Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Attributes influencing self-employment propensity in urban and rural Sweden

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The Annals of Regional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Policies aiming at promoting entrepreneurship are in general formed on national levels, without any consideration of differences between urban and rural areas. Usually, cities are provided with better and more modern infrastructure; cities have better supply of physical, financial and human capital, and connected services, and cities have a more modern industrial structure in the sense that their shares of growing industry are higher. Thus, it is possible that policies for entrepreneurship, which in general are designed for urban areas, might be less effective when they are implemented in rural areas. A first step to test the validity of this hypothesis could be to investigate the differences between cities and countryside regarding self-employment propensity and factors affecting the choice to become self-employed. Based on an exceptionally rich data set containing very detailed socio-economic and geographical information on all residents in Sweden, this paper examines: (a) the scope and structure of self-employment propensity in urban and rural areas, respectively, in Sweden, divided into full-time and part-time self-employment, and (b) the importance of a number of attributes that may have an impact on individuals’ propensity to start an enterprise in the two area types. Variables being tested are connected to demography and education, labor market status, plant characteristics, self-employment experience, financial resources, family links and regional attributes. The main results indicate that self-employment entry is influenced by the same factors in the same way in urban and rural areas. However, countryside’s industrial structure has a smaller share of growing industries. The fact that countryside’s startups follow the existing industrial structure means that this “modernity gap” between densely built up areas and countryside remains. From a policy perspective, this must be seen as a serious problem for countryside’s growth potential. This gives an argument for designing a special entrepreneurship policy for the countryside in order to increase its share of growing trades and thereby modernize its industrial structure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acs ZJ, Mueller P (2008) Employment effects of business dynamics: mize, gazelles and elephants. Small Bus Econ 30: 85–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs ZJ, Szerb L (2007) Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy. Small Bus Econ 28(2): 109–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs ZJ, Varga A (2005) Entrepreneurship, agglomeration and technological change. Small Bus Econ 24(3): 323–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich HE (1999) Organizations evolving. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison P (1999) Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociol Methods Res 28(2): 186–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M, Hellerstedt K (2009) Location attributes and start-ups in knowledge-intensive business services. Industry Innovat 16(1): 103–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M, Noseleit F (2011) Start-ups and employment dynamics within and across sectors. Small Bus Econ 36(4): 461–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armington C, Acs ZJ (2002) The determinants of regional variation in new firm formation. Reg Stud 36(1): 33–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autio E, Wennberg K (2009) Social interactions and entrepreneurial activity. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Chicago, August 7–11, 2009

  • Autio E, Acs ZJ (2010) Intellectual property protection and the formation of entrepreneurial growth aspirations. Strat Entrepreneurship J 4(3): 234–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker G (1976) The economic approach to human behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosma N, Stam E, Schutjens V (2011) Creative destruction and regional productivity growth: evidence from the Dutch manufacturing and services industries. Small Bus Econ 36(4): 401–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deakins D (2006) Rural entrepreneurship: a distinctive field of study. Int J Entrepreneurship Behav Res 12(1): 3–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotopoulos G, Spence N (1999) Spatial variations in net entry rates of establishments in Greek manufacturing industries: an application of the shift-share ANOVA model. Environ Plan A 31(10): 1731–1755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flora CB, Flora JL (1993) Entrepreneurial social infrastructure: a necessary ingredient. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 529: 48–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flora JL, Sharp J, Flora CB, Newlon B (1997) Entrepreneurial social infrastructure and locally initiated economic development in the nonmetropolitan United States. Sociol Q 38: 623–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folta TB, Delmar F, Wennberg K (2010) Hybrid entrepreneurship. Manage Sci 56(2): 253–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch M, Falck O (2007) New business formation by industry over space and time: a multidimensional analysis. Reg Stud 41(2): 157–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch M, Mueller P (2008) The effects of new business formation on regional development over time: the case of Germany. Small Bus Econ 30: 15–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch M, Schroeter A (2009) Are more start-ups really better? quantity and quality of new businesses and their effect on regional development. Jena Economic Research Papers 2009-070, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics

  • Grek J, Karlsson C, Klaesson J (2011) Determinants of entry and exit: the significance of demand and supply conditions at the regional level. In: Kourtit K, Nijkamp P, Stough RS (eds) Drivers of innovation, entrepreneurship and regional dynamics. Springer, Berlin, pp 121–141

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gries T, Naudé W (2008) Entrepreneurship and regional economic growth: towards a general theory of start-ups. United nations University UNU-WIDER, Helsinki, Research Paper no. 2008/70

  • Hamilton BH (2000) Does entrepreneurship pay? An empirical analysis of the returns to self-employment. J Polit Econ 108(3): 604–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammarstedt M (2009) Predicted earnings and the propensity for self-employment: evidence from Sweden. Int J Manpower 30: 349–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson J (2002) Building the rural economy with high-growth entrepreneurs. Econ Rev Federal Reserve Bank Kansas City 87(3): 45–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrekson M, Johansson D (2010) Gazelles as job creators: a survey and interpretation of the evidence. Small Bus Econ 35(2): 227–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoetker G (2007) The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: critical issues. Strat Manage J 28: 331–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson PS (1983) New manufacturing firms in the U.K. regions. Scott J Polit Econ 30(1): 75–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson C, Andersson M (2009) Entrepreneurship policies: principles, problems and opportunities. In: Leitão J, Beptista R (eds) Public policies for fostering entrepreneurship: a European perspective. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 111–131

