherly, and Judith Daniela Sastoque-Gómez. 2020. Marketing Digital como oportunidad de digitalización de las PYMES en Colombia en tiempo del COVID-19. Revista Científica Anfibios 3: 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Humberg, Krestin, and Boris Braun. 2014. Social Business and Poverty Alleviation: Lessons from Grameen Danone and Grameen Veolia. In Social Business. Edited by Andrea Grove and Gary Berg. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 201–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Humphries, Shoana, Thomas Holmes, Dárlinson Fernandes Carvhalo de Andrade, David McGrath, and Jeremias Batista Dantas. 2020. Searching for win-win forest outcomes: Learning-by-doing, financial viability, and income growth for a community-based forest management cooperative in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development 125: 104336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Huttunen, Suvi. 2012. Wood energy production, sustainable farming livelihood and multifunctionality in Finland. Journal of Rural Studies 28: 549–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Igwe, Paul Agu, Mahfuzur Rahman, Kenny Odunukan, and Nonso Ochinanwata. 2020. Drivers of diversification and pluriactivity among smallholder farmers evidence from Nigeria. Green Finance 2: 263–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jaramillo-Gutierrez, Carlos Augusto, Abraham Allec Londoño-Pineda, and Óscar Alonso Vélez. 2021. Non-conventional anti-personnel landmines and sustainable livelihoods in Colombian rural areas. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 14: 247–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jokinen, Pekka, Marja Järvelä, Suvi Huttunen, and Antti Puupponen. 2008. Experiments in sustainable rural livelihood in Finland. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 7: 211–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Joshi, Lalita, Deepak Choudhary, Praveen Kumar, Jayendran Venkateswaran, and Chetan Solanki. 2019. Does involvement of local community ensure sustained energy access? A critical review of a solar PV technology intervention in rural India. World Development 122: 272–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kabir, Shajahan, Mirjana Radovic-Markovic, Radmila Grozdanic, Rahima Akther, and Goran Kvgic. 2012. The impact of capital mix on rural women entreprenuers: An evidence from Bangladesh. Metalurgia International 17: 211–23. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kimbu, Albert Nsom, Irma Booyens, and Anke Winchenbach. 2022. Livelihood Diversification Through Tourism: Identity, Well-being, and Potential in Rural Coastal Communities. Tourism Review International 26: 25–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kshetri, N. 2020. COVID-19 Meets Big Tech. Computer 53: 10–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kumar, Harish, Bindhy Wasin Pandey, and Subhash Anand. 2019. Analyzing the Impacts of forest Ecosystem Services on Livelihood Security and Sustainability: A Case Study of Jim Corbett National Park in Uttarakhand. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 7: 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kumar, Shubham, Tapas Kumar Giri, and Bidyut Jyoti Gogoi. 2020. Determinants of rural livelihood interventions: An ISM-MICMAC approach. Journal of Indian Business Research 12: 343–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kumari, Gaitri, and Ebikinei Stanley Eguruze. 2022. Social Entrepreneurship Among Artisans. In Artisan and Handicraft Entrepreneurs. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 161–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Laeis, Gabriel, and Stefanie Lemke. 2016. Social entrepreneurship in tourism: Applying sustainable livelihoods approaches. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28: 1076–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lang, Richard, and Matthias Fink. 2019. Rural social entrepreneurship: The role of social capital within and across institutional levels. Journal of Rural Studies 70: 155–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Li, Yuheng, Hans Westlund, and Yansui Liu. 2019. Why some rural areas decline while some others not: An overview of rural evolution in the world. Journal of Rural Studies 68: 135–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Londoño, Abraham, and José Gabriel Cruz. 2019. Evaluation of sustainable development in the sub-regions of Antioquia (Colombia) using multi-criteria composite indices: A tool for prioritizing public investment at the subnational level. Environmental Development 32: 100442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Londoño-Pineda, Abraham Allec, and Jose Alejandro Cano. 2022. Assessments under the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: A Bibliometric Analysis. Environmental and Climate Technologies 26: 166–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lusambili, Adelaide, Njeri Nyanja, Sophie Vusha Chabeda, Marleen Temmerman, Lucy Nyaga, Jerim Obure, and Anthony Ngugi. 2021. Community health volunteers challenges and preferred income generating activities for sustainability: A qualitative case study of rural Kilifi, Kenya. BMC Health Services Research 21: 642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mahale, Geeta, Rajashri Kotur, and Shameembanu Byadgi. 2011. Women empowerment Sustainable livelihood through income generating activities. Textile Trends 54: 39–42. [Google Scholar]
