Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

European Countryside

The Journal of Mendel University in Brno

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.69

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.190
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.896

Open Access
Online
ISSN
1803-8417
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 9, Issue 3 (Sep 2017)

Issues

Rural Enterprise Hub Supporting Rural Entrepreneurship and Innovation – Case Studies from Hungary

Judit Katonáné Kovács
  • University of Debrecen, Faculty of Economics & Business, Department of Enterprise Development, Team Academy Debrecen, Böszörményi u. 138, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Erzsébet Szeréna Zoltán
  • University of Pécs, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, Department of Architecture and Urban Design, Boszorkány u. 2, 7624 Pécs, Hungary
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-10-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/euco-2017-0028

Abstract

Although the tendency that the population migrate from rural to urban areas is typical world wide, the globalised economy creates new circumstances and opportunities for rural areas as well. The ‘new rural economy’ therefore needs new infrastructure to support it. The authors of the paper have a common interest in how enterprise hubs could help the development of entrepreneurship in the 21st century from two different directions, from physical and from social aspects. Building on the experience gained along enterprise hubs in cities, the hypothesis behind the study is, that creating enterprise hubs from existing buildings in rural settlements could help the development of rural entrepreneurship. To examine the hypothesis two case studies following a period of two years (enterprise hub development in Debrecen and Noszvaj) were carried out. In line with other studies in this field, result shows that even well-designed physical spaces are not enough for change, and initiators, hosts or facilitators are needed, as they play an important role in focusing on the real interaction network and enabling more synergies to happen.

Keywords: co-working; innovation; entrepreneurship; rural enterprise hub; rural development

Academic references

  • [1] Allen, T., Henn, G. (2007). The organization and architecture of innovation. Managing the flow of technology. Routledge.Google Scholar

  • [2] Bótáné Horváth, N., Katonáné Kovács, J. & Szőke, Sz. (2015). Building an entrepreneurial environment in rural regions: a possible way to develop human and social capital. Studies in Agricultural Economics 117, 20–26. DOI: 10.7896/j.1428.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [3] Covey, S. R. (2013). The 7 habits of highly effective people. Powerful lessons in personal change. New York: Simon & Schuster Ltd.Google Scholar

  • [4] Cowie, P., Thompson, N. & Rowe, F. (2013). Honey Pots and Hives: Maximising the potential of rural enterprise hubs [unpublished research report]. Newcastle University.Google Scholar

  • [5] Dax, T. & Copus, A. (2016). The future of rural development. In Research for Agri Committee – CAP reform post-2020 – challenges in agriculture (pp. 221–301). Brussel: European Union.Google Scholar

  • [6] Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar

  • [7] Fuzi, A. (2015). Co-working spaces for promoting entrepreneurship in sparse regions: the case of South Wales. Journal of Regional Studies 2(1), 462–469. DOI: 10.1080/21681376.2015.1072053.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [8] Jokinen, P., Järvelä, M., Paloviita, A. & Puupponen, A. (2010). Do local food supply chains meet the target of sustainable livelihood? A case study in Central Finland. Rural Areas and Development 7, 141–154.Google Scholar

  • [9] Katonáné Kovács, J., Varga, E. & Nemes, G. (2016). Understanding the process of social innovation in rural regions: some Hungarian case studies. Studies in Agricultural Economics 118, 22–29. DOI: 10.7896/j.1604.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [10] Lawson, R., Guthrie, J., Cameron, A. & Fischer, W. C. (2008). Creating value through cooperation: An investigation of farmers' markets in New Zealand. British Food Journal 110(1), 11–25. DOI: 10.1108/00070700810844768.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [11] Oláh, J. & Horváth, A. (2014). A vállalkozói ökoszisztéma vizsgálata Debrecenben a nyitott innovációs terek szemszögéből. Jelenkori Társadalmi és Gazdasági Folyamatok 9(1–2), 131–138.Google Scholar

  • [12] Pentland, A. (2014). Social physics. How good ideas spread – the lessons from a new science. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

  • [13] Rosnick, D. (2013). Reduced work hours as a means of slowing climate change. Real World Economics Review 63, 124–133.Google Scholar

  • [14] Schriefer, A. E. (2005). Workplace strategy, what it is and why you should care. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 7(3), 222–233. DOI: 10.1108/14630010510631081.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [15] Smith, A. & Pitt, M. (2009). Sustainable workplaces: improving staff health and well-being using plants. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 11(1), 52–63. DOI: 10.1108/14630010910940552.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [16] Thomsen A., Schultmann F. & Kohler N. (2011): Deconstruction, demolition and destruction. Building Research and Information 39(4), 327–332.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

Other Sources

About the article

Published Online: 2017-10-07

Published in Print: 2017-09-01


Citation Information: European Countryside, ISSN (Online) 1803-8417, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/euco-2017-0028.

Export Citation

© 2017 Judit Katonáné Kovács et al., published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in