Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Research Research Articles

Ballasts of the entrepreneurial ecosystem

Entrepreneurial ecosystem research has developed into a distinct field of study and extant frameworks and models consider the heterogeneous characteristics of ecosystems as a focal point for policymakers seeking to bolster regional entrepreneurial performance. Despite theoretical consensus on these issues, however, entrepreneurial ecosystem research has achieved only modest results in practice for catalyzing entrepreneurial activity. This is largely due to current models providing opaque targets for policymakers to focus their energies, a quandary that this qualitative study attempts to resolve. This research suggests that practical results can be improved by concentrating resource allocations on regional entrepreneurial ecosystem ballasts, which represent the various stakeholders who serve important roles as connectors, vettors, promoters, and chroniclers to catalyze entrepreneurial activity and support cultural heterogeneity. Concomitantly, this research also builds upon previous scholarship which has attempted to connect ecosystem attributes with the benefits that they provide to entrepreneurs.

Bibliometric Analysis of the Development of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research in Global Publications

This study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the field of entrepreneurial ecosystems, mapping the evolving landscape of research from 1995 to 2024. Utilizing VOSviewer for visual network analysis, the research identifies central themes, examines co-authorship and institutional collaboration networks, and highlights the temporal progression of key topics. The findings reveal "entrepreneurial ecosystem" as a nexus connecting diverse research themes such as innovation, economic growth, and sustainability. Significant emphasis is placed on the integration of digital technologies and sustainability within entrepreneurial practices, reflecting shifting academic and practical priorities. The analysis of co-authorship networks shows robust collaboration among leading scholars and institutions, predominantly from Western regions, with increasing contributions from a global cohort. The study underscores the importance of incorporating diverse perspectives to fully understand the multifaceted nature of entrepreneurial ecosystems and suggests future research directions focusing on digital transformation and sustainability in entrepreneurship.

Digital boundary spanning in the evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems: A dynamic capabilities perspective

This study examines the digitalization of entrepreneurial ecosystems and its implications for its conceptual boundaries. In particular, it explores opportunities to catalyze the early evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems stemming from digitalization. Surprisingly, the role of digitalization has not been fully considered in the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature despite its significant impact on its conceptual boundaries. Consequently, it remains unclear how digitalization provides opportunities to overcome regional resource scarcity. Therefore, this study investigates how an entrepreneurial ecosystem can leverage exogenous trajectories and mobilize and integrate external resources. Based on an exploratory qualitative single-case study on the Estonian entrepreneurial ecosystem, this study theorizes digital boundary spanning and identifies necessary entrepreneurial ecosystem capabilities by drawing from the concept of dynamic capabilities. The findings contribute to entrepreneurial ecosystem research by incorporating digital trajectories into the conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystems and providing a more nuanced view of evolutionary dynamics.

Understanding AI innovation contexts: a review and content analysis of artificial intelligence and entrepreneurial ecosystems research

PurposeAn emerging research stream focuses on the place-based ecosystems where artificial intelligence (AI) innovations emerge and develop. This literature builds on the contextual turn in management research and, specifically, work on entrepreneurial ecosystems. However, as a nascent research area, the literature on AI and entrepreneurial ecosystems is fragmented across academic and practitioner boundaries and unconnected disciplines because of disparate and ill-defined concepts. As a result, the literature is disorganized and its main insights are latent. The purpose of this paper is to synthesize research on AI ecosystems and identify the main insights.Design/methodology/approachWe first consolidate research on the “where” of AI innovation through a scoping review. To address the fragmentation in the literature and understand how entrepreneurial ecosystems are associated with AI innovation, we then use content analysis to explore the literature.FindingsWe identify the main characteristics of the AI and ecosystems literature and the key dimensions of “AI entrepreneurial ecosystems”: the local actors and factors in geographic territories that are coordinated to support the creation and development of AI technologies. We clarify the relationships among AI technologies and ecosystem dimensions and uncover the latent themes and underlying structure of research on AI entrepreneurial ecosystems.Originality/valueWe increase conceptual precision by introducing and defining an umbrella concept—AI entrepreneurial ecosystem—and propose a research agenda to spur further insights. Our analysis contributes to research at the intersection of management, information systems, and entrepreneurship and creates actionable insights for practitioners influenced by the geographic agglomeration of AI innovation.