  67. Mahesh, Vinyas, Venkata Ramana Rao, Kumar Kiran, and Shridar Condoor. 2020. Women Technology Parks: A novel solution for women entrepreneurship and empowerment through location specific technologies and waste material utilization. IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering 872: 012018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mbaiwa, Joseph Elizeri. 2004. The success and sustainability of community-based natural resource management in the okavango delta, botswana. South African Geographical Journal 86: 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Milán-García, Juan, Juan Uribe-Toril, José Luis Ruiz-Real, and Jaime de Pablo Valenciano. 2019. Sustainable Local Development: An Overview of the State of Knowledge. Resources 8: 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Mishra, Oly. 2021. Principles of frugal innovation and its application by social entrepreneurs in times of adversity: An inductive single-case approach. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 13: 547–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mishra, Oly, Richa Sharma, and Bindu Agrawal. 2020. Facilitating Women Prosperity with Higher Purpose at Vyomini. South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases 9: 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Molina-Maturano, Janet, Stijn Speelman, and Hans De Steur. 2020. Constraint-based innovations in agriculture and sustainable development: A scoping review. Journal of Cleaner Production 246: 119001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Muhamad, Suriyani, Noraida Ali, Masita Masila Abdul Jalil, Mutafa Man, and Suhairi Kamarudin. 2017. A sustainable E-business model for rural women: A case study. Journal of Sustainability Science and Management 12: 130–40. [Google Scholar]
  74. Nambiar, Ek Sadanandan. 2019. Re-imagining forestry and wood business: Pathways to rural development, poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation in the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management 448: 160–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nandy, Paramesh, and Aminul Islam. 2010. Climate resilient coastal zone development in Bangladesh: Participatory governance for common resources management. In Management and Sustainable Development of Coastal Zone Environments. Edited by Allagapan Ramanathan, Prosun Bhattacharya, Thorsten Dittmar, Mathukumali Bala Krishna Prasad and Buddhi Raj Neupane. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ningrum, Vanda. 2018. Does Engage Youth in Agriculture Support National Food Sovereignty?: Empirical Evidence from Indonesian Rural Area. In 32nd International Business Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA 2018 Vision 2020: Sustainable Economic Development and Application of Innovation Management from Regional Expansion to Global Growth. Edited by Khalid Soliman. King of Prussia: IBIMA, pp. 2115–22. [Google Scholar]
  77. Nwosu, Ijeoma Ikejiofor, Rita Oluchi Onoyima, Ignatius Ani Madu, and Victor Chukwunweike Nwokocha. 2019. The socioeconomic effects of small-scale women businesses in broom production and marketing industry: A panacea for sustainable development. Journal of Enterprising Communities 13: 283–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nzama, Antonia. 2021. Tackling climate change through craft development: The case of rural women in uPhongolo Local Municipality. Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 13: a1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ojo, Elizabeth, Ismet Anitsal, and Mera Anitsal. 2015. Poverty among Nigerian women entrepreneurs: A call for diversification of sustainable livelihood in agricultural entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship 19: 167–78. [Google Scholar]
  80. Oliveira, Hugo, and Gil Penha-Lopes. 2020. Permaculture in Portugal: Social-ecological inventory of a re-ruralizing grassroots movement. European Countryside 12: 30–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Oteng-Ababio, Martin, Agustine Tanle, Samuel Twumasi Amoah, Louis Kusi, Enoch Akwasi Kosoe, and Ernets Bagson. 2019. ‘Informal Exceptionalism?’ Labour Migrants’ Creative Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Livelihoods in Accra, Ghana. Journal of Asian and African Studies 54: 88–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Otoijamun, Itohan, Moses Kigozi, Sikiru Ottan Abdulraman, Adelana Rasak Adetunji, and Asikiwe Peter Onwualu. 2021. Fostering the Sustainability of Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining (ASM) of Barite in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Sustainability 13: 5917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Palmas, Karl, and Jonas Lindberg. 2013. Livelihoods or ecopreneurship? Agro-economic experiments in Hambantota, Sri Lanka. Journal of Enterprising Communities 7: 125–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Papzan, Abdolhami, Kiumars Zarafshani, Malekeh Tavakoli, and Mahya Papzan. 2008. Determining factors influencing rural entrepreneurs’ success: A case study of Mahidasht township in Kermanshah province of Iran. African Journal of Agricultural Research 3: 597–600. [Google Scholar]
  85. Pato, Maria Lúcia, and Aurora Amélia Castro Teixeira. 2016. Twenty Years of Rural Entrepreneurship: A Bibliometric Survey. Sociologia Ruralis 56: 3–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Pato, María Lúcia, and Aurora Amélia Castro Teixera. 2018. Rural entrepreneurship: The tale of a rare event. Journal of Place Management and Development 11: 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Poon, Jessie, Diep Thai, and Deborah Naybor. 2012. Social capital and female entrepreneurship in rural regions: Evidence from Vietnam. Applied Geography 35: 308–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rajendran, Jisha, and Kavita Indapurkar. 2020. Challenges in Tourism Entrepreneurship A Thematic Analysis. Test Engineering and Management 82: 9240–45. [Google Scholar]
  89. Ramaano, Azwindini Isaac. 2021. Tourism development dilemmas in Musina Municipality: Evidence from the Big Tree Nature Reserve and neighboring entities, Vhembe district, South Africa. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 1–19, ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Rebotier, Julien. 2012. Vulnerability conditions and risk representations in Latin-America: Framing the territorializing urban risk. Global Environmental Change 22: 391–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Remilien, Emmanuel, Manuel Sanchez-Hernandez, Hilario Hernández-Salgado, Roselina Servin-Juárez, and Ignacio Carranza-Cerda. 2018. Creation profiles of microenterprises in rural zones: The case of Santa Barbara Almoloya, Cholula, Puebla. Agricultura Sociedad y Desarrollo 15: 29–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Robbins, Keith, and John Pearce. 1993. Entrepreneurial retrenchment among small manufacturing firms. Journal of Business Venturing 8: 301–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Samal, Prasanna K., Er. Mahendra S. Lodhi, Satish C. Arya, Rakesh C. Sundriyal, and Pitambar P. Dhyani. 2016. Eco-technologies for agricultural and rural livelihoods in North East India. Current Science 111: 1929–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sati, Mahesh Chandra, and Rajendra Prasat Juyal. 2008. A gender approach to sustainable rural development of mountains: Women/s sucessess in agro-enterprises in the Indian Central Himalayan region. Mountain Research and Development 28: 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Schraeder, Brittany, Eva Bonta, Eric Obeysekare, and Khajan Mehta. 2015. Co-located community health and economic activity centers. Paper presented at 5th IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference, GHTC, Seattle, WA, USA, December 3; pp. 144–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Scoones, Ian. 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working Paper, Issue 72. Brighton: IDS. [Google Scholar]
  97. Serna, Ciro Alfonso, Miroslawa Czerny, Abraham Allec Pineda, and Oscar Alonso Vélez Rojas. 2015. Livelihood assessment in district 1 of Medellin Colombia. Miscellanea Geographica 19: 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Shahraki, Hassan, and Ebrahim Heydari. 2019. Rethinking rural entrepreneurship in the era of globalization: Some observations from Iran. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research 9: 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Shaker, Richard Ross. 2015. The spatial distribution of development in Europe and its underlying sustainability correlations. Applied Geography 63: 304–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Shaw, Brian. 2017. The whole village project Saxon village restoration in rural Romania. In The Science and Practice of Landscape Stewardship. Edited by Claudia Bieling and Tobias Plieninger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 164–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Siegner, Meike, and Rajat Kozak. 2021. Community forest enterprises and social enterprises: The confluence of two streams of literatures for sustainable natural resource management. Social Enterprise Journal 17: 584–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Singh, Ramendra, Vaibhav Gupta, and Akash Mondal. 2012. Jugaad-From “Making Do” and “Quick Fix” to an Innovative, Sustainable and Low-Cost Survival Strategy at the Bottom of the Pyramid. International Journal of Rural Management 8: 87–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Smith, R.ichard. 2015. Ending poverty in Mongolia: From socialism to social development. International Journal of Social Welfare 24: 159–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Stone, Lesego, Morn Stone, and Gya Nyaupane. 2021. The state of tourism and community development research and future directions. Tourism Review International 25: 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Sutter, Cristopher, Garry Bruton, and Juanyi Chen. 2019. Entrepreneurship as a solution to extreme poverty: A review and future research directions. Journal of Business Venturing 34: 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Tabares, Alexander. 2017. International entrepreneurship under an institutional regulative dimension: A cross-national study. Espacios 38: 2. [Google Scholar]
