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

: 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.


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).
Economies 2022, 10, 142 2 of 24 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.

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).

Physical
Comprises 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)

Human
Refers 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) Social Is 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)

Psychological
Refers 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) 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 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.

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.

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.
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 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 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.
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.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%).
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  (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%).

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).
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).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.

Social entrepreneurship
Includes the topics of social entrepreneurship, women, youth and indigenous people, technologies 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.
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).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).
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.

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.

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).

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.

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 marketorientated 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.

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 ecoentrepreneurs 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.

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.

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.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Mapping of sustainable livelihoods and rural entrepreneurship.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Mapping of sustainable livelihoods and rural entrepreneurship.

Figure 2 .
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 .
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 3 .
Figure 3. Documents published on rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihood between 2002 and 2022.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Most relevant topics for the long, medium, and short term. 17

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Most relevant topics for the long, medium, and short term.

Table 1 .
Capitals involved in sustainable livelihoods for resource-based entrepreneurship.

Table 2 .
Relevant concepts and capitals involved in rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihood.
Table 2 are journal articles, 10% are book chapters, 6% are conference papers, 4% are literature reviews, and 2% are books.The journals Documents published on rural entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihood between 2002 and 2022.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