Development Of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Research Articles

Ecosystem Orchestration: Unpacking the Leadership Capabilities of Anchor Organizations in Nascent Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Although prior research emphasizes the essential role of anchor organizations’ leadership in entrepreneurial ecosystem development in the early stages, their strategic functions are undertheorized. This study conducted a single case study with the entrepreneurial ecosystem of Santiago de Chile as a revelatory case by examining how anchor organizations catalyze the early evolution of the entrepreneurial ecosystem from the perspective of the orchestration theory. We developed a framework of ecosystem orchestration to demonstrate how anchor organizations adapt their strategic functions in managing and building various networks and resources to dynamic environments in entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Value co-creation between coworking spaces and startups in different stages of development

Coworking spaces (CWS) are sustainable pillars for the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems, providing a variety of relevant services, which are co-created in exchanges experienced among different actors. During the pandemic, CWS experienced structural transformations. This study identified, characterised, and evaluated the relevance of the services provided by CWS considering the different stages in the evolution of a startup. For this, a narrative literature review was conducted and the second phase of the research included the development of netnographic initiatives and the conduction of multiple case studies. As a result, six categories of services were identified, comprehending 36 services, whose relevance varies considering the maturity level of the startup. This research contributes to the literature by providing a systemic view of the state of practice of these services in the context of CWS, as well as identifying the changes CWS environments are experiencing driven by digital transformations.
 Keywords: Coworking Spaces, startup, sharing economy, co-creation, digital transformation.

Models of entrepreneurial ecosystems

This report presents an analysis of different entrepreneurial ecosystem models. It is found that the theory of the creation and modeling of entrepreneurial ecosystems is insufficiently developed. The purpose of the research is to discover among the wide variety of factors and conditions, those of them that most strongly influence the development of entrepreneurship and to apply them in new economic models. New policies are being formulated to create an enabling environment for business, reaping significant benefits from the development of entrepreneurship and increasing the welfare of society. The development of entrepreneurial ecosystems will encourage innovation and reform in economic zones, regions, and the national and global economy.

Functions of agents in regional entrepreneurial ecosystem in the conditions of digital transformations

The article discusses the role and functions of agents in the context of entrepreneurial ecosystem development. Theoretical aspects of agent role have been reflected and main functions that agents perform in entrepreneurial ecosystem of region highlighted. The article highlights importance of agents as key players that ensure functioning of ecosystem. The research methodology is based on the methods of assessing fulfillment of agent functions by means of ranking analysis in the context of the proposed indicators. A comparative assessment of agents’ functioning in entrepreneurial ecosystems of regions has been carried out in the Republic of Tatarstan, the Chelyabinsk Region, the Tomsk Region, the Trans-Baikal Territory, and the Amur Region. The analysis of regional ecosystems in comparison with the reference region (Tatarstan) made it possible to identify dysfunctions in the work of agents in underdeveloped regions. It has been revealed that functions of supporting start-ups and research and innovation functions are not fully implemented in some regions.

The Involvement of Universities, Incubators, Municipalities, and Business Associations in Fostering Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Promoting Local Growth

Portugal has made investments in several regions within the country to promote the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The primary goal of these investments is to facilitate the foundation of new firms, drive economic growth, and encourage innovation. The current emphasis is on examining productive entrepreneurship and the intricate interactions among many features of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. This study’s main objective is to thoroughly comprehend the current status of entrepreneurial ecosystems in Portugal, and their potential to foster local economic development as perceived by key stakeholders. This will be achieved through analysing the contributions made by universities, incubators, municipalities, and business groups towards their growth and advancement. The research employed a qualitative technique, wherein semi-structured interviews were administered to a total of nineteen participants. These participants consisted of CEOs from incubation organisations, representatives from municipal councils, representatives from business associations, and representatives from higher education institutions. The data was gathered throughout the period spanning from December 2022 to March 2023, with a combination of in-person and online interviews. The interviews were taped and afterwards transcribed, with the information being processed using the MAXQDA PRO 20 software. The findings indicate that there has been a notable development and expansion of entrepreneurial ecosystems in Portugal throughout the past several years. This progress has been facilitated by the active involvement of various stakeholders at the local level, including higher education institutions, incubators, local government bodies, and business groups. Notwithstanding the aforementioned expansion, the survey participants highlight the presence of some challenges that constraint the advancement of entrepreneurial ecosystems in select locations in the country, including insufficient financial resources and a dearth of skilled workers.

Mentors' motives and mentoring functions: comparing social and commercial new ventures

PurposeEntrepreneurial support programs, like incubators and accelerators, often offer mentorship to new ventures. However, existing research on mentoring has mainly focused on the entrepreneur's perspective, leaving researchers with limited understanding of why experienced mentors provide support to new ventures. This study aimed to explore mentors' motives in mentor–venture relationships and their impact on the advisory process. It also examined different types of mentors (social and commercial) and their motivations for assisting and supporting new ventures.Design/methodology/approachThe present study utilizes a qualitative research approach to investigate the motivations and mechanisms through which new venture mentors assist founders in their growth and success. In-depth interviews were conducted with 18 mentors supporting both social and commercial ventures. These mentors were selected from ten accelerator and incubator programs situated in Belgium. The interviews aimed to gain insights into the mentors' motivations and their experiences in the role of mentors.FindingsBased on the social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity, this study identified two main motives of mentors: “gaining back” reflecting mentors’ self-interest in deriving benefits from the relationship and “paying back” representing their altruistic reasons for supporting new ventures. Additionally, the study identified mentor functions that primarily involved providing career-related support to new ventures. Moreover, the research revealed intriguing similarities and differences in the motivations and mentoring functions between mentors of social and commercial ventures.Research limitations/implicationsFuture research should explore the evaluation process and criteria used by mentors and new ventures when selecting each other for a productive mentoring relationship. Additionally, further investigation is needed to examine the firm-level impact of various mentoring services on the performance of social and commercial new ventures at different stages of development. Comparing mentor motives and functions across diverse geographical settings would address the limitation of the study and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.Practical implicationsThe findings of the study can inform policymakers, accelerator and incubator program managers and new ventures seeking mentors and support initiatives. They can use the insights to design effective mentoring programs that align with the specific needs and motivations of mentors and new ventures. Understanding the different motives and functions of mentors can help in the selection of appropriate mentors who can provide the necessary support and expertise to new ventures.Social implicationsThe study highlights the importance of mentorship in the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Accelerator and incubator programs play a crucial role in connecting new ventures with mentors who have the right motivation and expertise, contributing to the growth and success of new ventures and the overall entrepreneurial ecosystem. By identifying both altruistic and self-interest motivations in mentoring relationships, the study emphasizes the dual dimensions that characterize the mentor–venture relationship. This understanding can foster stronger collaborations and reciprocal exchanges between mentors and new ventures, ultimately benefiting both parties.Originality/valueThis research contributes to the entrepreneurship literature by exploring the mentor–new venture relationship from mentors' perspective. It expands the existing research on mentor–protégé relationships, broadening the understanding of mentoring dynamics in different organizational settings. The findings offer insights grounded in social exchange theory and provide directions for future research on mentor–venture relationships, resource exchange and relationship development. The study also holds practical implications for policymakers and program managers involved in fostering mentoring initiatives for new ventures.

Exploring Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Developed Countries: A Systematic Review

Globally, entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) have gained attention as enablers of innovation and entrepreneurship. This paper explores entrepreneurial ecosystems in developed countries. Entrepreneurship is a globally important phenomenon for economic development and addressing socio-economic challenges such as unemployment, inequality, and poverty. Systematic literature review (SLR), with the aid of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) approach was used in the items selection process. A final sample of 28 primary articles was used. Additionally, bibliometric analysis was conducted using VOSviewer software to determine publication patterns and citation trends. More relevant and recent articles were incorporated into the bibliometric analysis to improve the results. Isenberg’s six domains of entrepreneurial ecosystems framework, supported by the Dynamic capabilities (DC) theory underpinned the study. Results show that though entrepreneurial ecosystems are prevalent, they face many challenges. However, opportunities are also available but may be difficult to access. Globally, scholars agree that entrepreneurial ecosystems enhance economic development, and they help to solve socio-economic challenges such as unemployment, inequality, and poverty. This paper recommends that entrepreneurial ecosystems should be fostered in all regions to promote economic development and provide solutions to solve socio-economic problems. Local and global leaders should invest in the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems to promote economic development. The original value is based on exploring the dynamic nature of entrepreneurial ecosystems in the global environment using a developed country perspective. The findings provide important insights to policymakers and other stakeholders for developing strategies and interventions for enhancing economic growth through entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurial ecosystems in the context of the digital economy formation

