1. technology and computing
2. internet technology
3. social network

Sciknow Publications Ltd.
Journal of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development
© Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)
JAERD 2015, 3(2):41-53
DOI: 10.12966/jaerd.05.02.2015
Network of Networks: A Systematic Review of Literature
Constructing Rural Development
Sonal Singh1,*and Bhaskar Bhowmick2
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, 721302
*Corresponding author (Email: [email protected])
Abstract - Rural development has always been an important issue pertaining to economic as well as social development of any
country. The rural development approach has been studies in different disciplines and areas in order to improve the life of rural
people. The paper presents a comprehensive review on network approaches that brings knowledge of different networks such as
community network, entrepreneurial network, innovation network, social network and technology network in rural development
perspective. Moreover, the paper recapitulates the different methodology approach of network research from review of previous
work and considering implications and outcomes in rural development context. The paper brings to light on each network approach links with the diverse rural development aspects. These aspects are rural Information and Communication Technology
(ICT) development, rural innovation, rural community development, rural entrepreneurship and rural empowerment. The paper
concludes that network approach recognizes as an important and beneficial concept leads to socio-economic development of
rural area. Finally, the paper proposed reviewed based network framework to conceptualize network approach in rural development perspective.
Keywords - Network, Community Network, Entrepreneurial Network, Innovation Network, Social Network, Technology
Network, Rural Development
1. Introduction
Rural development has been considering an important aspect
for the economic as well as social development of the nation,
especially in developing countries (Chambers, 1983). The
rural development approach has been studied in different
disciplines and areas in order to improve the well being of
rural people (Douglas, 2005). This paper presents a comprehensive review on network approaches in rural development
perspective. The network approach has been widely utilized
in different interdisciplinary fields, which combine ideas from
computer science, social science, engineering, management,
economics, biology and many other fields (Newman,
2010).The network approach is dated back to the 1930 in
organizational research, but conceptually origin from sociology, anthropology and role theory (Tichy et al., 1979; Nohria & Eccles, 1992; Parkhe et al., 2006). The studies on
networks have been benefited in wide range of viewpoints
brought from many different disciplines (Newman, 2010;
Hoang & Antoncic, 2003). Moreover, it is consider as new
paradigm for rural development (Murdoch, 2000). However,
it has been suffered because of lack of attention and initiation
to be taken in the network context to understand the bottom of
pyramid people and generate strategies especially for rural
development.
The paper represents the network approach that brings
knowledge of different types of networks in rural development perspective. Here, we have tried to represent network
approach as new opportunity area for rural development,
drawn upon theories and the concept from network research
and professional practice literature. The main objective of the
paper is to explain how network approaches in rural development perspective improve life of rural people. Moreover,
the paper recapitulates the different methodology approach of
network research from reviewing the previous work and
considering implications and outcomes in rural development
context. Following section of the paper explain different
networks, such as technology network, innovation network,
community network, social network and entrepreneurial
network. Simultaneously, the paper illustrates the link of each
network approach with the diverse rural development aspects.
These aspects are rural Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) development, rural innovation; rural
community development, rural entrepreneurship and rural
empowerment.
2. Conceptualization of Network
Network is defined as a presentation of system in an abstract
42
Journal of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development (2015) 41-53
structure to capture the pattern of connection between the
parts of system (Newman, 2010). In simplest form, network is
defined as collection of points jointed together in pair by lines.
In the jargon of field, the points are referred as vertices or
nodes and line are referred to as edges (Abello et al., 1998). In
computer science context, network is defined as collection of
computers linked by data connections and human society for
data acquisition and social interaction. In modern technology
society, the engineered networks like the internet, power grid,
telephone network and global network of data connection are
developed under the technology network science (Parkhe et
al., 2006). As per biological science context, network is
representing the pattern of connection between cells and
reaction between chemicals among cells of ecosystem
(Parkhe et al., 2006). In social science context, network is
defined as a set of actors’ link with some set of relationship
(Hoang & Antoncic, 2003). In the context of entrepreneurship,
network is defined as a group of entrepreneurs pool their
limited resources including capital, skill, and expertise,
knowledge and information in order to produce the products
or services in getting access in the market (Smith & Lohrke,
2008). In the view of economic, the network is defined as
exchange of relationships between producers and suppliers,
sellers and buyers; and manufacturers and customers
(Axelsson, 1992; Dyer & Singh, 1998; Gnyawali & Madhavan, 2001; Halinen et al., 1999; Kranton & Minehart, 2001;
Stevenson & Greenberg, 2000).This leads to indicate that
network contains the different actors or stakeholders which
perform under specific historical context to get benefits
(Biswas, 2006). On the other hand, network not only influence individual but also significantly impact on how system/organization are developed, maintained, managed and
sustained (Nohria & Eccles, 1992; Nelson, 2001). Thus,
network is a general yet powerful mean of illustration of
system that composes the individual parts or components
together in some way.
3. Network Approach for Rural Development
Network approach has been considered as an important subject provides riche insights and better understanding about
rural networking for rural development. However, network
researches also demonstrate the influence and impact of relationships at individual, collective and organizational level and
how resources are mobilized from an environment (Nelson,
2001; Nohria & Eccles, 1992). In this regard, evidence of the
extent to which network approach in rural development
perspective is provided in the following literature review.
Moreover, table 1 and 2 drawn from review of literature with
reference to network approach link to rural development. The
paper presents tables and themes of network approaches are
drawn from review of research articles, review based papers,
books, government reports and online rural information database. In this regard, we have searched literature through
using key words related to network and rural development
then used to identify appropriate articles on rural networking;
technology based networking, rural entrepreneurs’ network,
rural community and innovation development. These reviewed papers had publication between 1999 to 2014 inclusively. We briefly reviewed 100 references among these, 54
articles were selected and categorized on the basis of qualitative and quantitative research strategy and data collection
tools. In addition of this, these papers are categorized as per
identified network approach and respective rural development
context. Table 1 illustrates, the paper have reviewed 54 articles in which 14(26%) quantitative based, 25 (46%) qualitative based and 15 (28%) combine both quantitative and
qualitative measures.
The paper have analyzed literature in order to identify key
theme, data collection tools, mechanisms, measures and
analytical approach and key finding from the study. These are
presented in detail in Table 2 which gives detail summary of
network research within the journal considered. Table 2 extracts the main theme under the network approach in rural
development perspective which contains technology network,
community network, innovation network, community network and entrepreneurial network. Table 1 shows that quantitative work is particular prevalent in the context of technology network, social network and somehow entrepreneurial
network and innovation networks. Although, from the finding
of Table 2 and close reading of the articles those using quantitative type of research strategy provide more detail demonstration of what actually going on within the network. These
articles are important in generating understanding of the
structural features and characteristics of network, ties or relationship between network actors and particularly measure
the impact of network on rural development. On other hand,
Table 1 shows that qualitative work is recognized in the
perspective of community network, entrepreneurial network,
social network, innovation network and technology network.
So far, the finding of Table 2 indicates that the qualitative
based network approach gives light on real picture of rural
network, illustrate rural development model based on network
approach and the process involved in their use, creation and
development. This would be help to develop clearer understanding of network approach within rural development context. From the review of literature, the paper shows that rural
people, entrepreneurs, government, financial and other institutes, technology providers, NGOs, service providers, supplies, public and private organizations and rural communities
are the network actors involved in rural development activities. Moreover, the qualitative and quantitative researches
strategy at individual and combine level explore how network
approach address the rural development aspects, like rural
entrepreneurial development, rural Information and Communication Technology (ICT) development, rural community
development, rural innovation and rural community development.
