





































 

 

14 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.designforsocialchange.org/journal/index.php/DISCERN-J 

 

ISSN 2184-6995 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 

International License. 

 

  

 

 

 
Effects of rural entrepreneurship on community development in Zambia  
 
Sampa Chisumbe, Peter Mukalula, Clinton Aigbavboa, Erastus Mwanaumo, Thandiwe Mbewe 
 

Published online: November 2024 

 
To cite this article:  

Chisumbe, S., Mukalula, P., Aigbavboa, C., Mwanaumo, E., & Mbewe, T. (2024). Effects of rural 

entrepreneurship on community development in Zambia. Discern: International Journal of Design  

for Social Change, Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 14-34. 

 

 

  



 

 

15 

 

 

 

Effects of rural entrepreneurship on community development in Zambia  
 
Sampa Chisumbea, Peter Mukalulab, Clinton Aigbavboac, Erastus Mwanaumod, Thandiwe Mbewee 

 
aUniversity of Johannesburg, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, Johannesburg,  

South Africa. clechisumbe@gmail.com 
bCopperbelt University, School of the Built Environment, Kitwe, Zambia. musomuko@yahoo.com 
cUniversity of Johannesburg, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, Johannesburg,  

South Africa. caigbavboa@uj.ac.za 
dUniversity of Zambia, School of Engineering, Lusaka, Zambia. erastus.mwanaumo@unza.zm 
eCopperbelt University, School of the Built Environment, Kitwe, Zambia. thandiwembewe@yahoo.com 

 

Abstract 

Rural entrepreneurship plays a crucial role in fostering the development of rural communities and nations 

at large. This study aimed to investigate the role of rural entrepreneurship in delivering community 

development. The study employed a quantitative approach, in which a structured questionnaire containing 

four indicator variables identified from the literature was administered to 197 respondents drawn from 

entrepreneurs involved in agriculture, retail, building construction, transportation business and metal 

fabrication operating in the rural areas of Copperbelt province, Zambia. The data were analysed using 

exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and regression analysis. The EFA results revealed that entrepreneurship 

was explained by four factors: entrepreneurial characteristics, business conception, business realization 

and business operation. However, the regression analysis established that of the four factors explaining 

entrepreneurship, only two factors, entrepreneurial characteristics and business operation, were significant 

in predicting community development in Copperbelt rural areas. Overall, this paper reaffirms that 

entrepreneurship plays a critical role in rural community development, leading to improved living 

standards, employment opportunities, alleviation of poverty and reduced rural-urban migration.  

Rural entrepreneurship is an essential stimulant of economic growth in developing countries. 

 

Keywords: Community, Development, Entrepreneurship, Rural areas 

 

Introduction  

Rural areas are envisioned as carefree farmlands and grasslands dotted with small business stores,  

few social amenities and tight-knit communities. Rural areas in the Global South are diverse regarding 

topography, natural resources, culture and economy. According to researchers, extreme poverty levels, 

little economic activity and the absence of critical infrastructure and essential services characterise rural 

areas (del Olmo-García et al., 2023; Ihejiamaizu, 2019; Jarinaa & Manida, 2024). Historically, agriculture and 

other resource-based industries have been at the centre of economic activities in rural areas. In developing 

countries, most agricultural activities are labour-based and subsistence-level, offering little economic 

growth. At the commercial scale, increased mechanization has led to increased levels of unemployment 

(Goetz et al., 2018). Development is further hampered by low literacy levels, exacerbated by rural-urban 

migration, where those with some skill migrate to cities for better economic prospects. These issues point 

to resource-deficient rural areas, with inadequate infrastructure such as roads, water and power supply 

networks, insufficient human capital and limited access to credit finance (Goetz et al., 2018; Stadel, 2019). 

 

mailto:clechisumbe@gmail.com
mailto:musomuko@yahoo.com
mailto:caigbavboa@uj.ac.za
mailto:erastus.mwanaumo@unza.zm
mailto:thandiwembewe@yahoo.com


 

 

16 

 

 

 

Rural entrepreneurship has gained significance as a local development approach with solid potential  

for job creation as well as improvements in quality of life (Fortunato, 2014; Galvao et al., 2020).  

Scholars have found a correlation between entrepreneurship and rural development (Abhijith,  

2021; Lakshmanaswamy & Jasmine, 2023; Pato, 2020; Rajsinghot et al., 2024). The argument is that 

entrepreneurship has a multiplier effect in rural regions because it results in skill diversification  

among the rural population, attracts new inhabitants, drives market innovation and stimulates  

growth (Galambos & Amatori, 2016; Galvao et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2024). Therefore, this study  

sought to investigate the effects of entrepreneurship on community development in rural areas,  

with the Copperbelt province of Zambia as the study area. 

 

Rural entrepreneurship 

Entrepreneurship is a broad concept with numerous definitions and meanings. The definition of 

entrepreneurship is still a source of contention among scholars. The idea of entrepreneurship is 

multifaceted, denoting different things to different people. Entrepreneurship comprises interconnected 

processes of vision, transformation and invention, necessitating a great deal of energy from the individual. 

It also stimulates economic growth in any setting (Akiri et al., 2016; Ekanem, 2024). Rural entrepreneurship 

entails creating new value by utilizing resources from a given environmental setting (Lebambo & Shambare, 

2020; Sharma, 2024). Rural entrepreneurs focus on creating a new organization that introduces new 

products, serves or creates a new market or utilizes a new technology in a rural environment. It also 

involves pulling resources together to respond to unmet market demands and an ability to create and  

build something from practically nothing. Thus, rural entrepreneurs carry out entrepreneurial activities  

by establishing industrial and business units in the rural sector of the economy (Kushalakshi & Raghurama, 

2014). Rural entrepreneurship is one of the most essential inputs in the economic development  

of a country; this cannot be overemphasized, especially in countries in the Global South, where 

a considerable number of the population live in rural areas. Rural entrepreneurship is considered one of the 

solutions to reduce poverty, migration, economic disparity and unemployment and to develop rural areas 

and backward regions. In the Global South, rural areas are isolated, economically poor, and unmechanized 

(Okeke & Nwankwo, 2017).  

 

Further, these areas lack critical infrastructure, such as roads, telecommunications, internet connectivity 

and electricity and water supply networks. Proponents of rural entrepreneurship opine that it is a strategic 

development intervention that could accelerate the rural development process. The literature review 

underscores the importance of entrepreneurship in stirring development in rural areas and points  

out critical issues for consideration, as summarized in Table 1. 

Table 1: Summary of reviewed works on entrepreneurship for rural development. 

