Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

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.

Plain Language Summary

How businesses collaborate in developed countries

The purpose of the paper is to explore 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) and bibliometric analysis (using VOSviewer software) were used as research methods. 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, but opportunities are available. Entrepreneurial ecosystems should be fostered in all regions to promote economic development and provide solutions to solve socio-economic problems. The findings provide important insights to policymakers and other stakeholders for developing strategies and interventions for enhancing economic growth through entrepreneurship.

Keywords

entrepreneurship entrepreneurial ecosystems socio-economic development systematic literature review global entrepreneurship

Introduction

This paper focuses on entrepreneurial ecosystems or entrepreneurship ecosystems (EEs) as a hot topic among entrepreneurs, policymakers, development practitioners, and the media, among other stakeholders (Audretsch et al., 2023; Brooks et al., 2019; Carayannis et al., 2022; Guerrero & Espinoza-Benavides, 2021; Ratten, 2020; E. Stam 2015; F. C. Stam & Van de Ven, 2018; Roundy, 2016). Studies have generally focused on EEs in advanced economies, and their emergence is considered a global phenomenon (Cao & Shi, 2021). The paper adopts a systematic literature review and bibliometrics methods to explore EEs in developed economies.

Recently, the EEs concept has gained much attention from researchers and scholars who are calling for a dynamic and holistic approach to EEs (Fredin & Lidén, 2020; Roundy, 2016, p. 232; Shwetzer et al., 2019). It is an emerging study area in entrepreneurship and development (Shwetzer et al., 2019). Despite it being traceable to Quinn (1979), Moore (1993, 1996), Bahrami and Evans (1995), Spilling (1996), and Cohen (2006), Fredin and Lidén (2020) argue that the EEs concept is relatively new and untheorized (see also Spigel, 2017). They further argue that it is still in its formative stage, and an analytical framework must be developed to explicate it. Their arguments align with Roundy et al. (2019), who argued that the theoretical framework to guide EEs is still missing. In addition, Brooks et al. (2019) posit that under-theorization has become a generally lingering gap in entrepreneurial ecosystems research, with current models failing to analyze interdependencies between EEs elements.

Researchers’ interest in EEs has spawned various studies to understand the concept from various perspectives and its effect on economic growth and development, job creation, poverty alleviation, individual and community welfare, and livelihoods in different regions (Roundy, 2016). Spigel (2017) notes that EEs are essential for making economies resilient through collaborative innovations. Israel’s Tel Aviv, the USA’s Silicon Valley, and Singapore (named the Entrepreneurs’ Paradise by EHL Insights, 2020) are examples of established EEs at the global level (Roundy, 2016). Other areas with EEs include Chattanooga (USA) and Waterloo-Ontario (Canada). Developed countries among the world’s top 10 most entrepreneurial economies are Canada, Luxembourg, Ireland, Austria, and the United States (Latona, 2020).

It is not clear when entrepreneurial ecosystems started. A historical check provides different views about the evolution of EEs. They evolved from the 1940s, citing an example of Phoenix’s entrepreneurial ecosystem, Arizona (Mack & Mayer, 2016, p. 2119). Ideas behind the development of EEs were realized in the 1980s and 1990s (Stam & van de Ven, 2019). “Entrepreneurial ecosystem emerged only in the 2000s but has become dominant since 2016” (Malecki, 2018, p. 1). In support, Boutillier et al. (2016) state that it emerged in the early 21st Century.” Researchers, policymakers, and entrepreneurs shifted entrepreneurship ideas from an individualistic perspective toward incorporating the broader territorial spaces. Entrepreneurship studies focused on communities, interrogating the role of society, culture, the economy, politics, institutions, technology, ecology, and other forces on entrepreneurship (Mack & Mayer, 2016; Stam & van de Ven, 2019). Entrepreneurship refers to a collective achievement requiring the involvement of several entrepreneurs (Stam, 2018; Stam & van de Ven, 2019).

The prevalence of EEs is reinvigorating the world’s business environment. However, on the one hand, in developing countries, many challenges apply brakes on the progress expected by entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial support programs are a significant component of building and growing EEs (Biru et al., 2020). Such support programs are commonplace in developed countries. However, they are not always available in developing countries. Research in EEs is less in developing countries than in developed countries (see, e.g., GEM Reports). It is, therefore, important to explore such challenges to open avenues for enhancing EEs.

Geographical environments differ from country to country, with some being more conducive to entrepreneurial activities while others inhibit them (Audretsch et al., 2018). For example, on the other hand, exploitable opportunities are visible, but prevailing conditions greatly influence these in different spatial settings. Developed countries tend to have expanded versions of EEs because of available supports and resources barely available in developing countries. For example, the famous Silicon Valley is in the United States of America (USA). Because of its first-mover advantage, Silicon Valley has attained first-tier EEs status. This status recognizes its hyper-competitiveness, wide scope, strong university linkages, vibrant venture capital system, high technology (HiTech) and well-developed knowledge infrastructure (Mack & Mayer, 2016). Geographically, Silicon Valley is a “60-mile strip in the Bay Area between San Francisco and San Jose” (Ester, 2017, p. 21). In addition, it is “the world’s premier high-tech hotspot for innovation and entrepreneurship” (Ester, 2017, p. 21). Its ability and magnetic effect of attracting high-tech start-ups, it became the global leader in hosting many start-ups entrepreneurs (Ester, 2017). Most high-tech companies such as Apple, Google, Oracle, Hewlett-Packard, Cisco, WhatsApp, Facebook, Uber, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn are headquartered in “the Valley.” Immigrant entrepreneurship plays a critical collaborative role in “the valley.” According to Ester (2017, p. 22), “There is no Silicon Valley without its highly educated army of immigrant coders, software engineers, and technologists.” A combination of high-tech activities has made Silicon Valley an innovative epicenter.

The giant Silicon Valley was perhaps responsible for persuading entrepreneurship stakeholders to work collaboratively for improved results (Audretsch et al., 2018, p. v). They further argue that since “it takes a village to raise a child, it also takes an ecosystem to build and foster an entrepreneur” (see O’Connor et al., 2018, p. 1; Peters et al., 2021).

Ratten (2020, p. 627) stated that “Entrepreneurial ecosystems are at an exciting stage of development when everyone is interested in it, yet it is still somewhat elusive. This means for researchers there is still much to do on how to measure the concept and then how to implement it in practice.” Our paper, therefore, contributes to academic debates in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Policy-makers, researchers, funders, communities, and entrepreneurs still need to understand this novel concept hence the need for further debates since many gaps still exist (Carayannis et al., 2022; Ratten, 2020) Furthermore, an understanding of the intellectual landscape of entrepreneurial ecosystems helps stakeholders to determine regions that still need to be developed (Audretsch et al., 2023; Guerrero & Espinoza-Benavides, 2021; Ratten, 2020; Roundy, 2016). Bibliometric analysis of authors and co-author analysis will help researchers to identify potential research networks or communities for possible collaborations.

This paper conceptualizes the concept, and related concepts, constructs, and terminologies by providing an analysis of EEs from many perspectives provided by different researchers. Isenberg’s six domains of entrepreneurial ecosystems framework, supported by the Dynamic capabilities (DC) theory was used to underpin the study. Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis methods were used in this paper to provide answers to the pre-determined research questions relating to EEs.

To explore the EEs in developed countries, this paper was guided by the following research questions:

RQ1: What is the prevalence of entrepreneurial ecosystems?

RQ2: What are the challenges and opportunities of entrepreneurial ecosystems?

RQ3: How do entrepreneurial ecosystems promote economic development?

RQ4: What are the possible strategies for mitigating challenges faced by entrepreneurial ecosystems?

The remainder of the paper is framed as follows; the following section discusses the study’s concepts. The second section elaborates on the systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis methodologies applied herein. The third section presents the results from the analysis to answer the predetermined questions. Penultimately, a discussion is provided, suggesting directions for future studies. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are provided to close the paper.

Literature Review

The literature review is essential to analyze, explain, and explore phenomena. Additionally, it is vital for identifying the knowledge gaps in the extant literature and answering predetermined research questions to enhance the gap-filling process.

The Concepts, Terminologies, and Contexts

Ecosystems and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

The concept of EEs was hybridized from two constructs, “ecosystems” and “entrepreneurship.” In 1935 Arthur Tansley coined the term “ecosystem,” explaining the biotic assemblage of the ecological environment (Beugré 2016). In other words, an ecosystem refers to a community of interacting living organisms (biotic), non-living physical materials (abiotic) and their environment, living in a symbiotic relationship (Beugré, 2016; Neumeyer & Corbett, 2017; Stam, 2015; Tsujimoto et al., 2018). Beugré (2016) further states that biologists and ecologists agree that the complex and dynamic interaction between the organisms and the environment has an impact on both the environment and the organisms themselves. Merriam-Webster Inc (2020) describes an “ecosystem” as “the complex of a community and its environment functioning as an ecological unit.” The interaction of different species creates various relationships, such as predator-prey and/or symbiosis, to create and maintain stability in the ecosystem (Neumeyer & Corbett, 2017). The interdependencies are dynamic and evolving, thus determining the overall system’s functioning.

Furthermore, Cavallo et al. (2019, p. 1295) provided a detailed description of the word ecosystem as follows:

“Etymologically, the term ecosystem is composed of the Greek words “öȼιχöȼς”–“eco”, which means “home”– and “συστημα” - “system”, which means “complex”, and so it evokes both a sense of hospitality and acceptance and of complexity. An ecosystem is, therefore, a complex system hosting some entities.”

As a biological analogy, the ecosystem concept was used by scholars such as Marshall in 1898, Alchian in 1950, and Nelson and Winter in 1982 in the non-biological fields of management and economics (Cavallo et al., 2019). Moore (1993) suggested that “…a company be viewed not as a member of a single industry but as part of a business ecosystem that crosses a variety of industries.” Moore is regarded as the pioneer in using the concept of “ecosystems” in competitive business dynamics (Neumeyer & Corbett, 2017; Malecki, 2018). Quinn’s (1979, p. 19) use of the concept of “individual entrepreneurial ecosystem” is acknowledged by very few scholars such as (Cavallo et al., 2019). Quinn (1979) used the concept to suggest how large enterprises can develop large-scale strategies and innovations to overcome challenges. Later in 2004, Iansiti and Levien introduced it in strategic management (Cavallo et al., 2019). The penetration of the “ecosystem” concept in the management field of study resulted in various types of ecosystems, such as university-based ecosystems, business ecosystems, organizational ecosystems, industrial ecosystems, innovation ecosystems, sector-based ecosystems, IT ecosystems and digital ecosystems (Cavallo et al., 2019; Tsujimoto et al., 2018).

Tsujimoto et al. (2018) investigated publications on the ecosystem concept in economics, management, and innovation between 1995 and 2014. A growing interest in the use of the concept is represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Number of papers on ecosystems in economics and management.

In 1995, Bahrami and Evans used the term “ecosystem” in their entrepreneurship study in Silicon Valley, thus re-introducing it in the entrepreneurship field of study. Spilling’s (1996, p. 91) works introduced the term “entrepreneurial system,” referring to “the complexity and diversity of actors, roles, and environmental factors that interact to determine the entrepreneurial performance of a region or locality” (see also Roundy et al., 2018, p. 2). Spilling’s term became the forerunner of the term “entrepreneurial ecosystem” (Malecki, 2018, p. 5).

Prahalad’s (2005) works are also recognized for using the concept of the ecosystem in business. “The ecosystem for wealth creation and market-based ecosystem” were used as frameworks to express how actors can come together to create wealth through marketing activities in a symbiotic relationship (Prahalad, 2005, p. 64). Prahalad (2005, p. 65) expressed that a business system is the heart of wealth creation. In addition, the market-based ecosystem framework facilitates a symbiotic relationship among actors in creating wealth together. Various individuals and institutions coexist and complement each other in resilient and flexible fashions to achieve a dynamic equilibrium in their wealth-creation activities. Coexistence has the potential to maximize collaborative action, thus producing helpful information and knowledge and sharpening economic intelligence for business success (Boutillier et al., 2016, p. 54).

Another example is where Teece (2007) referred to an ecosystem as “…the community of organizations, institutions, and individuals that impact the enterprise and the enterprise’s customers and supplies” (p. 1325). Like living organisms within a biological or ecological ecosystem, members in a business ecosystem interact and share the spinoffs of the holistic network (Beugré, 2016). The metaphor has gained traction and acceptability in the field of entrepreneurship, leading to the development of the “entrepreneurial ecosystems” concept also called “entrepreneurship ecosystem” (Malecki, 2018, p. 2).

Recently, the ecosystem concept has been gaining traction as scholars use it to explain the interplay between business enterprises and their contexts. It has attracted much attention (Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017; Audretsch et al. 2023; Cao & Shi, 2021; Guerrero & Espinoza-Benavides, 2021; Malecki, 2018). Scholars agree that entrepreneurship is the engine of economic growth in the global economy (Cavallo et al., 2019, p. 1291). They view the entrepreneurial ecosystem as a “systemic view of entrepreneurship, " enhancing high-growth entrepreneurship (p. 1291).

The EEs concept’s growing popularity has led scholars into in-depth investigations. For example, in their research, Cavallo et al. (2019, p. 1291) established an increasing trend in the number of journal articles on “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems” in the SCOPUS academic database. Figure 2 represents their findings on the journal articles and conference proceedings as of September 2017.

Figure 2.

Publications on the entrepreneurial ecosystem: Scopus database.

The trend indicates that the debate on EEs is still ongoing (Cavallo et al., 2019). This implies that the field of study is still a virgin ground for further research contributions.

Boutillier et al. (2016, p. 44) compiled a comprehensive characteristic definition of EEs by stating that:

“The entrepreneurial (or business) ecosystem is characterised by the diversity of players which comprise it and through their shared objectives and skills. It is a system of heterogeneous independent players who, in so-called “coopetition”, establish a common strategic interest by sharing resources, skills and norms/standards of strategic behaviour, which take many forms (technological standards, shared know-how, shared visions, informal rules, etc.” (Boutillier et al., 2016, p. 48).

From the definition, the diversity of players refers to all individuals and institutions involved in entrepreneurship, such as entrepreneurs, banks, universities, the government, and customers. The actors or players share skills, knowledge, and resources to achieve a common objective of wealth creation, as discussed by Prahalad (2005). These players work collaboratively, sharing several things, to achieve a common strategic objective. In place of rivalry or cutthroat competition, “coopetition” is used to create a business environment that benefits all the players of the ecosystem. Such “coopetition” builds synergism among the actors, thus creating a formidable entrepreneurial ecosystem that allows business sustainability.

EEs are similar to concepts such as innovation systems, industrial parks, science parks, export processing zones (EPZs), industrial districts, and clusters (Malecki, 2018, p. 7). Various definitions of EEs can be drawn from the literature. Following their historical trajectory, it is important to provide some selected definitions of the concept. Table 1 provides selected definitions of EEs from the extant literature to demonstrate the definitional variousness of the concept and its variants.

Table 1.

Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Selected Definitions.

Author (year)	Term used	Definition(s)
Quinn (1979)	Individual entrepreneurial system	“The notion that historically, western societies largely relied on the individual inventor/entrepreneur for many of their startling innovations could be used to solve problems of the future.”
Moore (1993)	Business ecosystem	“In a business ecosystem, companies coevolve capabilities around an innovation: they work cooperatively and competitively to support new products, satisfy customer needs, and eventually incorporate the next round of innovations.”
Moore (1996)	Business ecosystem	“An economic community supported by a foundation of interacting organisations and individuals which produce goods and services of value to customers. Over time, they coevolve their capabilities and roles and tend to align themselves with the directions set by one or more central companies. The ecosystem leader enables members to move toward shared visions to align their investments and to find mutually supportive roles.” (p. 26)
Spilling (1996)	Entrepreneurial system	“The complexity and diversity of actors, roles, and environmental factors that interact to determine the entrepreneurial performance of a region or locality.” (p. 91).
Löfsten and Lindelöf (2003)	Entrepreneurial milieu:	“Physical infrastructure to encourage economic development in deprived and depressed localities…described as “Research Park[s]”, “Technology Park[s]”, “Business Park[s]”, “Innovation Centre[s]”. (p. 51)
Cohen (2006)	Entrepreneurial ecosystems.	“… an interconnected group of actors in a local geographic community committed to sustainable development through the support and facilitation of new sustainable ventures.” (p. 3)
Isenberg (2010)	Entrepreneurship ecosystem	“The entrepreneurship ecosystem consists of a set of individual elements—such as leadership, culture, capital markets, and openminded customers—that combine in complex ways.” (p. 44)
Qian et al. (2013)	Entrepreneurial system	“Those economic, social, institutional and all other important factors that interactively influence the creation, discovery and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities” (p. 561).
Mason and Brown (2014)	Entrepreneurial ecosystem	“…a set of interconnected entrepreneurial actors (both potential and existing), entrepreneurial organisations (e.g., firms, venture capitalists, business angels, banks), institutions (universities, public sector agencies, financial bodies) and entrepreneurial processes (e.g., the business birth rate, numbers of high growth firms, levels of ‘blockbuster entrepreneurship’, number of serial entrepreneurs, degree of sell-out mentality within firms and levels of entrepreneurial ambition) which formally and informally coalesce to connect, mediate and govern the performance within the local entrepreneurial environment.” (p. 5)
Auerswald (2015)	Entrepreneurial ecosystem	“An entrepreneurial ecosystem implies cooperative and productive relationships among different organisations. In many countries, these relationships are between start-ups, established companies, universities, and research institutions. In a vibrant ecosystem, people and ideas flow between these organisations, starting new ventures, joining existing ones, and linking innovations together.” (p. 10).
Kelly et al. (2015)	Entrepreneurship ecosystem	“An entrepreneurship ecosystem represents the combination of conditions that shape the context in which entrepreneurial activities take place.” (p. 30)
Ács et al. (2016)	Entrepreneurial ecosystems	“Entrepreneurial ecosystems are fundamentally interaction systems consisting of multiple, co-specialised, yet hierarchically independent stakeholders, many of which may not even know one another.” (p. 64).
Mack and Mayer (2016)	Entrepreneurial ecosystems	“Entrepreneurial ecosystems (EE) consist of interacting components, which foster the new firm formation and associated regional entrepreneurial activities.” (p. 3)
Spiegel (2017)	Entrepreneurial ecosystems	“…combinations of social, political, economic, and cultural elements within a region that support the development and growth of innovative start-ups and encourage nascent entrepreneurs and other actors to take the risks of starting, funding, and otherwise assisting high-risk ventures.” (p.50),
Stam and Spigel (2017)	Entrepreneurial ecosystem	“A set of interdependent actors and factors coordinated in such a way that they enable productive entrepreneurship within a particular territory.” (p. 1).
Sussan & Acs (2017)	Entrepreneurial ecosystem	“…dynamic institutionally embedded interaction between entrepreneurial attitudes, abilities and aspirations, by individuals, which drives the allocation of resources through the creation and operation of new ventures.” (p. 55)
Roundy et al. (2018)	Entrepreneurial ecosystem	“An entrepreneurial ecosystem is a self-organised, adaptive, and geographically bounded community of complex agents operating at multiple, aggregated levels, whose non-linear interactions result in the patterns of activities through which new ventures form and dissolve over time.” (p. 5).
Lux et al. (2020)	Entrepreneurial ecosystems	“…a set of inter-related actors and components, within a geographic region, that enable productive entrepreneurship.” (p. 1012)
Cao and Shi (2021)	Entrepreneurial ecosystem	“…a community of multiple coevolving stakeholders that provides a supportive environment for new venture creations within a region.” (p. 75)

Theoretical Reflection

Researchers such as Moore (1993), Bihrami and Evans (1995), Cohen (2006), Isenberg (2010, 2011), Rahabattulah Khan (2013), Koltai (2016), and Spigel (2017), among others, contributed immensely to the discourse on EEs. Several scholars have argued that EEs are theoretically underdeveloped. Theoretical explanations are still found at an infant stage with bits and pieces of models that attempt to explain the characteristics, processes, outlook, composition of stakeholders, and measurements. Different theoretical perspectives still need to be integrated to understand the concept.

This theoretical section briefly discusses some models that have been used to explain EEs. The selected models include Bahrami and Evans’ (1995) six constituents model, Cohen’s (2006) seven elements model, Isenberg’s (2010) six domains model, The GEI Model of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (Ács et al., 2016), Koltai’s Six + Six Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Model (Boutillier et al., 2016; Khattab & Al-Magli, 2017; Koltai, 2016; Stough, 2017), World Economic Forum (WEF) eight-pillar model (Foster et al., 2013), Funke’s entrepreneurial ecosystem canvas (Funke, 2015; Segers, 2015), and Chapman & Company’s Chapco Method (Chapman, 2020; Gehling, 2019) which supports business associations (Branham, 1964). Isenberg’s six domains model is used to underpin the study hence it will be discussed in detail. In the strict scientific sense, the models mentioned are not theories per se, but can be used to provide a theoretical reflection. To support Isenberg’s framework, the Dynamic capabilities (DC) theory was used to strengthen the theoretical underpinning.

Isenberg’s Six Domains Model

Isenberg developed the six domains of entrepreneurial ecosystems in 2010. The consolidated domains are policy, finance, culture, support, human capital, and markets. The six-domains diagram helps explain EEs (Isenberg, 2011; Isenberg & Onyemah , 2016). However, he acknowledges a weakness that it does not show a lack of causal paths or arrows that indicate the causal relationship between the factors (Isenberg, 2011; Spigel, 2017; Figure 3).

Figure 3.

The six domains of entrepreneurial ecosystems

The six domains or pillars of EEs are briefly discussed below:

(i) Policy refers to the rules and regulations provided by the government and other support institutions to foster entrepreneurialism (Brooks et al., 2019). Policies vary from one country to the next. Isenberg (2011) argues that there is “no policy silver bullet.” Most policies of developed countries, although different, such as Australia, Ireland, Canada, the UK, Estonia, New Zealand, Finland, Poland, the Netherlands, and Denmark, support, without reservations, the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Brown & Mawson, 2019). Their policies focus on creating entrepreneurial ecosystems to foster entrepreneurship activities in their economies. The sub-elements under the policy are leadership and government. Leadership entails the willingness of leaders to lead, providing unequivocal support, advocacy, and development of entrepreneurship strategy to foster entrepreneurial ecosystems (Morant-Martínez et al., 2019). Government entails institutions, the establishment of research institutions, regulatory incentives (such as tax holidays), and venture-friendly legislative frameworks for enhancing EEs (Morant-Martínez et al., 2019).

(ii) Finance refers to efforts made by governments to create environments that allow entrepreneurs to have access to finance for their businesses. To build vibrant businesses within an ecosystem, entrepreneurs need easy, and fast access to financial capital (Brooks et al., 2019). In developed economies, financial systems are strong enough to create an environment for financial inclusion, making entrepreneurs access financial resources. Angel investors, venture capital companies, microfinance institutions, banks, and public funds providers interact with entrepreneurs to provide the needed resource (finance capital). Well-developed financial markets promote the development of EEs (Lux et al., 2020).

(iii) Culture refers to the values systems, norms, traditions and rituals, beliefs, knowledge and stories, food and drink, language, music and arts, and the greater community that play an essential role in influencing behavior and other ways of thinking (Brooks et al., 2019). Hofstede, in 1980 contributed to the definition of culture by comprehensively defining it as “[…]the collective programming of the mind distinguishing members of a group or category of people from others where the “category” can refer to nations and regions within or between nations, ethnic groups, religions, occupations, organisations or genres”(Castillo-Palacio et al., 2017, p. 3).

Culture varies with countries, creating different contexts for entrepreneurial activity. It impacts entrepreneurial spirit, orientation, risk-taking behavior, and other essential factors for entrepreneurship. argue that “Culture plays a fundamental role in the entrepreneurial activity of a society” (Castillo-Palacio et al., 2017, p. 2). Success stories about visible successes, wealth creation, risk tolerance, innovation and creativity, ambition, and social status of entrepreneurs create a desirable culture within a given environment, thus stimulating entrepreneurship within communities (Morant-Martínez et al., 2019). It is however important to be cognizant of the local cultural beliefs because of their powerful influence in polarizing the perceptions of entrepreneurial activity may affect the emergence of new ventures (Morant-Martínez et al., 2019).

(iv) Supports refer to services provided to promote entrepreneurial activities in the form of physical infrastructure, professional services, and initiatives by non-governmental organizations (Brooks et al., 2019). Infrastructural support comes in the form of telecommunication facilities, transport and logistics facilities, energy, and zones (such as clusters, science or business parks, export processing zones, incubation centers, and business hubs; Morant-Martínez et al., 2019). Support professions include legal, accounting and investment practitioners, insurance providers, real estate experts, technical experts, and advisors (Lux et al., 2020). These are essential players within an entrepreneurial ecosystem who promote start-ups and existing enterprises to ensure growth and sustainability. Developed economies have well-developed support systems that promote enterprises’ growth within EEs. For example, well-developed ecosystems such as Silicon Valley (in the USA), Tel Aviv (in Israel), and Shenzhen (in China) have robust support systems that promote the development of hi-tech firms. Developing economies lack such support systems.

(v) Human capital entails access to labor, education, and networks (Morant-Martínez et al., 2019). Educational institutions such as colleges and universities offer education to entrepreneurs to advance their business knowledge. They offer academic and professional degrees which may be tailor-made to provide the educational needs of entrepreneurs. Business Schools may provide specific entrepreneurship training to advance entrepreneurship knowledge. Public policy influences how educational institutions transfer knowledge to the entrepreneurial world by supporting tailor-made curricula (O’Brien et al., 2019). Entrepreneurial training promotes the capabilities of entrepreneurs and their workers in handling common chaotic scenarios associated with start-ups for example (Lux et al., 2020, Morant-Martínez et al., 2019). Studies show that academically educated entrepreneurs are more effective than uneducated building and fostering EEs (O’Brien et al., 2019).

Developed economies can easily attract labor resources from the local and diaspora markets, thus having the advantage of hiring cheap labor.

(vi) Markets refer to reference customers and distribution channels that facilitate the profitability of enterprises, thus sustaining the EE (Morant-Martínez et al., 2019). Training and mentoring help entrepreneurs to understand marketing issues such as the need for marketing research, market segmentation, branding, customer care, and the marketing mix or the Ps of marketing (4Ps, or 7Ps). Traditional 4Ps represent price, product, place, and promotion. The additional 3Ps are physical evidence, processes and people, ideal for providing services. The policy is also instrumental in creating a conducive environment for developing and expanding markets for entrepreneurs’ goods and services.

The Dynamic Capabilities (DC) Theory

“Dynamic capabilities (DC) theory emerged as both an extension to and a reaction against the inability of the resource-based view (RBV) to interpret the development and redevelopment of resources and capabilities to address rapidly changing environments” (Bleady et al., 2018, p. 1). This theory was proposed by Teece (Rashid & Ratten, 2021; see also Teece, 2007; Teece et al., 1997). The theory is based on the competencies and capabilities of entrepreneurs to respond to volatile environments such as pandemics and economic shocks. DCs are based on three important areas of action including sensing (the ability to identify opportunities and trends to stay ahead of environmental dynamics), seizing (entrepreneurs’ ability to act opportunities with agility and dicsivenes), and transforming (the capability to (Rashid & Ratten, 2021; the capability to effectively reconfigure or redeploy resources in pursuance of identified opportunities; Rashid & Ratten, 2021; Roundy & Fayard, 2019; Teece, 2007; Teece et al., 1997). Competencies and capabilities help entrepreneurs in entrepreneurial ecosystems to predict opportunities and challenges and then use existing resources to embrace the opportunities and at the same time address the challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic for example induced lockdowns and entrepreneurs were forced to adapt to new ways of doing business, such as embracing digital technologies.

As an extension of the RBV theory, DCs help entrepreneurs to identify opportunities, maintain competitive advantage and improve resilience during uncertainty (Bleady et al., 2018; Rashid & Ratten, 2021). According to Verbeke (2020), DCs help “entrepreneurs in integrating the technology, business and strategy in a complex environment” (cited in Rashid & Ratten, 2021, p.461). Isenberg’s six domains are strengthened by the competencies and capabilities explicated by the DC theory. The DC framework allows entrepreneurs to address current market problems in the market by enabling them to redesign their business models in line with the volatile environment thus improving the vibrancy of the EEs (Roundy & Fayard, 2019).

Methodology

Systematic Literature Review

A systematic literature review is defined as;

“[a] review of a formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyse data from the studies included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyse and summarise the results of the included studies” (Cochrane Collaboration, 2005, p. 45).

Because systematic reviews follow well-defined, logical, and transparent ways of synthesizing findings, they are considered the “gold standard” for extant literature reviews (Boland et al., 2017, p. 2). Therefore, extant EEs literature is surveyed to provide answers to the predetermined research questions and achieve the stated objectives.

Journal Articles Selection

The journal selection process was done using search engines to identify peer-reviewed articles. Using search terms, articles for the systematic literature review were identified. The search process was guided by Boolean operators or connectors, search strings, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria (See Table 2). Boolean search allows a combination of keywords and synonyms with the operators to get relevant results. Boolean operators “AND,”“NOT,” and “OR” were used to pass search strings to the search engines and achieve inclusion and exclusion.

Table 2.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

Inclusions	Exclusions
Journal articles published in the English language	Journal articles published in other languages
Peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and highly relevant gray literature.	Other gray literature
Journal articles focused on EEs	Journal articles are not focused on EEs.
Journal articles containing information on developed economies.	Journal articles not containing information on developed economies.
Journal articles published from 1993 to 2021	Journal articles published before 1993
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Reports	Non-GEM reports

Data Search and Search Strings

Search strings were developed using the “Advanced search” facility in the searched databases illustrated in Table 3. The facility used Boolean operators “OR,”“AND,” and “NOT” to narrow the search process. Synonyms were obtained from Merriam-Webster Inc (2020)-Mobile version. The strings used are listed below:

1.) [(“entrepreneurial ecosystems” OR “entrepreneurship ecosystems” OR “enterprise ecosystems” OR “business ecosystems” OR “innovation ecosystems” OR “business clusters” AND “developed countries” OR “developed economies” OR “developed nations” OR “high income countries” OR “high income economies” OR “industrialized countries” OR “highly industrialized countries”)]

2. [(“entrepreneurial ecosystems” OR “entrepreneurship ecosystems” OR “enterprise ecosystems” AND “challenges” OR “problems” OR “difficulties” AND “opportunities” OR “chances” AND “developed countries” OR “developed nations” OR “high income countries” OR “high income economies” OR “industrialized countries” OR “highly industrialized countries”)]

Table 3.

Searched Databases.

Source	URL	Number of articles
Emerald insights	https://www.emerald.com/insight	2
Science direct—Elsevier	http://www.elsevier.com	1
Google scholar	www.scholar.google.com	10
GEM reports	https://www.gemconsortium.org/	4
Springer link	http://www.springerlink.com	9
Taylor and Francis	https://www.tandfonline.com/	2
Total		28

Finalizing Article Selection Strategy

The selection follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) approach. Developed and widely used in the field of medical science, the PRISMA is an upgrade of the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyzes (QUOROM) developed by Moher et al. (1999). After identifying various journal articles, the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 4) guided the final selection of articles for the systematic literature review.

Figure 4.

PRISMA flow diagram: article selection process.

Results and Discussion

This section answers the predetermined questions about EEs in developed countries based on selected primary studies. Primary sources selected following the systematic literature review protocol were read and analyzed to extract relevant data. A summary of primary journal articles reviewed and other publications are represented in Appendix A. Document identifiers are listed as A1 to A28.

Research Question 1: What Is the Prevalence of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems?

Data from selected primary studies were extracted and analyzed to provide answers to the question of the prevalence of EEs in developed countries.

As illustrated in Table 4, the prevalence of EEs is high in developed countries. All documents (100%) confirmed many EEs in developed countries. It was noted that in some countries, different terms are used to describe entrepreneurial ecosystems. The terms used are clusters, science parks, industrial parks, business parks/zones, innovation zones, incubators, start-up hubs, and export processing zones. For example, in China, Shenzhen, a replica of Silicon Valley, is referred to as an Export Processing Zone, yet its equivalent (Silicon Valley) is called an EE.

Table 4.

The Prevalence of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Developed Countries.

Aspect	Findings	Number of primary studies	%	Document identifier(s)
Prevalence of entrepreneurial ecosystems	Entrepreneurial ecosystems are prevalent in developed countries. Many variants are used to refer to entrepreneurial ecosystems, such as clusters, science parks, industrial parks, business parks/zones, innovation zones, incubators, start-up hubs,	28	100	A1–A28
The Silicon Valley	Interestingly, it was not referred to by many articles as the “mother of entrepreneurial ecosystems.”	7	25	A1, A2, A5, A7, A13, A16, A21.

Bibliometric Analysis

To further explicate the prevalence and dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems in developed countries, bibliometric analysis methods were applied. Bibliometric analysis is a scientific technique that “summarizes large quantities of bibliometric data to present the state of the intellectual structure and emerging trends of a research topic or field” (Donthu et al., 2021, p. 287). It has the capability to handle large amounts of data. The advancement of science in the development of databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, and PubMed has made it popular. In addition, the advancement in creation of bibliometric software such as VOSviewer, Gephi, Leximamncer (Donthu et al., 2021), RStudio, Biblioshiny, and CiteNet has enhanced its usage and effectiveness. This paper used VOSviewer software to analyze data on entreprenuerial ecosystems, extracted from the Dimensions database.

Data Extraction and Analysis

Using the search string: “entrepreneurial ecosystems or entrepreneurship ecosystems AND developed countries,” and limiting to open access articles published between 2014 to 2023, there were 10,842 document results.

Data analysis was performed using graphs and map visualizations using Dimensions analytical views functionality and VOSviewer software. The analyzes performed were (i) Number of publications per year (Figure 5) (ii)Bibliometric coupling (analysis) and authors (unit of analysis) (Figure 6). (iii) Co-authorship analysis (Figure 7). (iv) Bibliometric coupling of countries (Figure 8). and (vi) Bibliometric coupling of organizations (Figure 9).

Figure 5.

Number of publications per year.

Figure 6.

Bibliometric coupling and authors.

Figure 7.

Co-authorship analysis.

Figure 8.

Bibliometric coupling of countries.

Figure 9.

Bibliometric coupling of organizations.

Number of Publications Per Year

The graphical visualization (Figure 5) shows an exponential increase in the number of publications from 2014 to 2021which leveled up in 2022. It is noteworthy to know that there were publications in the field prior to 2014.

Bibliometric Coupling and Authors

Bibliometric analysis of authors is a technique for mapping authors’ similar research interests. It analyzes the patterns of co-citations between authors, thus enhancing future netwokings (Donthu et al., 2021).

Figure 6 is a visualization of the bibliometric coupling of authors.

Table 5 summarizes the top contributors as demonstrated by the number of documents, their links and the total link strength (it quantify the overall strength of connections within the network). Guerrero, Maribel is at the top of the list with 25 document, 53 links, and a total link strength of 12,836. Belitski, Maksim has 20 documents but has the TLS of 14,834, showing how the author has strong connections in the network.

