Ager. Revista de Estudios sobre Despoblación y Desarrollo Rural ISSN: 1578-7168 [email protected] Centro de Estudios sobre la Despoblación y Desarrollo de Áreas Rurales España Kjeldsen, Chris; Haase Svensen, Gunnar Lind Introduction: Networking private entrepreneurs in rural areas - social capital or waste of time? Ager. Revista de Estudios sobre Despoblación y Desarrollo Rural, núm. 11, octubre, 2011, pp. 7-28 Centro de Estudios sobre la Despoblación y Desarrollo de Áreas Rurales Zaragoza, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=29620045001 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Introduction: Networking private entrepreneurs in rural areas — social capital or waste of time? Chris Kjeldsen and Gunnar Lind Haase Svensen University of Aarhus, Denmark and University of Southern Denmark ager • no 11 • octubre 2011 Revista de Estudios sobre Despoblación y Desarrollo Rural Journal of Depopulation and Rural Development Studies Páginas: 7-28 Networking private entrepreneurs in rural areas – social capital or waste of time? Abstract: In debates on rural development, attention has often been directed toward the role of the agricultural sector and its relations to the state, subsidy programs and voluntary associations. However, we should not forget the importance of innovative private entrepreneurs outside agriculture. These people tend to invest a lot of time and energy in building local and supra-local social capital. Using case studies from rural Denmark, this paper critically explores under which circumstances private entrepreneurs’ social networks can be transformed into veritable social capital. Keywords: Private entrepreneurs, social capital, embeddedness, rural innovation, rural Denmark Creación de redes de empresarios privados en áreas rurales: ¿capital social o pérdida de tiempo? Resumen: En los debates sobre desarrollo rural, la atención se ha dirigido generalmente hacia el papel desempeñado por el sector agrario y sus relaciones con el estado, las subvenciones y las organizacio- nes sin ánimo de lucro. No obstante, no deberíamos olvidar la importancia de los empresarios e innovado- res privados al margen de la agricultura. Estas personas tienden a invertir mucho tiempo y energías generando capital social local y supralocal. A partir de estudios de caso de la Dinamarca rural, este artículo examina críticamente bajo que circunstancias bajo las redes sociales de los emprendedores privados pueden ser transformadas en auténtico capital social. Palabras clave: Emprendedores privados, capital social, embeddedness, innovación rural, Dinamarca rural Recibido: 8 de febrero de 2010 Devuelto para revisión: 6 de abril de 2010 Aceptado: 5 de julio de 2010 Chris Kjeldsen. Department of Agroecology, University of Aarhus (Denmark). [email protected] Gunnar Lind Haase Svendsen. Danish Center for Rural Research, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg (Denmark). [email protected] that canbeusedforvariousformsofcollectiveaction, jobcr networks ofcollectivegoodsin theformoflocalandregional also entailsprovision Svendsenetal.2010). 2010; socialcapital(e.g.Young as supra-local richonlocalaswell whoexcelatnetworking,andare innovative entrepreneurs tur for well astocivilsociety initiativesasLEADER, thestate,supra-state ofagriculture, been paidtotherole 1• The issuecontainsaselectionofpeer-r get theimportantr al, enterpriseslocated‘outther Agriculture andFisheries. Agriculture financedbytheDanishMinistryofFood, Areas, InnovativeEnterprisesinRural project participation andforpapercontributions thanktheparticipants fortheiractive Finland,August 2009.We inVaasa, Sociology congress InnovationandDevelopment” Rural for Understanding SocietyofRural attheEuropean Conceptual Frameworks Enterprises-DevelopingIntegrative shop on“EmbeddednessofRural Apart from the private goods obtained (the entrepreneurs earningmoney),this theprivategoodsobtained(the entrepreneurs Apart from In the debates on rural development and rural innovation,alotofattentionhas developmentandrural In thedebatesonrural Including thedownsideofsocialcapital , her ole ofthemanyindividual,non-agricultur e notleastvoluntaryassociations e’ eviewed paper . Thesear . This article is based on research from theresearch from . Thisarticleisbasedonresearch e oftenchar s , which were originally presented atawork- originallypresented , whichwere acterized byener . 