Author(s) and year Title of research Key issues 

Lakshmanaswamy & 

Jasmine, 2023 

An empirical study on the 

role of rural 

entrepreneurship on 

socio-economic 

development among rural 

mass 

 

Highlights the importance of rural 

entrepreneurship in better income-

generating opportunities and serves  

as a means for the effective allocation 

of local resources 

 



 

 

17 

 

 

 

Author(s) and year Title of research Key issues 

Jarinaa & Manida, 2024 Exploring the impact of 

rural entrepreneurship 

development in India’s 

MSME sector 

Advances in investment in 

infrastructure and technological 

advancements to unlock the full 

potential of rural entrepreneurship 

Candelario-Moreno & 

Sánchez-Hernández, 

2024 

Redefining rural 

entrepreneurship: The 

impact of business 

ecosystems on the success 

of rural businesses in 

Extremadura, Spain 

 

Resources tailored to rural 

entrepreneurship must be created, 

leveraging the area’s endogenous 

resources and growth models 

Sima, 2015 Sustainable rural 

development through 

rural entrepreneurship 

Emphasizes the importance of strategic 

planning, feasibility and market studies 

and analysis and the need for a unique 

package of resources to exploit the 

opportunities 

 

Pato, 2020 Entrepreneurship and 

innovation towards rural 

development evidence 

from a peripheral area in 

Portugal 

Underscores the role of the community 

in the entrepreneurship and 

development process; fosters creation 

of a culture of entrepreneurship based 

on local and endogenous resources;  

Training and financial support 

 

Pan et al., 2024 The impact of 

entrepreneurship of 

farmers on agriculture and 

rural economic growth: 

Innovation-driven 

perspective 

The need to adopt specialized 

incentives and support measures  

to create a favourable atmosphere;  

Strengthen innovation; Build a 

distinctive innovation and 

entrepreneurship education system;  

Promote the effective integration  

of technologies 

 

Ihejiamaizu, 2019 The role of 

entrepreneurship in rural 

development 

in Cross River State, 

Nigeria 

Utilization of local resources and 

reduction of rural-urban migration;  

Provision of incentives to rural 

entrepreneurs in the form of tax  

relief and concessions; Infrastructure 

development and maintenance in rural 

areas encourage trade and business 

transactions and serve as stimuli in 

boosting the rural economy 

 

Abhijith, 2021 Role of entrepreneurship 

in rural development – An 

analysis 

Rural entrepreneurship is one of the 

solutions to reduce poverty, migration, 

economic disparity and unemployment 

and to develop rural areas and 

backward regions 

 



 

 

18 

 

 

 

Author(s) and year Title of research Key issues 

del Olmo-García et al., 

2023 

Determinant factors for 

the development of rural 

entrepreneurship 

Bank financing is essential for the 

development of rural 

entrepreneurship; The policy should 

focus on increasing investment in 

innovation and development that 

promote the discovery of opportunities 

in rural areas 

 

Dzapasi, 2019 Role of government in 

rural entrepreneurship to 

economic development: 

The case of Murewa 

Rural-Mashonaland East 

Province, Zimbabwe 

Need for effective rural 

entrepreneurship policy;  

Awareness programmes;  

Partnerships 

  

Rajsinghot et al., 2024 Strengthening sustainable 

rural development 

through 

entrepreneurship: An 

Indian perspective 

It is a more effective method of 

eradicating poverty and hunger, 

sustainable health and well-being, 

enhancing gender equality, quality 

education and decent work conditions, 

and promoting innovation in industries 

 

The reviewed literature shows gaps in the relationship between individual entrepreneurship and 

community development elements. This suggests that efforts to develop rural communities through 

entrepreneurship must be further explored. Therefore, this study sought to investigate the effects  

of entrepreneurship on community development in rural areas and consequently identify the main 

predictors of the same. 

 

 Approaches to community development 

Community development is a process that focuses on cultivating and enhancing a community’s actions 

collectively to bring about improvements in social, cultural, economic, physical, political and environmental 

aspects of a community’s life. Community development gives individuals and organizations within a society 

the ability to better their lives (Buye, 2021). Community development approaches are holistic and 

grounded in the ideologies of inclusivity, equity, empowerment, social justice and upholding human rights 

(Ledwith, 2016; Uddin, 2024). The following approaches are used in community development: needs-based, 

problem-solving, participatory, asset-based, power-conflict, welfare and rights-based. 

 

Asset-based approach 

This approach begins by first considering what is available in the community. Then, it builds on the assets 

and capacities of community members instead of focusing on what is lacking or deficient in a particular 

community. It emphasizes recognizing the strengths and resources of local people in developing 

communities. The approach relies on community members identifying and building their asset mapping 

strategy before turning to external partners (Chinyowa et al., 2016). It advances the ability of external 

resources to be relied upon once communities develop their assets. In attracting external resources,  

the partnership is encouraged more than just being recipients (Khadka, 2012). It perceives external 

stakeholders as responsive co-investors and co-creators in community-level action. Creating partnerships 

points to the political nature of capacity and asset growth. The major thrusts of the approach hinge on 



 

 

19 

 

 

 

partnerships, capacity building, networking, and communities identifying, leveraging and managing the 

evolutionary stages of development (Arefi, 2008; Nel, 2020). The development approach anchoring this 

study builds on this approach. 

 

Needs-based approach 

Delivering development takes a top-down approach and assumes that the community is broken and thus 

requires external support to fix problems. A needs-based approach assesses the needs of communities 

through needs surveys to identify and quantify deficiencies and develop solutions to meet the identified 

needs (Khadka, 2012). In the process, the participation of community members is often ignored, and top 

leaders create policies. Here, experts quantify and assess the community’s perceived needs when designing 

developmental programmes. In this approach, organizations and funders are the leading investors; money 

from the investors drives the development process. The relationship between the communities and 

external organizations is vertical, with communities seen as recipients (Nel, 2020). 

 

Participatory approach 

The participatory approach focuses on educating and encouraging people to engage in the development 

process. It proposes that people should be involved in every development project or programme stage, 

from inception to completion (Buye, 2021). It enables the poorest and marginalized people to participate  

in development efforts. Community involvement aims to empower individuals by improving their abilities  

and skills, allowing them to interact with the development process and decide their needs. Participatory 

mechanisms are a crucial model for giving people a representative and democratic voice in decision-

making, which benefits their welfare and health (Riswan & Beegom, 2021). The major thrust of this 

approach is building the capacity of local communities through information sharing, skills training  

and organization to achieve effective participation and sustainable development.  

 

Right-based approach 

This approach uses established and accepted human rights standards as a common framework for 

assessing and guiding sustainable development initiatives. It involves systematically applying human rights 

principles during all programme policy development and implementation (Kindornay et al., 2012; Noh, 

2022). According to this approach, human rights abuses need to be dealt with as they have made people 

suffer and kept in poverty. Thus, this approach translates people’s needs into rights and recognizes the 

human person as the active subject and claim-holder. It recognizes that all people, including those living  

in poverty, have the right to be involved in processes that impact their lives; it promotes equality and  

non-discrimination, focusing on vulnerable or marginalized people (Moseli, 2022). 

 

Problem-solving approach 

The problem-solving approach focuses on different methods that can be used to create different solutions 

for the problems faced by communities (Kwong & Kan., 2017). According to this approach, agents of 

development, such as service providers and external entities, usually enter the community due to the 

problems and needs of the community that need to be met (Buye, 2021). It emphasizes confronting the 

problem, arguing that the tendency to avoid allows an escape from difficulties or dependence on others  

to solve the issues. 

 

Other approaches include the power-conflict approach, which fosters creating harmonious communities  

by coming up with solutions that seek to address conflicts, especially those with the potential to slow down 



 

 

20 

 

 

 

or impair development. Also, the welfare approach seeks to interact with working communities to enhance 

their capacity, consequently improving their well-being (Buye, 2021). 

 

Role of entrepreneurs in community development 

In many places worldwide, entrepreneurship is increasingly recognized as a promising response to 

economic challenges, such as a lack of jobs and waning economic vitality in rural and developing areas. 

Different community development projects and programmes have quite distinct implications for 

community development. At the heart of anti-poverty work is often a concern for community development 

and the participation of low-income people. It entails continuous improvement of social, economic and 

environmental standards, thereby maintaining an attractive environment, having a vital social structure 

that promotes collaboration, equity and liberty, and having an essential economy that is diversified, 

competitive and accessible (Gilchrist & Taylor, 2016). 

 

From a social perspective, community development has been linked to ensuring equity and the equitable 

distribution of resources and opportunities (Banks, 2019; Hale et al., 2019). Social equity is also central to 

Winston’s (2022) analysis of social aspects of community development. It includes social equity, which 

involves fair distribution of resources, avoiding exclusionary practices and allowing residents to participate 

fully in society. Winston (2022) also posited that social equity entails meeting the basic human needs of the 

present so they can participate in society while protecting the quality of earth’s life-support systems on 

which the welfare of current and future generations depends more so that the development is inclusive, 

well planned, governed and promotes a high quality of life with equality of access to decent quality  

services for all (Winston, 2022). 

 

Economically, regardless of the definition used, economic development is often associated with creating 

jobs and wealth and improving quality of life. From this perspective, community development concerns the 

community’s ability to be self-reliant, mobilize and build assets to sustainably improve their quality of life 

(Gallardo, 2015). Furthermore, entrepreneurs significantly impact local economies by helping to connect 

them to the larger global economy (Gherghina et al., 2020; Malizia et al., 2020). Beyond the direct 

economic value of entrepreneurship, Hassan et al. (2017) and Marques et al. (2019) found that 

entrepreneurial activity motivated by rural artisan professions or tourism can also contribute to the 

enhancement of local resources, cultural heritage and quality of life. Entrepreneurial activity of all origins 

creates new jobs and wealth that have spillover benefits into the greater region (Guerrero et al., 2016; 

Stuetzer et al., 2018). 

 

Zambian scenario 

Zambia is a middle-to-low-income country with a population of around 20 million. Zambia, like most  

Sub-Saharan countries, grapples with the scourge of poverty, which has continued to affect people, 

especially in rural areas. The World Bank estimates that 75% of Zambia’s impoverished people live in rural 

areas. As of 2022, the extreme poverty level in rural areas stood at 65.1% compared to about 22.4% for 

urban areas, almost three times higher. This implies that 65.1% of households in rural areas could not  

meet the cost of the basic food basket (Zambia Statistics Agency, 2022).  

 

A study by Muya et al. (2017) revealed that only a tiny percentage of the rural population had access  

to water points that met the prescribed standards for safe water. Further, despite the growing mobile 

network, its growth in rural areas was limited by poor infrastructure. In contrast, the internet service 



 

 

21 

 

 

 

quality was graded as being poor. Moreover, rural roads in Zambia are abysmal and in deplorable 

condition. Drains are missing, or where they exist, they are narrow, inadequate and not constructed  

correctly. Bridges are missing, old, inadequate, poorly constructed and usually poorly  

maintained (Tembo et al., 2020). 

 

The government aims to stimulate economic growth and development of rural areas, just like in many 

other countries. Communities, governments and other stakeholders need to collaborate to implement 

strategies that aim to improve the living conditions of rural people. Among these strategies is boosting 

socioeconomic conditions through rural entrepreneurship (World Bank, 2020). Regarding the development 

ideology, Zambia has been on a neoliberal trajectory since 1991, emphasizing allowing the markets to be 

fully involved in the development agenda. This sits well with the asset-based approach to community 

development, which, in a way, opines limiting the state’s role but rather fosters community  

empowerment and partnerships (MacLeod & Emejulu, 2014). 

 

Theoretical approach 

The theoretical framework anchoring this paper is based on economic theory. Economic theory classifies 

entrepreneurship as both a function and a personality attribute. As a function attribute, entrepreneurship 

is viewed as any occupation/endeavour that employs the business principles of production, trade and 

distribution in its operation or undertaking (Bennett et al., 2019; Zucchella & Urban, 2019). Further, 

entrepreneurs are viewed as people who may not be inventive but as innovators with fresh marketing 

concepts that can stir economic growth (Juliana et al., 2021). According to Ferreira et al. (2020), the 

entrepreneur actively employs all sorts of innovative techniques in the economic system to gain a 

competitive advantage over possible competitors in the market environment. Entrepreneurship is thus 

essential in economic development because of its quick responsiveness to technological needs and the 

ability to improve innovation to fulfil demand (Coulibaly et al., 2018). An entrepreneur is also viewed  

as a self-employed individual who bears the risk and provides for their economic fulfilment. Across  

various industrial revolutions, the concept has evolved to include the need for adequate administrative  

or managerial skill sets. From an economic theory perspective, the entrepreneurship literature focuses on 

the economic value of entrepreneurship and relates the competitive character of overall marketing forces 

to the entrepreneur’s inventive approaches. The argument is that an entrepreneur’s inventive abilities stem 

from their environment and economic conditions, which exist as the leading progression in incremental, 

experimental, and evolutionary ways (Malerba & McKelvey, 2020). 

 

Selection of indicator variables 

The variables/constructs adopted in this study were informed by similar studies by Radipere (2014), 

Jiménez et al. (2015), Peprah et al. (2017), Kerr et al. (2018), Vasan (2020), Sahinidis et al. (2021), Edwin  

et al. (2021), Gyimah and Lussier (2021), Saah (2022), as well as del Olmo-García et al. (2023). Common 

attributes/constructs explaining entrepreneurship were identified from the literature and categorized into 

four primary constructs/variables: entrepreneurial characteristics, business conception, business realization 

and business operation. For each variable, measurement items were equally identified from  

the literature, as shown in Table 2. 

  



 

 

22 

 

 

 

Table 2: Variables and measurement indicators informing the conceptualization. 

Variable Measurements indicators  Authors 

Entrepreneurial 
Characteristics 

Age influences the ability to run a business Vasan, 2020; Sahinidis et al., 
2021 

Entrepreneur level of education  Jiménez et al. 2015; Saah, 2022 

Personality matches the business Kerr et al. 2018; Li et al., 2020; 
Edwin et al. 2021; Meng et al., 
2022  

Culture affects the way the business is run Radipere, 2014; Peprah et al. 
2017  

Business Conception Driven by innovations  Hessels, 2019; Ahmad et al., 
2022; del Olmo-García et al., 
2023 

Conducting market surveys to identify 
business opportunities  

Timmons et al., 2004; Gyimah  
& Lussier, 2021; Lin et al., 2018; 
Murphy et al., 2019 

A business plan is prepared before 
launching the business 

Gyimah & Lussier, 2021 

Market completion analysis is considered 
before the commencement  

Timmons et al. 2004; Gyimah  
& Lussier, 2021 

Business Realization An organizational structure is developed  
at the time of starting a business 

Harlin & Berglund, 2021 

Registering with all necessary institutions  Kumar & Borbora, 2016 

Market partnerships and synergies  Gyimah & Lussier, 2021 

A team of people with the proper 
knowledge and skill set is constituted  
to run the business 

Ibrahim, 2010; Hessels, 2019; 
Gyimah & Lussier, 2021 

Business Operation Quality goods and services Dhaliwal, 2016; Dzogbenuku  
& Keelson, 2019 

Commitment to business  Wang et al., 2015 

Business satisfaction Przepiorka, 2017 

Community 
Development 

Lowers unemployment levels  del Olmo-García et al., 2023 

Improved health of citizens  Muhammed & Abubakar, 2019 

Improved quality of life in the community Cusack, 2019; Muhammed  
& Abubakar, 2019 

Improved level of education Gyimah & Lussier, 2021;  
del Olmo-García et al., 2023 

 

The conceptual framework adapted for this study had four independent variables: entrepreneurial 

characteristics, business conception, business realization and business operation. The dependent variable 

in the framework is community development. Based on the literature and the preceding theory, the 

researchers hypothesized that community development is influenced by entrepreneurial characteristics, 

business conception, business realization and business operation, as presented in Figure 1. 

 

 



 

 

23 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Conceptual framework. 

The following four relationships were hypothesized: 

 

Hypothesis 1 

Ho: Entrepreneurial characteristics have a considerable influence on community development. 

Ha: Entrepreneurial characteristics have no considerable influence on community development. 

 

Hypothesis 2 

Ho: Business conception has a significant influence on community development. 

Ha: Business conception has no considerable influence on community development. 

 

Hypothesis 3 

Ho: Business realization has a significant influence on community development. 

Ha: Business realization has no considerable influence on community development. 

 

Hypothesis 4 

Ho: Business operation has a significant influence on community development. 

Ha: Business operation has no considerable influence on the community. 

 

Research methodology 

This study adopted a cross-sectional descriptive design with a quantitative approach. Data were collected 

using a structured questionnaire containing closed-ended questions from 197 respondents who were 

purposively sampled and drawn from the rural districts of Copperbelt province. These included 

entrepreneurs in agriculture, retail (comprising those involved in buying and selling), building construction, 

transportation business and metal works (welders and fabricators). The extensive literature review 

informed the development of the questionnaire (instrument) used for the data collection, in which 

variables used to explain rural entrepreneurship for community development were identified and  

included in the questionnaire. A summary of the respondents’ composition is shown in Table 3. 

 



 

 

24 

 

 

 

Table 3: Nature of respondents’ businesses. 

Business type  n % 

Retail (buying and selling) 45 22.8 
Agriculture  48 24.4 
Transportation business  15 7.6 
Building construction  24 12.2 
Mining  3 1.5 
Services  22 11.2 
Metalworks  5 2.5 
Manufacturing  14 7.1 
Others  21 10.7 

Total  197 100.0 

 

The data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis, regression analysis and analysis of variance 

(ANOVA). Factor analysis was carried out to explain the extent to which each item in the dataset was 

associated with the respective factor (variable). Further, regression analysis was carried out to evaluate 

relationships between the independent and dependent variables (community development). The 

hypotheses were tested using multiple regression analysis and standard F and tests at 95%  

significance level. 

 

Results 

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) 

EFA was conducted to assess the uni-dimensionality and reliability of each factor. The extraction and 

rotation methods of principal components with Varimax rotation were specified. The results revealed that 

the attributes of all the factors had Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) values of 0.605, which is slightly below the 

0.7 threshold but still acceptable. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was found to be significant (p = 0.000), as 

shown in Table 4. This indicated that the factor analysis was appropriate (Rehbinder, 2011; Chisumbe et al., 

2022). The KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity are used to determine the suitability of data for factor 

analysis and whether the variables in the dataset are appropriate for extracting meaningful factors. 

Table 4: KMO value. 

KMO and Bartlett’s Test 

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of  

sampling adequacy 

.605 

Bartlett’s test of 

sphericity 

Approx. Chi-Square 2242.145 

Df 276 

Sig. .000 

 

Factor loadings were calculated for each variable. The factor loadings denoted the relationship between  

the items (statements) under each variable and the extracted components that explained their variation. 

The items not shown in Table 5 were ‘deleted’ for not loading at all, double loading and loadings below 0.5. 

  



 

 

25 

 

 

 

Table 5: Variables and factor loadings. 

Factors/variables Undeleted items Factor loadings 

Entrepreneurial 

Characteristics  

Age influences the ability to run a business 
0.837 

Level of education helps run the operations of the 
business 0.733 

Personality matches the business 
0.880 

Culture affects the way the business is run 0.885 

Business Conception Promotes innovations  0.624 

A market survey is conducted to identify business 
opportunities  

0.548 

A business plan is prepared before launching the business 0.827 

Market completion analysis is considered prior to 
commencement  

0.819 

Business Realization An organization structure is developed at the time of 
starting a business 

0.807 

Register with all necessary institutions such as PACRA, 
Banks and ZRA 

0.875 

Development of market partnerships and synergies  
0.788 

A team of people with the proper knowledge and skill set 
is constituted to run the business 

0.510 

Business Operation Market penetration, quality goods or services 0.727 

Commitment to business  0.781 

Business satisfaction 0.835 

Community 

Development 

Lowers unemployment levels  0.614 

There is improved health of citizens  0.860 

There is an improved quality of life in the community 0.717 

Improved access to education 0.778 

 

The total variance explained was 84.62%. This implies that a more significant percentage of the variation  

in the scores on the Likert scale was explained. All these statistics affirm that the data’s validity was good, 

the research instrument was well prepared and the respondents understood the questions. Furthermore,  

good validity indicates that the research instrument sufficiently evaluated the phenomenon of rural 

entrepreneurship and community development. Table 6 shows the reliability statistics for the five main 

variables considered in this research. 

  



 

 

26 

 

 

 

Table 6: Reliability statistics. 

Variable Cronbach’s alpha  No. of ‘undeleted items’ 

Entrepreneurial characteristics 0.704 4 
Business conception  0.837 5 
Business realization 0.644 2 
Business operation 0.694 3 
Community development 0.672 4 

 

Different methods of determining reliability are used by different scholars in different situations and 

settings to assess the reliability of the data; this study employed consistent reliability. This method involves 

determination of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Entrepreneurial characteristics and business conception 

had Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.7, indicating strong reliability. Business realization, business operation 

and community development had Cronbach alpha values slightly below 0.7, but they were good enough, as 

they were above 0.5. Overall, the collected data were highly consistent and reproducible. The respondents 

answered the questions similarly and consistently. 

 

Regression analysis 

The regression analysis evaluated relationships between the four independent variables (entrepreneurial 

characteristics, business conception, business realization and business operation) and the dependent 

variable (community development). The strength of relationships was determined by calculating the 

Pearson correlation coefficient (R). The research model was evaluated using ANOVA and the model 

summary. All statistics were generated based on a 95% confidence interval. The relationship between  

each predictor variable and the dependent variable was determined based on the Pearson correlation 

coefficients. Table 7 shows the Pearson correlation (R) values for each relationship. The P-value to denote 

the significance of the relationship was calculated for each value of R. 

 

The relationship between entrepreneurial characteristics and community development was positive, linear, 

slightly above average and significant (R = 0.645; P = 0.000; P < 0.05). The relationship between business 

conception and community development was positive, linear, weak and not significant (R = 0.037;  

P = 0.679; P > 0.05). Similarly, the relationship between business realization and community development 

was positive, linear, weak and not significant (R = 0.062; P = 0.488; P > 0.05). The relationship between 

business operation and community development was positive, linear, average and significant (R = 0.648;  

P = 0.000; P < 0.05). The analysis revealed that only entrepreneurial characteristics and business operations 

significantly influenced community development in the Copperbelt rural area. In contrast, business 

conception and realization did not significantly influence community development. 

 

The relationships between four demographic variables (gender, age, education level and business tenure) 

and community development were tested. The statistics in Table 7 reveal that gender had a weak and 

insignificant relationship with community development (R = −0.108; P = 0.168; P > 0.05). Age had a slightly 

below average, linear and significant relationship with community development (R = 0.397; P = 0.000;  

P < 0.05). The highest qualification had an average, linear and significant relationship with community 

development (R = 0.538; P = 0.000; P < 0.05). Tenure of business had a weak, linear and insignificant 

relationship with community development (R = 0.037; P = 0.371; P > 0.05). 

 

 



 

 

27 

 

 

 

Table 7: Correlation coefficients. 

 Community 
development 

Entrepreneurial 
characteristics 

Business 
conception 

Business 
realization 

Business 
operation 

Gender Age Education 
Level 

Tenure of 
business 

Pearson 

correlation 

Community 

development 

1.000    
     

Entrepreneurial 

characteristics  

.645 1.000   
     

Business 

conception 

.037 .356 1.000  
     

Business 

realization 

.062 .271 .134 1.000 
     

Business 

operation 

.648 .433 .596 .433 
1.000     

Gender -.108 -.234 .186 -.528 
-.249 1.000    

Age .397 .311 .234 .683 
.420 -.359 1.000   

Education level .538 .373 .181 .265 
.579 -.443 .221 1.000  

Tenure of 

business 

.037 .295 .192 .123 
.099 .059 .185 .133 1.000 

Sig. (1-tailed) Community 

development 

.    
     

Entrepreneurial 

characteristics  

.000 .   
     

Business 

conception 

.679 .001 .  
     

Business 

realization 

.488 .007 .117 . 
     

Business 

operation 

.000 .000 .000 .000 
.     

Gender .168 .018 .048 .000 
.013 .    

Age .000 .002 .018 .000 
.000 .001 .   

Education level .000 .000 .052 .008 
.000 .000 .024 .  

Tenure of 

business 

.371 .004 .043 .136 
.189 .302 .049 .118 . 

  



 

 

28 

 

 

 

 
The combined effect of the predictor variables, entrepreneurial characteristics, business conception, 

business realization and business operation on the dependent variable was tested, and the related statistics 

calculated are presented in the model summary shown in Table 8. The overall relationship between the 

independent and dependent variables was linear, positive and significant (R = 0.727; P = 0.000 < 0.05). The 

model’s coefficient of determination (R square) was 0.528, which shows that the variation in community 

development explained by the independent variables was 52.8%. The remaining 47.2% of the variation 

would be explained by factors not considered in this research. 

Table 8: Model summary statistics. 

Model summary 

Model R R-

squared 

Adjusted 

R-

Squared 

Std. error 

of the 

estimate 

Change Statistics R-

squared 

change 

F 

change 

df1 df2 Sig. F 

change 

1 .727a .528 .504 .39430 .528 21.292 4 76 .000 

a. Predictors: (constant), entrepreneurial characteristics, business conception, business realization and 

operation.  

 

ANOVA was another technique used to evaluate the model developed for the research. This was done by 

evaluating the fit between the conceptualized relationships and the collected data. A summary of the 

ANOVA statistical results is presented in Table 9. 

Table 9: Analysis of variance. 

ANOVAa 

Model Sum of 

squares 

Df Mean 

square 

F Sig. 

1 Regression 13.241 4 3.310 21.292 .000b 

Residual 11.816 76 .155   

Total 25.057 80    

a. Dependent variable: Community development 

b. Predictors: (constant), entrepreneurial characteristics, business conception, business realization 

and business operation 

 

The F-value for the model was significant at a 95% confidence interval with α at the significance level  

of 0.05. Thus P < α; 0.000 < 0.05. The results indicated that the data suited the model and that the model 

developed for the current research was significant. 

 

Hypothesis testing 

The research tested four hypotheses. The testing was done by comparing the P-values with the significance 

level (α). Since the confidence level was 95%, the significance level was 5% (0.05). The decision rule for the 

hypotheses was not to reject Ho, the null hypothesis if its P-value is smaller than the level of significance  

(P < or P < 0.05). Table 10 shows the null hypotheses for all key relationships, the respective statistics and 

the conclusion for each test. 

 



 

 

29 

 

 

 

Table 10: Hypothesis test statistics. 

Null hypothesis P-Value 
vs sig. level 

Conclusion 

There is no significant relationship between entrepreneurial 
characteristics and community development 

0.000 < 0.05 Rejected  

There is no significant relationship between business 
conception and community development.  

0.679 > 0.05 Accepted 

There is no significant relationship between business 
realization and community development.  

0.488 > 0.05 Accepted  

There is no significant relationship between business 
operation and community development.  

0.000 < 0.05 Rejected  

 

Null hypothesis 1: There is no significant relationship between entrepreneurial characteristics and 

community development, which was rejected empirically (P-value < α; 0.000 < 0.05). It was inferred that 

there was a significant relationship between entrepreneurial characteristics and community development. 

On the contrary, null hypothesis 2: There is no significant relationship between business conception and 

community development, was accepted (P-value > α; 0.679 > 0.05). It was inferred that there is no 

significant relationship between business conception and community development. Null hypothesis 3: 

There is no significant relationship between business realization and community development was 

accepted statistically (P-value > α; 0.488 > 0.05). It was inferred that there was no significant relationship 

between business realization and community development. Conversely, null hypothesis 4: There is no 

significant relationship between business operation and community development, was rejected statistically 

(P-value < α; 0.000 < 0.05). It was upheld as it is and worthwhile to infer that there was a significant 

relationship between business operation and community development. 

 

Discussion 

Influence of entrepreneurial characteristics on community development 

Entrepreneurial characteristics had a significant relationship with community development. Its variable 

coefficient for predicting community development was equally significant. Further, the associated 

hypothesis: There is a significant positive relationship between entrepreneurial characteristics and 

community development was statistically supported. The implication is that the attributes of 

entrepreneurs, such as age, education level, personality and culture, contribute significantly to the ability  

to do business and community development. Overall, the entrepreneurial characteristics were impactful. 

The findings are supported by Li et al. (2020) and Meng et al. (2022), positing that to speed up economic 

development in rural areas, it is essential to build up the critical mass of first-generation entrepreneurs.  

The characteristics of entrepreneurs in the Copperbelt rural area helped them contribute to community 

development. These findings agree with Kerr et al. (2018) and Edwin et al. (2021), emphasizing the 

importance of entrepreneur characteristics on community development. 

 

Influence of business conception on community development 

The relationship between business conception and community development was found to be weak and  

not significant. Furthermore, the hypothesis that business conception has a significant relationship with 

community development was not statistically supported. The implication is that efforts made at the 

conception stage of the business were not translating into community development. Another possibility  

is that the businesses were not effectively defined. This could be attributed to failure to properly document 

the business idea, poor definition of the business concept and limited knowledge and skills  



 

 

30 

 

 

 

on the part of some of the businesspeople involved in rural entrepreneurship. This result contrasts with 

studies by Lin et al. (2018) and Murphy et al. (2019) on the significance of business conception on rural 

entrepreneurship. 

 

Influence of business realization on community development 

The relationship between business realization and community development was found to be weak and  

not significant. Furthermore, the hypothesis that business realization has a significant relationship with 

community development was not empirically supported. The implication is that efforts made when 

realizing or setting up the businesses were not translating into improved community development. Another 

possibility was that the coordination and organization were not effectively done at the beginning. This 

could be attributed to limited use of tools such as organization charts, poor formalization of the business 

with bodies such as the Patents and Companies Registration Agency (PACRA), the Zambia Revenue 

Authority (ZRA) and banks and  limited knowledge and skills on the part of some of the personnel involved 

in business realization. The finding that business realization did not significantly influence community 

development is contrary to what Ibrahim (2010) found on the role played by rural entrepreneurship in 

employment generation, showing that rural entrepreneurship has a high potential for creating new jobs, 

considering the vast resources in rural areas. 

 

Influence of business operation on community development 

Business operation had a significant relationship with community development. Its variable coefficient for 

predicting community development was equally significant. Further, the associated hypothesis: business 

operation has a significant relationship with community development was statistically supported. The 

implication is that the attributes of business operations focusing on commitment, providing quality goods 

or services needed by the market and having business satisfaction from running the business contributed to 

overall entrepreneurship and community development. These results suggest that commitment to running 

a business is significant in explaining entrepreneurship and predicting rural community development. On 

the importance of commitment, the results agree with Wang et al. (2015). Similarly, the results agree with 

Dhaliwal (2016) and Dzogbenuku and Keelson (2019) on the need to provide quality goods or services 

which respond to the market in explaining business operations as an entrepreneur thereby contributing  

to community development. 

 

Conclusion 

This paper reaffirms that entrepreneurship plays a critical role in rural community development, leading to 

improved living standards, employment opportunities, alleviation of poverty, utilization of local resources 

and reduction of rural-urban migration. Specifically, rural entrepreneurship is an essential facilitator of 

economic development, especially in rural areas. The relationship between rural entrepreneurship and 

community development was assessed in this study, and the findings showed that rural entrepreneurship 

significantly influences community development in rural areas. Therefore, the authors recommend 

investing in critical infrastructure such as roads, telecommunications and electricity infrastructure  

in rural areas to attract entrepreneurs and stimulate rural community development. 

 

Though exciting and valuable findings have emerged from this study, they are not without limitations. 

Consideration should be given to the following limitations concerning this current study. First, the research 

was conducted in Copperbelt province only; therefore, it is recommended that a similar research study be  

 



 

 

31 

 

 

 

conducted in another geographical location from another developing country. Second, additional factors  

or constructs can be considered to improve the conceptualized framework. 

 

References 

Abhijith, L. (2021). Role of entrepreneurship in rural development–An analysis. Journal of Emerging Technologies  

and Innovative Research, 8(5), 720–724. https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2105488.pdf  

Ahmad, N. A., Rasul, M. S., Othman, N., & Jalaludin, N. A. (2022). Generating entrepreneurial ideas for business 

development. Sustainability, 14(9), Article 4905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094905  

Akiri, S. E., Onoja, E., & Kunanzang, P. S. (2016). Entrepreneurship and job creation in Nigeria. IIARD International 

Journal of Economics and Business Management, 2(3), 61–67. https://tinyurl.com/y85mpdkd  

Arefi, M. (2008). An asset-based approach to community development and capacity-building. United Nations Human 

Settlements Programme. https://tinyurl.com/2teay8dx  

Banks, S. (2019). Ethics, equity and community development: Mapping the terrain. In Ethics, equity and community 

development (pp. 3–36). Policy Press. 

Bennett, R., Smith, H., Van Lieshout, C., Montebruno, P., & Newton, G. (2019). The age of entrepreneurship: Business 

proprietors, self-employment and corporations since 1851. Routledge. 

Buye, R. (2021). Effective approaches to community development. ResearchGate. https://tinyurl.com/32sayx2k  

Candelario-Moreno, C., & Sánchez-Hernández, M. I. (2024). Redefining rural entrepreneurship: The impact of business 

ecosystems on the success of rural businesses in Extremadura, Spain. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 

Management and Innovation, 20(2), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.7341/20242022  

Chinyowa, K. C., Sirayi, M., & Mokuku, S. (2016). Doing things differently: Using the ABCD method to negotiate with 

local leaders in community engagement projects. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 6(1). 

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1135216.pdf 

Chisumbe, S., Aigbavboa, C., Mwanaumo, E., & Thwala, W. (2022). A measurement model for stakeholders’ 

participation in urban housing development for Lusaka: A neo-liberal perspective. Urban Science, 6(2),  

Article 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6020034  

Coulibaly, S. K., Erbao, C., & Mekongcho, T. M. (2018). Economic globalization, entrepreneurship, and development. 

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.028  

Cusack, C. (2019). Sustainable development and quality of life. In B. Sinha (Ed.), Multidimensional approach to quality 

of life issues. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6958-2_3  

Del Olmo-García, F., Domínguez-Fabián, I., Crecente-Romero, F. J., & del Val-Núñez, M. T. (2023). Determinant factors 

for the development of rural entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 191, Article 

122487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122487  

Deng, J., Chi, H., & Zhang, T. (2024). Effects of entrepreneurial activities on rural revitalization: Based on dissipative 

structure theory. Agriculture, 14(9), Article 1474. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091474  

Dhaliwal, A. (2016). Role of entrepreneurship in economic development. International Journal of Scientific Research 

and Management, 4(6), 4262–4269. 

Dzapasi, Y., 2019. Role of government in rural entrepreneurship to economic development: The case of Murewa  

Rural-Mashonaland East Province, Zimbabwe. International Journal of Management, IT and Engineering, 

9(9), 171–191. https://tinyurl.com/mts4akny  

Dzogbenuku, R. K., & Keelson, S. A. (2019). Marketing and entrepreneurial success in emerging markets: The nexus. 

Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13(2), 168–187. https://tinyurl.com/43vatdsc  

Edwin, S. F., Ali, J. K., & Noor, N. M. (2021). Entrepreneurs personality traits and business performance: A conceptual 

framework. Advances in Business Research International Journal, 7(3), 56–64. https://tinyurl.com/3hm6jnwj  

Ekanem, I. (2024). Principles of innovation, entrepreneurship and sustainability: An evidence-based approach.  

Taylor & Francis. 

Ferreira, J., Coelho, A., & Moutinho, L. (2020). Dynamic capabilities, creativity and innovation capability and their 

impact on competitive advantage and firm performance: The moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation. 

Technovation, 92, Article 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.11.004  

Fortunato, M. W. P. (2014). Supporting rural entrepreneurship: A review of conceptual developments from research  

to practice. Community Development, 45(4), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2014.935795  

Galvao, A. R., Mascarenhas, C., Marques, C. S., Braga, V., & Ferreira, M. (2020). Mentoring entrepreneurship in a rural 

territory: A qualitative exploration of an entrepreneurship program for rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 

78, 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.038  

https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2105488.pdf
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094905
https://tinyurl.com/y85mpdkd
https://tinyurl.com/2teay8dx
https://tinyurl.com/32sayx2k
https://doi.org/10.7341/20242022
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1135216.pdf
https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6020034
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.028
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6958-2_3
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122487
https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091474
https://tinyurl.com/mts4akny
https://tinyurl.com/43vatdsc
https://tinyurl.com/3hm6jnwj
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.11.004
https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2014.935795
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.038


 

 

32 

 

 

 

Goetz, S. J., Partridge, M. D., & Stephens, H. M. (2018). The economic status of rural America in the President Trump  

era and beyond. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 40(1), 97–118. https://tinyurl.com/y89rsw7p  

Gyimah, P., & Lussier, R. N. (2021). Rural entrepreneurship success factors: An empirical investigation in an emerging 

market. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 31(4), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.53703/001c.29470  

Hale, J., Legun, K., Campbell, H., & Carolan, M. (2019). Social sustainability indicators as performance. Geoforum, 103, 

47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.03.008  

Harlin, U., & Berglund, M. (2021). Designing for sustainable work during industrial startups: The case of a high-growth 

entrepreneurial firm. Small Business Economics, 57, 807–819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00383-3  

Hessels, J., & Naudé, W. (2019). The intersection of the fields of entrepreneurship and development economics:  

A review towards a new view. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(2), 389–403. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12286  

Jarinaa, B., & Manida, M. (2024). Exploring the impact of rural entrepreneurship development in India’s MSME sector. 

Social Science and Human Research Bulletin, 1(1), 01–06. https://sshrb.org/index.php/sshrb/article/view/2  

Jiménez, A., Palmero-Cámara, C., González-Santos, M. J., González-Bernal, J., & Jiménez-Eguizábal, J. A. (2015). The 

impact of educational levels on formal and informal entrepreneurship. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 

18(3), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.02.002  

Juliana, N. O., Hui, H. J., Clement, M., Solomon, E. N., & Elvis, O. K. (2021). The impact of creativity and innovation  

on entrepreneurship development: Evidence from Nigeria. Open Journal of Business and Management,  

9(4), 1743–1770. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2021.94095  

Kerr, S. P., Kerr, W. R., & Xu, T. (2018.) Personality traits of entrepreneurs: A review of recent literature. Foundations 

and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 14(3), 279–356. https://tinyurl.com/3wdnmkz3  

Khadka, R. (2012). Switching gears: From needs to assets based approach to community development in Nepal.  

OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(11), 81–88. https://tinyurl.com/5d2j3dxr  

Kindornay, S., Ron, J., & Carpenter, C. (2012). Rights-based approaches to development: Implications for NGOs. 

Human Rights Quarterly, 34(2), 472–506. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23254733  

Kushalakshi, D., & Raghurama, A. (2014). Rural entrepreneurship: A catalyst for rural development. International 

Journal of Science and Research, 3(8), 51–54. https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=2015164  

Kwong, M. T. S., & Kan, M. W. C. (2017). Applying problem-solving approach in community capacity development: 

Strengths, limitations, and possibilities. Chinese University of Hong Kong. https://tinyurl.com/2encb9az  

Galambos, L., & Amatori, F. (2016). The entrepreneurial multiplier effect. Enterprise & Society, 17(4), 763–808. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/eso.2016.41  

Gallardo, R. (2015). Community economic development: Key concepts. Mississippi State University Extension Service. 

https://tinyurl.com/5n7dcsws  

Galvão, A. R., Mascarenhas, C., Marques, C. S. E., Braga, V., & Ferreira, M. (2020). Mentoring entrepreneurship  

in a rural territory:- A qualitative exploration of an entrepreneurship program for rural areas. Journal  

of Rural Studies, 78, 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.038  

Gherghina, Ș. C., Botezatu, M. A., Hosszu, A., & Simionescu, L. N. (2020). Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): 

The engine of economic growth through investments and innovation. Sustainability, 12(1), Article 347. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010347  

Gilchrist, A., & Taylor, M. (2016). The short guide to community development. Policy Press. 

Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: Evidence from 

European entrepreneurial universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 105–131. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9377-4  

Hassan, H., Tan, S. K., Rahman, M. S., & Sade, A. B. (2017). Preservation of Malaysian handicraft to support tourism 

development. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 32(3), 402–417. 

https://www.inderscience.com/offers.php?id=87022  

Ibrahim, H. (2010). The role of rural entrepreneurship in employment generation. Journal of Arts and Contemporary 

Society, 2(1), 78–89. https://tinyurl.com/2bbw5b78  

Ihejiamaizu, G. C. (2019). The role of entrepreneurship in rural development in Cross-River State, Nigeria. International 

Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 3(6), 85–91. 

Imedashvili, S., Kekua, A., & Ivchenko, P. (2013). Rural entrepreneurship: Challenges and opportunities. [Bachelor’s 

dissertation, Jönköping University]. Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet. https://tinyurl.com/v7beefzm  

Kumar, G., & Borbora, S. (2016). Facilitation of Entrepreneurship: The role of institutions and the institutional 

environment. South Asian Journal of Management, 23(3), 57–77. 

https://tinyurl.com/y89rsw7p
https://doi.org/10.53703/001c.29470
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.03.008
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00383-3
https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12286
https://sshrb.org/index.php/sshrb/article/view/2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.02.002
https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2021.94095
https://tinyurl.com/3wdnmkz3
https://tinyurl.com/5d2j3dxr
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23254733
https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=2015164
https://tinyurl.com/2encb9az
https://doi.org/10.1017/eso.2016.41
https://tinyurl.com/5n7dcsws
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.038
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010347
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9377-4
https://www.inderscience.com/offers.php?id=87022
https://tinyurl.com/2bbw5b78
https://tinyurl.com/v7beefzm


 

 

33 

 

 

 

Lakshmanaswamy, D., & Jasmine, K. S. (2023). An empirical study on the role of rural entrepreneurship  

on socio-economic development among rural mass. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture,  

33(3), 5504–5518. https://doi.org/10.59670/jns.v33i.4942  

Lebambo, M., & Shambare, R. (2020). Entrepreneurship development framework for small-scale rural tourism 

establishments in South Africa. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 9, 1–19. 

https://tinyurl.com/46k6hd7x  

Ledwith, M. (2016). Community development in action: Putting Freire into practice. Policy Press. 

Li, C., Ahmed, N., Qalati, S. A., Khan, A., & Naz, S. (2020). Role of business incubators as a tool for entrepreneurship 

development: The mediating and moderating role of business start-up and government regulations. 

Sustainability, 12(5), Article 1822. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051822  

Lin, T. L., Lu, T. Y., Hsieh, M. C., & Liu, H. Y. (2018). From conception to start-up: Who and what affect female 

entrepreneurship. Contemporary Management Research, 14(4), 253–276. 

https://doi.org/10.7903/cmr.17957  

MacLeod, M. A., & Emejulu, A. (2014). Neoliberalism with a community face? A critical analysis of asset-based 

community development in Scotland. Journal of Community Practice, 22(4), 430–450. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2014.959147  

Malerba, F., & McKelvey, M. (2020). Knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship integrating Schumpeter, 

evolutionary economics, and innovation systems. Small Business  Economics, 54(2), 503–522. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0060-2  

Malizia, E., Feser, E. J., Renski, H., & Drucker, J. (2020). Understanding local economic development. Routledge. 

Marques, C. S., Santos, G., Ratten, V., & Barros, A. B. (2019). Innovation as a booster of rural artisan entrepreneurship: 

A case study of black pottery. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(4), 753–772. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2018-0104  

Meng, S., Gao, X., & Duan, L. (2022). Facing the COVID-19 pandemic and developing a sustainable entrepreneurial 

ecosystem: The theory and practice of innovation and entrepreneurship policies in China. International 

Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), Article 8797. https://tinyurl.com/462urf8a   

Moseli, K., 2022. A rights-based approach to development: The link between human rights and development. Pretoria 

Student Law Review, 16, 196. https://doi.org/10.29053/pslr.v16i1.4513  

Muhammed, Z., & Abubakar, I.R. (2019). Improving the quality of life of urban communities in developing countries.  

In In W. L. Filho, A. M. Azul, L. Brandli, P. Gökçin özuyar, & T. Wall (Eds.), Responsible consumption and 

production (pp. 357–370. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95726-5_25  

Murphy, P. J., Hood, A. C., & Wu, J. (2019). The heptalogical model of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education 

and Pedagogy, 2(3), 188–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127419829394  

Muya, M., Kaluba, C., Banda, I. N., Rattray, S., Mubemba, C., & Mukelabai, G. (2017). Infrastructure watch culture: 

Zambia’s infrastructure report card. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 5(1), 8–17. 

https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2017.050102  

Nel, H. (2020). Stakeholder engagement: asset-based community-led development (ABCD) versus the traditional 

needs-based approach to community development. Social Work, 56(3), 264–278. 

https://tinyurl.com/za4etjap  

Noh, J. E. (2022). Review of human rights-based approaches to development: Empirical evidence from developing 

countries. International Journal of Human Rights, 26(5), 883–901. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2021.1981869  

Okeke, C., & Nwankwo, F. (2017). Rural entrepreneurship and rural development in Nigeria. Africa’s Public Service 

Delivery and Performance Review, 5(1), Article a152. https://doi.org/10.4102/apsdpr.v5i1.152   

Pan, Y., Zhang, S., & Zhang, M. (2024). The impact of entrepreneurship of farmers on agriculture and rural economic 

growth: Innovation-driven perspective. Innovation and Green Development, 3(1), Article 100093. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.igd.2023.100093  

Pato, L. (2020). Entrepreneurship and innovation towards rural development evidence from a peripheral area  

in Portugal. European Countryside, 12(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2020-0012  

Peprah, W. K., Ocansey, E. O. N. D., & Mintah, E. K. (2017). The influence of culture on global marketing strategies:  

A confirmatory study. International Journal of Business & Management, 5(10), 150–155. 

https://tinyurl.com/29paay9v  

Przepiorka, A. M. (2017). Psychological determinants of entrepreneurial success and life satisfaction. Current 

Psychology, 36, 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9419-1  

Radipere, S. (2014). The effects of culture as a start-up factor on business performance. Problems and Perspectives  

in Management, 12(4), 141–154. https://tinyurl.com/29paay9v  

https://doi.org/10.59670/jns.v33i.4942
https://tinyurl.com/46k6hd7x
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051822
https://doi.org/10.7903/cmr.17957
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2014.959147
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0060-2
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2018-0104
https://tinyurl.com/462urf8a
https://doi.org/10.29053/pslr.v16i1.4513
https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127419829394
https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2017.050102
https://tinyurl.com/za4etjap
https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2021.1981869
https://doi.org/10.4102/apsdpr.v5i1.152
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.igd.2023.100093
https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2020-0012
https://tinyurl.com/29paay9v
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9419-1
https://tinyurl.com/29paay9v


 

 

34 

 

 

 

Rajsinghot, K., Bala, S., & Singhal, P. (2024). Strengthening sustainable rural development through entrepreneurship: 

An Indian perspective. In A. Vinodan, S. Mahalalkshmi, & S. Rameshkumar (Eds), Informal economy and 

sustainable development goals: Ideas, interventions and challenges (pp. 239–256). Emerald Publishing. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83753-980-220241013  

Rehbinder, E. (2011). Do personal networks affect the success of foreign venture performance? An empirical analysis  

of Nordic firms in Poland. [Master’s thesis, Copenhagen Business School]. https://tinyurl.com/454ku8wf  

Riswan, M., & Beegom, B. (2021). Participatory approach for community development: Conceptual analysis. In COVID-

19 pandemic and socio economic issues: An experience of Sri Lanka (pp. 136–146). Faculty of Arts and Culture, 

South Eastern University of Sri Lanka: Department of Economics and Statistics. 

Saah, P. (2022). The impact of education and training on the success of small and medium-sized enterprises. 

International Journal of Innovation in Management, Economics and Social Sciences, 2(3), 32–46. 

https://core.ac.uk/download/572722296.pdf  

Sahinidis, A. G., Xanthopoulou, P. I., Tsaknis, P. A., & Vassiliou, E. E. (2021). Age and prior working experience effect  

on entrepreneurial intention. Corporate & Business Strategy Review, 2(1), 18–26. 

https://doi.org/10.22495/cbsrv2i1art2  

Sharma, A. (2024). Eco-entrepreneurship and sustainable development in Mizoram’s mountainous landscape: 

Unleashing potentials for positive change. In P. K. Rai, A. Singh, B. Beingachhi, & S, K. Singh (Eds.), Natural 

resources management and sustainable livelihoods  in the mountainous region: Evidence, gap and future 

strategies (pp. 45–59). Springer Nature Singapore. 

Sima, E., 2015. Sustainable rural development through rural entrepreneurship. Lucrări Științifice Management  

Agricol, 17(1), 89–94. 

Stadel, C. (2019). Horizontal and vertical archipelagoes of agriculture and rural development in the Andean realm. In 

M. J. Bastante-Ceca, J. L. Fuentes-Bargues, L. Hufnagel, F.-C. Mihai, & C. Iatu (Eds.), Sustainability assessment 

at the 21st century. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86841  

Stuetzer, M., Audretsch, D. B., Obschonka, M., Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Potter, J. (2018). Entrepreneurship 

culture, knowledge spillovers and the growth of regions. Regional Studies, 52(5), 608–618. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1294251  

Sudipta, G. (2013). Entrepreneurship: An overview of the issues and challenges in the context of rural development  

in India. Business Spectrum, 1(2) 12 – 19. https://tinyurl.com/5e4ndfbc  

Tembo, M., Mwanaumo, E. M., Chisumbe, S., & Aiyetan, A.O., 2020. Factors affecting effective infrastructure service 

delivery in Zambia’s local authorities: A case of Eastern Province. In E. G. Popkova, B. S. Sergi, L. Haabazoka,  

& J. V. Ragulina (Eds.), Supporting inclusive growth and sustainable development in Africa-Volume II: 

Transforming infrastructure development (pp.65–81). Palgrave Macmillan. https://tinyurl.com/bdhm8je4  

Timmons, J.A., Spinelli, S., & Tan, Y. (2004). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century.  

McGraw-Hill/Irwin. 

Vasan, M. (2020). Moderating effect of demographic and business characteristics on performance of women  

owned small enterprises: Empirical evidence from India. Serbian Journal of Management, 15(2), 319–333. 

https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm15-21922  

Uddin, A. (2024). Opportunities and challenges in implementing a rights-based approach to community development 

projects in Pakistan: A social responsibility and human rights perspective. In M. Pucelj & R. Bodinc (Eds.), 

Bridging human rights and corporate social responsibility: Pathways to a sustainable global society  

(pp. 255–282). IGI Global. 

Wang, X., Jessup, L. M., & Clay, P. F. (2015). Measurement model in entrepreneurship and small business research:  

A ten-year review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11, 183–212. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0285-0  

Winston, N. (2022). Sustainable community development: Integrating social and environmental sustainability  

for sustainable housing and communities. Sustainable Development, 30(1), 191–202. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2238  

World Bank. (2020). Reversals of fortune: Poverty and shared prosperity 2020. World Bank. 

https://tinyurl.com/497uhjxa  

Zambia Statistics Agency. (2022). Highlights of the 2022 poverty assessment in Zambia. https://tinyurl.com/bdhf4dn8  

Zucchella, A., & Urban, S. (2019). Circular entrepreneurship. Springer International Publishing. 
 

https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83753-980-220241013
https://tinyurl.com/454ku8wf
https://core.ac.uk/download/572722296.pdf
https://doi.org/10.22495/cbsrv2i1art2
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86841
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1294251
https://tinyurl.com/5e4ndfbc
https://tinyurl.com/bdhm8je4
https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm15-21922
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0285-0
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2238
https://tinyurl.com/497uhjxa
https://tinyurl.com/bdhf4dn8

