The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

[Link]

Journal of
Agri-entrepreneurship in developing Agribusiness in
Developing and
countries – a systematic review Emerging
Economies
of smallholders’ constraints
Ghulam Raza and Kratzer Jan
Department of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management,
Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany, and Received 6 June 2024
Revised 13 September 2024
Syed Zaheer Abbas Kazmi Accepted 16 October 2024

Department of Management Sciences, National University of Modern Languages,

Islamabad, Pakistan

Abstract
Purpose – Agri-entrepreneurship is considered a promising strategy to address poverty, particularly in
developing countries. However, embarking on an agri-entrepreneurial venture poses significant challenges. The
existing literature on agri-entrepreneurship in developing countries, particularly focusing on smallholders’
constraints, is often scattered and fragmented, focusing mainly on individual barriers rather than providing a
comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted constraints. Therefore, this study aims to fill the gap by
conducting a systematic review to identify, categorize, and prioritize the smallholders’ constraints.
Design/methodology/approach – By systematically reviewing literature retrieved from Scopus and Web of
Science, published between 2013 and 2023, and following the PRISMA guidelines, this study identifies agri-
entrepreneurial constraints through content analysis and categorizes and prioritizes them using thematic
analysis.
Findings – This study revealed a range of constraints which are categorized into thematic areas including
market-related challenges, financial constraints, limitations in human capital, institutional barriers, socio-
cultural factors, technological shortcomings, and infrastructural challenges. Moreover, the study examines the
role of social networks and their impacts on the livelihoods of smallholders in developing countries.
Research limitations/implications – The study’s scope is limited to constraints for agri-entrepreneurship,
particularly for smallholders in developing countries. The review considers English articles published between
2013 and 2023, and ABS 3 and above ranked journal articles.
Originality/value – The study systematically identifies, categorizes, and prioritizes the significant constraints
to agri-entrepreneurship in developing countries by conducting a systematic review and identifying research
gaps and future directions.
Keywords Agri-entrepreneurship, Smallholders’ constraints, Developing countries, Systematic review
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
Researchers and policymakers are increasingly attracted by the potential of entrepreneurship
as a strategic approach to address major global issues including unemployment, poverty, and
food insecurity (Arafat et al., 2020; Magagula and Tsvakirai, 2020; Yusoff et al., 2019),
Researchers emphasize contextualizing entrepreneurship, particularly focusing on the
agriculture sector (Dias et al., 2019a, b; Fitz-Koch et al., 2018). This sector has significant
potential to influence the SDGs, particularly in addressing poverty and hunger (Gil et al., 2019;
Victor Bekun and Akadiri, 2019).
Currently, approximately 700 million people globally live in extreme poverty, who earn
below $2.15/day—the internationally recognized extreme poverty threshold—with more than

© Ghulam Raza, Kratzer Jan and Syed Zaheer Abbas Kazmi. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may
Journal of Agribusiness in Developing
reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non- and Emerging Economies
commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of Emerald Publishing Limited
2044-0839
this licence may be seen at [Link] DOI 10.1108/JADEE-06-2024-0185
JADEE half in Africa (World Bank, 2023a). The agriculture sector employs 26.6% of the global
workforce and contributes 4% to the global GDP. In some developing countries it contributes
around 25% to their GDP. It is significant for the major portion of the population in developing
countries who rely on agriculture for their livelihoods (World Bank, 2023b).
The significant majority (around 70–95%) of the agricultural population in developing
countries are small-scale farmers (smallholders), who own less than 2 hectares of land
(Cheong et al., 2013; Kwa, 2001). Nearly, there are 600 million smallholders constitute 70% of
all farms globally (FAO, 2023). Smallholders play a vital role in society, but they are often
disregarded and suffer a variety of challenges, such as lack of skills and capacity building,
limited market access, lack of technology, inappropriate infrastructure, financial constraints,
and lack of favorable policies (International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2013; Kahan,
2013; Zhou et al., 2013).
Policymakers are particularly focusing on entrepreneurship to address poverty in rural/
agricultural communities, particularly in developing economies (Dzingirai, 2021; Kimmitt
et al., 2020; Naminse and Zhuang, 2018). The literature uses different terminologies to refer to
the creation of agricultural ventures, such as agricultural entrepreneurship, agri-
entrepreneurship, agripreneurship, agropreneurship, and farm entrepreneurship (Dias et al.,
2019a; Pindado and S�anchez, 2017; Yusoff et al., 2016). There has been much discussion
among scholars on the definition of agri-entrepreneurship (Bairwa et al., 2014; Lans et al.,
2020; McElwee, 2006, 2008; Pindado and S�anchez, 2017; Vik and McElwee, 2011). Otache
(2017) defines agri-entrepreneurship as the capability and willingness of a person to
opportunity recognition, resource mobilization, and launch an agricultural enterprise. Pindado
and S�anchez (2017) define it as the decision made by an individual to create an agricultural
venture. It is defined as an attempt to start an innovative agribusiness (Yusoff et al., 2016).
Whereas Bairwa et al. (2014) describe it as “the profitable marriage of agriculture and
entrepreneurship”. Moreover, agricultural entrepreneurship is considered an integration of
entrepreneurial activities and agricultural practices, turning farming into enterprise and
farmers into entrepreneurs (Fitz-Koch et al., 2018; McElwee, 2006).
The agriculture sector presents significant challenges, particularly for smallholders, to start
an entrepreneurial venture (Dias et al., 2019a; FAO, 2011), and the barriers are more severe in
rural settings. According to Korsgaard et al. (2015) the rural setting creates unique challenges
for entrepreneurs such as constrained access to financial and human capital, small market size,
and inappropriate communication channels. A range of entrepreneurial constraints in the
agriculture sector in developing countries are documented in the literature. For example, lack
of financial resources is one of the important barriers agri-entrepreneurs face in developing
countries (Thanh and Duong, 2022). Esiobu and Ibe (2015) highlighted several obstacles to
agri-entrepreneurs such as lack of access to information, knowledge, finance, and distance
from the market. Additionally, the high costs of agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizers, and
equipment) create obstacles for entrepreneurs to start and expand their agricultural ventures
(Ollinaho and Kr€oger, 2021). Moreover, inappropriate physical infrastructure such as road
networks, storage, and processing facilities, as well as poor marketing practices constrain agri-
entrepreneurs from market access (Chhabra et al., 2020). Cheng and Adejumo (2021)
identified the lack of training and capacity building as an important barrier for agri-
entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the lack of social capital such as social networks can make it
difficult for entrepreneurs to acquire necessary information, resources, and market access,
whereas, sociocultural norms may discourage them from initiating entrepreneurial ventures
(Tomlinson et al., 2018). The poor accessibility in rural areas creates significant barriers which
complicate the agricultural value chain, and increase production and distribution costs
(Pearson et al., 2011). Other entrepreneurial constraints in rural contexts include small local
markets, fragmented populations, distant markets, difficult terrain, and inappropriate
infrastructure (Levy and Lubell, 2018; Neubauer et al., 2022; Pindado and S�anchez, 2017;
Tran and Goto, 2019; Yessoufou et al., 2018). Furthermore, the lack of skilled human
resources in rural areas is reported as a barrier to entrepreneurship (Rodr�ıguez-Guti�errez et al.,
2015). A comprehensive and integrated approach is required to address these challenges, Journal of
promote agri-entrepreneurship, and foster sustainable development. Agribusiness in
Recent systematic reviews focusing on agricultural entrepreneurship have explored diverse Developing and
topics (refer to Table 1). These include antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurship, Emerging
entrepreneurship identity, family and institutions (Fitz-Koch et al., 2018), entrepreneurial Economies
skills, behavior, approaches, community, and entrepreneurial activity (Dias et al., 2019a).
Other areas of investigation encompass entrepreneurial skills, market, and resources (Dias
et al., 2019b), and liberalization and sustainability (Condor, 2020) on a global scale.
The existing systematic reviews on agricultural entrepreneurship had diverse focuses and
contexts. However, a noticeable gap exists in systematically identifying, categorizing, and
prioritizing the challenges and barriers to agri-entrepreneurship, particularly smallholders, as
they constitute a major portion of the agricultural communities in the developing world.
Moreover, the existing literature on agri-entrepreneurship in developing countries, particularly
focusing on smallholders’ constraints is often scattered and fragmented, majorly focusing on
individual barriers rather than providing a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted
constraints to agri-entrepreneurship. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a systematic
literature review to identify, categorize, and prioritize the constraints to agri-entrepreneurship,
particularly for smallholders in developing countries.
Consequently, this review outlines the objectives:
(1) To analyze existing publications (from 2013 to 2023) on barriers to agri-
entrepreneurship in developing countries.
(2) To identify, categorize, and prioritize significant constraints to agri-entrepreneurship,
particularly for smallholders in developing countries.

