SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.15 número1Sistemas de calidad como estrategia de ventaja competitiva en la agroindustria alimentariaAspectos culturales, sociales y productivos para una tipología de cafeticultores índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados




Links relacionados

  • No hay artículos similaresSimilares en SciELO


Agricultura, sociedad y desarrollo

versión impresa ISSN 1870-5472

agric. soc. desarro vol.15 no.1 Texcoco ene./mar. 2018



Creation profiles of microenterprises in rural zones: the case of Santa Bárbara Almoloya, Cholula, Puebla

Emmanuel Remilien1  * 

Miguel Sánchez-Hernández1 

J. Hilario Hernández-Salgado1 

Roselia Servin-Juárez1 

Ignacio Carranza-Cerda1 

1Colegio de Postgraduados, Campus Puebla. (;;;


Presently, business venture is very important, both for entrepreneurs and for public and private institutions. The creation of businesses becomes an important research theme. The objective of this study is to determine the differences there are between ways of creating microenterprises. The work was developed in the community of Santa Bárbara Almoloya with 73 micro entrepreneurs. The necessary information was obtained through a questionnaire and four groups have been established which differentiate between them, both in financial, social and human capitals, and in motivations. It is concluded that the objectives and the financial capital are the essential elements for the creation of microenterprises, although the latter loses its importance if people have a high level of social capital. The implications of this work serve for those interested in the promotion of business venture in the rural environment, such as microfinance institutions (MFI), governments and researchers, as well as future entrepreneurs.

Key words: creation of microenterprises; microfinance; sustainable livelihoods


Actualmente el emprendimiento tiene gran importancia, tanto para emprendedores como para instituciones públicas y privadas. La creación de empresas se vuelve un tema de investigación importante. El objetivo de este trabajo es determinar las diferencias que existen entre la manera de crear las microempresas. El trabajo se desarrolló en la comunidad de Santa Bárbara Almoloya con 73 microempresarios. Mediante un cuestionario se levantó la información necesaria y se han podido formar cuatro grupos que se diferencian entre sí, tanto en capitales financiero, social y humano como en motivaciones. Se concluye que los objetivos y el capital financiero son los elementos indispensables para la creación de las microempresas, pero este último pierde su importancia si las personas tienen un nivel de capital social alto. Las implicaciones de este trabajo sirven para los interesados en la promoción del emprendimiento en el medio rural, como instituciones de microfinanzas (IMF), gobierno e investigadores, así como futuros emprendedores.

Palabras claves: creación de microempresas; microfinanza; medios de vida sostenible


The study of the phenomenon of entrepreneurship is taking on a quite distinct importance because it influences the personal and community level wellbeing, and is an issue of political, economic, social, environmental and intellectual interest. At the global level, it is considered an instrument used to combat poverty (Sigalia and Carney, 2012), and to reduce the level of unemployment and for local economic development (Rodríguez Pose and Palavicini, 2013). In other terms, this phenomenon helps to struggle against delinquency and migration, among others. The people who do business because they don’t have another work option are known as necessity entrepreneurs (Baptista, Karaöz and Mendonça, 2014; Texis, Ramírez and Aguilar, 2016), although for Acs (2006) these activities do not influence the economic growth of a country, although the sum of all of these has something to do with the Gross Domestic Product.

Lending money to invest in a business is a matter of entrepreneurs, regardless of the level of the enterprise. There are different categories of micro, small, medium and large enterprises, and each country defines them based on certain criteria (generally size and income). However, because they are of very small size, the activities that generate income have been ignored as a category of microenterprises (Verrest, 2013), although the microfinance industry is devoted primarily to tending to this category of entrepreneurs because microfinance is based on the logic that if the poor have access to financial services they can begin or expand a microbusiness and from there get out of that situation (Arora and Singhal, 2013). From this perspective, many questions arise:

  • 1. How does a microenterprise begin?

  • 2. Which are the factors associated to this beginning?

  • 3. Which are the profiles of the entrepreneurs at the beginning?

  • 4. Do all the owners want to expand their microenterprises?

These questions suggest a variety of studies in the area of entrepreneurship at the micro level, since they can contribute to offering better services and adapting them to the profiles of microentrepreneurs. With regards to the last question, Gundry and Welsch (2001:455) suggest: “if the decision of beginning a business is a choice made by the founder, it can be assumed that the decision to expand it is a choice by the same person”. In practice, what microfinancing institutions (MFI) do is to send their credit agents to offer their services to those who have microbusinesses and almost do not make an in-depth analysis of the microentrepreneur’s profile. This results in many problems for the business owners in terms of reimbursement, on the one hand, and on the other, problems for the MFIs in terms of money losses. It has been found that functioning microbusinesses take better advantage of the credits than those of recent creation and serious problems of fungibility take place regarding the destination of money (Rodríguez, Raccanello and Aguilar, 2015). A way to avoid these problems is to study the questions related to the creation of the business, which is the reason for this study.

The owners of microbusinesses are subject of microcredits; not only is the private sector interested to microentrepreneurs through microfinance. In México there are many government programs that are focused on people self-employing both in the urban and the rural sector (Rivera-Huerta, López and Mendoza, 2016). For example, there are the following: Program of Promotion for Self-Employment, Program of Backing for Young Agrarian Entrepreneurs, Program of Backing for the Productivity of Women Entrepreneurs, National Program of Financing for Microentrepreneurs (PRONAFIM), these being some government initiatives in this sense. In addition to these two (MFI and Government), several universities promote the training of students to graduate as entrepreneurs and not as job seekers. To fulfill this, the students receive courses related to entrepreneurship and little is known about whether they actually can launch a business. In literature they only make estimations about the probability of students managing to create their business (Boudabbous, 2011; Backes-Gellner and Moog, 2013). Assuming that some students start microbusinesses, the ways they begin are different from the way peasants do, who generally have few years of study and most have not taken business courses.

The type of microentrepreneurs of interest in this study are those who do not expect either government programs or MFIs, nor any training to start their businesses, which makes them differ quite a lot from the trend of formal entrepreneurship (Fortunato, 2014). They are microentrepreneurs who live in rural areas, who face a group of problems like any entrepreneur; although both peasants and capitalist entrepreneurs do business to obtain money, the main objective is not the same; beyond that, there are other differences (Table 1).

Table 1 Differences between rural microentrepreneur and normal entrepreneur. 

Empresario normal Microempresario rural
Objetivos Ganancia Supervivencia
Plan de negocio Si No
Estudio de mercado Si No
Enfoque de economía Economía capitalista D-M-D Economía campesina M-D-M
Visión del futuro Planean y prevén Viven al día
Dedicación Horarios fijos y extra Sin horarios

Source: authors’ elaboration.

These differences are reflected in the level of money, the growth models, as well as the aspirations. The entrepreneurial behaviors and profiles of entrepreneurs are different (Verrest, 2013). Likewise, differences are seen in what provokes the creation of the enterprises: Necessity and Opportunity (Baptista et al., 2014; Morales et al., 2015; Texis et al., 2016). This situation gives rise to the doubt of knowing about the creation profiles of the microenterprises, with the central question being: which are the creation profiles of microenterprises in the rural areas of developing countries, especially in Santa Bárbara Almoloya? The answer implies studying the combination of known factors that influence business creation in the context of peasants.

Theoretical framework: sustainable livelihoods and motivation

Gibb and Ritchie (1982) were the first to establish the elements that an entrepreneur must fulfill to create a microenterprise. These authors present four elements to obtain a successful beginning: “the motivation or determination, the idea or market, the resources, and finally the skills”. Within these there are some that do not serve rural microentrepreneurs, such as the idea assessment and the market study. Business creation does not happen from one day to the next, that is why it is called a process, and recent studies call the people who are undergoing this process “emerging entrepreneurs” (Davidsson and Honig, 2003; Kim, Aldrich and Keister, 2006). During it, these people combine several factors that may be summarized in two: “capitals and motivation”.

In the rural environment these capitals used to explain business creation fall into the approach of sustainable livelihoods managed by the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID). This approach is used by many researchers to study rural development (Bennett and Franzel, 2009; Mummidi, 2009; Ansoms and McKay, 2010); however, other researchers use capitals to explain business creation, although with small differences (Table 2).

Table 2 Similarity and difference in the use of capitals. 

Tipos de capitales Medios de vida Investigadores
Financiero DFID, Mummidi (2009) Kim et al. (2006)
Social DFID Davidsson y Honig (2003)
Humano DFID Davidsson y Honig (2003), Kim et al. (2006)
Físico DFID X
Natural DFID X
Cultural X Kim et al. (2006), Elam (2008)
Simbólico X Elam (2008)

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

These capitals not only favor the creation of businesses, but rather allow competitiveness and are tangible and intangible (Fuentes, Osorio and Mungaray, 2016). Human capital is made up of the abilities, capacities and acquired knowledge and can be generated via education both formal and informal (Baptista et al., 2014). Experience in work or in a business of their own is an important element to consider in informal education because it allows accumulating knowledge and skills. For some authors, the individuals that own human capital of higher quality will identify better the entrepreneurial opportunities (Davidsson and Honing, 2003). For some authors, individuals who own human capital of higher quality will identify better entrepreneurial opportunities (Davidsson and Honing, 2003). With this assertion there are authors who consider that it is not the individuals with high levels of human and social capitals who manage to create businesses, but rather those that have these capitals at a balanced level and combined with experience (Backes-Gellner and Moog, 2013). The rural population, generally, does not have a high level of education and the few sources of work available are not generally a business.

The prediction of the creation of an enterprise is studied by factors such as work experience, level of education, etc., and dichotomous variables are generally used (Kim et al., 2006; Elam, 2008), which implies loss of information. There is a probability that the experience does not have any connection with the enterprise created. For Baptista et al. (2014), work experience is useful when the business created is within the same sector. In this study we take the perception of owners of microenterprises regarding the way they used the elements of human capital to create their microbusinesses.

Social capital in businesses creation takes place in many ways. As an asset that people obtain when being in contact with others (Coleman, 1988), this capital is obtained through the influence of others, of some type of support to create the business. According to Elam (2008) the central question of social capital is: “Who does he/she know?” Although it can be that a person knows many people yet they cannot offer support to create a microenterprise or do something else. In this sense there is differentiation between the types of social capital. Davidson and Honig (2003) present social capital in three dimensions: union or bridge, correlation and approximation. In the first there are socially close relationships (intense feelings of connection), in the second the social relationships are moderately close (respect, trust and comradeship), and lastly, there are asymmetrical relationships between people who have few points of agreement (president and citizen).

Within its operational framework, social capital is taken by some researchers as participation or belonging to some organization, group, ethnic group (Narayan and Pritchett, 1999); in it, there are regulations, reciprocity, and trust. Regarding the definition by Elam (2008), knowing other people happens through participation in a group. The variable “knowing another person or other entrepreneurs” has been quite studied as social capital, particularly by researchers who take the approach of Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). In this study, social capital is considered in its three forms: influence from other entrepreneurs, amount of help received, and participation in a group.

The financial capital is another factor for the creation of businesses; typically it is what someone possesses in terms of money (Elam, 2008). The rural population, subject of this study, does not have much money and combines resources in several ways to ensure its survival. In this perspective microfinance comes in, providing access to money in a different way than financial traditions. Belwal et al. (2014) found that financial resources and access to external resources are the main barriers for women entrepreneurs. There are those who found that microentrepreneurs who use external loans from banks, clients and suppliers, to begin a business are more efficient than those who begin with their own resources and those of their relatives and friends (Hernández-Trillo et al., 2005).

Despite their importance, having the money is not enough; there needs to be knowledge about what will be done with it (Elam, 2008). The concept of cultural capital enters there, which is based on what is known or the way of thinking, feeling and doing. The operationalization of cultural capital consists in the variables age, education and experience; thus, this capital coincides with the elements of human capital. Kim et al. (2006) consider cultural capital as having the parents as entrepreneurs, which will influence the child to create his/her business. There, cultural capital tends to enter social capital; knowing other entrepreneurs and their influence not only happens in the family, but rather in larger chains where the future entrepreneur gets aspiration from watching others. Thus, this influence can come from the three types of social capital identified previously.

Elam (2008) presents symbolic capital as the symbolic strength in its pure form, such as influence, prestige, social status. These values are sought and this search for values is translated in this study as the motivational element. This factor allows the separation of people who create businesses against those who do not.

Social, financial and human capitals are generally used to explain business creation, but fail when they are unable to respond why not all people create enterprises while they have access to these capitals. The psychological approach of businesses is an element that provides the response to this question. Mummidi (2009) attempts to understand why women carry out or not the activities that generate income and their sustainability based only in some components of human capital and motivation. According to this author, these elements can help to see the impact of microfinance, although they are not the only ones that define the creation of these activities.

People are in search for something satisfactory for their life and this is translated by personal economic independence, being active or from a need for social interaction and to obtain social recognition (Anthopoulou, 2010). There is no doubt that people who do microbusinesses in rural communities are survival entrepreneurs. In the contrary sense to what Elam (2008) points out with symbolic capital, not all entrepreneurs seek these values. There are economic and non-economic objectives that people have when creating a business (Kantis et al., 2002). In terms of motivation, not only the objectives make people create businesses. Business creation is an action and all human action can be studied from its planned behavior, whose determinant is intention (Ajzen, 1991). In other words, the intentionality will give place to the action. For Bird (1988), intention is a process and begins with the needs, values, and beliefs. In certain cases, the intention does not give rise to the action because it is planned and this has to do with time (Davidsson, 1995).

All of this allows advancing that business creation takes place differently in individuals with the combination of capitals and motivation. There are almost no studies that establish profiles of entrepreneurs at the moment of beginning their business, using all the capitals and motivation, since with just the capitals a business is not started. Heirman and Clarysse (2004) found four creation profiles, but they are based on financial, technological and human resources. This study attempts to cover the void in establishing the models of microenterprise creation in the rural environment.


The study was developed in the locality of Santa Bárbara Almoloya, San Pedro Cholula, Puebla, with people who have some sort of microenterprise. The geographical coordinates of the community are: latitude 18.8875 and longitude -98.2826; its population is 4200 inhabitants. In this community there isn’t a list of all microenterprises, since informality in this type of business in the whole Mexican territory is non-viable. There is a lack of research regarding these types of businesses in the zone. The locality has a higher number of microbusinesses than the localities that surround it.

Sampling was made to establish the list of these units in this locality. As mentioned, the opening and closing of an enterprise depends on the will of the owner; during the visit to get the total number of microbusinesses it was found that many were closed, although it is not clear if the closing is definitive; however, a population of 328 microbusinesses was obtained. Not all microentrepreneurs could be interviewed, which is why a sample size was calculated using the formula of maximum variance (p=0.5 and q=0.5), with a level of trust equal to 95 % and a sampling error of 0.09. Assigning the values of p and q is done with the proportion of microbusinesses that continue functioning or not.


The formula results in a sample size of 70, but three more surveys were performed, which results in n=73. In México, the National Microbusiness Survey (Encuesta Nacional de Micronegocios, ENAMIN) is a basic instrument to analyze microenterprises (Fuentes et al., 2016; Mungaray et al., 2016; Rodríguez et al., 2015). A questionnaire was built based on the ENAMIN and the theoretical approach. The data were obtained through a survey carried out in the months of January and February 2015 (Table 3). To analyze the data, the software Infostat and JMP were used.

Table 3 Description and measurement of study variables. 

Nombre de la variable Descripción de la variable Forma de medición
Capital financiero
Orig_recur Origen de recursos para iniciar 1=Recursos propios, 2=Recursos externos, 3=Ambos
Vent_cred Venta a crédito para iniciar 1=Si, 0=Otros
Capital social
Infl_otr Influencia de otros empresarios 1=Si, 0=Otros
Part_grup Participación en grupos antes del inicio 1=Si, 0=Otros
Apoy_rec Cantidad de apoyos recibidos Numérica
Capital humano
Edu_ini Ayuda de la educación para iniciar 1=Nada. 5=Mucho
Exp_ini Ayuda de la experiencia de trabajo para iniciar 1=Nada. 5=Mucho
Habil_ini Ayuda de las habilidades para iniciar 1=Nada. 5=Mucho
Capac_ini Ayuda de la capacitación para iniciar 1=Nada. 5=Mucho
Cant_obj Suma de los objetivos Numérica
Inten Intención emprendedora 1=Nunca. 5=Siempre
Variables de control
Sexo La sexo del empresario 1=Mujer y 0=Hombre
Escol El grado de escolaridad Numérica

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

The variable Apoy_rec is the sum of all the backing received at the moment of creating the business; this varies from 0 to 4. This represents the number of people who supported the entrepreneur at the beginning and the following were taken into account: “children, spouse, friends, relatives”. The types of help that entrepreneurs received ranged from giving the idea of creating the business to lending money and helping to launch it. The variable Cant_objet combines the objectives of microentrepreneurs which are the economic and non-economic objectives pointed out by Kantis et al. (2002). The following five objectives are considered: “Becoming your own boss, having or increasing income, having a good reputation, simply having an activity, and developing as a person” (Morales et al., 2015). Some other control variables were used to interpret the results, such as sex (sex) and schooling (escol).

Results and Discussion

Statistical analyses

The conglomerate analysis was used, with the hierarchical conglomerate method, the Wald method, with Euclidean distance squared, to obtain the dendrogram that provides this algorithm and from there to see the maximum number of group that can be created (Ansoms and McKay, 2010). The distance of 6.07 was chosen with the dendrogram, which allows forming four groups. A new variable was saved where the four groups are identified. To compare them, the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametrical variance analysis was performed, because the data do not fulfill the assumptions of: “homogeneity of variance and normality” to perform an ANOVA.

The ranges for the variable that describes help in training could not be separated, to begin with the Kruskal-Wallis test; therefore, an alternative analysis was taken: Mann-Whitney U, which allows comparing two groups, for example one and two; one and three; so on and so forth.

Characterization of the clusters

Group 1: Bad beginning

In this group the majority are women (67 %); 57 % of the members have only studied primary school. Table 4 shows that this group has the lowest points; this condition can be considered a disadvantage when comparing it to other groups, so it is graded as bad beginning. Within this group there are people who did not start the microbusinesses that they head now. The characteristics of this group coincide with what Banerjee and Duflo (2007:162) say: “if you have few skills and scarce capital and, especially, if you’re a woman, being an entrepreneur is easier than finding a job”. The abilities are acquired with time or through some type of learning, whether in school or in a job. Members of the group do not have a high schooling level and their ages vary, but most of them are over 43 years old, which is why the few abilities that they have, they have acquired in their years of life.

Table 4 Result from the analysis of unifactorial variance by Kruskal-Wallis ranking. 

Variables X 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 P-valor
Orig_recur 9.372 29.21ª 44.87b 34.09ab 43.64ab 0.025
Inten 12.645 27.29ª 36.26ab 48.80b 31.50ab 0.005
Cant_obj 28.101 19.31ª 51.02c 35.57b 48.50bc 0.000
Edu_ini 8.482 27.24ª 37.33ab 44.41b 41.93ab 0.037
Exp_ini 44.185 25.76ª 23.04a 59.82b 44.86b 0.000
Habil_ini 22.484 20.24ª 42.76b 48.52b 32.14ab 0.000
Capac_ini 9.477 31.52a* 34.09a* 43.98b* 41.07ab* 0.024
Infl_otr 19.731 24.24ª 46.30b 35.77ab 48.57b 0.000
Part_grup 8.539 32.21ª 36.52ab 36.95ab 53.07b 0.036
Apoy_rec 21.563 19.74ª 44.41b 44.89b 39.64b 0.000
Vent_cred 72.000 33.50ª 33.50a 33.50a 70.00b 0.000
N 21 23 22 7

Source: Authors’ elaboration with field data.*Mann-Whitney U test.

Group 2: Strength in motivation and financial capital

This group has more women (52 %) than men. The education of most of the members of this group ranges between secondary school (45.8 %) and primary (25 %). Table 4 shows that group three exceeds group two in the variable that describes entrepreneurial intention, but it is not a problem to say that group two has higher motivation because it wins in objectives. This is because the intention does not generally lead to action (Boudabbous, 2011). Intention is something that reaches the mind of individuals for a given time, but if they feel greater need they will transform this intention into objectives and, therefore, this will lead to the creation of the business.

The objectives that these microentrepreneurs have allow confirming that they are not the same as capitalists because they mentioned more non-economic than economic objectives. These results go in the same direction as other findings (Mungaray, Aguilar-Barceló and Osorio, 2016). In addition, using the objectives this study enters the two schools of entrepreneurship identified by Thornton (1999), since the personal characteristics of the entrepreneur and the context that favors the creation of microbusinesses are covered.

This group has the highest value for the variable origin of resources, which is why it remains in the end. Some of the microentrepreneurs combined resources (loans and resources of their own) to start the business, but the members of group two use more loans. The microentrepreneurs use more their own resources to start microbusinesses (67 %) and these come from the sale of harvests or animals, and savings, which is typical of rural communities of low income (Morales et al., 2015). This confirms that the poor can save (Rutherford, 1999), whether in kind or in cash. However, savings in kind can be considered investment, since people buy an animal, for example, although in the future it will generate other animals.

Group 3: Strength in human capital

Group three is the one that uses most intensely the elements of human capital to start businesses. The literature in measuring human capital in business creation takes into account the level of schooling of emerging entrepreneurs. In this study, around 47 % of the interview respondents state that education did not help them at all and that is present in all groups, although more intensely for group one and group four. This is not due to the level of schooling that the owners have because there was no difference found between the groups and the level of study. A factor that could explain this element is the quality of education and the individual capacities to learn. There are people who take advantage of the little they learned in school to create their businesses. This is because there is no need for a high level of study to create this category of microbusiness in rural zones, as Backes-Gellner and Moog (2013) suggest. With simply knowing how to read and write, people can learn by themselves (self-study) the basic elements for the creation and management of businesses.

There is a lack of training in the rural environment, specifically in the community of Santa Bárbara Almoloya; this is why the test to compare the groups was done differently. Only 21 % of the interview respondents had training before beginning their activities. Likewise, 48 % of the interview respondents mentioned that work experience did not help them to start the microenterprises. This confirms what Baptista et al. (2014) say about the usefulness of work experience, since in the rural environment there are generally no sources of work that could provide sufficient knowledge and abilities to start a microenterprise.

De Janvry and Sadoulet (2001) found that human capital is a key element in non-agricultural types of income, as microbusinesses are considered in this study. It cannot be stated that this group has higher income than the others from the characteristics of these units: they don’t have a record and do not know how much they earn daily.

Group 4: Strength in social capital

Of the interview respondents, 63 % mentioned that they met other entrepreneurs before starting their own businesses. Of these entrepreneurs, the ones they knew (for example, boss, neighbor) and the relatives represent each 32.88 %, while the son, husband and friends, respectively, have 1.37 %, 9.59 % and 27.40 %. This variable, “knowing other entrepreneurs” is quite studied in social capital, particularly by authors that adopt the GEM model (Elam, 2008). With this variable we find two levels of social capital in the community of Santa Bárbara Almoloya. Social capital of approximation is absent because none of the interview respondents mentioned that they knew owners from large businesses. The logic of the large enterprise is based on having branches and placing a manager in each of them and, in this study, social capital of approximation takes place because the owners do not have a direct relationship with the employee but rather with the manager.

In this study the union capital found takes place from children, spouses and relatives, and the sum of these three (43.84 %) does not exceed the sum of the correlation capital (60.20 %), which is given by friends and acquaintances. The fact that people know other entrepreneurs cannot directly explain what they are going to copy from these entrepreneurs to begin their own; thus, the question was set out of whether some of the entrepreneurs they knew influenced them to be able to create their own business. Of the 46 interview respondents (63 %) that state that they knew other entrepreneurs, only 29 declared that they were influenced. This allows seeing that simply knowing does not imply influence or aspiration.

An element that is quite studied in social capital is trust. In this study it is not stated as such, but the variable credit selling to begin, allows exploring it. The sale on credit is financial capital for the owner of the merchandise because some day the person who receives them will have to pay or return them, but for the latter this action is social capital because it is through trust that they could obtain the merchandise from the other person. As Bennet and Franzel (2009) mention, within the framework of livelihoods, the increase of one type of capital can imply the increase in another. The financial capital in group four tends to increase because there already is high social capital.

Money is a factor that impedes the creation of microenterprises (Belwal et al., 2014), but when the level of social capital is very high the microbusinesses can create without having money (case of group four). In this sense, there is no capital as such that is more important than others in the creation of microbusinesses and if it exists, it should be social. In the case when people do not have a high social capital level, money is the most important element for the creation of microenterprises. Social capital can generate financial capital (loans among friends or relatives) and human capital (training among friends or relatives). Despite all of this, without money people can spend their whole life with the intention of becoming entrepreneurs, with several goals, with huge skills and knowledge, with people they know, and do not manage to create microbusinesses.

The peasants are not homogeneous; each one has a different profile from another. Some are still devoted to the country entirely, while others combine business and agricultural activity. These profiles are important for MFIs or any institution interested in rural microfinancing because it implies knowing the owners of microbusinesses deeply, which allows understanding the reason why there are people who grow with the same instrument of microcredit, while others stay the same or do worse (Armendáriz and Morduch, 2011). On the other hand, the MFIs can use these profiles when they want to avoid problems of reimbursement; for example, people from group four will not present this difficulty because from the beginning of their microbusiness they had made these types of transactions. It should be mentioned that in group four the microbusinesses have at least one year of existence, which means that they have returned the merchandise bought on credit or are in the process of doing so.

Having a microbusiness falls into the three types of non-agricultural income mentioned by Berdegué et al. (2001). It is a good instrument when attempting to promote rural development; giving peasants microbusinesses or encouraging them to create is a strategy that falls into the new rurality because they do not spend all day in the field sowing and harvesting. The governments that promote rural development through entrepreneurship can take advantage of the profiles from this study; for example, there are people whose objectives are only obtaining government backing and after that they can cease to do business. This is because of the characteristic of entrepreneurial behavior (Minniti and Lévesque, 2008), which resides in human action. It is not known whether the objective that people have today will continue to be the one they have tomorrow or in the near future. Thus, it is possible for a person or group of people to obtain the backing from the government to implement a business and which then, for one reason or another, will close.


There was an interest in understanding whether there are differences between microentrepreneurs in the process of creation of their microbusinesses. The discussion derived from this article allows confirming the heterogeneity of entrepreneurs at the time of creating their microbusinesses and the weight of this difference. It was found that there is a group that starts very well, combining all the factors of capitals and motivation while other begin badly, without motivation and without some capitals. The objectives and the financial capital are the most important elements to create microbusinesses, but when social capital is high, financial capital can lose importance.

These profiles can be used by the MFIs to support microentrepreneurs and avoid problems with clients. They can also be of use to understand why with the same microfinance instruments there are people who grow, while others do not. Future research can study which types of business are more sustainable and successful in the existing profiles. This will be useful to governments that are involved in supporting people to have a microenterprise through public policies, which will result in the efficiency of programs, since these profiles allow understanding which type of person to support.

Literatura Citada

Acs, Zoltan. 2006. How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth? In: Innovation, pp: 97-107. [ Links ]

Ajzen, Icek. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. In: Organizational behavior and human decision processes, Vol. 50, pp: 179-211. [ Links ]

Ansoms, An, y Andrew McKay. 2010. A quantitative analysis of poverty and livelihood profiles: The case of rural Rwanda. In: Food Policy, Vol. 35, pp: 584-598. [ Links ]

Anthopoulou, Theodosia. 2010. Rural women in local agrofood production: Between entrepreneurial initiatives and family strategies. A case study in Greece, In: Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 26, pp: 394-403 [ Links ]

Armendáriz, Beatriz, y Jonathan Morduch. 2011. Economía de las microfinanzas. Fondo de Cultura Economía y Centro de Investigación y Docencia económicas, A.C. México. [ Links ]

Arora, Bindu, y Aanchal Singhal. 2013. A comprehensive literature on impacts of microfinance. In: Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp: 346-358. [ Links ]

Backes-Gellner, Uschi, y Petra Moog. 2013. The disposition to become an entrepreneur and the jacks-of-all-trades in social and human capital. In: The Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 47, pp: 55-72. [ Links ]

Banerjee, Abhijit V., y Esther Duflo. 2007. The economic lives of the poor. In: Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp: 141-167. [ Links ]

Baptista, Rui, Murat Karaöz, y Joana Mendonça. 2014. The impact of human capital on the early success of necessity versus opportunity-based entrepreneurs. In: Small Business Economics Vol. 42, No. 4, pp: 831-847. [ Links ]

Belwal, Shweta, Rakesh Belwal, y Fatema Al Saidi. 2014. Characteristics, motivations, and challenges of women entrepreneurs in Oman’s Al-Dhahira region. In: Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp: 135-151. [ Links ]

Bennett, M., y S. Franzel. 2009. Can organic and resource-conserving agriculture improve livelihoods? A meta-analysis and conceptual framework for site-specific evaluation. In: ICRAF Occasional Paper 11. Nairobi. [ Links ]

Berdegué, Julio A., Eduardo Ramírez, Thomas Reardon, y Germán Escobar. 2001. Rural Nonfarm Employment and Incomes in Chile. In: World Development, Vol. 29, No 3, pp: 411-425. [ Links ]

Bird, Barbara. 1988. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention. In: Academy of management review, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp: 442-453. [ Links ]

Boudabbous, Sami. 2011. L’intention entrepreneuriale des jeunes diplomés. In: Revue Libanaise de Gestion et d’Economie, No. 6, pp: 1-20. [ Links ]

Coleman, James S. 1988. Social Capital in the creation of Human Capital. In: The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, Supplement, pp: 95-120. [ Links ]

Davidsson, Per. 1995. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions. Paper prepared for the RENT IX Workshop, Piacenza, Italy, 23-24 Noviembre. [ Links ]

Davidsson, Per, y Benson Honig. 2003. The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. In: Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, pp: 301-331. [ Links ]

De Janvry, Alain, y Elisabeth Sadoulet. 2001. Incomes strategies among rural household in Mexico: The role of off-farm activities. In: World development, Vol. 29, No. 3,pp: 467-480. [ Links ]

Elam, Amanda B. 2008. Gender and entrepreneurship: A multilevel theory and analysis, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. [ Links ]

Fortunato, Michael W. P. 2014. Supporting rural entrepreneurship: a review of conceptual developments from research to practice. In: Community Development, Vol. 45, No 4, pp: 387-408. [ Links ]

Fuentes, Noé, Germán Osorio, y Alejandro Mungaray. 2016. Capacidades intangibles para la competitividad microempresarial en México. In: Revista Problemas del Desarrollo, Vol. 186, No. 47, pp: 83-106. [ Links ]

Gibb, Allan, y John Ritchie. 1982. Understanding the process of starting small businesses. In: European small business journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp: 26-47. [ Links ]

Gundry, Lisa K., y Harold P. Welsch. 2001. The ambitious entrepreneur: high growth strategies of women-owned enterprises. In: Journal of Business Venturing 16, pp: 453-470. [ Links ]

Heirman, Ans, and Bart Clarysse. 2004. How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. In: Journal of technology transfer, Vol. 29, pp: 247-268. [ Links ]

Hernández-Trillo, Fausto, José A. Pagán, y Julia Paxton. 2005. Start-up capital, microenterprises and technical efficiency in Mexico. In: Review of Development Economics, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp: 434-447. [ Links ]

Kantis, Hugo, Masahiko Ishida, y Masahiko Komori. 2002. Empresarialidad en economías emergentes: Creación y desarrollo de nuevas empresas en América Latina y el Este de Asia, Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. [ Links ]

Kim, Phillip H., Howard E. Aldrich, y Lisa A. Keister. 2006. Access (not) denied: the impact of financial, human, and cultural capital on entrepreneurial entry in the United States. In: Small Business Economics, Vol. 27, pp: 5-22. [ Links ]

Minniti, Maria, y Moren Lévesque. 2008. Recent developments in the economics of entrepreneurship. In: Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 23, pp: 603-612. [ Links ]

Morales Jiménez, Juan, Angel Bustamante González, Samuel Vargas López, Nicolás Pérez Ramírez, y Oscar Sereno-Pareja. 2015. Factores de éxito emprendedor en dos municipios de la montaña de Guerrero, México. In: Nova Scientia, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp: 416-435. [ Links ]

Mungaray, Alejandro, José G. Aguilar-Barceló, y German Osorio. 2016. Rethinking the purpose of micro enterprises in developing countries: evidence for Mexico. In: Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1650019 [ Links ]

Mummidi, Thanuja. 2009. Women and income generating activities: understanding motivations by prioritising skill, knowledge and capabilities. In: Rural Microfinance and Employment (RUME) working papers series 2009-1, pp: 5-29. [ Links ]

Narayan, Deepa, y Lant Pritchett. 1999. Cents and Sociability; household income and social capital in Rural Tanzania. In: Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp: 871-897. [ Links ]

Rivera-Huerta, René, Nidia López, y Alejandra Mendoza. 2016. Políticas de apoyo a la productividad de la microempresa informal ¿Dónde está México? In: Revista Problemas del Desarrollo , Vol. 184, No. (47), pp: 87-109. [ Links ]

Rodríguez Pose, Andrés, y Eduardo I. Palavicini. 2013. Does local economic development really work? Assesing LED across Mexican municipalities. In: Geoforum, Vol. 44, pp: 303-315. [ Links ]

Rodríguez Vázquez, Veronica, Kristiano Raccanello, y Carlos Jair Aguilar Pérez. 2015. El financiamiento a las microempresas en el Distrito Federal. Una aplicación del modelo FOCO. FAEDPYME International Review, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp: 34-44. [ Links ]

Rutherford, Stuart. 1999. The poor and their money: An essay about financial services for poor people, Department for International Development, India. [ Links ]

Texis Flores, Michelle, Martín Ramírez Urquidy, y José G. Aguilar Barceló. 2016. Microempresas de base social y sus posibilidades de supervivencia. In: Contaduría y Administración, Vol. 61, pp: 551-567. [ Links ]

Sigalia, Rachel Jactan, y Stephen Carney. 2012. Poverty reduction through entrepreneurship: Microcredit, learning and ambivalence amongst women in urban Tanzania. In: International Journal of Educational Development Vol. 32, pp: 546-554. [ Links ]

Thornton, Patricia H. 1999. The sociology entrepreneurship. In: Annual review of sociology, Vol. 25, pp: 19-46. [ Links ]

Verrest, Hebe. 2013. Rethinking microentrepreneurship and business development programs: Vulnerability and ambition in low-income urban caribbean households. In: World Development, Vol. 47, pp: 58-70. [ Links ]

Received: August 01, 2016; Accepted: November 01, 2016

*Author for correspondence. (

Creative Commons License Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons