Effects of Entrepreneurial Activities on Rural Revitalization: Based on Dissipative Structure Theory

Abstract

Entrepreneurial activities are crucial for activating the endogenous power of the countryside, promoting integrated urban and rural development, and achieving comprehensive rural revitalization. This paper empirically examines the mechanisms through which entrepreneurial activities influence rural revitalization by incorporating the theory of dissipative structures into the research paradigm of rural revitalization. Using interdisciplinary analysis methods, it deeply analyzes the underlying logic of entrepreneurial activities affecting rural revitalization, relying on panel data from 2045 counties from 2011 to 2020. The study finds that entrepreneurial activities attract negative entropy flows, such as information and materials, into the rural revitalization system by increasing employment opportunities and promoting capital agglomeration. This fosters a stable and orderly dissipative structure within the system, thereby empowering comprehensive rural revitalization. The heterogeneity test indicates that the promotion effect of entrepreneurial activities on rural revitalization is more pronounced in the eastern region and non-e-commerce demonstration counties. Further research reveals that the facilitating effect of entrepreneurial activities on the rural revitalization system is particularly evident in four dimensions: ecological viability, a civilized rural culture, effective governance, and an affluent life. This study provides theoretical and empirical support for implementing the rural revitalization strategy in China.

1. Introduction

Rural development has become a critical component of integrated national development in response to global challenges such as urbanization, growing wealth disparity, and environmental sustainability. Targeted measures are necessary to unlock the potential of rural areas [1], improve the quality of life for farmers, and contribute to the national economy, as these areas often face inadequate infrastructure and slow economic development. The revitalization of rural areas varies across countries. For instance, France has implemented the “Most Beautiful Villages” initiative to boost rural incomes and promote tourism [2]. In Germany, a cooperative model is employed to foster sustainable rural development by encouraging community cohesion, resident participation in development planning, and comprehensive village development [3]. In China, the focus initially addressed the significant number of impoverished rural residents. In 2015, the Chinese government initiated a poverty eradication initiative that ultimately resulted in the complete eradication of absolute poverty nationwide by 2020. This initiative lifted all 832 national-level poverty-stricken counties out of poverty, ensuring that the people no longer had to worry about food and clothing and that they were guaranteed compulsory education, basic healthcare, and housing security. After that, the emphasis of China’s rural efforts shifted from poverty management to rural revitalization. The rural revitalization strategy, introduced in 2017, aims to modernize rural areas and address the urban–rural development gap. Subsequent policies have targeted improvements in rural ecology, talent, culture, and industry. By 2020, rural road mileage had reached 4.38 million km (data is from the 2020 Transport Industry Development Statistical Bulletin), and agricultural mechanization levels rose to 71.25% (the data is from China Statistical Yearbook 2020). Figure 1 illustrates the change in Chinese GDP from 2011 to 2020. As illustrated in Figure 1, China’s GDP increased by 84.12%, from 1,316,745.829 in 2011 to 2,424,394.831 in 2022. Moreover, the rural revitalization strategy has achieved comprehensive improvements in rural areas, including advancements in the economy, education, and healthcare, laying a strong foundation for future development.

Engaging in entrepreneurial activities can effectively harness the untapped resources of rural areas and significantly contribute to the process of rural modernization. The historical progression from the founding of China through the transition from the people’s commune to the household contract responsibility system, and subsequently to the collective economy of township enterprises and the development of new townships, has yielded significant achievements in rural entrepreneurship. These successes provide invaluable lessons for future generations. Entrepreneurs are esteemed for their practical goals, grounded approach, and optimistic outlook [4]. However, rural entrepreneurship frequently faces challenges such as technological and financial constraints. Recent initiatives like the “Digital Business for Rural Development” project, the expansion of e-commerce in rural areas [5], and policies supporting hometown entrepreneurship in the digital financial era have opened new opportunities. Policy measures, financial support, and technical guidance have effectively mitigated entrepreneurial risks, reduced entry barriers, and fostered a conducive entrepreneurial environment at the county level. Consequently, farmers have been motivated to transform their production methods and lifestyles, facilitating the integration of rural industries and injecting vitality into rural revitalization efforts. Moreover, these initiatives have not only expanded employment opportunities but also increased incomes and raised living standards, thereby significantly enhancing the overall quality of life and well-being in rural areas. Can entrepreneurial endeavors at the county level genuinely promote rural rejuvenation, and what are the underlying mechanisms of this process? The purpose of this research is to investigate these questions. On this basis, this study presents empirical evidence of China’s rural revitalization in order to provide factual support for rural studies around the world.

2. Literature Review

Promoting the comprehensive and sustained revitalization of villages is an inevitable trend in global modernization and development [6]. Japan has launched a village revival movement to help solve the problems of economic recession and rising unemployment in rural areas [7]. Rural revitalization is also crucial for advancing the modernization and progress of rural regions in China [8]. The primary focus of rural revitalization research in China is the development of an indicator system, the examination of practical pathways, and the assessment of impact effects. The current body of research partly focuses on five key dimensions of rural revitalization: industrial prosperity, ecological livability, a civilized rural culture, effective governance, and an affluent life [9]. To construct and evaluate the indicator system for rural revitalization, scholars employ methods such as the entropy power method [10] and the principal component analysis (PCA) method [11]. Scholars have extensively researched the factors influencing rural revitalization, identifying key elements such as economic development, social capital, and infrastructure improvements. Prioritizing rural education is essential for fostering sustainable rural development [12]. Tao et al. (2022) [13] utilize a fixed-effects model with data from 2011–2019 for 11 prefecture-level cities in Zhejiang Province to illustrate that the digital economy fosters rural regeneration, with industrial upgrading acting as a mediator. Guo and Liu (2021) [14] analyze the mechanism of poverty alleviation through land assetization (PALA) and assert that land facilitates rural development by integrating its productive, residential, and ecological roles. By optimizing the flow of factors between urban and rural areas, Han J. (2019) [15] has established a policy framework that prioritizes agricultural and rural development, mobilizing resources to support rural revitalization strategies. Chen Xiwen (2019) [16] analyzed the functional relationship between rural and urban development in China, concluding that rural revitalization is a viable strategy for fulfilling fundamental responsibilities such as ensuring food security, fostering a healthy ecological environment, and preserving traditional culture.

Entrepreneurial activities play a crucial role in supporting rural revitalization by effectively utilizing rural factor resources [17]. By analyzing entrepreneurship in Europe, Stathopoulou et al. (2004) [18] simplified entrepreneurship into three stages: conception, realization, and operation. The motivation to engage in entrepreneurial activities is driven by the internal drive of individuals and families, the external support of the policy environment, and dynamic changes in economic trends [19]. Entrepreneurial activities are primarily influenced by personal and external environmental factors [20]. Personal factors include age, personality and educational background [21]. while external environmental factors encompass human and land resource allocation and economic policies, etc. Information and knowledge are essential for entrepreneurial success from a business environment perspective [22]. The entrepreneurial environment, a critical external factor, significantly influences entrepreneurial activities, and its enhancement can substantially promote entrepreneurial development [23]. Naudé (2013) [24] examines the correlation between economic development and entrepreneurship, contending that entrepreneurship has a reciprocal impact on development outcomes and that development influences entrepreneurial dynamics. Additionally, there are many domestic and foreign studies on the economic effects of entrepreneurial activity. Acs and Szerb (2007) [25] investigate the role of rural America in entrepreneurial activity and determine that smaller labor market areas (predominantly rural areas) have a greater proportion of high-growth firms. Audretsch and Keilbach (2004) [26] develop a production factor model for German regions and determine that entrepreneurial capital has a substantial influence on regional economic output. Entrepreneurial activities expand market-based economic opportunities [27], offer farmers various employment opportunities, and increase their wage income [28]. Entrepreneurship plays a crucial role in fostering regional economic prosperity [29]. Barkley (2008) [30] conducted an analysis of the entrepreneurial process in rural areas and determined that the entrepreneurship of farmers contributes to the sustainability of their income and alleviates rural poverty.

In conclusion, numerous academicians at home and abroad have engaged in productive discourse on entrepreneurial activities and rural revitalization. Although there is limited literature systematically identifying the effects of entrepreneurial activities on rural revitalization, related research provides sufficient empirical evidence for this study. This paper offers innovation in two primary aspects, distinct from the existing literature. First, it introduces dissipative structure theory into the framework of rural revitalization research, employing a cross-disciplinary methodology to explore the intrinsic connection between entrepreneurial activities and rural revitalization from a novel perspective. This approach aims to provide solid theoretical support for the comprehensive promotion of rural revitalization. Second, the paper empirically examines panel data from 2045 counties in China from 2011 to 2020, thereby expanding the research horizon of rural revitalization and addressing the limitations of the existing literature, which primarily focuses on the provincial or prefectural level. Additionally, it offers valuable empirical evidence for international research on the expansion of rural areas.

3. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses

This paper introduces the theory of dissipative structures (The theory of dissipative structures was introduced by Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine in 1969. Initially, it gained significant traction in physics, biology, and other natural sciences. Subsequently, its application expanded to disciplines such as sociology and economics. An open system, which is not in equilibrium and exchanges matter and energy with its surroundings, can undergo self-organization when external conditions exceed a certain threshold. This self-organization leads to a sudden transition from a disordered state to a spatially and temporally organized state, resulting in the formation of a new, stable, and orderly structure. This non-equilibrium structure is referred to as a dissipative structure.) to explore the intrinsic connection between entrepreneurial activities and rural revitalization. Dissipative structures enable open systems to transition from an initial chaotic and disordered state to a new stable and orderly state. That is to say, the current rural revitalization system, which is in the chaotic intertwining of various elements, can be formed through the process of dissipative structure, i.e., constantly exchanging material and energy with the outside world, so that a constant flow of negative entropy enters the internal rural revitalization system, the total entropy value of the system continues to decrease, and the order gradually improves. Ultimately, it attains a condition in which several components and subsystems perform systematic operations without any external intervention, referred to as a “higher stable and orderly state” within the realm of physics. When the rural revitalization system transitions into a dissipative structural system, it signifies the achievement of rural revitalization. According to the application context, a dissipative structure must satisfy four essential conditions: being an open system, existing in a non-equilibrium state, having non-linear interactions between elements, and exhibiting the emergence of a rise and fall phenomenon. The rural revitalization system is a complex, dynamic, multi-functional system, including social, natural, economic, and other factors [31], which is composed of many subsystems. The relationship between the subsystems is complicated, interdependent, and subject to mutual constraints. The rural revitalization system is a dissipative structure that regulates its development through policy implementation and technological innovation, exchanging material and energy with the external world through human activities. The “total entropy change” of the system can be used to measure its development. Here, “Entropy” is a concept in physics that represents the degree of uncertainty. Positive entropy means that the entropy increases, which means the degree of uncertainty increases, so the disorder of the system increases, the system becomes more chaotic, and the system becomes worse. Negative entropy means that entropy decreases, which means that the degree of uncertainty decreases, so the orderliness of the system increases, the system becomes more organized, and the system becomes better. The process of forming a dissipative structure is the process of decreasing entropy.

Based on dissipative structure theory, the overall change in entropy of the rural revitalization system can be mathematically represented as follows:

$$ds=d_{i}s+d_{e}s$$

(1)

where $ds$ represents the total entropy change of the rural revitalization system, which is the primary factor in determining whether the system becomes a dissipative structure; $d_{e}s$ represents the negative entropy flow injected by the outside world into the rural revitalization system, a process that requires the system to continuously exchange technology, capital, and information with the outside world to achieve; and $d_{i}s$ represents the entropy increase caused by irreversible processes within the rural revitalization system. Consequently, the total entropy value of the rural revitalization system will continue to decrease, the orderliness will gradually increase, and the system will eventually stabilize in a new stable and orderly state that is lower than the total entropy value of the equilibrium state. This occurs only when the negative entropy flow entering from the outside, exceeds the entropy increase within the system $\left|d_{e}s\right|>d_{i}s$, then $ds<0$.

In particular, the total entropy change in entrepreneurial activities that influence the rural revitalization system can be represented as follows:

$$d{s}_E=d_i{s}_E+d_e{s}_E$$

(2)

$d_i{s}_E$ is the positive entropy generated within the rural revitalization system after the development of entrepreneurial activities in the county, such as entrepreneurship may cause the rural environment to be polluted, rural resource mismatch and other bad effects; and $d_e{s}_E$ represents the negative entropy flow that the rural revitalization system attracts from outside the system to inside the system through the development of county entrepreneurial activities (e.g., advanced technological experience, the more conducive to the development of the countryside, financial investment, the introduction of talents, and other factors that make the countryside better).These activities increase the frequency of material exchanges of information, energy, and other resources with the outside world, thereby attracting more management experience, advanced technology, and other negative entropy flows into the system. Consequently, the negative entropy within the system increases, the total entropy value of the rural revitalization system continues to decrease, and the order gradually improves until $\left|d_e{s}_E\right|>d_i{s}_E$. The system’s total entropy value reaches a new, higher level of stability and order when the conditions of $d{s}_E<0$ are met. This results in the rural revitalization system forming a dissipative structure, promoting the comprehensive revitalization of the countryside, so that the countryside can achieve the goals of thriving industries, ecological livability, civilized rural customs, effective governance and a prosperous life.

Further analysis reveals that the crucial factor in creating a dissipative structure for rural regeneration is acquiring negative entropy flow from external sources. Entrepreneurial activities are essential in facilitating the rural rejuvenation system by introducing the necessary external negative entropy flow and promoting the establishment of a dissipative structure. According to Schumpeter’s theory of innovation and entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial activities introduce new technologies, products, and business models that enhance product value, stimulate local economic growth, and disrupt traditional economic structures [32]. This process of “creative destruction” facilitates the transition of rural economies from traditional agricultural models to modern, diversified economic structures. The neo-Schumpeterian perspective further emphasizes that entrepreneurs, through continuous knowledge accumulation and technological advancement, develop new markets and industries such as rural tourism and e-commerce. These innovations attract capital and talent to rural areas, fostering the revitalization of rural industries, economies, societies, cultures, and ecosystems.

First and foremost, the urban–rural dual structure has long impeded the free flow of production factors between urban and rural areas, resulting in a lack of robust industrial foundations in the countryside that are inadequate for contemporary rural construction needs. The industrial prosperity of the countryside can be realized through the intensive integration of various industrial resources, facilitated by modern business models such as e-commerce live broadcasting and Internet+. Entrepreneurial activities can fully explore local potential resources, attract material capital, human capital, information technology, and other production factors to the countryside, and guide the industry from a single production link to the expansion of the entire industrial chain, including production, sales, and services. Secondly, the development of green production methods has increased the likelihood of policy and financial support for entrepreneurial projects that benefit environmental protection. This has encouraged entrepreneurs to engage in green industries in line with the concept of eco-livability, gradually establishing a sustainable ecological entrepreneurial model and balancing economic and environmental benefits. As a result, we are jointly constructing an ecologically harmonious “green countryside”. Thirdly, the civilization of the rural and effective governance demands the improved spiritual outlook and comprehensive quality of farmers. The exemplary leadership role of entrepreneurial activities has attracted high-quality talents from various fields, who can subtly promote cultural change in the countryside and cultivate farmers’ good living habits and ways of thinking. This enhances the overall spiritual outlook of the countryside and improves the local governance environment. Fourthly, maintaining farmers’ income is the primary factor in achieving rural affluence. The most effective method for this is entrepreneurial activities, which can increase farmers’ employment opportunities, activate the industrial agglomeration effect, drive local industry development, expand farmers’ income channels, and improve their quality of life.

Furthermore, this paper analyzes the specific mechanisms of increasing employment opportunities and promoting capital agglomeration.

• Mechanism of increasing employment opportunities

The urban–rural dichotomy has historically limited rural economic development, resulting in a slow process of rural industrialization. The majority of the rural labor force remains engaged in traditional farming, which has low productivity. Excessive reliance on traditional agriculture has led to a flattened industrial structure in villages, a significant reduction in non-agricultural employment opportunities, and a lack of non-agricultural career paths for rural laborers. The development of entrepreneurial activities generates abundant non-farm jobs, broadens non-farm employment channels for farmers, and increases rural household incomes. Entrepreneurs are encouraged to invest in new agricultural activities [33], such as the deep-processing of agricultural products, rural tourism, and agrotechnology promotion, as well as to introduce industries and services that expand the industrial chain. This shift addresses the weaknesses in agriculture and facilitates the transformation of rural industries from being primarily agriculture-based to being driven by secondary and tertiary sectors [34]. Additionally, small and micro enterprises created through entrepreneurship stimulate the local catering, entertainment, and communication sectors, making rural areas more dynamic. This increased activity enhances the exchange of factors between the rural revitalization system and the outside world, attracting technology, information, capital, and other negative entropy flows into the system. Consequently, this boosts the rural revitalization system’s transition into a dissipative structure, promotes county economic growth, improves the local business environment, and creates a positive cycle of entrepreneurship-driven employment. This cycle further enhances non-agricultural employment levels, optimizes the rural employment environment, and realizes a new development pattern of shared entrepreneurship dividends. Furthermore, advancements in digital technology have significantly integrated e-commerce and online live broadcasting into rural entrepreneurship. These developments have provided rural entrepreneurs with new sales channels, overcome geographical limitations, and expanded the market for agricultural products [35]. As a result, entrepreneurs now have access to more business opportunities, which has influenced the form, quantity, and scale of entrepreneurship. Additionally, e-commerce promotes the branding and standardization of agricultural products, enhances their added value, and ultimately increases farmers’ incomes. It also drives the development of rural public services, facilitates the flow of resources between urban and rural areas, and injects new vitality into agricultural supply-side structural reforms. This, in turn, fosters the integrated development of urban and rural areas and supports the comprehensive revitalization of the countryside.

2.

Mechanism for promoting capital agglomeration

Since the reform and opening up, the development strategy prioritizing cities has led to a continuous outflow of high-quality resources and labor from rural areas. This has resulted in multiple challenges for the countryside, such as a lack of capital, talent loss, and technological backwardness. The shortage of capital has become a key factor restricting rural development. Entrepreneurial activities can revitalize existing rural resources, encourage the return of labor, capital, and other production factors to the countryside, and provide essential funding for rural development [36]. This process gradually reduces the total entropy change of the rural revitalization system, leading it to a new stable and orderly state, thereby forming a dissipative structure. Counties, as important nodes of urban–rural convergence, with their relatively mature business environments and lower operating costs, have become preferred locations for many entrepreneurial activities. The spatial agglomeration of economic activities is crucial for promoting local economic development. Entrepreneurial activities have fostered numerous small and micro enterprises and individual businesses across various industries, such as catering, construction, and logistics. These activities drive local economic development, facilitate the penetration of high-tech and capital into rural areas, and attract more human capital and production factors to the countryside. This accelerates rural modernization and promotes urban–rural integration. Additionally, the emerging market entities based on the county economy, along with the capital agglomeration effect brought about by economies of scale and scope, radiate economic development to surrounding areas, promote the upgrading of the rural industrial structure, and provide new impetus for rural revitalization. In addition, regional differences are significant factors that influence entrepreneurship. Geographic location determines the surrounding business environment, the type of products, and the access of entrepreneurs to natural resources and human resources, which also results in differentiated operating costs. Additionally, regional differences influence the availability of natural and social resources in rural areas [37]. Moreover, factors such as the surrounding industrial layout, specialized industries, infrastructure, policy benefits, and government support all significantly impact rural revitalization. Thus, this paper puts forward the subsequent hypotheses.

H1. 

Entrepreneurial activities can substantially drive the promotion of rural revitalization.

H2. 

Entrepreneurial activities can promote rural revitalization by increasing employment opportunities. This facilitative effect may vary depending on the level of e-commerce development.

H3. 

Entrepreneurial activities can promote rural revitalization by promoting capital agglomeration. There may be regional differences in this promotional effect.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Data and Sources

This paper compiles and organizes county panel data from China spanning 2011 to 2020, covering 2045 county-level administrative districts in 31 provinces, and totaling 20,450 observations, to determine the impact of entrepreneurial activities on rural revitalization. The primary data sources utilized in this paper include registration information for newly registered enterprises from databases such as Tianyancha and Qixinbao. The data are matched to the corresponding county panel data, based on the year of registration and the addresses of the enterprises. The remaining variables are derived from the Chinese County Social and Economic Panel Data, compiled from the 2011–2020 China County Statistical Yearbook and county government bulletins. The descriptive statistics of these variables are presented in

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of variables.

Variables	Obs	Ave	Std	Min	Max
Rural revitalization index	20,450	9.204	3.570	2.383	37.475
Entrepreneurial activity	20,450	7.853	1.301	0	13.003
Public financial self-sufficiency rate	20,450	6.430	8.337	0.205	156.830
County financial development	20,450	0.766	0.398	0	5.649
County consumption level	20,450	0.337	0.341	0.004	17.362
County welfare level	20,450	31.653	26.170	0.027	477.625
County export level	20,450	0.024	0.128	0	14.410
County population size	20,450	3.613	0.870	0.578	6.028

. To address missing data points, the linear difference method is employed to supplement the economic panel data.

4.2. Variables

4.2.1. Dependent Variable: Measurement of Rural Revitalization

Compared to previous studies focusing on provincial or municipal levels, this research quantifies rural revitalization at the county level, providing a more detailed analysis. The measurement framework is based on five categories and 22 indicators from the Rural Revitalization Strategic Plan (2018–2022). Indicators were carefully selected for their objectivity, scientific rigor, and data availability. A county rural revitalization index system was developed, comprising five primary and ten supplementary indicator categories, as shown in

Table 2. Rural revitalization evaluation index system.

First-Level Index	Second-Level Index	Definitions	Direction
Industrial prosperity	Degree of industrial integration	Coefficient of industrial integration	Positive
	Agricultural development level	Share of value added of primary sector in GDP	Positive
Ecologically livable	Emissions of pollutants	Carbon dioxide emissions	Negative
	Medical and health conditions	Beds in healthcare institutions	Positive
Civilized rural customs	Educational resources level	Number of students enrolled in general secondary schools	Positive
	Cultural service level	Total collection of public libraries	Positive
Effective governance	Grassroots Democratic Organizations	Number of villagers’ committees	Positive
	Government intervention capacity	General public budget expenditure as a share of GDP	Positive
Rich life	Income of rural inhabitants	Per capita disposable income of rural residents	Positive
	Urban–rural income gap	Ratio of disposable income per capita for urban and rural residents	Negative

. The entropy value approach was used to accurately quantify disparities in indicator values and ensure impartiality in constructing the index (Xu; Wang, 2022) [38]. Initially, the data were standardized to compute the entropy value for each indicator. The redundancy degree of each indicator was then determined based on its entropy value. This redundancy percentage signifies the importance of each indicator. The rural revitalization index is derived from the composite score obtained by weighting and summing each indicator. For ease of comparison, the rural revitalization index is multiplied by 100 and denoted as $rural$.

4.2.2. Trend Analysis of Rural Revitalization Index

Figure 2 illustrates the change in the rural revitalization index from 2011 to 2020. Over the past ten years, the rural revitalization index has been growing steadily, from 167.3 in 2011 to 217.1 in 2020, achieving a total growth of 29.8%, which is a great achievement. In addition, calculating the growth rate of the rural revitalization index for each year and comparing them, it was found that 2013 had the lowest growth rate of 1.98%, while 2019 had the highest growth rate of 4.56%.

4.2.3. Dependent Variable: Measurement of Entrepreneurial Activity

Referring to Moore et al. (2020) [39], this paper gathers and consolidates registration information for newly established enterprises in counties spanning from 2011 to 2020, sourced from databases like Tianyancha and Qixinbao, to compile county-level panel data. The annual count of new business registrations per county serves as a proxy for entrepreneurial activity and is logarithmically transformed, denoted as $entrep$.