Table 1. Systematic reviews on agricultural entrepreneurship

Author Research title Interval Focus of review Context

Fitz-Koch “Entrepreneurship in the 1980– • Antecedents and Global

et al. Agricultural Sector: A 2015 outcomes of
(2018) Literature Review and Future entrepreneurship
Research Opportunities” • Entrepreneurial identity,
family entrepreneurship,
and institutions
Dias et al. “What’s new in the research on 2013– • Entrepreneurial Skills Global
(2019a) agricultural entrepreneurship?” 2017 and Behavior
• Entrepreneurial
Approaches, Community
and Entrepreneurial
Activity
Dias et al. “Agricultural Until • Entrepreneurial Skills Global
(2019b) entrepreneurship: Going back 2012, VS • Market and Resources (majorly focus
to the basics” 2013– on Europe)
2017
Condor “Entrepreneurship in 1969– • Liberalization and Global
(2020) agriculture: a literature review” 2017 sustainability
This “Agri-Entrepreneurship in 2013– • Entrepreneurial Developing
review Developing Countries – A 2023 constraints for Countries
Systematic Review of smallholders
Smallholders’ Constraints” • Roles and impacts of
social networks, i.e.
cooperatives
Source(s): Authors’ own work
JADEE (3) To investigate the roles of social networks i.e. agricultural cooperatives in addressing
smallholders’ challenges and their impacts on their livelihoods in developing
countries.
(4) To identify research gaps and suggest future directions.
This study addresses the following research questions:
(1) What are the major constraints for agri-entrepreneurship, particularly for smallholders
in developing countries?
(2) What are the roles of social networks in addressing those challenges and their
implications on smallholders’ livelihoods in developing countries?
The subsequent sections of this paper follow the following structure: it commences with a
description of the methodology, which includes identification, screening, and inclusion of
relevant studies. The results section delves into both descriptive and thematic analysis. The
concluding segment encapsulates the conclusion, implications, limitations, and prospects for
future studies.

2. Methodology
This study utilizes a systematic literature review (SLR) approach (Tranfield et al., 2003) to
explore relevant literature on agri-entrepreneurship (Dias et al., 2019a), particularly
smallholders’ constraints in developing countries. The SLR helps examine existing
literature by identifying, selecting, assessing, and analyzing retrieved articles (Rauniyar
et al., 2021). It is recognized as an appropriate methodology in the field of entrepreneurship
(Henry et al., 2016). This approach was adopted by various scholars in investigating
entrepreneurship in the agriculture sector (Dias et al., 2019a, b; Fitz-Koch et al., 2018). This
SLR followed the Proffered Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis
(PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and standards (Page et al., 2021).
This review follows the five-phase approach of Denyer and Tranfield (2009), also followed
by Mehmood et al. (2021). This approach to conducting the systematic review is illustrated in
the following Figure 1.
Initially, the objectives of the study were outlined, which include identifying and analyzing
existing publications (2013–2023) on agri-entrepreneurship in developing countries, and
identifying, categorizing, prioritizing, and analyzing significant constraints to agri-
entrepreneurship, particularly for smallholders.
The second step of the process was to find relevant search terms linked to agricultural
entrepreneurship in developing countries. To explore the existing literature, we conducted a
systematic search following multiple brainstorming sessions with experts and following the
systematic reviews conducted by Dias et al. (2019a), and Fitz-Koch et al. (2018) on
agricultural entrepreneurship.
In the third phase, the process involved choosing the most pertinent online libraries for
conducting article searches, along with specifying the publication period. To maintain the
study’s quality and reliability, we opted for Scopus and Web of Science databases.
In the fourth phase of this review, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established.
A meticulous filtering procedure was implemented to selectively choose the articles. Peer-
reviewed articles, English language, ABS 3, 4 and 4* journal articles, relevant to agri-
entrepreneurship and a particular focus on developing countries were selected.
The final stage of the review encompasses synthesizing the data, crafting the review, and
presenting the results and findings. Both descriptive analysis and content analysis were
conducted. The primary focus of the descriptive analysis was to categorize articles based on
their publication year, journals, methodologies, and the countries and continents under study.
Meanwhile, thematic analysis systematically identified various themes, followed by the
 Journal of
Agribusiness in
Developing and
Emerging
Economies

Figure 1. The five-phase approach of conducting the systematic review

coding process, the approach followed by Brenya et al. (2023), Mehmood et al. (2021), and
Yu et al. (2023). The thematic analysis approach, pioneered by Braun and Clarke (2006), has
been employed to facilitate the recognition of important themes and patterns within our data
and to address pertinent questions (Gulsia and Yadav, 2023). The content analysis enables a
thorough investigation of the information found in the literature already in existence (Elo and
Kyng€as, 2008). As guided by the PRISMA guideline, the process of identification, screening,
and selection of studies related to agri-entrepreneurship in developing countries, is illustrated
in the following Figure 2, and their explanations of these three steps are given below.
Step1: Identification and Selection of Records
Firstly, the search strategy and protocol were formulated, which were already discussed above.
The criterion sampling was used to ensure the inclusion of relevant studies related to agri-
entrepreneurship. This approach relies on keyword search and has already been followed by
other researchers to conduct systematic reviews on agricultural entrepreneurship (Dias et al.,
2019a, b; Fitz-Koch et al., 2018). Awide range of search terms were utilized to search existing
studies on agri-entrepreneurship in developing countries. The main keywords such as “agri*”
OR “farm*” AND “entrepreneur*” were derived from the SLRs of Dias et al. (2019a) and Fitz-
Koch et al. (2018). The complete set of keywords includes (Agri*, farm*) AND
(Entrepreneur*, Enterpris*, Startup, Start-up, venture, Business, Firm, Self-employ*, SME,
Small and Medium*, Cooperative, Co-operative) AND (Developing Countries, Developing
World and Emerging Economies). Two reputable databases such as Scopus and Web of
Science were selected to retrieve relevant records. These databases are recognized for their
comprehensive collection of peer-reviewed literature on agribusiness (Singh et al., 2021).
JADEE