Journal of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development (2015) 41-53
43
Table 1. Network Approaches for Rural Development by Analytical Approach (both empirical and non-empirical) Work
Network Approach
Community Network
Entrepreneurial Network
Innovation Network
Social Network
Technology Network
Rural Development Approach
Number of
Articles
Rural Community Development
Rural ICT Development
Rural Entrepreneurship
Rural Women Entrepreneurship
Rural Innovation
Rural ICT Development
Rural Entrepreneurship
Rural Empowerment
Rural Community Development
Rural Entrepreneurship
Rural Women Entrepreneurship
Rural ICT Development
Rural Livelihood
Rural Community Development
Rural Entrepreneurship
Total
5
1
10
2
6
2
2
3
5
6
1
7
1
1
2
54
Research Strategy
Employed Analytical Tools
Quantitative
Qualitative
Quantitative and
Analysis
Analysis
Qualitative Analysis
1
2
2
1
2
5
3
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
14(26%)
25(46%)
15(28%)
Table 2. Network Research for Rural Development: theme and approaches of statistical and non-statistical work
Theme &
Rural DevelopAuthor(s)
ment Approach
Community Network
Gaved &
Rural Community
Mulholland
development
(2010)
Blattman et
Rural Community
al. (2003)
development
Data Collection Tool
Mechanism, Measures and Analytical
Approach
case study,
Group Survey
Questionnaire, participatory approach,
DiMaggio, Hargittai’s measures
Field
Interviews,
Household
survey
mail survey,
questionnaire
Questionnaire, Coefficient, probability
regression, heteroskedastic error, z-test,
t-test, tobit analysis, focus groups
Alexander
(2013)
Rural Community
development
Rosenthal
(2012)
Rural Community
development
Fieldwork
Robertson et
al. (2012)
Rural Community
development
survey
questionnaire
Social network analysis, Mean scores,
F-statistics, network ties per community, std. deviation
Open-ended in-depth formal interviews, participant observation,
cross-disciplinary debate
descriptive, hierarchical linear modeling, variance analyses
Carroll &
Rosson
(2003)
Rural ICT Development
Secondary
data
analyze and differentiate community
networking
Entrepredevelop-
Secondary
Data
Review of Literature
Entrepredevelop-
Case Study
In-depth interview, online survey,
document analysis, mapped network
structure
Entrepreneurial network
Jack (2010)
Rural
neurship
ment
Welter
& Rural
Trettin (2006) neurship
ment
Maas et al.
(2014)
Rural Women Entrepreneurship development
In-depth
interviews
longitudinal data, Social Entrepreneurial
Leadership (SEL) programme training
to build entrepreneurial networks
Theme &
Rural Develop-
Data Collec-
Mechanism, Measures and Analytical
Key Finding
Community network can overcome multiple digital inequalities and make sustainable ICT uses in rural community
Provision of relevant services and information enhance technical efficiency and
agriculture productivity
Impact of the forced amalgamations remains strong across most communities
Structure local social networks as instruments of care and offers new way of development work
network analysis can be incorporated into
the traditional analytic procedures to facilitate change in communities
Community networks will lead to new
possibilities for develop and utilize community skills through development of
advanced information technology tools and
resources.
Network act as key element for entrepreneurship with concern of different aspects
and features
Network activities have positive impact on
rural women entrepreneurship and network structure create entrepreneurial
climate in rural region
Third party (SEL program) stimulate
entrepreneurial network of women
through skill developing skill and create
income generating opportunities
Key Finding
44
Journal of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development (2015) 41-53
Author(s)
Erling et al.
(2011)
ment Approach
Rural
Entrepreneurship development
tion Tool
Case Study,
questionnaire,
field survey
Smith &
Lohrke
(2008)
Rural
Entrepreneurship
development
Secondary
Data
Xiao & Fan
(2012)
Rural Entrepreneurship development
Rural Entrepreneurship development
Rural Entrepreneurship development
Questionnaire
Freire-Gibb
& Nielsen
(2014)
Rural Entrepreneurship development
Survey,
Questionnaire
Karlsson &
Warda (2014)
Rural Entrepreneurship development
Rural Entrepreneurship development
Secondary
data
Rural Entrepreneurship development
telephone
survey
purposive sampling, mean, standard
deviation, chi-squared, p value, degree
of freedom, comparative study
Cronbach's alpha, t-test, composite
reliability, chi-square, Confirmatory
Factor Analysis, Discriminate validity,
Fit Statistics (GFI, AGFI, NFI, NNFI,
CFI)
Descriptive study, semi-structural interview, observation, document analysis
Stuart &
Sorenson
(2005)
Klyver et al.
(2008)
Dodd & Patra
(2002)
Carr et al.
(2013)
Innovation network
Zeng et al.
Rural Entrepre(2010)
neurship development
Secondary
Data
International
surveys
questionnaire
Approach
mass interviews, Social Network Analysis, degree centrality, betweenness,
density, Standard deviation, Eigen values
Descriptive, examine the entrepreneurial
network development process
theoretical model for social network,
network size & heterogeneity, properties
of top node
social network theory, structure and
pattern of the relations between social
actors
Descriptive statistics, Logistic regression, p value, Networking pattern
Descriptive statistics, Longitudinal data,
logistic regression analysis, Mean,
Standard deviation , logit model, Correlation matrix , Pseudo-R2 ,
Log-likelihood
analyze features that make structural
differences in innovation networks and
employ for policy
Chi-square, mean, p value, Hofstede’ s
4 Dimensions, Power distance, Uncertainty, avoidance, Individualism Masculinity
Klerkx et al.
(2010)
Rural Innovation
Cross-sectiona
l survey,
Questionnaire,
Stratified
sampling
Case study
Esparcia
(2014)
Rural Innovation
Case studies
Semi-structured personal interviews,
Social Network Analysis, dimensions of
the rural web, Actor network complexity
Case Study ,
Rural
household
survey
Social Network Analysis, Network size
& density, Degree centrality, closeness
centrality, cliques, coreness score,
structural hole, Freeman's normalized
closeness centrality, correlation score
review of theories about communities of
practice and networks of practice
Spielman et
al. (2011)
Rural Innovation
Oreszczyn et
al. (2010)
Rural Innovation
Secondary
Data
Beersa &
Geerling-Eiff
(2014)
Theme &
Author(s)
Rural Innovation
Semi-structure
d interviews
Rural Development Approach
Data Collection Tool
exploratory study, in-depth interview,
examine Policy instruments for innovation networking
Mechanism, Measures and Analytical
Approach
Networking behavior should be match
with endogenetic capability of external
actors and trading agency which play
crucial role for rural entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurs’ reliance on exchange relationship depends on their trust and it varies
as entrepreneur move through network
development process.
Social networks are positively correlated
with entrepreneurial intention development
Social network encourage entrepreneurial
process by discovering new opportunities
and mobilization of resources
Existence of variform universality (culture
moderates) and functional universality
(cultural similarities) in entrepreneurial
networking
Social networks play an important role to
strengthen the ties and provide institutions
support to rural entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurs play role in local, regional
and national economic development
Higher proportion of family and friends,
and a smaller proportion of business ties,
in Greek networks and culture is significant in shaping the nature of entrepreneurial networks.
rural business networks encourage SME
owner-managers to see the business value
of e-commerce tools and explore opportunities through online knowledge sharing
Inter-firm cooperation has the most significant positive impact on the innovation
performance of SMEs
Enhance reformism by creating tangible
visions and effective connections between
innovation networks and their environment.
Innovative initiation depend on innovative
environment that facilitate network actors
through network of economic, institutional and social actors support
Need to explore policies and programs
that create more space for market and civil
society to participate in smallholder innovation networks and improve welfare.
Network of practice and their web of
influencers provide social learning
system
Facilitated networks is more effective and
cost-efficient for innovative approach for
system transformation
Key Finding
Journal of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development (2015) 41-53
Tisenkopfsa
et al. (2014)
Rural Innovation
Case study
action research, frame analysis, social
learning theories, Degree of innovation
Virkkala
(2007)
Rural Entrepreneurship development
Case Study
Interview, questionnaire, examine the
features of innovation in rural region
Mathur &
Ambani
(2005)
Rural ICT development
Case Study
Review of successful cases on ICT
based microfinance services improved
profit
Jalalia et al.
(2011)
Rural ICT development
Open-ended
interviews
Proposed model for e-commerce service
in rural area
Pilot Study,
Questionnaire
Social Network Analysis, density, average geodesic distance, centralization,
degree closeness, betweenness, triad
census
Structural equation model, Cronbach’s
α, path coefficients, chi-squared test,
Bentler’s comparative fit index, Tucker–
Lewis index
Descriptive statistics, correlation, Huber-White robust standard errors, Multivariate analysis, chi-squared test, Variance inflation factor (VIF) tests, Linear
regression
Open ended questions, focus group,
Mechanisms of Trust
Social Network
Bassi et al.
Rural Community
(2014)
development
Zheng & Liu
(2014)
Rural Entrepreneurship development
Interviews,
participatory
observations
Tsuchiya
(2010)
Rural Empowerment
Secondary
Data
Lyon (2000)
Rural Entrepreneurship development
Case Study,
semi-structure
d interviews
Kebede &
Butterfield
(2009)
Rural Community
development
Participants
study ,
Interview
Semi-structured questionnaire, distance,
density, centrality, directionality, degree
of closeness
Batt (2008)
Secondary
Data
re-emerging concept of social capital in
business networks
Murdoch
(2000)
Rural Entrepreneurship development
Rural Empowerment
Secondary
Data
Review of Literature
Campbell
(2004)
Rural Empowerment
social survey
actor network theory , Semi-structured
interviews, meteorological data
Gayen &
Raeside
(2010)
Rural Women Entrepreneurship Development
face-to-face
interview
Faust et al.
(1999)
Rural Community
development
Secondary
data
Structural questionnaire, sociometric
data, In-degree & Out-degree centrality,
Bonacich's Power, Coefficient of variation
examines the spatial arrangement of
social and economic networks, Mean in& out degree, degree & ties
Wood (2011)
Rural Entrepreneurship development
Field Study
social network analysis, comparative
study, Brokerage and clique analysis
Theme &
Author(s)
Rural Development Approach
Data Collection Tool
Mechanism, Measures and Analytical
Approach
45
Networks are increasingly viewed as
entities of learning and innovation in
agriculture.
small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) needs knowledge from regional
sources and knowledge institutes for innovation
Access to services via networked kiosk is
reduce transaction cost and farmers directly access information, control quality
and mange better practices
The ICT based service such as
e-government, e-education, e- commerce
services and electronic agriculture services make better access to information
and basic service that develop entrepreneurship
Social Network Analysis is explore the
structure and dynamics of firm relations
and enhance network actors awareness for
their relational position
multifunctional networking bridge ecology, tourism, society, and land use which
increase income of farmers
Individual’s contributions to community
organizational activities and personalized
assistance to adjacent neighbors are significantly increase self-employment
earnings
Network and norms are important part to
create social capital and trust is necessary
for the development of microenterprise
network
Women belong to social network access to
better information and resources meet
their economic and social needs and aid
the wellbeing
Social Capital facilitate for exchange
within business network at individual,
organizational and social level
Network link economic, social, culture
and natural perspectives of rural development thus strategy and policy should be
recast in network form
Socio-environmental networking facilitate
to livelihood survival and; enhance and
sustained rain-fed farming
Strong association of social network
members and their attitude influence on
rural women awareness
spatial analytic capabilities of the GIS
assess the patterns of network ties and
shows a clear relationship between rural
activities
Communication help to overcome market
fragmentation and create common purpose
among interlocked companies related to
rural area
Key Finding
46
Journal of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development (2015) 41-53
Sloane
& ’Reilly
(2013)
D’Exell &
Holvoet
(2011)
Rural Entrepreneurship development
Rural Community
Development
Case Study
Kannengiesser
(2011)
Fesenmaier &
Contractor
(2001)
Rural Entrepreneurship development
Rural Community
Development
survey
questionnaire
Technology Network
Ting & Jiaqia Rural ICT Devel(2013)
opment
Case Study
Questionnaire
Computing
model
Network centrality, Cohesive subgroups, Cliques, analysis, vertical, horizontal and diagonal relations
Descriptive, interview , t-tests ,S.D.,
dyadic regression techniques, size and
socioeconomic heterogeneity
Descriptive, correlations and
cross-tabulations, investigate the role of
social networks
Evaluate Communityware software
(IKNOW rural development web site)
Bayesian network model, Posterior
Probability, network index value,
Probability inference
Sensitive Analysis, Net Present Value,
Internal Rate of Return, Capital Expenditure, Operating Expenditure
Principal Component Analysis, probabilistic neural network, factor analysis,
Eigen value, Proportion, Cumulative,
information index structure
Questionnaire, examine ICT based
Networks impact on entrepreneurs
Mishra et al.
(2005)
Rural ICT Development
Case study
Yuan et al.
(2012)
Rural Entrepreneurship development
Primary data,
pretreat survey
Packalén
(2008)
Rural Entrepreneurship development
Action research
Noutat et al.
(2013)
Rural ICT Development
Case Study
Proximity telephony architecture, Feasibility Study
Overa (2006)
Rural ICT Development
Case Study
Fieldwork study, Interviews, Ethnographic data, impact of technology in
informal trade business practice
Mititelu et al.
(2010)
Lee et al.
(2010)
Rural Livelihood
Development
Rural ICT Development
Case Study
Chew et al.
(2011)
Rural Community
Development
Mail surveys
creation of integrated strategy through
cooperation network and partnership
Rural area network, hub structure, eigen
value, zero-one compromising programming
standard multiple regression analysis ,ANOVA, p value, F test, Cronbach’s
alpha, R square, Standardized and unstandardized coefficient
Funk (1999)
Rural ICT development
Secondary
Data
Review of literature, Choucri concepts:
connectivity, content, and capacity, or
the ―3 Cs‖
Rao (2004)
Rural ICT development
Secondary
Data
Case Study of ICT based model in India
and outside India
Primary data
The following section of paper describes the abstract
theme of network approach in rural development context.
Moreover, the paper highlights some practical and theoretical
models to support the respective network approach for rural
development. The paper provides a comprehensive review on
rural network mechanism and key findings of previous work
Networks are dynamic social processes
that influence knowledge creation that
ultimately give business direction
Social networks an important policy tool
which could be mapped and viewed to
unpack social networks through a gender
lens.
Rural non-farm entrepreneurs use social
networks to get resources for enterprise
establishment and expansion
Knowledge management give benefit to
communities as they build social and
organizational networks for their development
Network use for judging rural service
network suitability and develop rural
market
Technology based network should be meet
rural needs at affordable price
Internet accessibity have strong and positive relationships with enterprises’ economic and innovative performances
Virtual collaborative networks improve
communication; improve information
accessibility, substantial value of stakeholder groups which enhance economies
of scale.
Mobile telephony is bridging the digital
divide and provide low cost and ease
deployment of WCNs services to rural
community
Technology enhance trust building in
trade networks, reduce transportation and
transaction cost that facilitate a higher
number of transaction
IT platform enhance a better network
cooperation
zero-one compromising programming
applied to conventional telecommunication networks in rural area
Significant relationship between the use of
social networking sites and community
involvement which mediated by online
social self-efficacy and bonding social
capital
ICT based network need to improve content of information; maintain and organized information that enhance information and service accessibility and capacity
building in rural people
ICT based network Improve market accessibility; reduce transaction cost &
enhance the ability to access global market; improve education and skill
and research. These finding conclude that network approaches
help to improve the performance of entrepreneurs, promote
women entrepreneurship, promote farmer learning and skill,
strengthen trust in network, improve rural people wellbeing,
and develop rural market and rural economy.
Journal of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development (2015) 41-53
47
4. Community Network
5. Entrepreneurial Network
Community is defined as a group of people having common
interest, who come together for mutual support to fulfill their
needs (Jack & Anderson, 2002). In network context, community is described as group of people having tie because of
same culture, history and collective decision and efforts to
solve problems towards the advance of community interests
(Vinodh, 2013). The concept of community network is roots
in 1970s, community activism-jobs, housing, and veterans’
issues in the Berkeley Community Memory (Farrington &
Pine, 1996) community health in the Cleveland Free Net
(Beamish, 1995), and problems of the homeless in the Santa
Monica Public Electronic Network (Rogers et al., 1994). The
creation of community networks is to assist the development
and management of information and activities among community members. Moreover, they facilitate discussion and
joint activities to address community issues and concerns,
information dissemination, participation in organizational
activities and social services for economic and social development of communities (Carroll & Rosson, 2003).
The concept of community network has been transferred
by the development of the computer supported cooperative
work and accessibility of internet services in rural area (Carroll & Rosson, 2003). In some research, community network
is examined as communities whose interactions are mediated
primarily by the internet. There is number of strategies developed on the base of mixed-method research approach to
access the potential of community networking in rural development context (Blattman et al., 2003). In this regard, the
community network approach has been proposed to achieve
meaningful usage of the internet in communities to overcome
the multiple digital inequalities and effectively enhance
community interactions (Gaved & Mulholland, 2010).
Moreover, the community networks have been projected on
the base of external interaction to a selected recipient community. This approach has been address through execution of
some community network based projects, such as UK Wired
Up Communities project (Devins et al., 2003); universities
Blacksburg Electronic Village (Silver, 2004) or commercial
organizations, Netville, in Canada (Hampton, 2003). These
community networks approach offer a viable method to
overcome rural community isolation from technology, market
information and services through sustainable usage of Information Communication Technology (ICT). This could
make individuals moving online as part of an active community of locality. Thus, the community network approach
would help to create new opportunity for effective utilization
of available rural resource, infrastructure development and
accessibility of information and service through networking
in rural sector. Although, there is need to make more detail
study to analyze how communication technologies and contextually relevant information affects the sharing and storage
of information within communities in rural development
perspective (Gaved & Mulholland, 2010).
Entrepreneurship is situated at the center in the process of
economic development of the nation (Mansuri, 2011). In rural
context, entrepreneurs act as economic leader who recognize
opportunity for new sources of supply, develop new techniques and practices and capturing new market to overcome
financial problems of rural people (Mansuri, 2011). The
network concept within the context of entrepreneurship is
looked since the mid 1980s (Jack, 2010). The entrepreneurial
network is presented as entrepreneurs’ interface with the
source of new opportunities and engagement in the venturing
process (Sarason & Dillard, 2006). Moreover, the entrepreneurial networks are studies on the base of network size and
contacts between network actors. These studies have been
important for establishment; development and growth of
enterprises (Briiderl & Preisendorfer, 1998; Chell & Raines,
1998).The network approach help to access resources and
create opportunities through local contacts with customers
and suppliers, information on potential business partners as
well as advice and mentoring established entrepreneurs. Some
research studies revealed that there is association between
successful entrepreneurship and involvement in network
activities (Briiderl & Preisendorfer, 1998; Jenssen, 2001). The
network research is more directed towards the understating of
type and effectiveness of networks in nurturing of new business in different social and economic climates (Birley, 1985).
On the other hand, entrepreneurial network has been studied
in the context of social capital perception on network formation and development. This research proposed strategies for
building entrepreneurial network through building bonds in
networks, transfer linking ties, teaching how to build bridging
networks, and creation of a network of entrepreneurial peers
(Maas et al., 2014; Welter & Trettin, 2006).
With reference of entrepreneurial network theory, the entrepreneurs’ personal knowledge has been shown to be significantly increase the likelihood of the person to undertake
entrepreneurial activity (Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Morales-Gualdron & Roig, 2005; Arenius & Kovalainen, 2006;
De Clercq & Arenius, 2006). The person embedded in networks of entrepreneurs is more likely toward entrepreneurial
orientation (Matthews & Moser, 1995; Sanders & Nee, 1996;
Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Menzies et al., 2006). In this regard, the person who have close family members in business
or personally know someone who has started a business seem
to have a better chance of becoming entrepreneurs (Davidsson
& Honig, 2003; Morales-Gualdron & Roig, 2005; Arenius &
Kovalainen, 2006; De Clercq & Arenius, 2006; Menzies et al.,
2006). Networks research has been found that trust within
network actors play a significant role in the process of development of entrepreneurial network (Smith & Loheke,
2008). Furthermore, network approach is act as a potential
tool to stimulate entrepreneurship among women (Maas et al.,
2014). Entrepreneurial networks could help to access information, contacts and resources which revealed the positive
effect of network approach on entrepreneurial growth and
48
Journal of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development (2015) 41-53
outcome (Granovetter, 1974; Hoang & Antoncic, 2003 and
Woolcock, 1998). On the other hand, network approach facilitates to capture the effect of gender different in network
structure and examine the influence of network actors’ behaviour towards business survival and success (Carter et al.,
2001). However, there is needed to look on entrepreneurial
network with respect to cooperation among network actors to
initiate and support for rural women entrepreneurship development (Welter & Trettin 2006). From above mention
reviewed studies indicate that entrepreneurial network has
emerged as an important area of analysis within the conceptual domain of entrepreneurship (Smith & Loheke 2008).
Entrepreneurial networks are construed as the fundamental
factor in the process of new firm formation and entrepreneurship development (Briiderl & Preisendorfer, 1998;
Bosma et al., 2004).
6. Social Networking
Social network is defined as a set of actors connected through
social relationship (Newman, 2010). In rural development
perspective, social network plays an important role to
strengthen the ties with internal as well as external actors in
order to get institutional support for development of rural
people. Social networks have been established on the base of
individual consent and interest. The study of social network at
individual, group and community level could be help to discover the strength and gap of network structure in term of type
of relationship or ties between network actors. This would be
used as the basis for social intervention in rural network aspect (Gretzel, 2001). On the other hand, social network provides a platform to shape information flow within network
members and trace the ties through which financial capital
flow. This mechanism indicates that social network influence
the entrepreneurial process (Stuart & Sorenson, 2005). Social
network of friends and acquaintances could influence the
entrepreneurial intention and theses intention is consider as
the first step to start a business (Xiao & Fan, 2012). Moreover,
the information needed to start a business is passed to the
small business owner through an existing social network.
Personal ties within social networks facilitate to provide
emotional and practical support and relevant information
(Birley, 1985; Johanison & Monsted, 1996; Moore, 1990),
create awareness of new opportunities and generate employment (Granovetter, 1974). Thus, review of literature
shows that social networks are positively correlate with entrepreneurial intention, which is initial step of entrepreneurship development (O’Donnell et al., 2001).
The research on social network in rural women development context highlights that women belong to social network
have the advantage in term of better accessibility of the information and additional resources that deal with their economic and social needs (Kebede & Butterfield, 2009). In
addition of this, social network approach is an important
criterion for participatory community development in rural
areas. Therefore, community development planners and social
workers should understand and seriously undertake social
network approach in their projects and work with women
belongs to impoverished communities (Butterfield et al.,
2006). Social network approach should be needed to look as
socio-environmental networking of farmers in order to access
the social and environmental resources for the sustainability
and enhancement of their livelihoods (Campbell, 1998). The
study of social networks structure on 20 nation’s entrepreneurs’ participation revealed that there is existence of variform universality in which culture moderators are important
in networking and function universality in term of cultural
similarity in network practices (Klyver et al., 2008). Moreover, these is number of studied to be done in context of entrepreneurs’ social networking in different countries like
USA , Italy (Aldrich et al., 1989) , Norway (Greve, 1995),
Sweden (Johannisson & Nilsson, 1989), Japan (Aldrich &
Sakano, 1995), Canada ( Staber & Aldrich, 1995), Scotland(Dodd et al., 2002) and Greece (Dodd & Patra, 2002).
These studies illustrate that social networks provide valuable
resources include information, finance service, development
of skills and knowledge, aware regarding social legitimacy
and create reputation and credibility in society which show
the way to develop rural entrepreneurship and empowerment
(Hansen, 1995; Jenssen, 2001; Ripolles & Blesa, 2005; Welter & Kautonen, 2005). In addition of this, the social networks
influence entrepreneurial intention (Hmieleski & Corbett,
2006); entrepreneurial orientation (Ripolles & Blesa, 2005);
decision to become an entrepreneurs (Davidsson & Honig,
2003; Morales-Gualdron & Roig, 2005; De Clercq & Arenius,
2006); entrepreneurs opportunity recognition (Singh, 2000)
and entrepreneur growth (Lee & Tsang, 2001).
7. Innovation Network
Innovation is a central factor for the development of rural
areas, both in term of diversification and increased competitiveness (Massey, 1991; Lundvall et al., 2002). The local
actors of rural network play a key role in mobilizing resources,
adoption and implementation of different type of innovation
in production system of rural sector (Esparcia, 2014). Moreover, agricultural innovation network approaches have been
applied to analyze technological, economical and institutional
change in agriculture system in turn to develop the rural innovation (Hall et al., 2006; Morriss et al., 2006; Spielman et
al., 2008; Devaux et al., 2009; Spielman et al., 2009). These
agriculture innovation networks have several dimensions with
respect of interaction between heterogeneous actors. These
include technology development, institutional change, supply
chain reorganization, market development and creating societal acceptance (Ekboir, 2003a; Hall & Clark, 2009;
Spielman et al., 2009). In this regards, there are number of
examples include zero-tillage innovation by Ekboir (2003b),
green revolution developments in India (Biggs, 2007), innovation in food systems in Uganda (Hall & Clark, 2009), rice
innovation in Nepal (Pant & Odame, 2009), Kenyan agricul-
Journal of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development (2015) 41-53
tural development (Ochieng, 2007), and innovation in irrigation systems in Morocco (Poncet et al., 2010). The innovation
approaches are analyzing as an effective reformation strategy
to implement new system and innovative way to create cooperation among network actors. This innovation approach
would help to establish economic scale in rural areas (Klerkx
et al., 2010). Moreover, innovation networks create an environment in order to establish a more conducive context for
realization and durable embedding agriculture innovation
system. Although, there is need to study innovation network
with continuous re-interpretation and context of their movement for improving the performance of the system (Klerkx &
Leeuwis, 2009). This continuous reflection by the innovation
actors are analyzed as per their position vis-a-vis their environment needs which facilitate through multi-stakeholder
interaction for network coordination and mediation (Klerkx et
al., 2009; Kristjanson et al., 2009). In addition of this, innovation network is an important element in the array of social
network in which innovative actors such as individuals or
organizations interact with one another to make effective
utilization of rural resources and enhance human potential for
socio-economic development in rural area (Rycroft & Kash,
1999; Malerba, 2005; Mowery & Sampat, 2005; Spielman et
al., 2011).
8. Technology Network
The technology network provides Information and Communication Technology (ICT) based network connectivity in
rural region. The technology network have several
far-reaching application such as promote literacy, improve
health care (Ortiz & Clancy, 2003), reduce market inefficiencies (Badiane & Shively, 1998), increase government
transparency (Monga, 2008) and enabling environmental
monitoring (Prahalad, 2005). On the other hand, rural connectivity through technology networks need to provide affordable and accessible network services to rural people in
order to meet their needs and demand for different services.
Thus, the technology network has been examined on economic parameters to find out the economic viable model of
technology network for rural people (Mishra et al., 2005). The
technology networks bring opportunities for rural enterprises
through facilitate to access market information, provide financial and marketing services and information of technology
intervention in order to enhance the potential of rural entrepreneurs to compete with national and international market
(Grimes, 2003; Malecki, 2003). In this regard, rural entrepreneurs use internet service to search and collect information
regarding their suppliers, customers, and technologies.
Moreover, the internet access demonstration revealed that
there is a very strong and positive relationship with enterprises’ economic and innovative performances (Yuan et al.,
2012).
The telecommunication supported technology network
plays an important role to reduce the transportation and
49
transaction costs in informal trading business practices in
rural areas (Overa et al., 2006). Furthermore, the adoption of
new technology enhances trust building in trade networks,
which aid a higher number of transactions in an uncertain
economic environment (Overa et al., 2006). On the other hand,
the wireless community network (WCN) provide technological based economic service to meet the needs of rural people
and add value to their life through providing education service
and local training facilities (Noutat et al., 2013). There is a
wide variety of technology network approaches could improve social as well economic condition of rural people. In
this view, collaborative network is a network consist a variety
of heterogeneous entities, collaborate to achieve their common goal and their interaction is supported by computer
network (Camarinha-Matos & Afsarmanesh, 2006). There is a
wide variety of different terms explaining various forms of
collaborative networks, such as Value Network, Value Web,
Virtual Organizations, Virtual Enterprises, Virtual Communities, Collaborative Virtual Laboratories, Communities of
Practice, and Communities of Interest (Camarinha-Matos &
Afsarmanesh, 2006). These collaborative networks among
Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) help to develop business
and discover new business opportunities in the resource effective manner (Packalén, 2008). This leads to economic
development of rural people and enhance the rural life.
9. Conclusion
The paper presents a comprehensive review on network approaches in rural development perspective. In this regard, the
figure 1 illustrates that how the network approaches impact on
and contribution to improve life of rural people. The paper
elucidates a series of different network approaches, such as
technology network, innovation network, community network, social network and entrepreneurial network. Moreover,
the paper explores the relationship between network approaches with different rural development aspects. These
aspects are rural Information and Communication Technology (ICT) development, rural innovation, rural community
development, rural entrepreneurship and rural empowerment.
From review of literature, we have developed network
framework to conceptualized network approach in rural development perspective. This framework is presented in figure
1 as following. The framework illustrates that community
network would help to solve community problems and problem of digital inequality, enhance communication, access
information and resources and effective utilization of rural
resources for community development. This leads to strengthen relationship between communities for their mutual
support to fulfill their needs and encompassing efforts to solve
problems towards the development of rural community. The
entrepreneurial network assists to access information and
service, improve interaction of entrepreneurs, develop skill
and knowledge and create new opportunity for rural entrepreneurs. This would develop new market and new supply
50
Journal of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development (2015) 41-53
resources, create entrepreneurial orientation and develop
entrepreneurship in rural area. The innovation network support for effective utilization of rural resources, accessibility of
information and resources, improve communication and develop skill and knowledge in rural people. This leads to create
new market and supply of resources and developing entrepreneurship and generate income to improve life of rural
people. The social network facilitates to improve communication, enhance accessibility of information and resources,
create new opportunities, develop skill of rural people and
more importantly give reputation and creditability to rural
women in society. This leads to develop entrepreneurship,
create new opportunities for income generation, enhance the
relationship with stakeholders and develop rural women entrepreneurship and empowerment. The technology network
help to access information and services, solve the problem of
digital equality, create new opportunities and develop skill
and knowledge in rural people. This lead to develop new
market, create trust among network members, develop rural
entrepreneurship and rural empowerment.
Figure 1. Network of Networks Constructing Rural Development
Thus, the paper reveals that network approaches help to
recognize opportunities for effective utilization of rural resource, improve the performance of entrepreneurs, promote
women entrepreneurship, promote farmer learning and skill
development, strengthen trust in network, improve rural
people wellbeing, and develop rural market and rural economy. On the other hand, there is need to emphasis on the
network approaches that address the creation of supportive
environment for rural entrepreneurship development, social
capital formation, technology acceptability and adoptability,
create effective communication and enhance relationship
among various network actors involved in rural development
activities. Finally, the paper concludes that network approach
recognizes as an important and beneficial concept which lead
to socio-economic development of rural area. The proposed
framework on network approach shows that the concept of
socio-economic development can be represented by the constructs includes rural entrepreneurship development, community development, rural Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) development and rural empowerment. The
paper also recommend the future scope of network search to
analyze reviewed based proposed network framework
through quantitative study and identify measures of network
approach in rural development perspective.
References
Abello, J., Buchsbaum, A., & Westbrook, J. (1998). A functional approach to
external graph algorithms, in proceeding of the 6th European Symposium on Algorithum, Springer, berlin.
Aldrich, H. E., & Sakano, T. (1995). Unbroken ties: How the personal networks of Japanese business owners compare to those in other nations,
In M. Fruid (ed.), Networks and markets: Pacific rim investigations,
New York, Oxford University Press, 17-45.
Alexander, D. (2013). Crossing Boundaries: Action Networks, Amalgamation and Inter-Community Trust in a Small Rural Shire, Local Government Studies, 39, 463 -487.
Arenius, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2006). Similarities and differences across the
factors associated with women’s self-employment preference in the
Nordic countries, International Small Business Journal, 24, 31–59.
Axelsson, B. (1992). Corporate strategy models and networks — diverging
perspectives, in B. Axelsson, G. Easton (eds.), Industrial networks: A
new view of reality, Routledge, 184–204.
Badiane, O., & Shively, G. E. (1998). Spatial Integration, Transport costs,
and the Response of Local Prices to Policy Changes in Ghana, Journal
of Development Economics, 56, 411–431.
Bassi, I., Zaccarin, S., Stefano, D. D. (2014). Rural inter-firm networks as
basis for multifunctional local system development: Evidence from an
Italian alpine area, Land Use Policy, 38, 70-79.
Journal of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development (2015) 41-53
Batt, P. J. (2008). Building Social Capital in Network, Industrial Marketing
Management, 37, 487–491.
Beamish, A. (1995).Communities on-line: Community-based computer
networks. Master’s thesis, Department of Urban Studies and Planning,
MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Beersa, P. J., & Geerling-Eiffb, F. (2014). Networks as Policy Instruments for
Innovation, Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 20(4),
363–379.
Biggs, S. (2007). Building on the positive: an actor innovation systems
approach to finding and promoting pro-poor natural resources institutional and technical innovations, International Journal of Agricultural
Resources: Governance and Ecology, 6, 144–164.
Birley, S. (1985). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process, Journal
of Business Venturing, 1(1), 107–117.
Biswas, P. K. (2006). Networks of small enterprises, architecture of governance and incentive alignment: some cases from India, AI and Society,
28(4), 383-391.
Blattman, C., Jensen, R., & Roman, R. (2003). Assessing the Need and
Potential of Community Networking for Development in Rural India,
The Information Society, 19, 349–364.
Bosma, N., van Praag, M., Thurik, R., & de Wit, G. (2004). The value of
human and social capital investments for the business performance of
start-ups, Small Business Economics, 22, 723,–736.
Briiderl, J., & Preisendorfer, P. (1998). Network Support and the Success of
Newly Founded Businesses, Small Business Economics, 10, 213-225.
Butterfield, A., Kebede, W., & Gesesse, A. (2006). Slum Housing and
Income Generation: Assessing the Skills and Capacities of Impoverished Women in Ethiopia. IL: Jane Addams College of Social Work,
University of Illinois, Chicago.
Camarinha-Matos, L., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2006). Collaborative Networks,
Value creation in a knowledge society, In Proceedings of PROLAMAT’06, Shanghai, China.
Campbell, M. (1998). Interactions Between Biogeography and Rural Livelihoods in the Coastal Savanna of Ghana, University of London, Wye.
Campbell, M. O. (2004). The role of socio-environmental networking in the
sustainability of rain-fed agriculture in the coastal savanna of Ghana,
GeoJournal, 61, 79–88.
Carr, R., Parker, C. M., Rodney, A., Castleman, T., & Mason, C. (2013).
Factors Affecting SME Owner-Managers' Willingness to Share
Knowledge Online in Rural Local Business Networks, Journal of Internet Commerce, 12, 307–331.
Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2003). A Trajectory for Community Networks Special Issue: ICTs and Community Networking, The Information Society, 19,381–393.
Carter, S., Anderson, S., & Shaw, E. (2001). Women’s Business Ownership:
A Review of the Academic, Popular and Internet Literature. Report to
the Small Business Service. Glasgow.
Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First, Longman,
New York.
Chell, E., & Raines, S. (1998). Networking, Entrepreneurship and Microbusiness Behaviour, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12,
195-215.
Chew, H. E., LaRose, R., Steinfield, C., and Velasquez, A. (2011). The use of
online Social Networking by Rural Youth and its Effects on Community Attachment, Information, Communication & Society, 14, 726-747.
Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital
among nascent entrepreneurs, Journal of Business Venturing, 18,
301–331.
De Clercq, D. and Arenius, P. (2006). The role of knowledge in business
start-up activity, International Small Business Journal, 24, 339–358.
Devaux, A., Horton, D., Velasco, C., Thiele, G., Lopez, G., Bernet, T.,
Reinoso, I., & Ordinola, M. (2009). Collective action for market chain
innovation in the Andes, Food Policy, 34, 31–38.
Devins, D., Darlow, A., Petrie, A., & Burden, T. (2003). Connecting communities to the internet: evaluation of the wired up communities programme, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds.
D'Exelle, B., & Holvoet, N. (2011). Gender and Network Formation in Rural
Nicaragua: A Village case study, Feminist Economics, 17, 31–61.
Dodd, S. D., & Patra, E. (2002). National differences in entrepreneurial
networking, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 14, 117–134.
Dodd, S. D., Jack, S. L., & Anderson, A. R. (2002). Scottish entrepreneurial
networks in the international context, International Small Business
Journal, 20, 213–219.
51
Douglas, D. J. A. (2005). Restructuring of local government in rural regions:
A rural development perspective, Journal of Rural Studies, 21,
231-246.
Dyer, J. D., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy
and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage, Academy of
Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.
Ekboir, J. (2003a). Why impact analysis should not be used for research
evaluation and what the alternatives are, Agricultural Systems, 78,
166–184.
Ekboir, J. M. (2003b). Research and technology policies in innovation systems: zero tillage in Brazil, Research Policy, 32, 573–586.
Erling, L., Xiaojian, L., Zhigao, L. (2011). Relationships and Evolving
Networks of Rural Manufacturing Clusters: A Case Study in Yucheng
County. Henan Province of China, Chinese Geographic Science, 21(3),
364-376.
Esparcia, J. (2014). Innovation and networks in rural areas. An analysis from
European innovative projects, Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 1-14.
Farrington, C., & Pine, E. (1996). Community memory: A case study in
community communication, in P. Agre and D. M. Schuler (eds), In
Reinventing technology, rediscovering community, NJ: Ablex.
Faust, K., Entwisle, B., Rindfuss, R. B., Walsh, S. J., & Sawangdee, Y.
(1999). Spatial arrangement of social and economic networks among
villages in Nang Rong District, Thailand, Social Networks, 21,
311–337.
Fesenmaier, J., & Contractor, N. (2001). The Evolution of Knowledge Networks: An Example for Rural Development, Journal of the Community
Development Society, 32, 160-175.
Freire-Gibba, L. C., & Nielsenb, K. (2014). Entrepreneurship within Urban
and Rural Areas: Creative People and Social Networks, Regional Studies, 48(1), 139–153.
Funk, K. (1999). Information Networking as an Instrument of Sustainable
Development Connectivity, Content, and (Co–) Capacity Building,
Social Science Computer Review, 17(1), 107-114.
Gaved, M. B., Mulholland, P. (2010). Networking communities from the
bottom up: grassroots approaches to overcoming the digital divide, AI
& Society, 25, 345–357.
Gayen, K., & Raeside, R. (2010). Social Networks and Contraception practice in rural Bangladesh, Social Science & Medicine,7, 1584-1592.
Gnyawali, D. R. and Madhavan, R. (2001). Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: Structural embeddedness perspective, Academy of
Management Review, 26(3), 431–445.
Granovetter, M. (1974). Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Gretzel, U. (2001). Social Network Analysis: Introduction and Resources.
Retrieved: September, 205, 2014, from
http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/tse-portal/analysis/social-network-analysis/#top
Greve, A. (1995). Networks and entrepreneurship—An analysis of social
relations, occupational background, and use of contacts during the establishment process, Scandinavian,Journal of Management, 11, 1–24.
Grimes, S. (2003). The digital economy challenge facing peripheral rural
areas. Progress in Human Geography, 27, 174–193.
Halinen, A., Salmi, A.and Havila, V. (1999). From dyadic change to changing business networks: An analytical framework, Journal of Management Studies, 36(6), 779–795.
Hall, A., Janssen, W., Pehu, E., & Rajalahti, R. (2006). Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research
Systems, World Bank, Washington DC.
Hampton, K. (2003). Grieving for a lost network: collective action in a wired
suburb, Information Society, 19(5), 1–13.
Hansen, E. L. (1995). Entrepreneurial networks and new organization growth.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(4), 7–19.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2006). Proclivity for improvisation as a
predictor of entrepreneurial intentions, Journal of Small Business
Management, 44, 45–63.
Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: a critical review, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2),
165-187.
Jack, S. and Anderson, A. (2002). The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process, Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 467–487.
Jack, S. L., (2010). Approaches to studying networks: Implications and
outcomes, Journal of Business venturing, 25, 120–137.
52
Journal of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development (2015) 41-53
Jalalia, A. A.,Okhovvatb, M. R., & Okhovvata, M. (2011). A new applicable
model of Iran rural e-commerce development, Procedia Computer
Science, 3, 1157-1163.
Jenssen, J. I. (2001). Social networks, resources and entrepreneurship, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2, 103–109.
Johanison, B., & Monsted, M. (1996). Contextualizing Entrepreneurial
Networking: The Case of Scandinavia, International Studies of Management and Organization, 27, 109–136.
Johannisson, B., & Nilsson, A. (1989). Community entrepreneurs: Networking for local development. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1, 3–19.
Kannengiesser, S. (2011). Networking for Social Change: The Association
for Progressive Communications Women's Networking Support Program. Feminist Media Studies, 11,506-509.
Karlsson, C., & Warda, P. (2014). Entrepreneurship and innovation networks,
Small Business Economics, DOI 10.1007/s11187-014-9542-z
Kebede, W., & Butterfield, A. K. (2009). Social networks among poor
women in Ethiopia, International Social Work, 52(3), 357–374.
Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). The emergence and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: insights from the
Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 76, 849–860.
Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., & Leeuwis, C. (2010). Adaptive management in agriculture innovation systems: The interaction between innovation networks and their environment, Agricultural Systems, 103, 390–400.
Klyver, K., Hindle, K., & Meyer, D. (2008). Influence of social network
structure on entrepreneurship participation—A study of 20 national
cultures, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(3), 331-347.
Kranton, R. E., & Minehart, D. F. (2001). A theory of buyer–seller networks.
American Economic Review, 91(3), 485–509.
Kristjanson, P., Reid, R. S., Dickson, N., Clark, W. C., Romney, D., Puskur,
R., MacMillan S., & Grace, D. (2009). Linking international agricultural research knowledge with action for sustainable development,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 9, 5047–5052.
Lee, D. Y., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2001). The effects of entrepreneurial personality, background and network activities on venture growth, Journal
of Management Studies, 38, 583–602.
Lee, H., Shi, Y., Nazem, S. M., Kang, S. Y., Park, T. H., & Sohn., M. H.
(2001). Multicriteria hub decision making for rural area telecommunication networks, European Journal of Operation Research, 133,
483-495.
Lundvall, B. A., Johnson, B. E., Andersen, S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National
system of production, innovation and competence building, Research
Policy, 31, 213-231.
Lyon, F. (2000). Trust, Networks and Norms: The Creation of Social Capital
in Agricultural Economies in Ghana, World Development, 28(4),
663-681.
Maas, J., Seferiadis, A. A., Bunders, J. F. G., &. Zweekhorst, M. B. M (2014).
Bridging the disconnect: how network creation facilitates female
Bangladeshi entrepreneurship, International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 1, 1-14.
Malecki, E. (2003). Digital development in rural areas: potentials and pitfalls,
Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 201–214.
Malerba, F. (2005). Sectoral systems. How and why innovation differs across
sectors. In Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R. (ed.). The
Oxford handbook of innovation, New York, Oxford University Press.
Mansuri, B. B. (2011). Rural Women Entrepreneurship in India: Opportunities and Challenges, Kurukshetra: A Journal on Rural Development,
59(11), 17-19.
Massey, D., (1991). A global sense of place, Marxism Today, 24-29.
Mathur, A., Ambani, D. (2005). ICT and rural societies: Opportunities for
growth. The International Information & Library Review, 37, 345–351.
Matthews, C. H., & Moser, S. B. (1995). Family background and gender:
Implications for interest in small firm ownership, Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 7, 365–377.
Menzies, T. V., Doichon, M., Gasse, Y., & Elgie, S. (2006). A longitudinal
study of the characteristic, business creation process and outcome
differences of Canadian female vs. male nascent entrepreneurs, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2, 441–453.
Mishra, S. M., Hwang, J., Filippini, D., Moazzami, R., Subramanian, L., &
Du, T. (2005). Economic Analysis of Networking Technologies for
Rural Developing Regions, Internet and Network Economics, 3828,
184-194.
Mititelu, C., Joseph, A., Balea, C. (2010). Rural Development Policy: Study
Case Green Wine Networks, Transition Studies Review, 17, 386–399.
Monga, A. (2008). E-government in India: Opportunities and challenges,
Journal of Administration and Governance, 3(2), 52-61.
Moore, G. (1990). Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal
networks, American Sociology Review, 55, 726–735.
Morales-Gualdron, S. T., & Roig, S. (2005). The new venture decision: An
analysis based on the GEM project database, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1, 479–499.
Morriss, S., Massey, C., Flett, R., Alpass, F., & Sligo, F. (2006). Mediating
technological learning in agricultural innovation systems, Agricultural
Systems, 89, 26–46.
Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). Universities in national innovations
systems. In Fagerberg, J., D. C. Mowery and R. R. Nelson (ed.). The
Oxford handbook of innovation, New York, Oxford University Press.
Murdoch, J. (2000). Networks - a new paradigm of rural development?,
Journal of Rural Studies,16, 407-419.
Nelson, R. (2001). On the shape of verbal networks in organizations, Organization Studies, 22(5), 797-823.
Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks: An Introduction, Oxford University
Press.
Nohria, N., & Eccles, N. (1992). Networks and Organizations: Structure,
Forum and action. Harvard Business School Press, Harvard.
Noutat, S. J., Ndié, T. D., & Tangha, C. (2013). Wireless Community Network Services: Opportunities and Challenges for DCs: Case of Rural
Cameroon. e-Infrastructure and e-Services for Developing Countries,
Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, 119, 308-317.
O’Donnell, G. A., Cummins, D., & Carson, D. (2001). The Network Construct in Entrepreneurship Research: A Review and Critique, Management Decision, 39, 749–760.
Ochieng, C. M. O. (2007). Development through positive deviance and its
implications for economic policy making and public administration in
Africa: the case of kenyan agricultural development, World Development, 35, 454–479.
Oreszczyn, S., Lane, A., & Carr, S. (2010). The role of network of practice
and webs of influence on farmers’ engagement with and learning about
agriculture innovation. Journal of Rural Studies, 26, 404-417.
Ortiz, E., & Clancy, C. M. (2003). Use of Information Technology to Improve the Quality of Health Care in the United States, Health Services
Research, 28(2), xi–xxii.
Overa, R. (2006). Networks, Distance, and Trust: Telecommunications
Development and Changing Trading Practices in Ghana. World Development, 34(7), 1301–1315.
Packalén, K. (2008). Planning and Initiating Virtual Collaborative Networks
for SMEs in Rural Areas – An Example from The Finnish Archipelago.
Pervasive Collaborative Networks, IFIP – The International Federation for Information Processing, 283, 619-628.
Pant, L. P., & Odame, H. H. (2009). The promise of positive deviants:
bridging divides between scientific research and local practices in
smallholder agriculture, Knowledge Management for Development
Journal, 5, 160–172.
Parkhe, A., Wasserman, S., & Ralston, D. A. (2006). New frontiers in network theory development, Academy of Management Review, 31(3),
560-568.
Poncet, J., Küper, M., & Chiche, J. (2010). Wandering off the Paths of
Planned Innovation: the Role of Formal and Informal Intermediaries in
a Large Scale Irrigation Scheme in Morocco, Agricultural Systems, 103,
171–179.
Prahalad, C. K. (2005). Fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating
poverty through profit, Technical report, Wharton School Publishing.
Rao, S. S. (2004). Role of ICTs in India’s rural community information
systems, info, 6(4), 261-269.
Ripolles, M., & Blesa, A. (2005). Personal networks as fosterers of entrepreneurial orientation in new ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 6, 239–248.
Robertson, P. J., Lewis, L. B., Sloane, D. C., Galloway-Gilliam, L., & Nomachi, J. (2012). Developing networks for community change: exploring the utility of network analysis. Community Development, 43,
187–208.
Rogers, E. M., Collins-Jarvis, L., & Schmitz, J. (1994). The PEN Project in
Santa Monica: Interactive communication, equality, and political action. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45,
401–410.
Journal of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development (2015) 41-53
Rosenthal, A. (2012). Weaving Networks of Responsibility: Community
Work in Development Programs in Rural Malawi, Medical Anthropology: Cross-Cultural Studies in Health and Illness, 31, 420-437.
Rycroft, R. W., & Kash, D. E. (1999). The complexity challenge: Technological innovation for the 21st century. New York, Cassell.
Sanders, J. and Nee, V. (1996). Immigrant self-employment: The family as
social capital and the value of human capital. American Sociological
Review, 61, 231–249.
Sarason, Y. T. D., & Dillard, J. (2006). Entrepreneurship as the nexus of
individual and opportunity: a structuration view, Journal of Business
Venturing, 21, 286–305.
Silver, D. (2004). The soil of cyberspace: historical archaeologies of the
Blacksburg Electronic Village and the Seattle Community Network, in
Schuler, D., P. Day (eds.) Shaping the network society, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 301–324.
Singh, R. P. (2000). Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition through social
networks. Garland Publiching, Inc, London.
Sloane, A., & O’Reilly, S. (2013). The emergence of supply network ecosystems: a social network analysis perspective, Production Planning &
Control: The Management of Operations, 24, 621-639.
Smith, D. A., & Lohrke, F. T. (2008). Entrepreneurial network development:
Trusting in the process. Journal of Business Research, 61, 315–322.
Spielman, D. J., Davis, K., Negash, M., & Ayele, G. (2011). Rural innovation
systems and networks: findings from a study of Ethiopian smallholders.
Agriculture and Human Values, 28, 195–212.
Spielman, D. J., Ekboir, J., & Davis, K. (2009). The art and science of innovation systems inquiry: applications to Sub-Saharan African agriculture, Technology in Society, 31, 399–405.
Spielman, D. J., Ekboir, J., Davis, K., & Ochieng, C. M. O. (2008). An
innovation systems perspective on strengthening agricultural education
and training in Sub-Saharan Africa, Agricultural Systems, 98, 1–9.
Staber, U., & Aldrich, H. E. (1995). Cross-national similarities in the personal networks of small business owners: A comparison of two regions
in North America, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 20, 441–461.
Stevenson, W. B., & Greenberg, D. (2000). Agency and social networks:
Strategies of action in a social structure of position, opposition and
opportunity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 651–678.
Stuart, T. E., & Sorenson, O. (2005). Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, 2, 233-252.
Tichy, N., Tushman, M., and Fombrun, C. (1979). Social Network analysis
for organizations, Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 507-519.
53
Ting, Z., & Jiaqia, Y. (2013). Research on Rural Service Network Establishment of Express Company Based on Bayesian Network Model.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 96, 617-624.
Tisenkopfsa,T., Kundaa, I., & Šūmanea, S. (2014). Learning as Issue Framing in Agricultural Innovation Networks. Journal of Agricultural
Education and Extension, 20(3), 309–326.
Tsuchiya, R. (2010). Neighborhood social networks and female
self-employment earnings in Taiwan. International Entrepreneurship
and management, 6, 143–161.
Vinodh, G. C. K. (2013). Information Technology and Its Effects on Urban
Communities: With Special Reference to Bangalore City, Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 17, 84-89.
Virkkala, S. (2007). Innovation and Networking in Peripheral Areas—a Case
Study of Emergence and Change in Rural Manufacturing, European
Planning Studies, 15, 4.
Welter, F., & Kautonen, T. (2005). Trust, social networks and enterprise
development: exploring evidence from East and West Germany. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1, 367–379.
Welter, F., & L. Trettin. (2006). The Spatial Embeddedness of Networks for
Women Entrepreneurs. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, 14,
35-59.
Wood, B. (2011). The dislocation of agriculture and food: a network analysis
of interlocking directorates in New Zealand's corporate economy. New
Zealand Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 100-112.
Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: towards a
theoretical synthesis and policy framework, Theory and Society, 27,
151-208.
Xiao, L., & Fan, M. (2012). Does Social Network Always Promote Entrepreneurial Intentions? Part I: Theoretical Model. Neural Information
Processing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume, 7663, 1-7.
Yuan, H., Yang, X. L., & Hong, X. (2012). Rural E-Commerce Based on
Probabilistic Neural Network Model, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Information Engineering and Applications.
Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation,
30, 181-194.
Zheng, L. and Liu, H. (2014). Increased farmer income evidenced by a new
multifunctional actor network in China. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 34, 515–523.