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Keeble D (1993) Regional patterns of small firm development in the business services: evidence from the United Kingdom. Environ Plan A 25: 677–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeble D, Walker S (1994) New firms, small firms and dead firms: spatial patterns and determinants in the United Kingdom. Reg Stud 28: 411–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafuente E, Vaillant Y, Rialp J (2007) Regional differences in the influence of role models: comparing the entrepreneurial process of rural catalonia. Reg Stud 41(6): 779–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht J, Beens E (2005) Poverty among businesspeople in a rich country: a misunderstood and distinct reality. J Develop Entrepreneurship 10(3): 205–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landier A (2002) Entrepreneurship and the stigma of failure. Working paper. Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago

  • Lee SY, Florida R, Acs ZJ (2004) Creativity and entrepreneurship: a regional analysis of new firm formation. Reg Stud 38(8): 879–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malecki E (1994) Entrepreneurship in regional and local development. Int Reg Sci Rev 16(1–2): 119–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Mochrie R, Galloway L, Donnely E (2006) Attitudes to growth and experience of growth among Scottish SMEs. Int J Entrepreneurship Behav Res 12(1): 7–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North D, Smallbone D (2000) Innovative activity in SMEs and rural economic development: some evidence from England. Eur Plan Stud 8: 87–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyström K (2006) Entry and exit in Swedish industrial sectors. Jönköping International Business School, JIBS Dissertation Series No 032, Jönköping

  • Perry CS (1984) Economic activity and social indicators: a rural-urban discon-tinuum?. Am J Econ Sociol 43: 61–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrova K (2005) Part-time entrepreneurship and wealth effects. Paper presented at the 50th ICSB Conference, Washington

  • Pratt AC (1995) Book review: small firms in urban and rural locations. J Curran and D Storey (eds). J Rural Stud 11(1): 101–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyysiäinen J, Anderson A, McElwee G, Vesala K (2006) Developing the entrepreneurial skills of farmers: some myths explored. Int J Entrepreneurship Behav Res 12(1): 21–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raposo MLB, Matos Ferreira JJ, Finisterrado Paco AM, Gouveia Rodrigues RJA (2008) Propensity to firm creation: empirical research using structural equations. Int Entrepreneurship Manage J 4(4): 485–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds P, Camp M, Bygrave WD, Autio E, Hay M (2002) Global entrepreneurship monitor 2001. Babson College, Babson

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds P, Bygrave WD, Autio E, Cox LW, Hay M (2003) Global entrepreneurship monitor 2003. Babson College, Babson

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds P, Storey DJ, Westhead P (1994) Cross national comparison of the variation in new firm formation rates. Reg Stud 28: 443–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ring JK, Peredo AM, Chrisman JJ (2009) Business networks and Economic development in Rural Communities in the United States. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1197922

  • Rosenfeld SA (2001) Networks and clusters: The Yin and Yang of rural development. Conference Proceedings: Exploring policy options for a New Rural America, pp 103–120. http://rtsinc.org/publications/pdf/KCFed.pdf

  • Schumpeter JA (1934) The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane S (2003) A general theory of entrepreneurship: the individual-opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen JB (2007) Bureaucracy and entrepreneurship: workplace effects on entrepreneurial entry. Administrat Sci Q 52(3): 387–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Stathopoulou S, Psaltopoulos D, Skuras D (2004) Rural entrepreneurship in Europe: a research framework and agenda. Int J Entrepreneurial Behav Res 10(6): 404–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey DJ, Johnson S (1987) Regional variations in entrepreneurship in the U.K. Scott J Polit Econ 34(2): 161–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamásy C (2006) Determinants of regional entrepreneurship dynamics in contemporary Germany: a conceptual and empirical analysis. Reg Stud 40(4): 365–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton PA (1999) The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annu Rev Sociol 25: 19–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vejsiu A (2011) Incentives to self-employment decision in Sweden. Int Rev Appl Econ 25(4): 379–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1904/1905) Die protestantische Ethik und der ”Geist” des Kapitalismus, Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 20:1–54 and 21:1–110. English translation: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, translated by Talcott Parsons, 1931/2001, Routledge Classics, London

  • Westlund H, Bolton RE (2003) Local social capital and entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 21: 77–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swedish Agency for Growth Policy Analysis, Östersund, Sweden

    Kent Eliasson

  2. Department of Economics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Kent Eliasson

  3. Division of Urban and Regional Studies, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

    Hans Westlund

  4. JIBS (Jönköping International Business School), Jönköping, Sweden

    Hans Westlund

  5. IRSA (Institute for Developmental and Strategic Analyses), Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Hans Westlund

Authors
  1. Kent Eliasson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hans Westlund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kent Eliasson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eliasson, K., Westlund, H. Attributes influencing self-employment propensity in urban and rural Sweden. Ann Reg Sci 50, 479–514 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-012-0501-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-012-0501-9

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation