Abstract
This collection of original essays, along with another edited volume that was also published in 2024 (Huggins et al., 2024), is testimony to the exponential growth in interest in entrepreneurial ecosystems since the concept was introduced less than two decades ago by Isenberg (2010, 2011), Feld (2012), Mason and Brown (2014) and Stam (2015). As Andonova and Pérez note in their chapter, ‘entrepreneurship unfolds in a local context’, this arises because entrepreneurship is geographically localised. This produces significant geographical variations in entrepreneurial activity (start-up rates, high growth firms). The entrepreneurial ecosystem concept emerged as an attempt to explain why some places provide fertile ground for entrepreneurship. Roundy describes this growth in studies of entrepreneurial ecosystems as ‘the contextual turn in entrepreneurial research’ (p. 99).
The chapters are grouped around seven themes: the foundations of entrepreneurial ecosystems; actors within entrepreneurial ecosystems; cross-cultural contexts of entrepreneurial ecosystems; universities and entrepreneurial ecosystems; digital entrepreneurial ecosystems and governance; sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems; and the measurement of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The chapters comprise a mix of review essays, systematic literature reviews, the development of conceptual frameworks, and empirical studies. They cover a wide range of geographical contexts. The book has had a long gestation, common to such volumes, with the editors noting that it was initiated just before the outbreak of COVID.
The contributors collectively identify several shortcomings in the existing entrepreneurial ecosystem literature. In addressing these shortcomings, the book takes the field in several important new directions. A number of themes recur across the chapters.
The first cross-cutting theme concerns entrepreneurs. One key debating point is whether entrepreneurs should be seen as the central characters of entrepreneurial ecosystems or merely the outputs. The conceptualisation of entrepreneurs as outputs of entrepreneurial ecosystems is challenged, for example by Luato et al. who argue that the entrepreneur should be seen as a client, not an output. Several contributors consider other measures of the output of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Pirini and Cummings suggest that we need to go beyond the economic impact of entrepreneurial ecosystems to include social, environmental and community outputs. Kaus et al. specifically consider the development of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Another debate concerns the type of entrepreneur that should be the focus entrepreneurial ecosystem research. The portrayal of entrepreneurs in the literature is dominated by high growth and ambitious entrepreneurs. Justification for the focus on high-growth entrepreneurs is provided by Fernandes et al. who present a systematic literature review of quantitative studies of entrepreneurial ecosystems that demonstrate the fundamental contribution of high-growth firms. This is supported by Iacobucci et al. whose analysis indicates that although start-up rates have a positive impact on economic resilience it is not the start-up rate that matters but the number of high-growth firms. Scheepers and Daniel are critical of this focus, arguing that ‘not all entrepreneurial actors within a region need to be high growth’ (p. 89). In their study of persistent regional entrepreneurship over time Fritsch and Wyrwick focus on self-employment. However, Lehmann argues that entrepreneurship and self-employment are different phenomena. Nicotra et al. propose that the focus should be on productive entrepreneurship. These considerations receive wider deliberation in chapters by Fernandes et al. and Iacobucci and Perugini on how to empirically measure and compare entrepreneurial ecosystems
Several chapters adopt an entrepreneur-centric focus. Luato et al. emphasise the need to hear the voices of entrepreneurs who are not typically heard. The heterogeneity of entrepreneurs is recognised, with Roundy focusing on differences between entrepreneurs in their ‘entrepreneurial ecosystem mindset’ as indicated by their orientation both to seeking and contributing to the resources of entrepreneurial ecosystems. He suggests this depends on whether they see themselves as citizens of their ecosystem. Recognising that entrepreneurship is a collective activity, other chapters consider hiring decisions of entrepreneurs from a knowledge-acquisition perspective and its impact on firm survival (Pereira and Leitão) and the formation of science-innovation teams (Choe et al.). Some contributions apply the entrepreneurial ecosystem framework to study specific types of entrepreneurs in distinctive types of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Vanegas-Chinchilla investigate entrepreneurial ecosystems in the informal economy with a study of mototaxi drivers in Columbia. Pirini and Cummings focus on indigenous entrepreneurial ecosystems in a study of the impact of a community engagement project to support Māori entrepreneurs in New Zealand. They conclude that economic outcomes is not the primary outcome of such ecosystems.
A second cross-cutting theme is the actors in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurial ecosystems integrate a multitude of heterogeneous actors that are intertwined. Several contributors argue that this feature of entrepreneurial ecosystems has not received sufficient attention (e.g. Luato et al.; Velt et al.). Maritz et al. focus on universities, which are argued to be a critical anchor institution on account of their role as catalysts and enablers of entrepreneurial activity. They look in particular at student entrepreneurial ecosystems and start-up initiatives, specifically university accelerators. Civera et al. focus on how academic entrepreneurship can support social innovation and sustainable entrepreneurship. There is emphasis on the need to understand how the various ecosystem actors systematically interact with each other and with entrepreneurs. Machado and Aminov argue that entrepreneurs emerge not in isolation but within a highly integrated and complex system involving multiple actors. They explore this from an ‘ecology of practices’ perspective. The important role of government in enhancing entrepreneurship and innovation, specifically interactions between government and private sector businesses, is highlighted. This is examined by Zhang and O’Kane who focus on how government interacts with private firms in China to develop their innovative capabilities. This theme of interaction links to chapters on ecosystem governance. Knox considers how the interaction dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystem actors is coordinated. Farronato et al. discuss governance design frameworks in the context of smart cities, focusing on partnerships and networking. A different perspective on ecosystem actors is provided by Gibellato et al. who uses Isenberg’s framework to offer a perspective on grassroots innovation, specifically the role of active citizenship, in creating shared knowledge.
A third theme is the time dimension. Several chapters focus on the related themes of the sustainability (i.e. persistence over time) and longevity of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Audretsch and Belitiski make brief mention of failed ecosystems, specifically in the context of political entrepreneurship and corruption. Kaus et al. focus on the interactions between different types of ecosystems – entrepreneurial, business, innovation and knowledge – to develop a conceptual model that explains the longevity of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Fitsch and Wyrwich highlight the historical roots of entrepreneurship with a study that shows that past startup rates have a significant influence on startup rates in future years, demonstrating that regional entrepreneurship cultures are enduring. In similar vein, Iacobucci and Perugini develop an entrepreneurial ecosystem index which demonstrates considerable stability over time, indicating that entrepreneurial ecosystems have considerable resilience. However, this contrasts with the life cycle approach to entrepreneurial ecosystems (Mack and Meyer, 2016). Successful entrepreneurial ecosystems can go into decline. There are many examples of once successful entrepreneurial ecosystems – typically places that were prosperous in the industrial era – which now have low rates of entrepreneurial activity. Whether and how such places can be revitalised through the rebuilding of their entrepreneurial ecosystems remains an under-researched topic. And it remains unclear how entrepreneurial ecosystems emerge – how is the ‘fertile soil’ created that supports the first wave of entrepreneurial activity and sets in motion the virtuous circle of ecosystem growth. With the exception of Silicon Valley (e.g. Adams, 2020), the emergence of successful entrepreneurial ecosystems has received limited attention, beyond documenting spin-off/company genealogies (e.g. Neck et al., 2004).
Entrepreneurial ecosystems is essentially a spatial concept (Brandáo et al.). The dominant focus of the literature is on the place-based (regional) context in which entrepreneurship takes place. The limitations of this location-bound perspective of current entrepreneurial ecosystem studies, notably the concern with their borders and boundaries, are emphasised (Lehmann; Schafer and Cummings; Maul et al.). This represents a fourth theme. The contributors extend this critique in three ways.
The first is to challenge the dominant focus of research on entrepreneurial ecosystem on a small number of large cities, with other geographical contexts, notably small towns and rural areas, largely overlooked. Luato et al argue that the drivers of entrepreneurship in small towns and rural areas differ from big cities. One consequence is that it limits the insights that policymakers in other geographical contexts can draw upon. Vanegas-Chinchilla et al. apply the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystem in resource-deprived contexts.
The second is the connections between entrepreneurial ecosystems and the exchanges of resources and ideas that occur. Examples include venture capital, accelerators, born-global firms, mergers and acquisitions and migration. Schãfer and Kuebart highlight the importance of knowledge circulation between entrepreneurial ecosystems. Audretsch and Belitski highlight how such connections create a ‘borrowed size effect’ that enables smaller entrepreneurial ecosystems to access resources that they lack from other places. Velt et al examine the role of entrepreneurial ecosystems in the internationalisation decision of firms, considering the role of firms’ current location as a push factor and the role of their new location as a pull factor and how the interactions that arise shape both origin and recipient entrepreneurial ecosystems. Andonova and Pérez highlight the role of diasporas from a Global South perspective, emphasising both the loss of talent (brain drain) and the ways in which this is mitigated, with migrants able to enrich their origin ecosystems through their remittances (their role as seed capital is noted) and the creation of ties between their new locations and their origin locations. In addition, return migrants enhance their origin ecosystems though their knowledge, skills, networks and finance.
Third is a focus on digital entrepreneurship. The need to reconcile the disconnect between the territorial conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems and the digital economy is emphasised. Specifically, it is argued that the ubiquity of digital technologies is reshaping entrepreneurial ecosystems. Digital technology undermines the territorial conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems by extending their boundaries beyond their specific geographical locus and erodes some of the place-based barriers to entrepreneurial activity. One question that arises is whether it necessary for ecosystems to host large numbers of entrepreneurial support organisations (ESOs), typically publicly funded, when entrepreneurs can access expert support digitally remotely from wherever they are located (Hruskova et al., 2022). Maul et al. extend established entrepreneurial ecosystem frameworks to account for the multifaceted and differentiated influence of digital technologies. Nicotra et al develop an empirical framework that encompasses big data, digital technology and digital communities, arguing that these are enabling factors to make entrepreneurial ecosystems more efficient, influencing ecosystem performance in terms of high-growth startup creation.
This volume makes an important contribution to the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature. It adopts a critical perspective, highlighting weaknesses in the existing entrepreneurship ecosystem literature and opens up a significant number of topics and new directions that were not previously seen as mainstream to this literature. It is essential reading for all entrepreneurship ecosystem scholars.