4.2.4. Control Variables

To enhance the robustness and reliability of the regression results, this paper includes control variables that may influence the rural revitalization system towards forming a dissipative structure. These variables include the county financial self-sufficiency rate, county financial development, county consumption level, county welfare level, county export level, and county population size. This comprehensive approach allows for a thorough analysis of how entrepreneurial activities impact rural revitalization. The public financial self-sufficiency rate ($pub$) is defined as the ratio of local finance’s general budget expenditure to its general budget revenue. County financial development ($fin$) is determined by the ratio of urban and rural residents’ savings deposits balance to GDP. County consumption level ($con$) is measured by the ratio of total retail sales of consumer goods to GDP. County welfare level ($wel$) is assessed by the ratio of beds in all types of social welfare facilities to the registered population. County export level ($exp$) represents the ratio of export value to GDP, and county population size ($pop$) is the natural logarithm of the registered population in the county.

4.3. Method

To accurately assess the impact of entrepreneurial activities on rural revitalization and establish a stable, organized rural revitalization system, this study employs a two-way fixed effect model. In this model, entrepreneurial activities serve as the primary explanatory variables, while rural revitalization acts as the dependent variable. The formulated model is presented below:

$$rura{l}_{it}={\beta }_0+{\beta }_{1}entre{p}_{it}+\sum _{j=1}{\beta }_{j}contro{l}_{ijt}+{\eta }_i+{\delta }_t+{\epsilon }_{it}$$

(3)

where, $i$ denotes individual county; $t$ denotes year; $rura{l}_{it}$ denotes rural revitalization index; $entre{p}_{it}$ denotes entrepreneurial activity; the coefficient to be estimated (${\beta }_1$) denotes the impact of entrepreneurial activity on rural revitalization, which is the focus of this paper; $contro{l}_{ijt}$ is a set of control variables affecting rural revitalization; ${\eta }_i$ is a county fixed effect; ${\delta }_t$ is a year fixed effect; and ${\epsilon }_{it}$ denotes a random disturbance term.

5. Empirical Results and Analysis

5.1. Baseline Regression

The regression results of entrepreneurial activities influencing rural revitalization are presented in

Table 3. Baseline regression results.

Variables	Rural Revitalization
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
Entrep	0.0662 ***	0.0679 ***	0.0911 ***	0.0917 ***	0.0903 ***	0.0917 ***	0.0466 **
	(0.0185)	(0.0185)	(0.0183)	(0.0183)	(0.0183)	(0.0183)	(0.0183)
Pub		0.0092 ***	0.0076 ***	0.0069 ***	0.0069 ***	0.0070 ***	0.0069 ***
		(0.0017)	(0.0017)	(0.0017)	(0.0017)	(0.0017)	(0.0017)
Fin			0.6997 ***	0.6375 ***	0.6405 ***	0.6390 ***	0.7355 ***
			(0.0352)	(0.0358)	(0.0358)	(0.0358)	(0.0358)
Con				0.4387 ***	0.4396 ***	0.4340 ***	0.3928 ***
				(0.0495)	(0.0495)	(0.0495)	(0.0491)
Wel					0.0008 **	0.0008 **	0.0016 ***
					(0.0004)	(0.0004)	(0.0004)
Exp						0.1964 ***	0.1997 ***
						(0.0585)	(0.0579)
Pop							2.7709 ***
							(0.1431)
Cons	7.6979 ***	7.6268 ***	7.0481 ***	6.9559 ***	6.9463 ***	6.9319 ***	−2.7796 ***
	(0.1364)	(0.1370)	(0.1386)	(0.1387)	(0.1388)	(0.1388)	(0.5201)
Fix effect	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
R2	0.4744	0.4752	0.4863	0.4885	0.4886	0.4889	0.4991
Observations	20,450	20,450	20,450	20,450	20,450	20,450	20,450

Note: Standard errors are in parentheses; ** and *** indicate significant at 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

. Model (1) includes only the core explanatory variable of entrepreneurial activities. The estimation results of models (2) to (7) gradually introduce a series of control variables, such as the county financial self-sufficiency rate, based on Model (1). The findings indicate that entrepreneurial activities significantly stimulate rural revitalization, as the estimated coefficients for entrepreneurial activities are consistently positive across all models. Hypothesis 1 of the article is confirmed. A potential explanation is that entrepreneurial activities facilitate the continuous exchange of information, energy, and other materials between the rural revitalization system and the external world, thereby attracting capital and technology. This convergence of negative entropy flows results in a gradual improvement of the system’s order, the formation of a stable and orderly dissipative structure, and a continued decrease in the total entropy flow. These findings suggest that government departments should leverage the natural advantages and rural charm of local areas, target policy support and financial investment to specific localities [40], encourage farmers to develop new business forms such as rural tourism, and promote multi-channel employment for rural laborers. These measures will fundamentally improve the well-being of rural society and advance comprehensive rural revitalization.

The estimated coefficient of the county financial self-sufficiency rate on rural revitalization is significantly positive, indicating that a greater proportion of financial expenditure promotes rural revitalization. Similarly, the positive coefficient for county financial development suggests that finance, as a “reservoir” for rural construction, facilitates entrepreneurial activities by providing essential financial support and introducing more negative entropy flow into the rural revitalization system, thereby alleviating financing challenges in rural areas. Consequently, prioritizing the county’s financial development, particularly through the comprehensive implementation of digital-inclusive finance in rural areas, is essential for catalyzing the revitalization of rural industrial resources and promoting rural revitalization. The county’s consumption level also positively influences rural revitalization, implying that unlocking the county’s consumption potential and eliminating urban–rural consumption barriers can enhance the consumption level, stimulate economic growth, and support the establishment of a dissipative structure within the rural revitalization system. Additionally, a higher welfare level in the county is beneficial for rural revitalization, as it enhances farmers’ quality of life, which is fundamental to rural development. The positive regression coefficient for county export level suggests that higher exports are more conducive to rural revitalization. Thus, local governments should prioritize export trade and actively explore international markets to ensure the export of Chinese commodities, thereby improving rural commercialization and marketization and promoting the prosperity of all rural industries. Lastly, the positive coefficient for county population size indicates that population expansion can facilitate rural revitalization. This finding encourages the government to implement policies that attract diverse talents and provide ample development opportunities, enabling them to drive rural revitalization.

5.2. Endogenous Treatment

The development of entrepreneurial activities often depends on local population size and economic growth; these critical factors are intertwined with rural revitalization. To address potential issues of reverse causality and evaluate the promotional impact of entrepreneurial activities on rural revitalization, this study initially adopts the methodologies proposed by Lin and Tan (2019) [41]. Specifically, it utilizes the degree of topographic relief in each county as an instrumental variable for entrepreneurial activities, incorporated into a two-way fixed-effects model. Topographic relief significantly influences local population distribution and labor intensity, directly shaping the development trajectories of local entrepreneurial ventures. It also reduces costs related to information and commodity transmission and facilitates infrastructure development, thereby fostering local entrepreneurial activities. Regression analysis consistently shows a positive coefficient for entrepreneurial activities, affirming their promotional effect on rural revitalization. Detailed estimation results are presented in Model (1) of

Table 4. Endogenous treatments.

Variables	Instrumental Variable	External Policy Shock
	(1)	(2)	(3)
Entrep	0.9477 ***
	(0.0372)
The returning-home entrepreneurship policy		0.3910 ***	0.8362 ***
		(0.0166)	(0.0359)
Pub	0.0082 **	0.0052 ***	0.0263 ***
	(0.0034)	(0.0009)	(0.0020)
Fin	0.8075 ***	0.7370 ***	2.2977 ***
	(0.0707)	(0.0163)	(0.0354)
Con	0.4117 ***	0.1118 ***	0.4337 ***
	(0.1534)	(0.0264)	(0.0572)
Wel	0.0007	0.0055 ***	0.0084 ***
	(0.0007)	(0.0002)	(0.0004)
Exp	0.2638	−0.1181 ***	0.1490 **
	(0.2345)	(0.0313)	(0.0679)
Pop	1.8711 ***	2.1385 ***	4.7278 ***
	(0.3542)	(0.0752)	(0.1632)
Cons	−6.1612 ***	−0.7070 ***	−10.2817 ***
	(1.2788)	(0.2727)	(0.5917)
R2	0.4328	0.2289	0.3115
Observations	20,450	20,450	20,450

Note: Standard errors are in parentheses; ** and *** indicate significant at 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

.

Secondly, this paper addresses endogeneity by utilizing the pilot of the returning-home entrepreneurship policy as an external policy shock. The “Opinions on Supporting Migrant Workers and Others to Return to Their Hometowns to Encourage Entrepreneurship” was issued by the General Office of the State Council in 2015, prompting the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and related departments to release lists of pilot counties in February, December 2016, and October 2017. As of now, a total of 341 counties have been selected for this program. This paper employs a progressive double-difference model to examine the impact of the returning-home entrepreneurship policy pilot. Entrepreneurial activity serves as the explanatory variable, while the returning-home entrepreneurship policy pilot serves as the explanatory policy variable. The model tests the relationship between the policy pilot and entrepreneurial activities, incorporating dummy variables for the policy impacts, the rural revitalization index, and county fixed effects into the regression analysis. The regression model is specified as follows:

$$entre{p}_{it}={\beta }_0+{\beta }_{1}di{d}_{it}+\sum _{j=1}{\beta }_{j}contro{l}_{ijt}+{\eta }_i+{\epsilon }_{it}$$

(4)

$$rura{l}_{it}={\beta }_0+{\beta }_{1}di{d}_{it}+\sum _{j=1}{\beta }_{j}contro{l}_{ijt}+{\eta }_i+{\epsilon }_{it}$$

(5)

Among these variables, $di{d}_{it}$ represents the shock from the returning-home entrepreneurship policy pilot. A value of 1 is assigned to counties selected for the returning-home entrepreneurship pilot, while counties not selected are assigned a value of 0.

The empirical results from Models (2) and (3) in Table 4 demonstrate a significantly positive estimated coefficient for the pilot of the returning-home entrepreneurship policy on entrepreneurial activities. This indicates that the pilot policy is beneficial for fostering entrepreneurial development in counties, meeting the correlation condition of the instrumental variable. Moreover, the implementation of this pilot policy is part of national top-level planning and remains unaffected by county-level rural revitalization efforts, fulfilling the externality requirement of the instrumental variable.

Furthermore, the positive coefficient of the pilot policy as an instrumental variable on rural revitalization in Model (3) of Table 4 reaffirms the conclusion that entrepreneurial activities can effectively promote rural revitalization. This finding underscores the pivotal role of the returning-home entrepreneurship policy in guiding and supporting entrepreneurial projects with controlled policies and financial assistance. This initiative attracts high-quality human resources, financial capital, and expertise into the rural revitalization system, fostering a conducive business environment. It enhances the exchange of materials between rural areas and the outside world, channels more negative entropy flow into the rural revitalization system, promotes the formation of a dissipative structure, and achieves a new state of stability and order. Ultimately, these efforts contribute to the comprehensive revitalization of rural areas.

5.3. Robustness Check

To mitigate estimation bias in regression results, this paper conducts robustness tests using a two-way fixed-effects model. The tests involve substituting core explanatory variables, excluding pilot counties from the Information to Villages and Households Project, excluding municipalities, and employing a 1% tail shrinkage treatment. The regression outcomes are detailed in

Table 5. Robustness test.

Variables	Substitution of Core Explanatory Variables	Strike Out the County of the Information to the Village Household Project	Eliminate Municipalities	1% Horizontal Tailing Treatment
Entrep	0.0865 ***	0.0475 ***	0.0572 ***	0.0354 **
	(0.0170)	(0.0184)	(0.0184)	(0.0178)
Pub	0.0070 ***	0.0076 ***	0.0071 ***	0.0064 ***
	(0.0017)	(0.0017)	(0.0017)	(0.0021)
Fin	0.7370 ***	0.7491 ***	0.7743 ***	0.7060 ***
	(0.0358)	(0.0365)	(0.0362)	(0.0374)
Con	0.3943 ***	0.3808 ***	0.3879 ***	0.7832 ***
	(0.0491)	(0.0492)	(0.0492)	(0.0835)
Wel	0.0016 ***	0.0016 ***	0.0017 ***	0.0026 ***
	(0.0004)	(0.0004)	(0.0004)	(0.0004)
Exp	0.2010 ***	0.1948 ***	0.2010 ***	11.5104 ***
	(0.0579)	(0.0575)	(0.0579)	(0.4871)
Pop	2.8235 ***	2.8075 ***	2.7850 ***	2.8252 ***
	(0.1419)	(0.1438)	(0.1433)	(0.1354)
Cons	−2.9600 ***	−2.9256 ***	−2.9316 ***	−3.2803 ***
	(0.5200)	(0.5213)	(0.5192)	(0.4949)
Fix effect	yes	yes	yes	yes
R2	0.4996	0.4956	0.4968	0.5364
Observations	20,450	19,838	20,080	20,450

Note: Standard errors are in parentheses; ** and *** indicate significant at 5% and 1% levels, respec-tively.

. Firstly, the paper replaces core explanatory variables by using the natural logarithm of the ratio of newly registered enterprises to the household population in each county. The estimation results for this model are presented in Table 5, Model (1), where the coefficients of the explanatory variables remain significantly positive, indicating that entrepreneurial activities strongly contribute to rural rejuvenation and affirming the reliability of the benchmark regression results. Furthermore, the study assesses the impact of information intelligence on rural development by analyzing counties not involved in the pilot project mentioned above. Regression results for this analysis are shown in Model (2) of Table 5, demonstrating a substantial positive correlation for entrepreneurial activities, underscoring the robustness of the findings. To mitigate resource inequality effects, the sample excludes administrative entities within municipalities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, and Chongqing. Results in Model (3) of Table 5 show that estimates for entrepreneurial activities in counties remain significantly positive, reaffirming the study’s conclusions. To address outliers’ influence on regression outcomes, the study employs a 1% tail shrinkage technique due to the large panel data sample size. Post-treatment estimations reveal no significant deviation from benchmark regression results, thereby confirming the reliability and consistency of the conclusions. Across various tests—including variable modifications, county exclusions, municipality exclusions, and tail shrinkage at the 1% level—the estimated coefficients for entrepreneurial activities consistently show significant positive effects, indicating that entrepreneurial activities effectively promote rural revitalization. These findings bolster the study’s reliability and robustness.

5.4. Mechanism of Action Tests

Building upon theoretical research from previous studies, this paper investigates the impact of entrepreneurial activities on rural rejuvenation through two lenses: the employment effect and the agglomeration effect. Following Baron and Kenny (1986) [42], we first analyze how entrepreneurial activities influence employment opportunities and capital agglomeration. We then integrate these variables into an econometric model to estimate their effects on rural revitalization. The regression model is structured as follows:

$$opportunit{y}_{it}/concentratio{n}_{it}={\beta }_0+{\beta }_{1}entre{p}_{it}+\sum _{j=1}{\beta }_{j}contro{l}_{ijt}+{\eta }_i+{\epsilon }_{it}$$

(6)

$$rura{l}_{it}={\beta }_0+{\beta }_{1}entre{p}_{it}+{\beta }_{2}opportunit{y}_{it}/concentratio{n}_{it}+\sum _{j=1}{\beta }_{j}contro{l}_{ijt}+{\eta }_i+{\epsilon }_{it}$$

(7)

Specifically, we measure employment opportunities by selecting non-farm employment scale, calculated as the ratio of the county’s total population to the number of employees in secondary and tertiary industries at the end of the second year, transformed using the natural logarithm. The natural logarithm of social fixed asset investment gauges the level of capital concentration (concentration).

The estimated coefficients for entrepreneurial activities on employment opportunities and capital agglomeration are both significantly positive, indicating that entrepreneurial activities effectively promote capital concentration and create additional jobs, as demonstrated in the mechanism test results presented in

Table 6. Mechanism tests.

Variables	Employment Level	Rural Revitalization	Capital Concentration	Rural Revitalization
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Entrep	0.1335 ***	0.6634 ***	0.4468 ***	0.5101 ***
	(0.0054)	(0.0154)	(0.0072)	(0.0164)
capital concentration				0.3826 ***
				(0.0154)
employment level		0.1326 ***
		(0.0208)
Pub	−0.0003	0.0236 ***	0.0043 ***	0.0219 ***
	(0.0007)	(0.0019)	(0.0009)	(0.0019)
Fin	0.1077 ***	1.8761 ***	0.1565 ***	1.8305 ***
	(0.0127)	(0.0358)	(0.0168)	(0.0353)
Con	0.0416 **	0.3761 ***	−0.1482 ***	0.4383 ***
	(0.0195)	(0.0551)	(0.0260)	(0.0543)
Wel	0.0005 ***	0.0050 ***	0.0025 ***	0.0041 ***
	(0.0002)	(0.0004)	(0.0002)	(0.0004)
Exp	0.0311	0.2216 ***	−0.0100	0.2296 ***
	(0.0232)	(0.0654)	(0.0308)	(0.0643)
Pop	−0.4223 ***	3.4555 ***	1.2452 ***	2.9231 ***
	(0.0569)	(0.1607)	(0.0757)	(0.1592)
Cons	8.0901 ***	−11.3939 ***	5.5857 ***	−12.4583 ***
	(0.2015)	(0.5931)	(0.2683)	(0.5666)
Fix effect	yes	yes	yes	yes
R2	0.0587	0.3626	0.2679	0.3819
Observations	20,450	20,450	20,450	20,450

Note: Standard errors are in parentheses; ** and *** indicate significant at 5% and 1% levels, respec-tively.

. Models (1) and (3) illustrate the impact of entrepreneurial activities on employment opportunities and capital agglomeration, respectively. The regression coefficients for entrepreneurial activities are consistently positive, reaffirming their role in promoting rural revitalization. In Table 6, Models (2) and (4) further support the conclusion that enhanced employment opportunities and capital agglomeration significantly contribute to rural revitalization. It also proves that hypotheses 2 and 3 of the previous section are valid. This underscores that entrepreneurial activities can alleviate rural surplus labor pressure, diversify employment opportunities for farmers, and increase their wage income. By fostering capital agglomeration, it enhances the mobility of production factors between urban and rural areas, attracts more negative entropy flow into the rural revitalization system, and accelerates the formation of a dissipative structure. These dynamics offer new pathways to boost rural economic development and achieve comprehensive revitalization.

5.5. Heterogeneity Test

5.5.1. Regional Heterogeneity of Entrepreneurial Activity

China’s diverse geographic locations, natural conditions, and other factors result in regional disparities.

Table 7. Heterogeneity test: regional heterogeneity and being an e-commerce demonstration county or not.

Variables	Eastern	Central	Western	Northeastern	E-Commerce Demonstration	Non-E-Commerce Demonstration
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Entrep	0.8868 ***	0.7232 ***	0.6244 ***	0.0286	0.3379 ***	0.6912 ***
	(0.0318)	(0.0328)	(0.0236)	(0.0614)	(0.0348)	(0.0182)
Pub	−0.0048	0.0645 ***	0.0260 ***	0.0245 ***	0.0287 ***	0.0302 ***
	(0.0177)	(0.0096)	(0.0018)	(0.0095)	(0.0034)	(0.0025)
Fin	1.7941 ***	1.3910 ***	1.8677 ***	1.9025 ***	2.1159 ***	1.7459 ***
	(0.0840)	(0.1019)	(0.0588)	(0.0663)	(0.0674)	(0.0445)
Con	0.5440 ***	1.3471 ***	0.1618 ***	0.4445 **	0.4944 ***	0.3471 ***
	(0.1968)	(0.1927)	(0.0619)	(0.1756)	(0.1474)	(0.0725)
Wel	0.0029 ***	0.0111 ***	0.0054 ***	0.0043 ***	0.0003	0.0063 ***
	(0.0008)	(0.0012)	(0.0006)	(0.0016)	(0.0008)	(0.0005)
Exp	−6.4679 ***	0.1482 **	5.2344 ***	−0.5099	0.1346 **	3.0914 ***
	(2.3649)	(0.0648)	(0.5166)	(2.1785)	(0.0681)	(0.5257)
Pop	6.5804 ***	5.2389 ***	2.3437 ***	−0.0441	2.3836 ***	3.4620 ***
	(0.4164)	(0.3680)	(0.2139)	(0.4004)	(0.3154)	(0.1883)
Cons	−25.0073 ***	−19.0043 ***	−5.8227 ***	6.8011 ***	−3.9141 ***	−10.7156 ***
	(1.6378)	(1.4204)	(0.6789)	(1.5810)	(1.1709)	(0.6737)
Fix effect	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
R2	0.4268	0.3438	0.3068	0.6129	0.2766	0.3306
Observations	5110	4950	8890	1500	4845	15,605

Note: Standard errors are in parentheses; ** and *** indicate significant at 5% and 1% levels, respec-tively.

presents the regression results on the regional heterogeneity of county-level entrepreneurial activities affecting rural revitalization. The sample is divided into four economic regions: the East, Central, West, and Northeast. Entrepreneurial activities show significantly positive estimated coefficients on rural revitalization in the eastern, central, and western regions, with decreasing magnitude from east to central to west. This suggests that entrepreneurial activities effectively stimulate rural revitalization in these regions. Several potential explanations exist for this phenomenon, including the close correlation between entrepreneurial activities and local economic development, infrastructure, and the strengths and weaknesses of the business environment. The eastern region has a highly industrialized economy and well-developed infrastructure. The trade environment is dynamic, particularly in coastal cities, which attract high-quality resources such as information, capital, and technology. This influx of resources, referred to as negative entropy flow, enhances the vitality of the rural revitalization system and reduces business costs. As a result, the rural revitalization system becomes more advanced, stable, and orderly. In contrast, the central region’s economy is primarily based on agriculture and light industry, characterized by relatively stable economic development, complete infrastructure, and a moderate business environment. Although the western region lags behind in economic development, it benefits from its latecomer advantage, along with strong policy and financial support from the government, allowing it to catch up with the eastern and central regions. However, the regression coefficient of entrepreneurial activities in the Northeast region is not significant, indicating that these activities do not substantially impact rural revitalization there. This could be due to the Northeast’s relatively underdeveloped economy and unfavorable business environment, leading to a significant brain drain. Therefore, to optimize the positive impact of entrepreneurial activities on rural revitalization, it is essential to consider the heterogeneous characteristics and regional endowment conditions comprehensively. Differentiated support policies should be implemented based on local conditions to explore each region’s potential advantages and promote coordinated and balanced regional development.

5.5.2. Differential Impact of Entrepreneurial Activity on E-Commerce Demonstration and Non-E-Commerce Demonstration Counties

The development of the Internet and e-commerce has significantly advanced the digital transformation of rural areas, making a substantial contribution to the overall promotion of rural revitalization [43]. Moreover, it optimizes the allocation of resources across the entire rural industrial chain. This study investigates the impact of entrepreneurial activities on the business “soft environment”, based on a sample of comprehensive e-commerce demonstration counties from 2014 to 2020. Counties are categorized into e-commerce demonstration and non-demonstration groups, and a fixed-effects model is used for regression analysis. The results, shown in Table 7, models (5) and (6), reveal significantly positive coefficients for entrepreneurial activities in both types of counties. This indicates that entrepreneurial endeavors have the potential to markedly promote rural revitalization across all sampled counties. Interestingly, non-e-commerce demonstration counties exhibit a notably stronger revitalization effect, as evidenced by larger coefficient estimates. This disparity may stem from the relatively lower marginal impact of entrepreneurial activities in e-commerce demonstration counties, possibly due to their already favorable business environments and superior infrastructure. These findings suggest a need for governmental prioritization of local digitalization efforts, encouragement of seamless e-commerce integration throughout the rural industrial chain, and exploration of diverse e-commerce applications. Enhancing rural digitalization levels, improving rural living conditions, and establishing a dissipative structure within the rural revitalization system should be subsequent steps.

5.6. Further Elaboration: The Influence of Entrepreneurial Endeavour on Rural Revitalization Subsystems

To comprehensively analyze the relationship between entrepreneurial activities and the rural revitalization system, this paper uses the scores of the five subsystems of rural revitalization—industrial prosperity, ecological livability, rural civilization, effective governance, and affluent life—as explanatory variables, with entrepreneurial activities as the core independent variable in regression. The estimation results are presented in

Table 8. Impact of entrepreneurial activities on rural revitalization subsystems.

Variables	Prosperous Industries	Ecological Livability	Civilized Rural Customs	Effective Governance	Rich Life
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
Entrep	−0.2855 ***	0.4916 ***	0.0307 ***	0.0151 ***	0.4292 ***
	(0.0058)	(0.0098)	(0.0066)	(0.0034)	(0.0049)
Pub	0.0047 ***	−0.0013	0.0022 ***	0.0130 ***	0.0050 ***
	(0.0007)	(0.0012)	(0.0008)	(0.0004)	(0.0006)
Fin	0.5430 ***	0.5646 ***	0.0164	0.1863 ***	0.5801 ***
	(0.0137)	(0.0231)	(0.0156)	(0.0079)	(0.0116)
Con	0.0974 ***	0.2296 ***	−0.0311	0.0148	0.0709 ***
	(0.0212)	(0.0357)	(0.0241)	(0.0123)	(0.0178)
Wel	−0.0007 ***	0.0025 ***	−0.0003	0.0005 ***	0.0031 ***
	(0.0002)	(0.0003)	(0.0002)	(0.0001)	(0.0001)
Exp	0.0036	0.0875 **	0.1159 ***	−0.0100	0.0287
	(0.0251)	(0.0423)	(0.0286)	(0.0145)	(0.0212)
Pop	−0.4794 ***	2.1256 ***	1.0326 ***	0.1359 ***	0.5848 ***
	(0.0617)	(0.1039)	(0.0702)	(0.0357)	(0.0519)
Cons	5.7412 ***	−9.6583 ***	−1.8185 ***	0.1225	−4.7081 ***
	(0.2188)	(0.3684)	(0.2488)	(0.1265)	(0.1841)
R2	0.1649	0.2574	0.0166	0.1062	0.5155
Observations	20,450	20,450	20,450	20,450	20,450

Note: Standard errors are in parentheses; ** and *** indicate significant at 5% and 1% levels, respec-tively.

, encompassing Models (1) to (5).

The estimated coefficient of entrepreneurial activities on industrial prosperity is significantly negative, likely due to the primary indicator of industrial prosperity in this study being the proportion of value added from the primary industry. Specifically, entrepreneurial activities in counties do not foster the growth of rural industries centered on agriculture. This highlights the inadequacy of solely relying on agricultural development to meet the demands of constructing a modernized Chinese-style countryside. There is an urgent need to discard the traditional “agriculture-centric” mindset and dismantle the economic structure based solely on agriculture. Instead, a modern rural industrial system integrating primary, secondary, and tertiary industries must be swiftly established. This necessitates strengthening the synergy between agriculture and modern technologies, like 5G and cloud computing, and promoting the emergence of new industries and business models in rural areas. Vital to advancing rural industrial prosperity in this new era is encouraging farmers to engage in “agriculture +” sectors such as leisure agriculture and healthcare, leveraging the multifaceted potential of agriculture, and driving the deep integration of county-level industries. The estimated coefficient of entrepreneurial activities on ecological livability is significantly positive, indicating that entrepreneurial activities enhance ecological livability in rural areas. This underscores how implementing entrepreneurial initiatives can steer rural transformation towards balanced economic and ecological development. It encourages entrepreneurs to focus on sustainable green industries, thereby laying a robust foundation for establishing an ecologically livable countryside. The estimated coefficients of entrepreneurial activities on rural civilization and effective governance are also markedly positive, signifying that entrepreneurial activities contribute to the advancement of rural civilization and improve governance quality. Thus, entrepreneurs give full play to the advantages of local resources, attract different talents to build rural areas, actively organize community activities [44], enrich rural cultural life, foster moral values among farmers, enhance the spiritual outlook of rural communities, and facilitate the organic fusion of traditional and modern elements of rural civilization. The estimated coefficient of entrepreneurial activities on living prosperity is significantly positive, indicating that entrepreneurial development in counties benefits the prosperity of rural residents. This suggests that entrepreneurship promotes employment, offers new avenues for farmers to increase their income and wealth, fundamentally improves their quality of life, and fosters overall prosperity in rural areas.

6. Discussion

Building on the previous discussion, we have outlined the background and practical approaches to rural revitalization in several countries and analyzed the commonalities and differences to provide insights for other nations. In response to the serious challenges of an aging population and declining birth rate, the Japanese government initiated the “Local Creation” strategy. This strategy aims to attract more young people to rural areas by establishing local creation funds and offering housing subsidies, thereby ensuring the sustainable development of rural communities through the promotion of local industries [45]. To address widespread rural poverty, South Korea launched the “New Village Movement” in 1970, which sought to improve the quality of life for rural residents and promote national development by fostering community cooperation and strengthening rural infrastructure [46]. Confronted with issues such as lagging economic development in rural areas and continuous population outflow, the European Union began implementing its Rural Development Plan in 2000. Significant funding was allocated during 2014–2020, particularly focusing on agriculture-oriented countries, such as France and Poland [47]. The plan supports the diversified development of rural areas, strengthens the establishment of nature reserves to protect natural resources and maintain ecosystems, and aims to ensure balanced development across the EU by enhancing the competitiveness of rural regions. Comparing the rural revitalization efforts of different countries, this paper identifies the following commonalities: 1. The implementation of rural revitalization often occurs in the context of lagging economic development, declining rural populations, and aging demographics. 2. In response to these challenges, countries have adopted measures to strengthen infrastructure and promote industrial diversification. The differences lie in the countries’ varying stages of development, cultural backgrounds, the severity and focus of the issues, and the specific implementation plans (for instance, China utilizes rural e-commerce, Japan integrates agriculture with tourism, and France promotes the branding of agricultural products to achieve industrial diversification). Overall, the rural revitalization cases from different countries offer diverse solutions, enhancing our understanding of the applicability of these strategies across various contexts. They also provide valuable historical insights for implementing similar strategies in other regions or countries in the future. Despite differences in historical context, the general strategies of improving infrastructure and promoting industrial diversification remain worthy of consideration and adaptation by others.

To address issues such as slow economic development, significant population loss, and limited industrial diversification in rural areas, various countries have implemented different strategies to support rural entrepreneurship. In India, entrepreneurs are aided through financial services such as microloans, which help rural households increase their incomes and alleviate poverty [48]. In Kenya, the introduction of M-Pesa, a mobile payment platform, has expanded financial services to previously unbanked farmers, thereby enhancing rural business activities [49]. In Brazil, programs like PAA encourage government agencies to purchase food from small family farms, support the development of family farming and farmers’ cooperatives, and increase the income of smallholder farmers [50]. Similarly, China leverages the growth of e-commerce to lower the barriers to entrepreneurship, offer more development opportunities for entrepreneurs, and stimulate rural economic growth [51]. Through the above analysis, this paper finds that entrepreneurship can improve residents’ income and promote rural economic development. In addition, the development of government and digital technology has a great impact on rural entrepreneurship. The government can promote rural entrepreneurship through financial support, project promotion, and policy assistance. Digital technology brings more opportunities to rural entrepreneurship by reducing costs and expanding markets, and the development of rural finance cannot be ignored.

According to the theory of dissipative structure, combined with the previous content, this paper further explains and illustrates the construction of the rural revitalization evaluation index system. Drawing on Yang (2023) [52] and Wan et al. (2022) [53], since China has a vast territory and different regions are different due to the influence of various factors such as their geographical location, natural environment, and historical background, this paper combines the actual situation to select relatively major and common data to measure and construct the level of rural revitalization. The development of diversified rural industries is conducive to the optimization of industrial structure, the promotion of rural industrial prosperity, and the enhancement of the endogenous power of the rural economy, so the degree of integration of primary, secondary, and tertiary industries and the level of agricultural development are selected as indicators of rural industrial prosperity, and the improvement of the degree of industrial integration and the level of agricultural development will generate negative entropy flow that is beneficial to rural development. Paying attention to ecological environmental protection, promoting green development, and ensuring ecological livability are important components of sustainable development in the countryside. Pollutant emissions and medical and health conditions are selected as indicators for measuring ecological livability in the countryside, and pollutant emissions pollute the countryside environment to the detriment of the countryside ecology, which generates positive entropy in the system; the better the medical and health conditions, the better the countryside ecological environment, and the more orderly the system, which is conducive to a reduction in the entropy value of the system. Strengthening rural cultural construction and enhancing the civilization of rural society is the premise of rural revitalization. The level of educational resources and the level of cultural services are selected as the indicators for measuring rural civilization, and the improvement of the level of educational resources and the level of cultural services is conducive to the enhancement of rural culture, which reduces the entropy value of the rural revitalization system. Strengthening the construction of rural grass-roots organizations and enhancing rural governance is the guarantee of development, and grass-roots democratic organizations and government intervention capacity, as the effective indicators for measuring rural governance, are conducive to rural development, which reduces the entropy value of the system; Promoting the increase in farmers’ incomes and narrowing the gap between urban and rural areas are the fundamentals for the revitalization of the countryside. The increase in rural residents’ income is conducive to the improvement of farmers’ quality of life, which generates negative entropy; a wider gap between urban and rural incomes is not conducive to a sustainable development of the countryside, which increases the entropy value of the system, and is not conducive to the formation of a dissipative structure of the rural revitalization system. Therefore, China’s rural revitalization is the overall improvement of the countryside in industry, economy, ecology, culture, and governance. In other words, the specific manifestation of rural revitalization to form a stable and orderly dissipative structure is the realization of the five goals of industrial prosperity, ecological livability, civilized rural culture, effective governance, and affluent living in rural areas.

This paper discusses geographic conditions affecting entrepreneurial activities for rural revitalization in the context of China. Firstly, it discusses the differences between the center and the countryside. The center has a concentrated population, convenient transportation, and smooth logistics, which are conducive to economic activities and product sales. The industry is dominated by non-agricultural industries such as industry and services, with a diversified industrial structure, which is conducive to entrepreneurial activities. The agricultural-based, relatively homogeneous industrial structure, dispersed populations, complex and diverse terrain, and relatively inconvenient transportation in rural areas are not conducive to entrepreneurship [54]. Second, the characteristics of rural geographic conditions and their impact on entrepreneurship and rural revitalization are discussed. The complex topographical features of rural areas may restrict normal industrial layout, but at the same time, they provide unique natural resources for the development of specialty agriculture. For example, the development of a forest economy and ecotourism. The relatively remote location does increase transportation costs [55]. However, with the development of e-commerce, the impact of geography on entrepreneurship gradually diminishes, making remote areas more accessible for entrepreneurs with resources. Agriculture is the pillar industry of the rural economy and the weak point of modern agricultural development and rural construction, and the upstream and downstream of the agricultural industry chain are expanded through entrepreneurial activities to realize the revitalization of rural industries. In summary, the geographical environment has an important impact on entrepreneurship and rural revitalization. Seize development opportunities in a timely manner, make full use of regional advantages, give full play to the strengths of rural areas, and promote entrepreneurship to promote rural revitalization.

7. Conclusions

Against the backdrop of China’s rapid economic development, this paper systematically examines the internal mechanisms through which entrepreneurial activities influence rural revitalization from a multidisciplinary perspective. It deeply explores the effects of entrepreneurial activities on rural revitalization in counties and the mechanisms behind these effects through an empirical investigation of balanced panel data from 2045 counties nationwide during the period 2011–2020. Entrepreneurial activities can effectively alleviate the problem of rural surplus labor, promote the free flow of capital, technology, and other production factors between urban and rural areas, and play an important role in comprehensively promoting rural revitalization and building a modern Chinese-style countryside. The primary research findings are as follows: Entrepreneurial activities facilitate the movement of resources between urban and rural areas by creating more job opportunities and attracting skilled workers and capital to the rural revitalization system. This helps establish a stable and organized structure for rural revitalization, leading to comprehensive development in the countryside. This conclusion remains valid after accounting for endogeneity and conducting multiple robustness tests. Furthermore, there is notable variation in the impact of entrepreneurial activities on rural rejuvenation across different regions, with the most pronounced effects observed in the eastern area and non-e-commerce demonstration counties. Additionally, the impact of entrepreneurial activities on the rural revitalization system is specifically evident in the four subsystems of ecological livability, civilized rural culture, effective governance, and affluent life. However, it does not contribute significantly to the prosperity of rural industries primarily based on agriculture. Therefore, enhancing the rural industrial structure and achieving the integrated development of primary, secondary, and tertiary industries in rural areas are crucial for advancing rural industries in the contemporary period. Based on these findings, this article presents the following policy recommendations:

Firstly, we propose that villages integrate their unique local industries and resource advantages, actively engage in entrepreneurial endeavors, offer a variety of employment opportunities for farmers, expand the application of digital technology throughout the entire industrial process, and foster new business models combining “agriculture+” through e-commerce and the Internet. This approach aims to achieve the integrated growth of rural industries centered around agriculture and fully utilize the benefits of industrial concentration. The agglomeration effect facilitates the movement of resources between urban and rural areas, increases the influx of negative entropy into the rural revitalization system, stimulates the creation of a dissipative structure within the rural revitalization system, enhances the overall rural business environment, ensures the sustainability of farmers’ income, and drives the high-quality development of the county’s economy.

Secondly, it is crucial to enhance financial investment and policy support for the northeastern region and e-commerce demonstration counties. This involves establishing a precise and comprehensive poverty alleviation and assistance system. Special attention should be given to the development of rural highways, railroads, and other infrastructure projects. These improvements will enhance the logistics and distribution systems in counties and rural areas, creating favorable conditions for entrepreneurial activities. Moreover, it is vital to strengthen the mechanism for attracting talented individuals by instituting incentive policies, such as housing support and entrepreneurial subsidies. This will draw in top-tier talent and resources to these regions. Additionally, it is imperative to prioritize the county’s financing requirements by advocating for the extensive implementation of digital-inclusive finance. This will offer entrepreneurs the requisite financial assistance to surmount financing constraints and mitigate obstacles to entrepreneurship.

Thirdly, there is a significant emphasis on promoting the growth of rural industries that are characterized by unique local characteristics. Farmers are urged to capitalize on the resources at their disposal to establish novel enterprises, including artisan workshops and specialized farming. The objective of this strategic approach is to improve the overall industrial structure by extending the scope of individual production activities to include the entire industry chain that includes production, sales, and services. The ultimate objective is to leverage the distinctive natural advantages and cultural heritage of the local area to create additional employment opportunities, while simultaneously facilitating the modernization and transformation of rural industries. By utilizing traditional cultural practices and local natural resources, we can establish a self-reinforcing cycle that encourages job creation and entrepreneurship, thereby generating additional employment opportunities.

Finally, it is imperative to improve the dissemination of the returning-home entrepreneurship policy pilot. This can be achieved by increasing awareness and engagement with the policy, tailoring policies to suit the economic conditions and regional characteristics of different villages, providing comprehensive training for entrepreneurial projects, improving the entrepreneurial skills of farmers, fundamentally transforming their mindset towards enterprise management, stimulating their entrepreneurial drive and creative potential, and effectively utilizing the pilot program to attract a greater number of individuals. The influx of negative entropy contributes to the rural revitalization system, resulting in a gradual reduction of overall entropy and continuous improvement in orderliness. This process promotes the formation of a stable and orderly dissipative structure within the rural revitalization system, leading to a comprehensive development of the countryside.