[vc_empty_space][vc_empty_space]
Coordinating technology introduction and entrepreneurial activities in rural areas
Fokkema J.E.a, Pennink B.J.W.a, Simatupang T.M.b
a Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9700AV, Netherlands
b School of Business and Management, Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624529070653{padding-top: 30px !important;padding-bottom: 30px !important;}”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner layout=”boxed”][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″ css=”.vc_custom_1624695412187{border-right-width: 1px !important;border-right-color: #dddddd !important;border-right-style: solid !important;border-radius: 1px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Abstract” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]© Copyright 2017 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.The main purpose of this research is to investigate how technology introduction projects in rural areas should be coordinated in order to achieve local economic development and the role of social capital and entrepreneurial activities. Characteristics of three approaches were considered including top-down conventional coordination, communities of practice (CoP) and social entrepreneurship. Previous literature suggests the last two methods can lead to increased bridging social capital, which generates a relationship between social and commercial entrepreneurship. By qualitatively researching two successful case studies in Indonesia, it was found that for a top-down approach using CoP elements, bridging social capital was developed leading to both profit and nonprofit entrepreneurial activities. However, the reverse was also found, even though it was less obvious. For a top down approach with a local leader functioning as a social entrepreneur, bridging social capital was also developed leading to both profit and non-profit entrepreneurial activities.[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Author keywords” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Indexed keywords” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]Communities of practice,Coordination,CoP,Cultural capital,Entrepreneurial activities,Rural,Social capital,Social entrepreneurship,Technology push[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Funding details” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”DOI” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2017.084869[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_column_text]Widget Plumx[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][/vc_column][/vc_row]