Figure 2. PRISMA flow chart for systematic review

These databases were commonly used by scholars as a resource in number of reviews review
studies and bibliographic analyses, particularly related to agricultural entrepreneurship (Baier-
Fuentes et al., 2019; Dias et al., 2019a; Fitz-Koch et al., 2018). The SLR was carried out in
August 2023, and the final search was performed on December 16, 2023, to update the list. The
keywords were searched by selecting title, abstract, and keyword. Boolean operators “OR”
and “AND” were used to find a substantial number of relevant articles. 4,379 articles were
found based on the initial search, later applying inclusion criteria, i.e. only English-language
journal articles, time frame from 2013 to 2023, reduced the search results to 2,075 articles.
Step2: Screening of Records
After an initial screening of records in the databases, the results were exported to the Zotero
software (a reference management tool), where 581 duplicate entries were detected and
removed. To ensure quality assessment the remaining 1,494 records were exported to MS
Excel and applied ABS ranking. Those articles published in ABS 3, 4, and 4* ranked journals
were selected, and 1,347 records were removed due to the lower quality of publications.
Further, 9 articles were removed due to non-full text availability. In the next step, 138 articles
were selected as eligible for review. These articles were analyzed through reading titles,
abstracts, keywords, and full articles. 83 articles were removed due to lack of relevancy to the
topic and research questions, as those articles were not related to agricultural entrepreneurship,
and a further two articles were also removed as they were not related to developing countries.
Finally, 53 articles were selected for the review.
Step3: Inclusion of studies
After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, finally, 53 articles were selected for final
review. These articles were thoroughly examined to seek answers to the research questions.
Descriptive and content analyses were conducted. The content analysis facilitated to identify
various barriers to agri-entrepreneurship. Initially, first-order codes were generated after Journal of
examining the studies and second-order themes were created from those codes. The thematic Agribusiness in
analysis helped create different themes from the data. Developing and
Emerging
Economies
3. Data analysis and results
3.1 Descriptive analysis
3.1.1 Yearly distribution of publications. To analyze the development of research in agri-
entrepreneurship within the context of developing countries and gain insights into prevailing
trends, a total of 51 articles were selected for examination. The selected publications were
categorized by their year of publication, as depicted in Figure 3. While 2013 marked the initial
year of publication, there was a substantial surge in academic works between 2017 and 2020,
surpassing the figures from the early years. This trend underscores a growing interest in agri-
entrepreneurship research particularly in African countries.
3.1.2 Publications by geographic regions. Figure 4 shows the geographical distribution of
articles across different countries. The research’s country was determined based on the
targeted study countries. It shows that there are notable contributions from various countries,
especially from Ethiopia, Uganda, China, and India. The two African countries Ethiopia and
Uganda both have 12 articles to their name, with two Asian countries including China and
India following closely with 4 articles each. Vietnam has 3 and Peru, Ghana, Kenya, and Nepal
account for 2 articles each. Other countries, including Zambia, Rwanda, Senegal, Nicaragua,
Tanzania, Nigeria, Cote d’Ivoire, Chad, Benin, and Malawi have a contribution of 1
article each.
Figure 5 shows the distribution of publications on a continental scale. The data reveals that
Africa has significant contribution with 25 articles (47% of the selected articles for review),
while less work has been conducted in Asia, South and North America. Asia has a contribution
of 13 articles (24% of the works), those articles with a general focus on developing countries,
without targeting a specific country, have 23% share with 12 articles, whereas, South America
and North America, have made smaller contributions, representing 4%, and 2% of the overall
works, respectively, in comparison to other continents.
3.1.3 Journal-wise distribution of articles. Table 2 presents the allocation of publications
among different scientific journals. The data reveals that Food Policy, a journal ranked ABS 3,
has published the highest quantity of articles, closely followed by World Development and
Journal of Rural Studies, both of which are also ABS 3-ranked journals. A total of 19 journals
have featured a variety of articles related to agri-entrepreneurship in developing economies,
underscoring the diversity of literature within the field.

7 7

5 5 5
4 4
3 3

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Source(s): Authors’ own work
Figure 3. Yearly distribution of articles
JADEE 12

7
5
4 4
3
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Source(s): Authors’ own work

Figure 4. Geographic distribution of articles

Figure 5. Distribution of publications by continents

3.1.4 Distribution of publications by research methods. As depicted in Figure 6, the

distribution of publications selected for review reveals that 32 articles out of 53 (60%) are
quantitative studies, while 9 articles (17%) are qualitative, and the remaining 8 articles (15%)
have employed a mixed-method approach and 2 articles (3%) studies are review articles and
conceptual respectively.

3.2 Thematic analysis

In our literature analysis, we employed an inductive qualitative content analysis methodology
to uncover challenges and obstacles associated with agri-entrepreneurship. The thematic
analysis approach was used to systematically find various themes in the agri-entrepreneurship
literature, and this approach, as employed by Mehmood et al., (2021), Brenya et al. (2023), and
Yu et al. (2023), was followed by the coding process. The thematic analysis method, first
introduced by Braun and Clarke (2006), was utilized to facilitate the recognition of significant
themes and patterns in our dataset and to address significant questions, as described by Gulsia
and Yadav (2023).
Table 2. Journal-wise distribution of publications Journal of
Agribusiness in
Journals No of articles Developing and
Emerging
Food Policy 13
Journal of Rural Studies 10
Economies
World Development 8
Production and Operations Management 2
Journal of Agricultural Economics 2
World Bank Economic Review 2
Journal of Development Studies 2
Journal of Business Research 2
Journal of Development Economics 2
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1
International Journal of Production Research 1
Annals of Operations Research 1
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 1
Quarterly Journal of Economics 1
International Journal of Production Economics 1
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 1
Journal of Small Business Management 1
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1
Management Science 1
Total 53
Source(s): Authors’ own work

32

9 8

2 2

Quantitative Qualitative Mix Method Review conceptual

Source(s): Authors’ own work
Figure 6. Distribution of publications by research methods

The challenges and barriers are categorized into thematic groupings according to their
similarities and significance. The thematic categories of challenges to agri-entrepreneurship
include market-related challenges, financial constraints, limitations in human capital,
technological shortcomings, institutional barriers, infrastructure issues, and socio-cultural
factors. The following Figure 7 shows that 79% of the articles reported market-related
challenges, 74% of the articles revealed financial constraints, 36% highlighted limitations in
human capital, 26% reported institutional barriers, 23% mentioned technological
shortcomings, 23% infrastructural issues, and 11% highlighted socio-cultural factors.
3.2.1 Market-related challenges. In developing countries, agri-entrepreneurs, particularly
smallholders, face numerous market-related constraints that prevent them from fully reaping
JADEE 79%
74%

36%
26%
23% 23%

11%

Market-related Financial Limitations in Institutional Technological Infrastructural Socio-Cultural

Challenges Constraints Human-Capital Barriers Shortcomings Issues Factors
Source(s): Authors’ own work
Figure 7. Classification and ranking of challenges to agri-entrepreneurship in developing countries

the benefits of market participation. A significant challenge for these smallholders is limited
access to markets, as highlighted by various studies (Neubauer et al., 2022; Saridakis et al.,
2021; Serra and Davidson, 2021). This constraint is further exacerbated by information
asymmetry, which smallholders experience concerning real-time market information, such as
market price, market demand, and product quality requirements (Gelo et al., 2020). The lack of
such information can impede their ability to make informed decisions about production and
marketing, such as crop selection, sales timing, and quality assurance (Hu et al., 2019; Liao
and Chen, 2017). In addition, the higher transaction costs and lower bargaining power create
difficulties for smallholders in accessing potential markets (Aflagah et al., 2022; Leng, 2022;
Saridakis et al., 2021; Tefera et al., 2020). The smallholding and lower productivity create
limited economies of scale which lead to reduce bargaining power of smallholders in high-
value markets (Abdul-Rahaman and Abdulai, 2018). Consequently, smallholders have to rely
on middlemen to market their produce (Abebe et al., 2016; Pant, 2016), and those
intermediaries often take a higher share of the market price (Abebe et al., 2016). In addition,
smallholders face market risks and uncertainties arising from perishable goods and seasonal
harvesting (Abebe et al., 2013; Ruml and Qaim, 2020). Maintaining product quality and safety
is also a significant problem for smallholders in developing countries (Hoffmann and Jones,
2021; Tefera et al., 2020). The poor product quality and safety are often associated with
inadequate postharvest practices, low-quality inputs, inefficient quality certification systems,
and ineffective regulations (Hoffmann and Jones, 2021). It will lead to higher risks as they
often face rejection in high-value markets due to poor product quality (Ola and Menapace,
2020). Moreover, stringent quality and safety standards in high-value markets may present
export barriers from developing countries (Fernandes et al., 2019). Furthermore, other barriers
also create obstacles for smallholders in developing countries, particularly in rural areas, such
as fragmented value chains (Tefera et al., 2020), distant markets (Dias et al., 2019a; Hoffmann
and Jones, 2021; Orsi et al., 2017), and inappropriate infrastructure (Abebe et al., 2016)
leading to increased transaction costs and limited market access (Mojo et al., 2017).
3.2.2 Financial constraints. The lack of financial resources is considered one of the major
barriers to entrepreneurs, particularly for smallholders in developing countries. One of the
primary challenges is the lack of access to credit and financial services, which makes it
difficult for smallholders to make investments in agricultural activities such as improving
farming techniques, acquiring quality inputs, and expanding their agricultural and
entrepreneurial enterprises (Sandhu and Hussain, 2020; Zhou et al., 2021; Ksoll et al.,
2016). The high interest rates and stringent collateral requirements for obtaining loans from
financial institutions often create barriers to arranging essential capital for their agricultural Journal of
and entrepreneurial endeavors (Zhou et al., 2021; Sandhu and Hussain, 2020). Additionally, Agribusiness in
low-resource farmers have limited access to institutional financing because they are Developing and
discriminated by commercial banks due to lending risks (Birthal et al., 2017). Moreover, the Emerging
higher transaction costs often limit their market access (Gelo et al., 2020; Leng, 2022), thus Economies
compelling them to sell their produce to middlemen at lower prices (Tefera et al., 2020; Abebe
et al., 2016). Furthermore, the lack of financial resources makes it very challenging for them to
make investments in transportation, storage facilities, access to information, and other crucial
infrastructure (Neubauer et al., 2022).
3.2.3 Limitations in human capital. In developing countries, smallholders face a variety of
human-capital-related challenges. They often lack essential technical and entrepreneurial
knowledge and skills, which significantly affect their agricultural and entrepreneurial
activities (D’Exelle and Verschoor, 2023; Mojo et al., 2017; Sandhu and Hussain, 2020). They
have limited opportunities for training and skill development, particularly in improved
farming techniques, quality control, postharvest management, market linkages, market
research, and export procedures (Gelo et al., 2020; Orsi et al., 2017). The limited capacities
and skills of farmers and their cooperatives often result in poor product quality and safety
(Zhou et al., 2019; Fernandes et al., 2019). Therefore, it is imperative to improve the
entrepreneurial skills of smallholders, as their improved entrepreneurial competencies could
lead to the development of agricultural entrepreneurship and increase employment
opportunities. This can be achieved by improving entrepreneurial education and training
(Sandhu and Hussain, 2020).
3.2.4 Institutional barriers. Smallholders face several institutional constraints in
developing countries, particularly inadequate government assistance and the incapacity of
government institutions to provide better services (Luo et al., 2017; Paul et al., 2016;
Yessoufou et al., 2018). In addition, the absence of extension services and lack of cooperation
with farmers and cooperatives impede their access to vital information, knowledge, and
technology (Abdul-Rahaman and Abdulai, 2018; Birthal et al., 2017; Luo et al., 2017).
Moreover, the absence of effective regulatory authorities, as well as effective quality control
systems results in poor product quality and safety, leading to market failure (Hoffmann and
Jones, 2021; Mancini, 2013). The stringent quality and safety standards in formal channels
constrain smallholder from accessing high-value markets, thus they often sell their produce
through informal channels, negatively impacting their productivity, profitability, and
operation efficiency (Vandeplas et al., 2013). The fragmented value chains result in
substantial postharvest losses of their agricultural produce (Asian et al., 2019). Additionally,
inadequate risk management mechanisms and lack of professional support often result in low
technology adoption by smallholders in their agricultural operations (Abate et al., 2016;
Doanh et al., 2022). Furthermore, corruption and malpractices in developing countries create
barriers for smallholders in starting their entrepreneurial ventures, and this situation is further
exacerbated by the weak legal framework that fails to protect their interest (Sandhu and
Hussain, 2020).
3.2.5 Socio-cultural factors. Avariety of sociocultural factors constrain the agricultural and
entrepreneurial activities of smallholders in developing countries, particularly gender
discrimination. Women in developing countries face gender-based constraints and cultural
norms that limit their access to crucial resources and opportunities, thus limiting their
participation in productive endeavors (Meemken and Qaim, 2018). They have relatively little
control over key factors of production such as land, labor, and capital and are predominantly
dominated by men (Serra and Davidson, 2021). Women also have challenges related to
education, skill development, access to agricultural and financial services, and sociocultural
norms, that prevent them from adopting agricultural technology, which lowers yield and their
market access (Burchardi et al., 2019; Doanh et al., 2022; Meemken and Qaim, 2018; Sandhu
and Hussain, 2020; Serra and Davidson, 2021). Sandhu and Hussain (2020) underscored that
Indian farmers grapple with land fragmentation issues stemming from population growth and
JADEE the division of land among family members through inheritance. Furthermore, the migration of
educated youth to urban areas and overseas in pursuit of improved opportunities exacerbates
the challenges, leaving less-educated and low-skilled individuals to remain in rural areas, often
engaged in agricultural work (Sandhu and Hussain, 2020).
3.2.6 Technological shortcomings. In developing countries, smallholders face a variety of
challenges due to a lack of access to and low adoption of modern technology, including lower
productivity, inefficiency, poor product quality and safety, and limited market access (Leng,
2022; Ruml and Qaim, 2020; Venot, 2016). Smallholders in developing countries have lower
adoption of modern technology, for example, in their study on Ethiopian smallholders Abate
et al. (2016) revealed that the utilization of modern technology such as improved inputs such as
seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides is very low compared to the recommended standards. The lack
of access to modern technology and poor postharvest practices could lead to substantial
postharvest losses and poor product quality and safety (Hoffmann and Jones, 2021).
Furthermore, Ferro et al. (2015) claimed that farmers in developing countries lack access to
modern technology to meet the quality and safety standards of high-value markets. Sandhu and
Hussain (2020) assert that a lack of financial resources often constrain smallholders from
adopting modern technology, thus limiting their productivity and growth.
3.2.7 Infrastructural issues. In developing countries, smallholders face various
infrastructural issues, hampering their agricultural and entrepreneurial activities. These
challenges include inadequate road networks, poor transportation, shortage of power supplies,
and unreliable telecommunication systems (Doanh et al., 2022; Gelo et al., 2020; Yessoufou
et al., 2018). The infrastructural issues and their impacts are more severe in rural areas because
of their fragmented places, dispersed population, rugged landscapes, and remoteness from
markets (Neubauer et al., 2022; Tran and Goto, 2019; Yessoufou et al., 2018). Moreover, the
lack of processing and storage facilities aggravates the situation of smallholders by resulting in
high postharvest losses, poor product quality and safety, and limited market accessibility
(Abebe et al., 2013; Adhvaryu et al., 2021; Hoffmann and Jones, 2021).
3.2.8 Thematic relationships and regional comparisons. This review revealed a range of
constraints faced by smallholders in developing countries, which are classified into several
themes. Most of them are interconnected, so considering addressing those individual barriers
may not be sufficient, whereas an integrated and comprehensive approach is required to
address smallholders’ constraints.
The financial constraints are linked to several other constraints such as market-related
challenges, infrastructural issues, and technological limitations. For example, lack of financial
resources hinders entrepreneurs from making investments in market research, product
development, and promotional activities. Similarly, it restricts their investments in
transportation, storage, and processing facilities, access to information, and other essential
infrastructure (Neubauer et al., 2022). Moreover, limited access to finance impedes
technology adoption among smallholders, constraining their productivity and growth
(Sandhu and Hussain, 2020). On the contrary, the financial constraints are caused by
institutional challenges, such as bureaucratic hurdles, weak regulatory frameworks, and
corruption. Moreover, high interest rates and stringent collateral requirements for getting
credits from financial institutions create hurdles in securing finance for their agricultural and
entrepreneurial pursuits (Sandhu and Hussain, 2020; Zhou et al., 2021).
One of the most crucial challenges for the smallholders is the market-related challenges,
which are exacerbated by other factors such as geo-infrastructural issues, technological
constraints, institutional hurdles, and human capital limitations. For example, geo-
infrastructural issues such as remoteness from the market, poor physical infrastructure, and
lack of storage and processing facilities lead to increased transaction costs, postharvest losses,
and poor product quality and safety, thus limiting their market access (Gelo et al., 2020;
Hoffmann and Jones, 2021; Leng, 2022). The lack of technological resources such as modern
machinery, improved inputs, and methods results in substandard products leading to market
failure (Zhou et al., 2019). In addition, inappropriate telecommunication and Internet services
hinder smallholders from adopting modern technology to expand their market outreach Journal of
(Doanh et al., 2022). Furthermore, the absence of effective regulatory authorities and quality Agribusiness in
control mechanisms results in poor product quality and safety, restricting their access to high- Developing and
value markets (Hoffmann and Jones, 2021). Emerging
The human capital challenges are linked to technological limitations and institutional Economies
constraints. For example, a lack of appropriate technical and entrepreneurial skills, education,
mentoring, and training limits innovation and the adoption of modern technology in
agricultural operations by smallholders (Doanh et al., 2022). Conversely, the technological
constraints are exacerbated by inadequate infrastructure such as transportation, electricity, and
Internet connectivity.
Institutional constraints can arise from formal institutions such as laws, policies, and
regulations, as well as informal institutions such as cultural norms, traditions, and social
expectations. There are deep connections between formal and informal institutions.
Sociocultural factors such as gender norms, cultural biases, and societal attitudes often limit
access to essential resources and opportunities for specific groups. Institutional policies may
fail to address those sociocultural biases. For example, where gender discrimination is
prevalent, the institutional policies may fail to provide equal opportunities. Additionally,
sociocultural norms may impact how institutions prioritize resource allocation, governance,
and policymaking, potentially discriminating against certain groups.
Regional Comparisons: Comparison of challenges to agri-entrepreneurship across
developing regions – Africa, Asia, and Latin America - reveals some common and region-
specific constraints. Studies conducted in Latin America focused on improving market access
through Geographic Indication (GI) and reported different barriers such as a lack of awareness
and understanding of GI schemes, technical issues related to production methods, and the
absence of a quality control system (Mancini, 2013). Moreover, the export/trade barriers were
highlighted such as stringent quality and sustainability standards restricting smallholders from
accessing high-value markets (Curzi et al., 2020; Schuster and Maertens, 2013).
However, in Asia and Africa, the findings are almost similar. Market-related barriers were
cited highest in Asia following the financial constraints, whereas financial constraints were
reported highest in Africa following the market-related barriers. Other factors include human
capital limitations, institutional factors, infrastructural issues, technological limitations, and
sociocultural constraints are reported in both regions. Studies conducted in Africa have a major
focus on social networks (cooperatives), contract farming, and access to finance. Whereas
Asian studies have a major focus on access to finance (crowdfunding, microcredits),
technology adoption, and value chain upgradation.

3.3 Roles and impacts of social networks

In developing countries, smallholders face numerous challenges in production and marketing
impacting their agricultural and entrepreneurial activities. Social networks such as
cooperatives could be a transformative solution for smallholders’ constraints. Cooperatives
provide essential support to members by granting access to resources such as inputs, credits,
information, training, physical infrastructure, and market access (Abdul-Rahaman and
Abdulai, 2018). Orsi et al. (2017) affirm that the production assistance offered by farmers’
cooperatives, i.e. inputs and storage facilities, correlates positively and significantly with the
improvement in farmers’ performance. Cooperatives act as centers for knowledge exchange,
learning, and collaborative problem-solving, effectively addressing information and skill gaps
among smallholder farmers (Abdul-Rahaman and Abdulai, 2018). Agricultural cooperatives
are increasingly utilized in developing countries to encourage advanced agricultural
technologies. A study conducted by Manda et al. (2020) indicates that cooperative
membership not only increases the adoption of technology but also accelerates the adoption
process. Furthermore, cooperatives contribute to enhancing product quality and safety
standards by implementing various quality assurance measures and practices (Zhou et al.,
JADEE 2019). Networks offering information and support significantly influence farmers’ decisions
to adopt new crops or improved seeds (D’Exelle and Verschoor, 2023). The establishment of
Village Savings and Loans Associations as microfinance institutions can positively impact
farmers’ welfare and economic activities by providing savings and credit opportunities in
peripheral regions of developing countries (Ksoll et al., 2016). However, challenges arise in
the distribution of agricultural inputs through farmer groups, revealing instances of elite
capture where those connected to the group leader receive more benefits compared to non-
connected farmers (Liverpool-Tasie, 2014). Additionally, farmers’ cooperatives serve as a
strategic mechanism for overcoming challenges posed by market imperfections and
institutional constraints. Through collective sales and marketing strategies, cooperatives
create economies of scale, enhancing bargaining power and securing higher prices for farmers’
produce (Abdul-Rahaman and Abdulai, 2018). Cooperatives also streamline market
participation, reducing transaction costs, eliminating middlemen, and making commercial
activities more accessible for smallholder farmers (Abebe et al., 2016; Gelo et al., 2020).
The current body of literature underscores the positive and substantial impacts of social
networks like cooperatives, farmers’ organizations, and associations on farmers’ welfare.
Studies by Mojo et al. (2017) and Asian et al. (2019) highlight the significant positive effects
of cooperative membership on income and assets, with members earning notably more than
non-members. Abdul-Rahaman and Abdulai (2018) unveil that engagement in farmer
associations is linked with enhanced yields and operational effectiveness among smallholders.
Serra and Davidson (2021) measuring the impact of cooperatives on women in Ethiopia, found
that membership significantly positively affects market prices and production quantities.
Furthermore, studies suggested that the negative impacts of stringent food standards on
exports from developing countries can be mitigated through networks, collaborations, and
coordination of farmers, exporters, and governments (Curzi et al., 2020; Fernandes et al.,
2019; Ferro et al., 2015). The existing works of literature affirm that farmers’ cooperatives
support farmers in access to resources and markets, with significant positive impacts on their
livelihoods in developing countries.

4. Conclusion and implications

In developing nations, where agriculture holds a crucial position in the economy, agri-
entrepreneurship emerges as a dynamic force with the potential to propel economic growth,
foster rural development, and address issues especially poverty, and food insecurity. Despite
its transformative potential, the agricultural sector in developing countries grapples with
various challenges that negatively impact the well-being of its communities.
This study sheds light on significant impediments to agri-entrepreneurship, particularly
affecting smallholder farmers in developing countries. These challenges were discerned
through a systematic review and systematically categorized using thematic analysis. The study
identified several constraints and categorized them into market-related challenges, financial
constraints, limitations in human capital, institutional barriers, sociocultural factors,
technological shortcomings, and infrastructural issues.
This review has theoretical and policy implications for various stakeholders by
systematically identifying, classifying, and prioritizing major constraints faced by
smallholders in developing nations. It contributes to the discourse on agricultural
entrepreneurship, particularly focusing on smallholders in developing countries. The study
lays the foundation for the development of targeted measures to address the challenges
confronting smallholder farmers in developing nations. To effectively address these
challenges, policymakers, researchers, and practitioners need to devise and implement
innovative strategies and policies, with a particular focus on fostering agri-entrepreneurship,
promoting inclusive and sustainable agricultural practices, and improving access to resources
and markets, thereby improving the overall livelihoods of agricultural communities in
developing countries.
5. Limitations and future directions Journal of
This review acknowledges various limitations, such as those related to the choice of language, Agribusiness in
date of publication, standards of quality, and the context of the study. The research only Developing and
selected peer-reviewed articles in English, excluding non-English sources as well as books, Emerging
book chapters, and conference proceedings. It is acknowledged that research conducted in Economies
other languages and other sources might have provided insightful information about agri-
entrepreneurship. By excluding non-English sources, the review might have missed key
findings, especially in regions where research is predominantly published in local languages.
This could lead to a geographical and cultural bias in the study’s results. This limitation is
justified by the practical difficulties associated with translating and comprehending non-
English articles. Therefore, future studies could address this limitation by incorporating
multilingual sources and collaborating with experts in other languages to ensure a more
inclusive and comprehensive review.
The selection of the timeline from 2013 to 2023 resulted in the exclusion of studies
conducted before this period. The last decade was selected as a timeframe for this SLR because
in this period many transformative global and regional initiatives targeting poverty,
unemployment, and food insecurity and their alignment with agriculture and rural
development, became prominent in developing countries, particularly the UN Sustainable
Development Goals (2015), the African Union’s Malabo Declaration (2014), and China’s
Targeted Poverty Alleviation Program (Zhou et al., 2023), etc.
The review only considered ABS 3, 4, and 4* ranked journal articles to ensure the quality of
chosen articles, effectively filtering out studies published in lower-ranked journals that may
lack academic rigor. The ABS-ranked journals are recognized for their rigorous peer-reviewed
process, adherence to high academic standards, and significant theoretical and practical
contributions. It strengthens the credibility of the review, and the users can have greater
confidence in its findings due to high-quality sources. Furthermore, the research was limited to
developing countries, which resulted in the removal of studies conducted in developed
countries. A suggestion for future researchers is to employ a systematic review approach,
comparing agri-entrepreneurship in developed and developing countries.
Despite these acknowledged limitations, our findings actively contribute to improving
understanding of agri-entrepreneurship research in developing countries, particularly focusing
on smallholders. The review utilized thematic analysis as a research approach, providing a
holistic picture of constraints to agri-entrepreneurship in developing countries and
highlighting potential future research avenues in agri-entrepreneurship for scholars to explore.
In the current review of agri-entrepreneurship in developing countries, a geographical bias
is evident, with a predominant focus on African countries (47%), while Asian countries (24%)
and others are underrepresented. Moreover, the review reveals a dominance of quantitative
studies (60%). Furthermore, the existing literature focuses mainly on individual barriers.
Therefore, this review calls for in-depth qualitative studies (i.e. ethnographic, case studies) and
mixed-method approaches (i.e. surveys, interviews, observations, and focus group
discussions), particularly focusing on the multifaceted challenges for smallholders in
developing countries. Future research directions on agri-entrepreneurship in developing
countries might include technology interventions and digital solutions, the role of social
capital and networks, climate change and sustainability, and gender aspects.
Future studies could look into how emerging technologies, i.e. precision farming and
mobile solutions can help overcome barriers such as access to information, finance, and the
market. For instance, research carried out in China illustrated the potential benefits of
the technological revolution in slashing transaction costs and information asymmetry,
thereby motivating farmers to engage in commercial activities (Leng, 2022). Future research
could look at individual case studies where technology adoption reduced entrepreneurial
constraints.
Another future direction could be exploring the roles of social networks, i.e. cooperatives in
addressing smallholders’ constraints. Numerous studies highlight the benefits of cooperative
JADEE membership for smallholders (Abdul-Rahaman and Abdulai, 2018; Asian et al., 2019; Serra
and Davidson, 2021). This study emphasizes the need for more research on how social capital
and community-based networks can result in collective solutions to entrepreneurial challenges
in different contexts. Conversely, certain studies highlight challenges within farmers’
organizations, such as elite capture and intra-group dynamics affecting equal access to
resources and opportunities (Liverpool-Tasie, 2014). Strategies to address those challenges
within cooperatives should be investigated.
Promoting sustainable agri-entrepreneurship emerges as another future direction,
considering increasing concerns about environmental degradation, climate change, and
food safety. Future studies could focus on developing resilient agricultural models, and
entrepreneurial strategies that address environmental sustainability could provide crucial
guidance for policy and practice. Future studies also need to focus on gender aspects in agri-
entrepreneurship in developing countries, particularly focusing on gender-specific barriers
and strategies to promote inclusive agri-entrepreneurship.

References
Abate, G., Rashid, S., Borzaga, C. and Getnet, K. (2016), “Rural finance and agricultural technology
adoption in Ethiopia: does the institutional design of lending organizations matter?”, World
Development, Vol. 84, pp. 235-253, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2016.03.003.
Abdul-Rahaman, A. and Abdulai, A. (2018), “Do farmer groups impact on farm yield and efficiency of
smallholder farmers? Evidence from rice farmers in northern Ghana”, Food Policy, Vol. 81,
pp. 95-105, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2018.10.007.
Abebe, G., Bijman, J., Kemp, R., Omta, O. and Tsegaye, A. (2013), “Contract farming configuration:
smallholders’ preferences for contract design attributes”, Food Policy, Vol. 40, pp. 14-24, doi:
10.1016/[Link].2013.01.002.
Abebe, G., Bijman, J. and Royer, A. (2016), “Are middlemen facilitators or barriers to improve
smallholders’ welfare in rural economies? Empirical evidence from Ethiopia”, Journal of Rural
Studies, Vol. 43, pp. 203-213, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.12.004.
Adhvaryu, A., Kala, N. and Nyshadham, A. (2021), “Booms, busts, and household enterprise: evidence
from coffee farmers in Tanzania”, The World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 586-603, doi: 10.1093/wber/lhz044.
Aflagah, K., Bernard, T. and Viceisza, A. (2022), “Cheap talk and coordination in the lab and in the
field: collective commercialization in Senegal”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 154,
102751, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2021.102751.
African Union (2014), Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation
for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods (26/06/2014), Equatorial Guinea, Malabo,
available at: [Link] (accessed 9 September 2024).
Arafat, M.Y., Saleem, I., Dwivedi, A.K. and Khan, A. (2020), “Determinants of agricultural
entrepreneurship: a GEM data based study”, The International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 345-370, doi: 10.1007/s11365-018-0536-1.
Asian, S., Hafezalkotob, A. and John, J.J. (2019), “Sharing economy in organic food supply chains: a
pathway to sustainable development”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 218,
pp. 322-338, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2019.06.010.
Baier-Fuentes, H., Merig�o, J.M., Amor�os, J.E. and Gaviria-Mar�ın, M. (2019), “International
entrepreneurship: a bibliometric overview”, The International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 385-429, doi: 10.1007/s11365-017-0487-y.
Bairwa, S.L., Lakra, K., Kushwaha, S., Meena, L. and Kumar, P. (2014), “Agripreneurship
development as a tool to upliftment of agriculture”, International Journal of Scientific and
Research Publications, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 1-4.
Birthal, P., Chand, R., Joshi, P., Saxena, R., Rajkhowa, P., Khan, M., Khan, M. and Chaudhary, K.R.
(2017), “Formal versus informal: efficiency, inclusiveness and financing of dairy value chains in
 Indian Punjab”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 54, pp. 288-303, doi: 10.1016/j. Journal of
jrurstud.2017.06.009. Agribusiness in
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in Developing and
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101, doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. Emerging
Brenya, R., Akomea-Frimpong, I., Ofosu, D. and Adeabah, D. (2023), “Barriers to sustainable Economies
agribusiness: a systematic review and conceptual framework”, Journal of Agribusiness in
Developing and Emerging Economies, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 570-589, doi: 10.1108/JADEE-08-
2021-0191.
Burchardi, K., Gulesci, S., Lerva, B. and Sulaiman, M. (2019), “Moral hazard: experimental evidence
from tenancy contracts”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 134 No. 1, pp. 281-347, doi:
10.1093/qje/qjy023.
Cheng, W. and Adejumo, O.O. (2021), “Entrepreneurship channels and sustainable development:
directions for the asian economy”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 22
No. 3, pp. 799-822, doi: 10.3846/jbem.2021.14252.
Cheong, D., Jansen, M. and Peters, R.-H. (2013), Shared Harvests: Agriculture, Trade, and
Employment, International Labour Office, United Nations Conference on Trade Development,
Geneva.
Chhabra, M., Gera, R., Hassan, R. and Hasan, S. (2020), “An exploratory study of cognitive, social and
normative dimensions of female entrepreneurship within transition economies: evidence from
India and Vietnam”, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 1012-1042.
Condor, R. (2020), “Entrepreneurship in agriculture: a literature review”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 516-562, doi: 10.1504/
ijesb.2020.10031117.
Curzi, D., Schuster, M., Maertens, M. and Olper, A. (2020), “Standards, trade margins and product
quality: Firm-level evidence from Peru”, Food Policy, Vol. 91, 101834, doi: 10.1016/j.
foodpol.2020.101834.
Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009), “Producing a systematic review”, in The Sage Handbook of
Organizational Research Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 671-689.
Dias, C.S.L., Rodrigues, R.G. and Ferreira, J.J. (2019a), “What’s new in the research on agricultural
entrepreneurship?”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 65, pp. 99-115, doi: 10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2018.11.003.
Dias, C.S.L., Rodrigues, R.G. and Ferreira, J.J. (2019b), “Agricultural entrepreneurship: going back
to the basics”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 70, pp. 125-138, doi: 10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2019.06.001.
Doanh, N.K., Do Dinh, L. and Quynh, N.N. (2022), “Tea farmers’ intention to participate in
Livestream sales in Vietnam: the combination of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and
barrier factors”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 94, pp. 408-417, doi: 10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2022.05.023.
Dzingirai, M. (2021), “The role of entrepreneurship in reducing poverty in agricultural communities”,
Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 665-683, doi: 10.1108/JEC-01-2021-0016.
D’Exelle, B. and Verschoor, A. (2023), “Village networks and entrepreneurial farming in Uganda”,
World Development, Vol. 167, 106241, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2023.106241.
Elo, S. and Kyng€as, H. (2008), “The qualitative content analysis process”, Journal of Advanced
Nursing, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 107-115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
Esiobu, N. and Ibe, G. (2015), “Analysis of entrepreneurship development in agriculture among arable
crop farmers in Imo State, Nigeria”, International Journal of African and Asian Studies, Vol. 7
No. 3, pp. 92-99.
FAO (2011), “Entrepreneurship in farming”, FAODocuments, available at: [Link]
documents/card/en?details563fb6dc4-bc72-5043-8af7-badd4971557b/ (accessed 4
December 2023).
JADEE FAO (2023), “Connecting smallholders to markets”, available at: [Link]
workingspace/workstreams/past-workstreams/smallholders/en/ (accessed 1 December 2023).
Fernandes, A.M., Ferro, E. and Wilson, J.S. (2019), “Product standards and firms’ export decisions”,
The World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 353-374, doi: 10.1093/wber/lhw071.
Ferro, E., Otsuki, T. and Wilson, J. (2015), “The effect of product standards on agricultural exports”,
Food Policy, Vol. 50, pp. 68-79, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2014.10.016.
Fitz-Koch, S., Nordqvist, M., Carter, S. and Hunter, E. (2018), “Entrepreneurship in the agricultural
sector: a literature review and future research opportunities”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 129-166, doi: 10.1177/1042258717732958.
Gelo, D., Muchapondwa, E., Shimeles, A. and Dikgang, J. (2020), “Aid, collective action and benefits
to smallholders: evaluating the World Food Program’s purchase for progress pilot”, Food Policy,
Vol. 97, 101911, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2020.101911.
Gil, J.D.B., Reidsma, P., Giller, K., Todman, L., Whitmore, A. and Van Ittersum, M. (2019),
“Sustainable development goal 2: improved targets and indicators for agriculture and food
security”, Ambio, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 685-698, doi: 10.1007/s13280-018-1101-4.
Gulsia, O. and Yadav, S. (2023), “Conceptualizing network approaches for a successful farm
entrepreneurship using [Link]®”, Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2
No. 1, 100026, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2022.100026.
Henry, C., Foss, L. and Ahl, H. (2016), “Gender and entrepreneurship research: a review of
methodological approaches”, International Small Business Journal: Researching
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 217-241, doi: 10.1177/0266242614549779.
Hoffmann, V. and Jones, K. (2021), “Improving food safety on the farm: experimental evidence from
Kenya on incentives and subsidies for technology adoption”, World Development, Vol. 143,
105406, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2021.105406.
Hu, M., Liu, Y. and Wang, W. (2019), “Socially beneficial rationality: the value of strategic farmers,
social entrepreneurs, and for-profit firms in crop planting decisions”, Management Science,
Vol. 65 No. 8, pp. 3654-3672, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2018.3133.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (2013), “Smallholders, food security, and the
environment”, Rome, Italy, available at: [Link]
smallholders_report.pdf/133e8903-0204-4e7d-a780-bca847933f2e (accessed 10 March 2023).
Kahan, D. (2013), Entrepreneurship in Farming, FAO, Rome.
Kimmitt, J., Mu~
noz, P. and Newbery, R. (2020), “Poverty and the varieties of entrepreneurship in the
pursuit of prosperity”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 35 No. 4, 105939, doi: 10.1016/j.
jbusvent.2019.05.003.
Korsgaard, S., M€
uller, S. and Tanvig, H.W. (2015), “Rural entrepreneurship or entrepreneurship in the
rural–between place and space”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and
Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 5-26, doi: 10.1108/ijebr-11-2013-0205.
Ksoll, C., Lilleør, H.B., Lønborg, J.H. and Rasmussen, O.D. (2016), “Impact of village savings and
loan associations: evidence from a cluster randomized trial”, Journal of Development
Economics, Vol. 120, pp. 70-85, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.12.003.
Kwa, A. (2001), “Agriculture in developing countries: which way forward?”, Institute for Agriculture
and Trade Policy, available at: [Link]
Developing_Countries_Which_Way_.htm (accessed 30 November 2023).
Lans, T., Seuneke, P. and Klerkx, L. (2020), “Agricultural entrepreneurship”, in Encyclopedia of
Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, pp. 43-49, doi: 10.1007/978-3-
319-15347-6_496.
Leng, X. (2022), “Digital revolution and rural family income: evidence from China”, Journal of Rural
Studies, Vol. 94, pp. 336-343, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2022.07.004.
Levy, M.A. and Lubell, M.N. (2018), “Innovation, cooperation, and the structure of three regional
sustainable agriculture networks in California”, Regional Environmental Change, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 1235-1246, doi: 10.1007/s10113-017-1258-6.
Liao, C.-N. and Chen, Y.-J. (2017), “Farmers’ information management in developing countries—a Journal of
highly asymmetric information structure”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 26 Agribusiness in
No. 6, pp. 1207-1220, doi: 10.1111/poms.12678. Developing and
Liverpool-Tasie, L. (2014), “Farmer groups and input access: when membership is not enough”, Food Emerging
Policy, Vol. 46, pp. 37-49, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2014.01.006. Economies
Luo, J., Guo, H. and Jia, F. (2017), “Technological innovation in agricultural co-operatives in China:
implications for agro-food innovation policies”, Food Policy, Vol. 73, pp. 19-33, doi: 10.1016/j.
foodpol.2017.09.001.
Magagula, B. and Tsvakirai, C.Z. (2020), “Youth perceptions of agriculture: influence of cognitive
processes on participation in agripreneurship”, Development in Practice, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 234-243, doi: 10.1080/09614524.2019.1670138.
Mancini, M.C. (2013), “Geographical Indications in Latin America Value Chains: a ‘branding from
below’ strategy or a mechanism excluding the poorest?”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 32,
pp. 295-306, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2013.07.008.
Manda, J., Khonje, M.G., Alene, A.D., Tufa, A.H., Abdoulaye, T., Mutenje, M., Setimela, P. and
Manyong, V. (2020), “Does cooperative membership increase and accelerate agricultural
technology adoption? Empirical evidence from Zambia”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 158, 120160, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2020.120160.
McElwee, G. (2006), “Farmers as entrepreneurs: developing competitive skills”, Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 187-206, doi: 10.1142/
s1084946706000398.
McElwee, G. (2008), “A taxonomy of entrepreneurial farmers”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 465-478, doi: 10.1504/
ijesb.2008.019139.
Meemken, E. and Qaim, M. (2018), “Can private food standards promote gender equality in the small
farm sector?”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 58, pp. 39-51, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2017.12.030.
Mehmood, A., Ahmed, S., Viza, E., Bogush, A. and Ayyub, R.M. (2021), “Drivers and barriers towards
circular economy in agri-food supply chain: a review”, Business Strategy and Development,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 465-481, doi: 10.1002/bsd2.171.
Mojo, D., Fischer, C. and Degefa, T. (2017), “The determinants and economic impacts of membership
in coffee farmer cooperatives: recent evidence from rural Ethiopia”, Journal of Rural Studies,
Vol. 50, pp. 84-94, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2016.12.010.
Naminse, E.Y. and Zhuang, J. (2018), “Does farmer entrepreneurship alleviate rural poverty in China?
Evidence from guangxi province”, PLoS One, Vol. 13 No. 3, e0194912, doi: 10.1371/journal.
pone.0194912.
Neubauer, F., Songsermsawas, T., Kamiche-Zegarra, J. and Bravo-Ureta, B. (2022), “Technical
efficiency and technological gaps correcting for selectivity bias: insights from a value chain
project in Nepal”, Food Policy, Vol. 112, 102364, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2022.102364.
Ola, O. and Menapace, L. (2020), “Smallholders’ perceptions and preferences for market attributes
promoting sustained participation in modern agricultural value chains”, Food Policy, Vol. 97,
101962, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2020.101962.
Ollinaho, O.I. and Kr€oger, M. (2021), “Agroforestry transitions: the good, the bad and the ugly”,
Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 82, pp. 210-221, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2021.01.016.
Orsi, L., De Noni, I., Corsi, S. and Marchisio, L. (2017), “The role of collective action in leveraging
farmers’ performances: lessons from sesame seed farmers’ collaboration in eastern Chad”,
Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 51, pp. 93-104, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2017.02.011.
Otache, I. (2017), “Agripreneurship development: a strategy for revamping Nigeria’s economy from
recession”, African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 474-483,
doi: 10.1108/AJEMS-05-2017-0091.
Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L.,
Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., Brennan, S.E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J.M., Hr�
objartsson,
A., Lalu, M.M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L.A.,
JADEE Stewart, L.A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A.C., Welch, V.A., Whiting, P. and Moher, D. (2021), “The
PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews”, International
Journal of Surgery, Vol. 88, 105906, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2021.105906.
Pant, L. (2016), “Paradox of mainstreaming agroecology for regional and rural food security in
developing countries”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 111, pp. 305-316,
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2016.03.001.
Paul, C.J., Weinthal, E.S., Bellemare, M.F. and Jeuland, M.A. (2016), “Social capital, trust, and
adaptation to climate change: evidence from rural Ethiopia”, Global Environmental Change,
Vol. 36, pp. 124-138, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.12.003.
Pearson, L.J., Pearson, L. and Pearson, C.J. (2011), “Sustainable urban agriculture: stocktake and
opportunities”, Urban Agriculture, Vol. 8 Nos 1-2, pp. 7-19, doi: 10.3763/ijas.2009.0468.
Pindado, E. and S�anchez, M. (2017), “Researching the entrepreneurial behaviour of new and existing
ventures in European agriculture”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 421-444, doi:
10.1007/s11187-017-9837-y.
Rauniyar, S., Awasthi, M.K., Kapoor, S. and Mishra, A.K. (2021), “Agritourism: structured literature
review and bibliometric analysis”, Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 52-70, doi:
10.1080/02508281.2020.1753913.
Rodr�ıguez-Guti�errez, M.J., Moreno, P. and Tejada, P. (2015), “Entrepreneurial orientation and
performance of SMEs in the services industry”, Journal of Organizational Change Management,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 194-212, doi: 10.1108/jocm-01-2015-0020.
Ruml, A. and Qaim, M. (2020), “Effects of marketing contracts and resource-providing contracts in the
African small farm sector: insights from oil palm production in Ghana”, World Development,
Vol. 136, 105110, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2020.105110.
Sandhu, N. and Hussain, J. (2020), “Entrepreneurship the mediating role of finance and entrepreneurial
education for small farmers in developing countries: evidence from India”, International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1403-1422, doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-
09-2020-0600.
Saridakis, G., Georgellis, Y., Mu~
noz Torres, R.I., Mohammed, A.-M. and Blackburn, R. (2021), “From
subsistence farming to agribusiness and nonfarm entrepreneurship: does it improve economic
conditions and well-being?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 136, pp. 567-579, doi: 10.1016/
[Link].2021.07.037.
Schuster, M. and Maertens, M. (2013), “Do private standards create exclusive supply chains? New
evidence from the Peruvian asparagus export sector”, Food Policy, Vol. 43, pp. 291-305, doi:
10.1016/[Link].2013.10.004.
Serra, R. and Davidson, K.A. (2021), “Selling together: the benefits of cooperatives to women honey
producers in Ethiopia”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 202-223, doi:
10.1111/1477-9552.12399.
Singh, V.K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J. and Mayr, P. (2021), “The journal coverage of Web of
Science, Scopus and Dimensions: a comparative analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 126 No. 6,
pp. 5113-5142, doi: 10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5.
Tefera, D., Bijman, J. and Slingerland, M. (2020), “Multinationals and modernisation of domestic value
chains in Africa: case studies from Ethiopia”, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 56 No. 3,
pp. 596-612, doi: 10.1080/00220388.2019.1590551.
Thanh, P. and Duong, P. (2022), “The economic burden of non-communicable diseases on households
and their coping mechanisms: evidence from rural Vietnam”, World Development, Vol. 151,
105758, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2021.105758.
Tomlinson, J., Baird, M., Berg, P. and Cooper, R. (2018), “Flexible careers across the life course:
advancing theory, research and practice”, Human Relations, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 4-22, doi:
10.1177/0018726717733313.
Tran, D. and Goto, D. (2019), “Impacts of sustainability certification on farm income: evidence from
small-scale specialty green tea farmers in Vietnam”, Food Policy, Vol. 83, pp. 70-82, doi:
10.1016/[Link].2018.11.006.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence- Journal of
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of Agribusiness in
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222, doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375. Developing and
United Nations General Assembly (2015), Resolution 70/1: Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda Emerging
for Sustainable Development (21 October 2015), New York, A/RES/70/1, available at: https:// Economies
[Link]/doc/undoc/gen/n15/291/89/pdf/[Link] (accessed 9 September 2024).
Vandeplas, A., Minten, B. and Swinnen, J. (2013), “Multinationals vs cooperatives: the income and
efficiency effects of supply chain governance in India”, Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 217-244, doi: 10.1111/1477-9552.12004.
Venot, J.-P. (2016), “A success of some sort: social enterprises and drip irrigation in the developing
world”, World Development, Vol. 79, pp. 69-81, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.11.002.
Victor Bekun, F. and Akadiri, S.S. (2019), “Poverty and agriculture in southern Africa revisited: a panel
causality perspective”, Sage Open, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Vik, J. and McElwee, G. (2011), “Diversification and the entrepreneurial motivations of farmers in
Norway”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 390-410, doi: 10.1111/
j.1540-627x.2011.00327.x.
World Bank, W.B. (2023a), “Poverty”, World of Banking, Text/HTML, available at: [Link]
[Link]/en/topic/poverty/overview (accessed 30 November 2023).
World Bank, W.B. (2023b), “Agriculture and food”, World of Banking, Text/HTML, available at:
[Link] (accessed 30 November 2023).
Yessoufou, A.W., Blok, V. and Omta, S.W.F. (2018), “The process of entrepreneurial action at the base
of the pyramid in developing countries: a case of vegetable farmers in Benin”, Entrepreneurship
and Regional Development, Vol. 30 Nos 1-2, pp. 1-28, doi: 10.1080/08985626.2017.1364788.
Yu, K., Zhang, Y. and Huang, Y. (2023), “Entrepreneurship at the bottom of the pyramid: a systematic
literature review”, Sustainability, Vol. 15 No. 3, 2480, doi: 10.3390/su15032480.
Yusoff, A., Ahmad, N.H. and Halim, H.A. (2016), “Entrepreneurial orientation and agropreneurial
intention among Malaysian agricultural students: the impact of agropreneurship education”,
Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 77-92.
Yusoff, A., Ahmad, N.H. and Abdul Halim, H. (2019), “Unravelling agropreneurship activities among
Malaysian Gen Y: social institutional factors as enablers”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 457-479, doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-07-
2017-0213.
Zhou, Y., Liu, Z., Wang, H. and Cheng, G. (2023), “Targeted poverty alleviation narrowed China’s
urban-rural income gap: a theoretical and empirical analysis”, Applied Geography, Vol. 157,
103000.
Zhou, S., Minde, I.J. and Mtigwe, B. (2013), “Smallholder agricultural commercialization for income
growth and poverty alleviation in southern Africa: a review”, African Journal of Agricultural
Research, Vol. 8 No. 22, pp. 2599-2608.
Zhou, J., Yang, Z., Li, K. and Yu, X. (2019), “Direct intervention or indirect support? The effects of
cooperative control measures on farmers’ implementation of quality and safety standards”, Food
Policy, Vol. 86, 101728, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2019.05.011.
Zhou, Y., Zhang, J. and Zeng, Y. (2021), “Borrowing or crowdfunding: a comparison of poverty
alleviation participation modes considering altruistic preferences”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 59 No. 21, pp. 6564-6578, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1821117.

Corresponding author
Ghulam Raza can be contacted at: [Link]@[Link]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
[Link]/licensing/[Link]
Or contact us for further details: permissions@[Link]