Subject. The article deals with the idea of entrepreneurial ecosystem approach that focuses on the impact of cities and regions on entrepreneurship, and vice versa, and considers the methodology of interaction between digital technologies and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Objectives. The purpose is to analyze the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems under the digital economy formation. Methods. The study employs the analysis of scientific literature, compilation of statistics, statistical analysis, and practical modeling. Results. We present our own understanding of the definition of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The entrepreneurial ecosystem is considered as a dynamically developing economic system that unites various participants, like business leaders, universities, sources of investment capital, technologies, and has appropriate innovative influence on the environment in which it is located. The paper offers a new methodology for the analysis and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystems, defines indicators for quantitative assessment of factors based on statistical data for federal districts. Conclusions. The study shows the heterogeneity of development of entrepreneurial ecosystems in the context of the digital economy, and formulates a conclusion about the contribution of digital technologies to entrepreneurial activity. The Central Federal District occupies a leading position in the close connection of digitalization with entrepreneurial activity. The findings can be used for the analysis of various regions given their specifics, for further research in the field of the impact of digitalization factors on entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Recommendations for entrepreneurial ecosystem development

Purpose The primary objective of this study is to consolidate the fragmented body of scholarly literature pertaining to developing entrepreneurial ecosystems, with the intent of determining prospective avenues of inquiry. Design/methodology/approach The analysis included a longitudinal distribution by category of journals with most recommendations, articles with most citations and the total number of recommendations. In addition, the authors presented a thorough explanation of the recommendations grouped by categories. Findings This study generated a framework that provides a comprehensive understanding of research on recommendations for the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The framework identified 74 recommendations in the fields of policy, support, culture, human capital, market and finance. The results indicated that the domain of recommendations for the entrepreneurial ecosystem is still in its infancy. Originality/value This study contributes to research on entrepreneurial ecosystems by focusing on recommendations for their development. The resulting framework can be used by policymakers to develop entrepreneurial ecosystems and by researchers in future studies.

Perception of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Factors: Comparison among Students and Entrepreneurs

The entrepreneurial ecosystem refers to the dynamic interplay of socioeconomic factors that enable entrepreneurs to establish and expand their businesses. The degree of entrepreneurial activity is heavily influenced by how entrepreneurs perceive this ecosystem. This research examines the perceptions of such ecosystems in Nepal. Specifically, the study investigates the differences in understanding entrepreneurial ecosystem factors between students and entrepreneurs. To accomplish this, a survey consisting of a set of questions was administered to 343 students and 158 entrepreneurs. It was observed that, compared to students, entrepreneurs rated significantly lower in all the ecosystem factors except for entrepreneurial capabilities. An independent samples t-test result showed a significant difference in the perception of the entrepreneurship ecosystem factors among students and entrepreneurs, except for social-cultural support. The study suggested that a high level of entrepreneurial ecosystem development is not required to influence entrepreneurial activity; improvement in some factors, such as family and social support, skill-building education, and training, might increase entrepreneurial intentions.

Collective Identity in Social Enterprise Ecosystems: A Cross-Country Comparison

In response to the call for research on the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems for social entrepreneurship, we engaged the organisational field literature, particularly the issue field perspective, in understanding the institutional dynamics in the evolution of social enterprise ecosystems. We examine genetic and epigenetic factors—stakeholder networks and policy directives—in shaping social enterprise identity claims made by diverse groups of organisations in emerging social enterprise ecosystems. We conducted a cross-country comparative analysis of 549 organisations’ social enterprise identity claims and organisational practices in the Philippines and Sri Lanka. The results show that SoEE evolution is not typified by the emergence of a dominant phenotype—social enterprise model—but could also be a field of diverse organisations that claim a social enterprise identity.

Environmental change, strategic entrepreneurial action, and success: Introduction to a special issue on an important, neglected topic

AbstractResearch SummaryThe two premises that underpin this SEJ Special Issue on Environmental Change, Strategic Entrepreneurial Action, and Success are that all environmental changes provide positive potentials for some ventures, and that this has been under‐emphasized in past theory and research. After stating these premises and illustrating how present research treats the environment, we proceed to explain how the five articles selected for the special issue advance our thinking in this domain. We then broaden our discussion to how future entrepreneurship research can make further progress by studying interaction among environmental changes as well as their links to entrepreneurial agents, contexts (sectoral, spatial, organizational, etc.) and the entrepreneurial artifact (emerging venture). Throughout, the focus is on the enabling rather than constraining role of environmental changes.Managerial SummaryThe COVID‐19 pandemic, the digital revolution, and the sustainability transition forced by climate change demonstrate significant business impact of environmental changes, including potentials for new business initiatives. This editorial and the five vanguard articles included in this SEJ Special Issue on Environmental Change, Strategic Entrepreneurial Action, and Success outline how future research can develop better theory and evidence on this important topic. The articles address matters ranging from how COVID‐19 facilitated some technology firms' recruiting and reignited media firms' dormant initiatives to how environmental degradations sparked entrepreneurial ecosystem development in Kenya, how the level of environmental dynamism at a venture's birth impact its current ability to benefit from change, and the consequences of passing on potentials provided by environmental change.

The Influence of Digital Environment Factors on the Development of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Russian Regions

The Influence of Digital Environment Factors on the Development of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Russian Regions

Applying the community capital framework for social entrepreneurial ecosystem development: Vietnam’s One Commune One Product program

ABSTRACT This study explores the efficacy of Vietnam’s One Commune, One Product (OCOP) program as a community development program. Participation in the OCOP program by rural enterprises resulted in increased stocks of community capital: (1) human capital through participation in training and workshops; (2) social capital through networking at OCOP workshops, training events, and trade fairs directly; and (3) financial capital due to enhanced livelihoods through domestic and exports sales of OCOP branded products. These social and economic outcomes result from the OCOP-enabled opportunities for participants to develop their business and entrepreneurial skills and access resources to build better livelihoods while developing their portfolio of community capital and enhancing their rural social and economic entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Entrepreneurial ecosystem and urban economic growth-from the knowledge-based view

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems and economic growth at the urban level from the knowledge-based view. This paper also scrutinizes the moderating roles of industrial diversities and digital technology service. Based on the data of 32 cities in China from 2008 to 2018, the findings show that entrepreneurial ecosystems' development promotes municipal economic growth significantly via knowledge creation and knowledge flow. Moreover, industrial diversity and digital technology service are found to positively moderate the relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystems’ development and the urban economic growth. This study extends the literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional economic development at the urban level from the perspective of knowledge-based view. The findings also provide policymakers and stakeholders a different mentality when forming strategies and policies on entrepreneurship.

A Conceptual Framework for Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Policy Formulation

The entrepreneurial ecosystem concept has attracted the attention of many governments and regional authorities, encouraged by the ubiquitous belief in the value of entrepreneurship as a source of economic growth. However, the study of entrepreneurial ecosystems is recent, undertheorized and fragmented. Specifically, it has a limited capacity to explain the effect of policies in the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems, while two competing views of how to develop an entrepreneurial ecosystem coexist, the ‘curator’ versus ‘builder’ government. Without solid and coherent theoretical foundations to guide its formulation, policies risk being ineffective. We hold the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems requires a customized mix of policies adapted to the unique characteristics of each ecosystem; promote the quality of entrepreneurship to ensure allocation of resources to productive use; and address the complexity of entrepreneurial ecosystems with a holistic policy approach. Considering the unfeasibility of generic, ‘one size fits all’ solutions, we follow a different path to advance research and assist policymaking, by providing guidance on key parameters to inform the formulation of entrepreneurship policies for entrepreneurial ecosystems (EPE). Based on our findings we present a conceptual framework and discuss three parameters for policy formulation top-down versus bottom-up implementation, support to systemic versus framework conditions, and holistic versus siloed approaches.

Entrepreneurial Ecosystem and Urban Economic Growth

The purpose of this paper is to explain the link between the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems and economic growth at the urban level, and in specific scrutinizes the moderating roles of industrial diversities and digital technology service. This study investigates the economic growth of 32 cities in China from 2008 to 2018. The sample covers a wide range of cities in China. We apply OLS models with fixed effects and time controlled. The results show that entrepreneurial ecosystems’ development promotes municipal economic growth. Moreover, industrial diversity and digital technology service are found to positively moderate the relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystems’ development and the urban economic growth. This study significantly extends the literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional economic development. From the perspective of knowledge-based view, this study provides a new lens to understand the function of the entrepreneurial ecosystems at the urban level. It also provides policymakers and stakeholders a different mentality when forming strategies and regulations on entrepreneurship.

Necessary Support or Unexpected Inhibitor: Government-led Initiatives in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Recently, entrepreneurial ecosystems have become a trending topic for entrepreneurship scholars and regional policymakers worldwide. Aiming at developing their regional economies, politicians are keen to building a thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem. While there is a consensus that policymakers play essential roles in early evolutionary stages of entrepreneurial ecosystems, the literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems offers limited knowledge about how government-led ecosystem-building initiatives influence the emergence and long-term development of entrepreneurial ecosystems. To address this research gap, this study conceptualizes entrepreneurial ecosystems as meta-organizations and explores how ecosystem-building initiatives by public organizations influence power dynamics within the ecosystem and how it changes the meta-organizational strategic aims and evolutionary path of the system. By analyzing two entrepreneurial ecosystems, this study reveals how activities of government agencies in entrepreneurial ecosystems shape their governance structure and impact their evolution.

Creating Bonding and Bridging Social Capital in Nascent Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Nascent entrepreneurial ecosystems are characterized by the lack of connections and interactions between various actors and have, therefore, weak social capital. To advance the evolutionary stage of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, interconnectedness among ecosystem stakeholders needs to be strengthened and diversified. While the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature emphasizes the importance of social capital for entrepreneurial ecosystem development, it has not paid sufficient attention to ‘how’ social capital is created within ecosystems. This study sheds light on the role of anchor tenants, central actors in the ecosystem governance of nascent entrepreneurial ecosystems, in creating ecosystem-level social capital. This study conducted two case studies of entrepreneurial ecosystems: Based on the within- and between-case analyses of these two ecosystems, this study revealed that anchor tenants create ecosystem-level social capital with a cycling mechanism of three consecutive steps: (1) creating bonding social capital, (2) creating bridging social capital, and (3) converting bridging into bonding social capital. The findings extend the current understandings of early ecosystem evolution by illuminating anchor tenants’ social capital creation activities and offer implications for social capital theory by examining the interplay between bonding and bridging social capital.

Indigenous entrepreneurial ecosystems: a comparison of Mapuche entrepreneurship in Chile and Māori entrepreneurship in Aotearoa New Zealand

AbstractIndigenous entrepreneurial ecosystem development is not addressed in research. We define and characterise Indigenous entrepreneurial ecosystems and their evolution based on a qualitative study comparing Indigenous entrepreneurship in Chile and in Aotearoa New Zealand. We draw on interviews with 10 Mapuche entrepreneurs in Araucanía and 10 Māori entrepreneurs in the Bay of Plenty, observation, and a literature review to address the question – how does an Indigenous entrepreneurial ecosystem develop along with the social, economic, and political development of mainstream society? We find that Indigenous entrepreneurial ecosystems evolve with the economic and social environments of their countries because of an internal imperative towards cultural continuity and the resilience of culture to change. We find that mature Indigenous entrepreneurial ecosystems are associated with higher states of development and support a broader range of business models. Implications for policy, practice, and research are discussed.