Combining cognition and context: entrepreneurial alertness and the microfoundations of entrepreneurial ecosystems

AbstractEntrepreneurial alertness (EA) research has made substantial progress in identifying the psychological and organizational antecedents and consequences of EA. However, the interactions between environmental factors and EA are understudied and it is unclear how alertness influences and is shaped by entrepreneurs’ local ecosystems. In this “perspectives” essay, we contend that EA and entrepreneurial ecosystems research could be enriched by greater cross-fertilization. We respond to calls for more focus on the microfoundations of entrepreneurship by exploring the opportunities in research at the interface of EA and entrepreneurial ecosystems. We develop a multi-level framework to explain how EA is not only influenced by entrepreneurial ecosystems but can collectively influence the system-level functioning and leadership of ecosystems. Our framework clarifies how EA is shaped by the social, cultural, and material attributes of ecosystems and, in turn, how EA influences ecosystem attributes (diversity and coherence) and outcomes (resilience and coordination). We explain why it is critical to treat the environment as more than simply a moderating influence on the effects of EA and why it is fruitful for entrepreneurship research to develop a fuller picture of EA’s contextual determinants and outcomes. We conclude by proposing a research agenda that explores the interplay between EA and entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: interdependencies of infrastructure and capital and the effects of local culture

PurposeSustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem research is an emerging trend within the entrepreneurship domain. Drawing from resource dependency theory, this study examines the interdependent nature of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem factors and the mediating role of local culture as it relates to entrepreneurial action. The authors collected data from 12 entrepreneurial ecosystems in Australia and developed a model of the interdependencies of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem factors.Design/methodology/approachThe data were collected through an e-survey of Small and Medium Entreprise (SME) owners in New South Wales, Australia. The authors applied partial least squares structural equation methodology to assess the structural models, validate the outer models and examine the inner model.FindingsThe findings reinforce empirical support for sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. The environment where sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems are evolved influences their functionality. Further, entrepreneurial culture mediates the relationship with other ecosystem factors. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.Originality/valueThis study focuses on understanding the interdependent nature of sustainable ecosystem factors. The authors identified entrepreneurial culture as a mediator to business support services, educational institutional support and financial capital availability with business and social networks.

The role of entrepreneurial ecosystems in technological and social challenges

Although there is a common consensus about what an entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) is, the question of how EE dynamics interact with technology and social change remains unclear. In this introductory article to our Special Issue on the role of EE in technological and social challenges, we systematically review the corpus of literature in this field of research. Leveraging bibliometric techniques, we present a review of the most influential papers and their key research topics, synthesized across four thematic groups: (i) university‐based EE, (ii) entrepreneurial innovation ecosystems, (iii) dynamic EE models, and (iv) digital entrepreneurship ecosystems. Within this thematic frame, a synopsis of the papers presented within the special issue is provided, highlighting their research theme addressed, theoretical grounding, and methods leveraged. We conclude this article by identifying potential future research questions that may be advantageous trajectories for the EE research community to address when advancing the field in the coming years.

Connecting the dots? Entrepreneurial ecosystems and sustainable entrepreneurship as pathways to sustainability

AbstractWhile the exponential growth of entrepreneurial ecosystem research has dramatically increased our understanding of the role of context in entrepreneurial outcomes, our knowledge of entrepreneurial ecosystems and environmentally sustainable entrepreneurship is still fragmented. There is ambiguity on how entrepreneurial ecosystems influence sustainable entrepreneurship and what factors facilitate or constrain sustainable entrepreneurship. We attempt to take stock of the extant scholarship on entrepreneurial ecosystems and synthesize studies examining their linkages with sustainability. We systematically reviewed 77 articles identified in the World of Science and Scopus databases to discuss the main themes. The content analysis uncovered four key themes: (a) how entrepreneurial ecosystems become more sustainable, (b) the role of entrepreneurs, (c) the role of universities, and (d) the outcomes of sustainable ecosystems. The findings reveal that interactions between different actors, including customers, suppliers, institutions, governments, and universities, can result in a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem. The novelty of our study arises from integrating extant studies on entrepreneurial ecosystem and sustainability in a systematic and replicable manner. We observed heightened attention to the environmental challenges in ecosystem literature and entrepreneurs' expanded roles in generating ecological and social value. Future studies can further evaluate the effectiveness of entrepreneurial ecosystems to examine whether creating an entrepreneurial ecosystem has a similar value while achieving sustainable development goals across varied contexts.

Governing by entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial ecosystems and socio-spatial difference

Literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) has grown rapidly over the past 5 years, using the concept as a framework to understand regional clusters of entrepreneurship. This article reviews, critiques, and extends the concept of the EE, arguing for its relevance in studying the political economy of urban space. To make this argument, we distinguish between niche EEs (NEEs) and growth EEs (GEEs). This distinction is based on the overlapping but distinct networks of actors and institutions forming each type of EE and also reflects broadly different relationships to growth and productivity, the entrepreneurial subject, global and local scales, and financial ecologies. We argue that EE research has largely focused on GEEs to the neglect of NEEs; by broadening the EE concept, we address shortcomings in the treatment of small businesses, financial relations, social difference, as well as urban politics within the EE literature. Drawing on the EE literature and interviews from a case study of Boston, we show that the infrastructure of GEEs and NEEs are not only “for” fast- and slow-growing businesses, respectively, but reinforce social and economic differences. While NEEs do redistribute resources to marginalized entrepreneurs, these resources are focused on building businesses and only indirectly related to the needs of marginalized communities and equitable development more generally.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Social entrepreneurship plays an important role in the maintenance of economic prosperity and brings benefits to society. The role of social entrepreneurship is growing in the light of challenges of the global economy, increasing uncertainty of the environment, the growth of social problems, and the emergence of crises in the 2020s. These derive an increase in economic and psychological challenges. Social entrepreneurship is known as the driver for solving global problems of society. The entrepreneurial ecosystem serves as a source of entrepreneurial opportunity, as a breeding ground for entrepreneurship. Therefore, exploring the topic of social entrepreneurship in the context of the entrepreneurial ecosystem becomes relevant. Social entrepreneurship, with respect to the entrepreneurial ecosystem, has been extensively explored. However, despite a growing body of publications, to the best of our knowledge, no bibliometric analysis is available on the topic. This analysis is important to understand what trends in the development of social entrepreneurship and the ecosystem exist, what further research directions can be recommended, and how the relationship between social entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial ecosystem has been studied. This study aims to close the gap, consolidate research, and identify the state of the art in the field. In total, 357 publications from the Scopus database were selected for the period of 2009–2022. The study used social network analysis (bibliographic coupling network, co-citation network, citation network, and co-authorship network) and semantic analysis (semantic network) through VOSviewer version 1.6.19 and Gephi version 0.10.1 software. The results showed a growth of publications during this period, allowing us to observe influential journals, the most productive and cited authors, leading countries and universities, impactful papers, networks of collaborations, and co-citations of scholars. The paper with the highest degree of centrality is “Ecosystems in Support of Social Entrepreneurs: A Literature Review” while Sustainability is the most influential journal in the field. The analysis identified six thematic clusters within the research topic. The study contributes to the literature by presenting the research agenda, structure, characteristics of social entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial ecosystem research.

An Evolution of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Studies: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda

This study aims to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) to synthesize and advance the knowledge of how it is investigated and evolved in the previous periods. This study pursues the PRISMA method to review selected EE research and the work of Garrard is applied to construct a SLR matrix to analyze EE literature in peer-reviewed English publication. A total of 100 studies published in 58 journals between 1993 and 2021 were gathered and evaluated. The results indicate three major findings. First, the research on EE has been emerged in the past decades. Second, EE has been defined in several ways and sectors, but the common definition of EE can be expressed through five criteria. Third, the most well-known theory, framework, and measurement of EE are clarified, while the nomological network of EE research was concurrently developed providing the summary of what has been examined. This study provides crucial implications for both theory and practice. In theoretical context, this study gives an updated summary of the trends of EE research; the most popular definition, theory framework, measurement, and nomological network of EE; and the agenda for future research; providing comprehensive overview of EE research and generates new insights for further research in this field. In practice, this study stimulates the awareness of the governors, managers, and other stakeholders of a specific region on building a healthy and effective EE and provides them the methods to improve the EE to generate successful entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Economic Development Policy

The authors discuss economic development policy facing the burgeoning entrepreneurial ecosystem research. They aim to answer four questions. First, how are entrepreneurial ecosystems different from regional innovation systems and clusters, two related frameworks that had been vastly popular among economic development policy makers prior to the rise of entrepreneurial ecosystems? Second, what are the key findings in the entrepreneurial ecosystem research that can guide economic development policy making? Third, how should economic development policy be adjusted under the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach? Finally, what does the ongoing debate on the geographical boundaries of entrepreneurial ecosystems mean for economic development policy?

Places are not like people: the perils of anthropomorphism within entrepreneurial ecosystems research

ABSTRACT The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) has quickly established itself as a major focus within regional development research. A key conceptual framing commonly adopted by scholars theorizing about the growth and evolutionary dynamics of EEs is via anthropomorphized life-cycle models. In this article we offer a critique and argumentation as to why the validity of this approach is spurious and contestable. Arguably, life-cycle-based models overly simplify these complex spatial entrepreneurial phenomena and convey the temporal evolution of EEs as a simplistic, linear, deterministic and path-dependent process. Despite the seductively simplistic appeal of life-cycle models, places are not like people and the uncritical adoption of such crude anthropomorphic framings potentially weakens this research field, at the same time as running the risk of misinforming policymakers.

The evolution of the Fintech entrepreneurial ecosystem in Africa: An exploratory study and model for future development

Despite Africa's leadership in mobile money innovation and an increasing level of Fintech entrepreneurial activity, Africa's Fintech ecosystem trajectory is under-represented in the literature. This study is set out to redress this anomaly while addressing the tensions on the role of history, and adaptability in entrepreneurial ecosystem research. We draw upon the Fintech and the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature, analyze the views of practitioners, and apply temporal bracketing to reconstruct the historical context and three phases of the African Fintech ecosystem evolution over a decade: mobile money, digital finance, and innovative Fintech. Based on the results, we develop a model that explains the metamorphosis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The study contributes an African narrative to the descriptive and explanatory knowledge of Fintech. By showing how Africa's Fintech entrepreneurial ecosystem has evolved, the study also contributes to the entrepreneurial ecosystems research that has thus far focused more on place, actors, and governance than evolution. Our model adds a dynamic perspective to the theorization of Fintech ecosystems and extends the existing literature by taking a historical and longitudinal foresight. Practitioners can apply the lessons to enhance polices that support future Fintech entrepreneurship.

Drivers for SMEs participation in entrepreneurial ecosystems: evidence from health tech ecosystem in Northern Finland

PurposeThe entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) literature is dominated by conceptual studies with insufficient theoretical foundations and empirical evidence on the micro-level. This study aims to explore the largely overlooked question of what the drivers that motivate small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to participate in an ecosystem are.Design/methodology/approachThe study adopts a qualitative exploratory approach. The empirical data consists of 19 semi-structured interviews with top management of SMEs in the health tech ecosystem in Finland. The data were analyzed using a thematic content analysis.FindingsThis study reveals a typology of drivers that motivate SMEs to participate in an ecosystem. These include social drivers (networking and cooperation and communication and knowledge sharing), resource drivers (access to resources, formal and informal support and market access) and cognitive drivers (shared goals and common values).Research limitations/implicationsThe study contributes to the EE research by highlighting the drivers that motivate health tech SMEs to become members of the local ecosystem. It suggests that managers and entrepreneurs need to be aware of the factors related to social, resource and cognitive drivers to ensure the future success of their business.Originality/valueThe study draws evidence from a micro-level perspective which enriches the understanding of the EE phenomenon. It also explores an increasingly relevant but under-researched field, the health tech ecosystem.

From Invisible to Visible: A Roadmap for Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research

By incorporating both “entrepreneurial” and “ecosystem” elements, entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) are argued to constitute “organized attempts to establish environments that are conducive to increasing the success for newly established ventures” (Audretsch et al., 2019: 313). Interest in EEs by scholars, policymakers, and practitioners has grown rapidly in recent years given the impact that their complex interdependencies of various actors and activities has on the entry, growth, and exit of new ventures (Abootorabi, et al, 2021). However, continued progress in EE research is undermined by at least three challenges. First, there is widespread inconsistency in the use of the term EE. Second, scholars lament that too much attention has been given to the elements of the system itself, without proper attention to the evolution of and connections between these elements (Acs, et al, 2017). Third, given that “the current state of ecosystem research is fragmented and heterogeneous with regard to theoretical approaches” (Wurth et al., 2021: 5), “there exists no ‘theory’ of the ecosystem” (Audretsch et al., 2019: 316). In light of the challenges facing scholars interested in making a contribution to the EE literature, this symposium is intended to achieve two objectives by engaging a group of the leading voices in the EE field in a panel discussion. First, it seeks to provide insight into the panelists’ understandings of and perspectives on the current state of EE research in order to identify fruitful areas of inquiry going forward. Second, it seeks to tap into their experience as authors in order to share strategies and tactics about how to publish EE research in the very best management and entrepreneurship journals.

Why Entrepreneurial Processes Enable Value Creation in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

There is increasing interest in entrepreneurial ecosystems, which are a system of elements (social, political, economic, and cultural), that produce the synergistic outcomes of value creation through entrepreneurial activity. Because an ecosystem is a set of elements that produce an effect that is not inherent in any one of them (Davis & Marquis, 2005; Hernes, 1998), understanding the mechanisms through which elements are integrated to create value is of prime importance to entrepreneurial ecosystems research that interests scholars, practitioners, and policy makers. Helpfully, work to date has explored the who, what, where and how questions related to entrepreneurial ecosystems, with less attention focused on why such systems are able to produce value. We apply analogical process theorizing (e.g., Chan, 1998) and the creation view of opportunity exploitation (Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Sarasvathy, Dew, Velamuri, & Venkataraman, 2003) to develop theory to explain why entrepreneurial processes help to integrate discrete systems (rational, natural, and open systems) into superordinate systems (i.e., entrepreneurial ecosystems). Our theorizing offers novel explanations for why entrepreneurial ecosystems flourish despite having to integrate discrete, often orthogonal systems.

Typology and dynamics of actors` roles and positions within entrepreneurial ecosystems: an exploratory study

ABSTRACT This study explores how health-tech small and mid-size enterprises (SMEs) could better utilize the entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) around them in developing their business within this fast-growing yet under-researched industry. Based on the qualitative empirical study, we examine actor roles and related dynamics in the health-tech ecosystem to understand how firms could benefit from the ecosystem's resources. The study contributes to EE research by providing an empirically grounded typology of ten actor roles and examining how an individual company could change and develop its role in the network to grow and succeed. Moreover, it extends the current research on role typologies by explaining the various roles in EEs and underlines the importance of ecosystem dynamics. Managerially, the study highlights the importance of recognizing the company’s role(s) and the roles of other ecosystem members, which further aids in their strategic decision-making and future planning.

Orchestrating in the entrepreneurial ecosystem – orchestrator roles and role-specific capabilities in the regional health technology ecosystem

PurposeThis study aims to define orchestrator roles and related orchestration capabilities in the entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) to understand how companies (especially small and medium-sized enterprises and startups) could benefit from the surrounding ecosystem to develop their business.Design/methodology/approachA qualitative case study of the regional ecosystem built around health technology is researched to get an in-depth understanding of the orchestration roles taken by actors in the ecosystem and, likewise, related bundles of orchestrator role-specific capabilities.FindingsAltogether, eight roles and related orchestration capabilities are defined. First, “opinion leaders,” “business facilitators” and “regulation informants” provide resources for participants. Second, “relationship promoters,” “coordinators” and “commanders” create prerequisites for collaboration. Finally, “integrators” and “complementors” help to create concrete offerings. The roles taken can be simultaneous, and they are in constant change as positions and resources of actors change.Research limitations/implicationsTheoretically, this study contributes to the existing EE and orchestration capability research by studying orchestrator roles and related capabilities in the context of an entrepreneurial health tech ecosystem, a phenomenon that has not received sufficient research attention yet.Practical implicationsManagers will be able to use the lessons learned from this study in understanding, using and developing their capabilities, positions and activities in the network. For policymakers, understanding EE reality and dynamics is useful when developing policies for regional growth, likewise in constructing and developing industrial ecosystems to support entrepreneurship in the region.Originality/valueThe study provides novel in-depth knowledge of orchestration in regional, EEs. It complements the currently dominating conceptual research and brings a micro-level perspective that has mostly been lacking in EE studies.

Entrepreneurship in smart cities: elements of start-up ecosystem

PurposeThe cities are distinctly engine of economic growth, which depends upon speed at which innovations are brought out and trigger entrepreneurship. Smart city initiatives are one of the opportunities to unleash innovation and entrepreneurship in developing countries like India. Entrepreneurial ecosystem research in smart cities is still in its nascent phase. Therefore, the study aims to bring out elements for a start-up ecosystem to promote entrepreneurship in smart cities.Design/methodology/approachFocus group discussion has been applied to gain a variety of insights and opinion from selected participants with diverse expertise.FindingsThe study proposes a framework for developing a start-up ecosystem in smart city. The findings suggest the technology infrastructure along with the elements of start-up framework as knowledge hub, public policy, entrepreneurship and city economy.Research limitations/implicationsThe study does not show the impact of smart city strategies over an extended period.Practical implicationsA robust entrepreneurial framework usually impact on utilization of technologies for economic activities and regional development. The innovators, policymakers, city administrators, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and various stakeholders in society will get benefit from the outcomes of this study.Social implicationsThe evolution of smart cities is a social initiative with various stakeholders –such as governments, residents, businesses and entrepreneurs. The creation of start-up ecosystem in smart cities requires several levels of interventions such as new programs and institutional reforms.Originality/valueThe research explores pillars and constituents that describe a start-up ecosystem in smart cities and nurtures a collaborative culture of innovations and entrepreneurship.