1 eation, andthefostering However al aswellagricul- , weshouldnot getic and 9 Chris Kjeldsen y Gunnar Lind Haase Svensen 10 Networking private entrepreneurs in rural areas-social capital or waste of time? and socialcapital” and builtontheirexistingassets,suchaslocation,natur thathaveseizedopportunities regions manyrural are there However, vicious circle. a creating andbusinessdevelopment,thereby tive publicservices,infrastructure thecriticalmassneededforeffec- thatthenreduce labourproductivity lower average of trust and cooperative norms. Such goods are beneficialforthe Suchgoodsare norms. of trustandcooperative policies during the last two decades. The firm belief that rural networking Thefirmbeliefthatrural policies duringthelasttwodecades. studiesandrural viewhasbeendominatingwithinrural been applied,the‘celebratory’ studies fr case questionthrough theoverall whichaddress thatfollow, inthepapers narrowed ofcourse, development?Thescopeis, contributetorural do privateentrepreneurs question:How thisspecialissueseekstoanswertheoverall Therefore, life conditions. developmentand haveimportantimpactsonrural effects ofprivateentrepreneurship (Coleman1990).Hence,boththeintendedandunintended private goodprovision somethingthatcanbeseenasanunintendedside-effectofentrepreneurial munity, publication many scientific,gr popsupin areas advantageofrural always goodandshouldbeseenasacomparative r rural types.Ontheaggregate, region ofrural ning totakeintoaccountthediversity warned that“ power andpoliticsmightbeoverlooked.Criticalsocial capitalcommentator their str all dependingon thanprosper, well wastetheirtimeandmoneyonnetworkingrather mayjustas level,entrepreneurs 2005:13).Atthe micro local communities(Somers ofpublicinvestmentsin including withdrawal pave thewayforpoliticallaissez-faire, ical workisur tack,empir- anysanguinetheoriesofsocialcapital continueontheirpresent Before ofhistoryandsociety. tantamount toeliminatingonehalfofthehuman record that excludingtheissuesofpowerandpoliticsfr ‘dark’ sideofsocialcapital (Somer egions facepr As isthecaseinmanyotherfieldswhichconceptofsocialcapitalhas Unfortunately, the blessings of social capital are often overestimated. This may oftenoverestimated. theblessingsofsocialcapitalare Unfortunately, ategies andspecificlocalcontexts om manypartsoftheworld. The New Rural Paradigm The NewRural What other gently necessarytodetermine theconditionslending oblems ofdeclinewithout-migr ass r (OECD 2006:3). oot andpolicydocuments s havecalledthe‘darksideofsocialcapital’…makesit clear s 2005:13) one reads in the foreword: intheforeword: one reads . Furthermore, importantissuesregarding . Furthermore, .” ation, ageing,alowerskillbaseand . Forexample,intheinfluentialOECD om theconceptofsocialcapitalis al and cultural amenities, al andcultural “Rural policyisbegin- “Rural themselves tothis whole local com- per se s have is changes intheirlocation, theappr whether thesemovementsconsistof intheeconomy, ments ofgoodsandpersons meant“thepatterns madebythemove- Polanyi 1977).Bythis, (Polanyi integration” actuallyabandonedtheconceptandinsteadtalkedabout“formsof 1985). Polanyi (Granovetter Granovetter much furtherdevelopedbyeconomicsociologistMarc 2003:28)but (Swedberg TheconceptwasoriginallycoinedbyPolanyi social relations. seeks toanalyseeconomicactionasbeingembedded withinacomplexnetworkof neur embeddedness articles inthisissue(Section4). the weshortlyintroduce embeddedness(Section3).Finally, of localandsupra-local ing canbeconceivedasanembeddedformofsocialinter network- Inotherwords, contingentonlocalizedcontexts. ofsocialrelations rations ble social networking(verita- examplesofproductive Denmark, whichmayserveasillustrative rural ofembeddedness(Section2).Thenweusetwocasesfrom within theframework Thiswewilldo andLandolt1996:21). viewofsocialcapital”(Portes sided “celebratory wewillquestiontheone- balance the‘sunny’and‘dark’sideofsocialcapital.Overall, willthustryto ofnetworking.We the impactofspecificcontextsandconfigurations on includessomeinitialreflections entrepreneurs ductive) networkingamongrural listed three forms of embeddedness present in every historical period in various mix ineveryhistoricalperiodvarious forms ofembeddednesspresent listed three ship. The notionofembeddedness(liter Our startingpointisthatnetworkingcanbeconceivedasparticularconfigu- Embeddedness (orevencounter-pro- andlessprofitable Hence, ourdiscussiononprofitable Polanyi’s threeformsof integration Polanyi’s Structure capital have an influence on the effects and outcomes of rural entrepre- have aninfluenceontheeffectsandoutcomesofrural ) and non-productive networking (waste of time), related todegrees networking(wasteoftime),related ) andnon-productive opriation, orinboth”(P ally, to be integrated withinsomething else) tobeintegrated ally, action. Thus olanyi 1977:36).Hethen , the forms of 11 Chris Kjeldsen y Gunnar Lind Haase Svensen 12 Networking private entrepreneurs in rural