  107. Tabares, Alexander, Yanto Chandra, Claudia Alvarez, and Manuela Escobar-Sierra. 2021. Opportunity-related behaviors in international entrepreneurship research: A multilevel analysis of antecedents, processes, and outcomes. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 17: 321–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Terán, Eduardo, and Andrea Guerrero. 2020. Teorías de emprendimiento: Revisión crítica de la literatura y sugerencias para futuras investigaciones. Espacios 41: 7. [Google Scholar]
  109. Wang, Hao, Jan Fidrmuc, Qi Luo, and Mingzhong Luo. 2020. Exploring the determinants of on-farm transitions: Evidence from rural China. Applied Economics 52: 5667–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Wang, Wenxiong, Yunaquin Lan, and Xu Wang. 2021. Impact of livelihood capital endowment on poverty alleviation of households under rural land consolidation. Land Use Policy 109: 105608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zhu, Ying, Hong Lan, David Ness, Ke Xing, Kris Schneider, Seung-Hee Lee, and Jing Ge. 2015. Transforming Rural Communities in China and Beyond: Community Entrepreneurship and Enterprises, Infrastructure Development and Investment Modes. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Economies 10 00142 g001 550
Figure 1. Mapping of sustainable livelihoods and rural entrepreneurship.
Figure 1. Mapping of sustainable livelihoods and rural entrepreneurship.
Economies 10 00142 g001
Economies 10 00142 g002 550
Figure 2. Rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihoods from the sustainable development and sustainability nodes. Source: Based on (Deng et al. 2020; Lang and Fink 2019; Shaker 2015; Sutter et al. 2019).
Figure 2. Rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihoods from the sustainable development and sustainability nodes. Source: Based on (Deng et al. 2020; Lang and Fink 2019; Shaker 2015; Sutter et al. 2019).
Economies 10 00142 g002
Economies 10 00142 g003 550
Figure 3. Documents published on rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihood between 2002 and 2022.
Figure 3. Documents published on rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihood between 2002 and 2022.
Economies 10 00142 g003
Economies 10 00142 g004 550
Figure 4. Most relevant topics for the long, medium, and short term.
Figure 4. Most relevant topics for the long, medium, and short term.
Economies 10 00142 g004
Economies 10 00142 g005 550
Figure 5. Documents considering integrated topics.
Figure 5. Documents considering integrated topics.
Economies 10 00142 g005
Economies 10 00142 g006 550
Figure 6. Capitals involved in the documents.
Figure 6. Capitals involved in the documents.
Economies 10 00142 g006
Table
Table 1. Capitals involved in sustainable livelihoods for resource-based entrepreneurship.
Table 1. Capitals involved in sustainable livelihoods for resource-based entrepreneurship.
Types of CapitalDefinitionRural Entrepreneurship Effects
FinancialComprises household assets and resources such as money, savings, loans, and property (Scoones 1998; Serna et al. 2015; Kumar et al. 2019)Lack of finance for rural entrepreneurship (Chidanand et al. 2021; Lusambili et al. 2021; Mishra 2021)
PhysicalComprises assets as the machinery and technology involved in the production of raw materials, processed products, and the management of enterprises (Rebotier 2012; Jaramillo-Gutierrez et al. 2021)Lack of social infrastructure for rural entrepreneurship (Nwosu et al. 2019; Gangadhar 2020; Rajendran and Indapurkar 2020)
HumanRefers to the skills to do and the knowledge acquired (Chambers and Conway 1992; Scoones 1998; Serna et al. 2015)Lack of capacities and knowledge for rural entrepreneurship (Chirambo 2019; Brown et al. 2021; Dixit and Sakunia 2022)
SocialIs related to the formal and informal connections that shape social cooperation (Shaw 2017; Apine et al. 2019; Jaramillo-Gutierrez et al. 2021)Lack of horizontal and vertical integration for rural entrepreneurship (Futemma et al. 2020; Deka et al. 2021; Ekanem et al. 2021)
NaturalRefers to natural resources, including land, water, air, living organisms, and ecosystems (Ellis 2000; Cohen et al. 2019)No capacity to guarantee critical natural capital (Jokinen et al. 2008; Nambiar 2019; Oteng-Ababio et al. 2019)
PsychologicalRefers to the ability of entrepreneurs to overcome difficult situations such as economic crises (Chipfupa and Wale 2018)Lack of skills or entrepreneurial mindset to recover from adversity (Ekanem et al. 2021; Mishra 2021; Lusambili et al. 2021)
Table
Table 2. Relevant concepts and capitals involved in rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihood.
Table 2. Relevant concepts and capitals involved in rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihood.
Article TitleAuthors and YearCentral ConceptsCapitals Involved
Start-up Village Entrepreneurship Programme: ‘From Local to Vocal’(Dixit and Sakunia 2022)Youth employment, rural ventures schemes, women empowermentHuman capital, social capital, financial capital
Social entrepreneurship among artisans(Kumari and Eguruze 2022)Women empowerment, rural community development, handicraft social enterprisesSocial capital, human capital
Village development framework through self-help-group entrepreneurship, microcredit, and anchor customers in solar microgrids for cooperative sustainable rural societies(Chidanand et al. 2021)Poverty alleviation, rural electrification, micro-financing, social cooperationFinancial capital, social capital
Community health volunteers challenges and preferred income generating activities for sustainability: a qualitative case study of rural Kilifi, Kenya(Lusambili et al. 2021)Livelihoods of community health volunteers, attrition ratesFinancial capital, psychological capital
Fostering the sustainability of artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) of barite in Nasarawa State, Nigeria(Otoijamun et al. 2021)Government interventions, legal frameworkNatural capital
Tackling climate change through craft development: The case of rural women in uPhongolo Local Municipality(Nzama 2021)Climate change, rural women, craft development, marketNatural capital
Social entrepreneurship for sustainable livelihood empowerment: Study of an Estonian NGO’s operations in Ghana(Amofah et al. 2021)Poverty alleviation, social entrepreneurship, social innovationSocial capital
Principles of frugal innovation and its application by social entrepreneurs in times of adversity: an inductive single-case approach(Mishra 2021)Frugal innovation, rural women, COVID-19Financial capital, social capital, psychological capital
Application of innovation platforms to catalyse adoption of conservation agriculture practices in South Asia(Brown et al. 2021)Poverty alleviation, rural youth, women, institutional barriersSocial capital, human capital
What will drive the small tea growers towards environment-friendly cultivation? Implications from the tea sector in Assam, India(Deka et al. 2021)Collaboration, policy interventionHuman capital, social capital, natural capital
The effect of militancy on local and informal enterprises in developing countries: Evidence from Niger Delta(Ekanem et al. 2021)Informal institutions, violent conflictSocial capital, psychological capital
Benefitting smallholder farmers in Africa: Role of ICRISAT(Chakravarty et al. 2021)Youth, governmental collaboration, agri-based entrepreneurshipHuman capital, social capital, natural capital
Farmers and social innovations in rural development: Collaborative arrangements in eastern Brazilian amazon(Futemma et al. 2020) GovernanceSocial capital
Women technology parks: A novel solution for women entrepreneurship and empowerment through location specific technologies and waste material utilization(Mahesh et al. 2020)Women entrepreneurship, cultural frontiers, technologyFinancial capital, human capital, social capital.
Permaculture in Portugal: Social-ecological inventory of a re-ruralizing grassroots movement(Oliveira and Penha-Lopes 2020)Local context, Institutions, governancesocial capital, psychological capital
Challenges in tourism entrepreneurship A thematic analysis.(Rajendran and Indapurkar 2020)Women employmentPhysical capital
Involving women in farm mechanisation for improving livelihoods of farmers in Odisha(Gangadhar 2020)Women communityPhysical capital
Facilitating women prosperity with higher purpose at Yyomini(Mishra et al. 2020)Social entrepreneurship, Women trainingFinancial capital, human capital
Does involvement of local community ensure sustained energy access? A critical review of a solar PV technology intervention in rural India(Joshi et al. 2019)Renewable energy, poor communities, participation, eco-entrepreneurship, governancePhysical capital, natural capital
Re-imagining forestry and wood business: Pathways to rural development, poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation in the tropics(Nambiar 2019)Forest, poverty alleviation.Natural capital
The socioeconomic effects of small-scale women businesses in broom production and marketing industry: A panacea for sustainable development(Nwosu et al. 2019)Women entrepreneurshipPhysical capital
The roles of ICT and social innovation in enhancing forestry governance and forestry entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa(Chirambo 2019)Forest sector, technological literacy, climate change, governanceHuman capital, physical capital
Why some rural areas decline while some others not: An overview of rural evolution in the world(Li et al. 2019)environment, Institutions, market, governanceSocial capital
Informal exceptionalism? Labour migrants, creative entrepreneurship for sustainable livelihoods in Accra, Ghana(Oteng-Ababio et al. 2019)MigrationsNatural capital
The role of creative industries as a driver for a sustainable economy: A case of south Africa(Abisuga Oyekunle and Sirayi 2018)Poverty alleviation.Human capital, physical capital
Development in Practice Farmer typology formulation accounting for psychological capital: implications for on-farm entrepreneurial development(Chipfupa and Wale 2018)Cognition, resilience, mindsetPsychological capital
Does engage youth in agriculture support national food sovereignty? Empirical evidence from Indonesian rural area(Ningrum 2018)Rural youth, migrations.Natural capital, physical capital, financial capital.
Participatory science and innovation for improved sanitation and hygiene: Process and outcome evaluation of project SHINE, a school-based intervention in rural Tanzania(Hetherington et al. 2017)Rural youth, Participative frameworkHuman capital
A sustainable E-business model for rural women: A case study.(Muhamad et al. 2017)Women entrepreneurship, ICTsHuman capital, physical capital
Case 7: The whole village project Saxon village restoration in rural Romania(Shaw 2017)Migrations, cultural patrimonyHuman capital, physical capital
New directions for social enterprises: The role of design in empowerment(Bhandari 2017)Social entrepreneurship, women entrepreneurshipSocial capital
Social entrepreneurship in tourism: Applying sustainable livelihoods approaches(Laeis and Lemke 2016)Social entrepreneurship, participation.Social capital, financial capital
What is innovation anyway? youth perspectives from resource-constrained environments(Baskaran and Mehta 2016)Youth, culture, community context, informal institutionsSocial capital, psychological capital
Enhancing agroforestry in Vanuatu: Striking the balance between individual entrepreneurship and community development(Addinsall et al. 2016). Formal and informal institutions, women’s participation, forestPhysical capital, human capital, natural capital
Eco-technologies for agricultural and rural livelihoods in northeast India (Samal et al. 2016)Technology, ecology, youth.Physical capital
Co-located community health and economic activity centers(Schraeder et al. 2015)Community employment.Financial capital, social capital
Transforming rural communities in China and beyond: Community entrepreneurship and enterprises, infrastructure development and investment modes(Zhu et al. 2015)Social entrepreneurship, cooperative actionsFinancial capital, physical capital, social capital, natural capital
Poverty among Nigerian women entrepreneurs: A call for diversification of sustainable livelihood in agricultural entrepreneurship(Ojo et al. 2015)women entrepreneurship, business opportunities.Human capital
Social business and poverty alleviation: Lessons from Grameen Danone and Grameen Veolia.(Humberg and Braun 2014)Social entrepreneurship, poverty alleviationFinancial capital, social capital.
Livelihoods or ecopreneurship? Agro-economic experiments in Hambantota, Sri Lanka.(Palmas and Lindberg 2013)Eco-entrepreneurshipFinancial capital, natural capital
What happened when the corporates met the artists of rural west Bengal? A critical analysis into art as social enterprise in India(Bradley et al. 2013)Rural entrepreneurshipHuman capital, financial capital
Wood energy production, sustainable farming livelihood and multifunctionality in Finland(Huttunen 2012)Climate change, forest, participationSocial capital, natural capital
Jugaad-from ‘making do’ and ‘quick fix’ to an innovative, sustainable, and low-cost survival strategy at the bottom of the pyramid.(Singh et al. 2012)Livelihoods deficitFinancial capital, human capital
Women empowerment sustainable livelihood through income generating activities(Mahale et al. 2011)Women entrepreneurship, poverty alleviation, technology, marketsHuman capital, financial capital
What farmers want: Collective capacity for sustainable entrepreneurship.(Ashby et al. 2009)Market access, governanceHuman capital
A gender approach to sustainable rural development of mountains: Women/s success in agro-enterprises in the Indian central Himalayan region.(Sati and Juyal 2008)Poverty alleviation, women, institutions, participationSocial capital
Experiments in sustainable rural livelihood in Finland.(Jokinen et al. 2008)Renewable energyNatural capital
Indigenous entrepreneurship, culture and micro-enterprise in the pacific islands: Case studies from Samoa.(Cahn 2008)Cultural aspectsSocial capital
The success and sustainability of community-based natural resource management in the Okavango delta, Botswana(Mbaiwa 2004)community resource managementHuman capital, natural capital
Celebrating mountain women: Moving mountains, moving women.(Anand and Josse 2002)Women, youth entrepreneurshipSocial capital
Table
Table 3. Integrated topics.
Table 3. Integrated topics.
Integrated SubjectTheme SetAuthors
Social entrepreneurshipIncludes the topics of social entrepreneurship, women, youth and indigenous people, technologies(Kumari and Eguruze 2022) (Dixit and Sakunia 2022) (Brown et al. 2021) (Chakravarty et al. 2021) (Futemma et al. 2020) (Mahesh et al. 2020) (Nzama 2021) (Amofah et al. 2021) (Mishra 2021) (Rajendran and Indapurkar 2020) (Gangadhar 2020) (Mishra et al. 2020) (Nwosu et al. 2019) (Oteng-Ababio et al. 2019) (Ningrum 2018) (Hetherington et al. 2017) (Muhamad et al. 2017) (Bhandari 2017) (Laeis and Lemke 2016) (Baskaran and Mehta 2016) (Addinsall et al. 2016) (Samal et al. 2016) (Zhu et al. 2015) (Ojo et al. 2015) (Humberg and Braun 2014) (Bradley et al. 2013) (Mahale et al. 2011) (Sati and Juyal 2008) (Anand and Josse 2002)
Governance and institutionsIt includes the topics of governance, institutions, participation, culture, context and communities, technology.(Kumari and Eguruze 2022) (Otoijamun et al. 2021) (Brown et al. 2021) (Deka et al. 2021) (Ekanem et al. 2021) (Chakravarty et al. 2021) (Futemma et al. 2020) (Oliveira and Penha-Lopes 2020) (Mahesh et al. 2020) (Joshi et al. 2019) (Chirambo 2019) (Li et al. 2019) (Hetherington et al. 2017) (Shaw 2017) (Laeis and Lemke 2016) (Baskaran and Mehta 2016) (Addinsall et al. 2016) (Schraeder et al. 2015) (Huttunen 2012) (Ashby et al. 2009) (Sati and Juyal 2008) (Cahn 2008) (Mbaiwa 2004)
Livelihood growth It includes the topics of poverty alleviation, trade, migration, market, and opportunities.(Brown et al. 2021) (Chidanand et al. 2021) (Lusambili et al. 2021) (Amofah et al. 2021) (Gangadhar 2020) (Joshi et al. 2019) (Nambiar 2019) (Abisuga Oyekunle and Sirayi 2018) (Chipfupa and Wale 2018) (Ningrum 2018) (Humberg and Braun 2014) (Singh et al. 2012) (Mahale et al. 2011) (Ashby et al. 2009) (Sati and Juyal 2008)
Eco-entrepreneurshipIt includes the topics of eco-entrepreneurship, energy, climate change and forests, technologies.(Nzama 2021) (Joshi et al. 2019) (Nambiar 2019) (Chirambo 2019) (Li et al. 2019) (Addinsall et al. 2016) (Samal et al. 2016) (Palmas and Lindberg 2013) (Huttunen 2012) (Jokinen et al. 2008)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tabares, A.; Londoño-Pineda, A.; Cano, J.A.; Gómez-Montoya, R. Rural Entrepreneurship: An Analysis of Current and Emerging Issues from the Sustainable Livelihood Framework. Economies 2022, 10, 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10060142

AMA Style

Tabares A, Londoño-Pineda A, Cano JA, Gómez-Montoya R. Rural Entrepreneurship: An Analysis of Current and Emerging Issues from the Sustainable Livelihood Framework. Economies. 2022; 10(6):142. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10060142

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tabares, Alexander, Abraham Londoño-Pineda, Jose Alejandro Cano, and Rodrigo Gómez-Montoya. 2022. "Rural Entrepreneurship: An Analysis of Current and Emerging Issues from the Sustainable Livelihood Framework" Economies 10, no. 6: 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10060142

APA Style

Tabares, A., Londoño-Pineda, A., Cano, J. A., & Gómez-Montoya, R. (2022). Rural Entrepreneurship: An Analysis of Current and Emerging Issues from the Sustainable Livelihood Framework. Economies, 10(6), 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10060142

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop