Examining the characteristics, philosophies, operating practices and growth strategies of village entrepreneurs

Abstract

Purpose The literature of entrepreneurship has an urban focus and despite the emergence of the rural entrepreneurship literature, we know little about the characteristics, philosophies, operating practices and growth strategies of ordinary village entrepreneurs’ in a UK context. As a concept, the “village entrepreneur” is contentious as theoretically there should be little difference between urban and rural entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, there is! The concept is important because many villages are in decline and are marginal places in terms of entrepreneurial opportunity. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach A review of the fragmented literature is conducted to synthesise and develop greater understanding. Drawing on a “life-story” approach the empirical strand comprises of an analysis of five ethnographic interviews with village entrepreneurs. Findings The respondents did not consider themselves entrepreneurs whom they characterised as flash, rogues and even crooked. Their embedded village entrepreneur persona was constructed around tales-of-character, hard work and perseverance. They prided themselves in making “slow-money” which they retain over their lifetime. Embeddedness, self-efficacy, character and morality were key themes encountered. Research limitations/implications From a research perspective the findings are based on a limited sample and the study was not specifically designed to capture data on characteristics, philosophies and operating practices. Further research on a larger scale is necessary to validate the findings. Practical implications From a practical perspective policy makers require to consider the notions of embeddedness, self-efficacy, character and morality when considering implementing growth strategies in rural areas. Originality/value This study contributes to the growing literature of rural entrepreneurship by expanding the typology of rural entrepreneurs and by detailing philosophies, operating practices, and growth strategies suitable and appropriate for small village and rural businesses.

Bringing innovation back in–strategies and driving forces behind entrepreneurial responses in small-scale rural industries in Sweden

“…Detailed knowledge about the local market helps rural enterprises to develop appropriate business models (de Guzman et al, 2020). Innovations are considered essential for economic development in rural areas (Fortunato, 2014;Pato and Teixeira, 2014;Smith, 2017;Stathopoulou et al, 2004). However, innovation is not always highlighted in rural entrepreneurship research.…”

Rural entrepreneurial ecosystems: A systematic literature review for advancing conceptualisation

“…Productive entrepreneurship Productive entrepreneurship business simple than have it grow too big (Bensemann & Hall, 2010). Similarly, Smith (2017) shows that rural and urban entrepreneurs may have differing entrepreneurial modes of operation. 'Making slowmoney' appears to be a common practice among village entrepreneurs.…”

Strengthening and sustaining a community through reciprocal support between local businesses and the community

“…The community must also be open to possibilities, even as they represent change to the status quo and introduction of new community members (Kalantaridis and Bika, 2006; Lauer, 2005). Given the relative absence of resources, especially as compared to larger urban centers, the community is important for a business, providing employees, customers, supplies, advice and mentorship and creating supportive infrastructure which can be fundamental for small business survival (Heilbrunn, 2010; Smith, 2017).…”

“…For many of these owners, contributing to the community is an important value despite often “marginal” income and profits when evaluated from a traditional business point of view (Jack and Anderson, 2002; Smith, 2006). These owners acknowledge that the community and the resources, including employees, customers, supplies and mentorship which exist within directly shape them (Gaddefors and Anderson, 2017; Jack and Anderson, 2002; Kirby, 1987; Miller and Kean, 1997; Morrison, 2006; Smith, 2017).…”