Table 5.

Authorship (Number of Documents, Links, and Total Link Strength).

Author	Number of documents	Links (L)	Total link strength (TLS)
Guerrero, Maribel	25	53	12,836
Audretsch, David. B	21	53	12,033
Belitski, Maksim	20	53	14,834
Ratten Venessa	16	53	3,705
OECD	14	51	577
Roundy Philip	11	53	7,253
Caraynnis Elias. G	11	51	1,887

Co-Authorship Analysis

This is a bibliometrics technique used to determine co-authorship relationships and connections thus analyzing the dynamics of author research collaborations. It is a strong tool for analyzing the “social interactions or relationships among authors” (Donthu et al., 2021, p. 288). It is a useful tool for examining patterns in research collaborations, identifying possible collaboration opportunities, measuring how research productivity is influenced by collaborations and examining the social interactions in scholarly communities. Researchers, research funders, institutions, and policy-makers seeking can use the findings to explore collaborative networks to foster interdisciplinary research collaborations (Donthu et al., 2021).

The map (Figure 7). shows how authors are orgnaized into clusters, as determined by the different colors. For example, author Audretsch David Bruce is in the green cluster and connected to Belitski Maksim, Guerrero, Maribel, and Acs Zoltan.

Bibliometric Coupling of Countries

A bibliometrics method for the analysis of similarities and collaborations in research between countries. It assesses intellectual links and patterns by identifying shared citations across country-specific publications. Researchers, funders and policy-makers can use the tool to explore potential areas for collaborations in the global landscape and inter-country knowledge. Overall, results generated using VOSviewer show 6 clusters, 73 items, 2,584 links, and a total link strength of 1,887,226 (Figure 8).

Table 6 summarizes leading countries researching in the field of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The US is at the top followed by China in terms of both number of documents and total links strength.

Table 6.

Summary of Results: Selected Countries From the Network.

Country	Number of documents	Links	Total link strength
United States	458	72	440,325
China	387	72	253,144
Italy	169	72	231,334
Spain	163	72	164,954
Australia	123	72	112,206
Germany	121	72	191,292
Canada	93	72	90,734
India	93	72	61,145
Netherlands	74	72	107,215
Sweden	49	72	84,680

Bibliometric Coupling of Organizations

A bibliometrics method for the analysis of similarities and collaborations in research between organizations such as research institutes, universities, think-tanks, government institutes, non-governmental organizations, and private companies. It assesses intellectual links and patterns by identifying shared citations across organization specific publications. Researchers, funders, and policy-makers can use the tool to explore potential areas for collaborations among organizations (see Figure 9).

The input into VOSviewer software involved a minimum of five documents and five citations per organization. Of the 2,063 organizations, 243 met the threshold. The leading organizations are listed in Table 7.

Table 7.

Summary: Bibliometric Coupling of Top Organizations.

Organization	Number of documents	Links	Total link strength (TLS)
Northumbia University	32	233	42,345
University of Beira Interior	31	233	49,042
Haravard	25	233	10,889
La Trobe University	24	232	21,119
State University of Camprinas	24	232	43,996
Geroge Washington University	22	232	25,918
University of Tehran	22	232	18,234
University of Turin	21	233	31,529
London School of Economics	7	203	3,083

Table 7 shows that Northumbia University is at the top with 32 documents, 233 links, and 42,345 total link strength. The University of Beira Interior comes second with respect to documents, it has 31 documents but the TLS of 49,042 which is higher than that of Northumbia University. Organizations can be ranked in terms either the of number of documents or the TLS.

Research Question 2: What Are the Challenges and Opportunities of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems?

Table 9 illustrates the extent of the challenges faced by EEs. Challenges identified from primary studies used in the systematic literature review include barriers to sustainability, the complexity of ecosystems, stiff competition, lack of capital, poor policies for fostering the ecosystems and poor collaboration. From the primary studies, only 36% of the documents mentioned the challenges. The majority, 64%, did not raise any concern about the challenges. They indicated that developed economies have well-developed policies and support structures for the growth and survival of EEs.

Table 8.

Challenges and Opportunities of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.

Aspect	Findings	Number of primary studies	%	Document identifier(s)
Challenges	Challenges were identified but differed in magnitude and severity from one country to the next. The six domains,	10	36	A1, A2, A3, A5, A9, A11, A13, A20, A21, A25
Challenges	Complexity, barriers to sustainability
Opportunities	Innovation	14	50	A2, A4, A6, A7, A8, A9, A11, A13, A14, A15, A16, A17, A20, A21,

Table 9.

Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Economic Development.

Aspect	Findings	Number of primary studies	%	Document identifier(s)
Promoting economic development	Entrepreneurial ecosystems promote economic development through improved entrepreneurship and increased entrepreneurial activities. Significant job creation. Collaboration improves the entire ecosystem.	16	57	A1, A2, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A16, A17, A18, A19.

Opportunities available to entrepreneurs are represented by 50%, demonstrating that entrepreneurial ecosystems can function well in the environments created by stakeholders. The governments make opportunities available, which create enabling environments through policy and support. For example, entrepreneurial support organizations (ESOs) are well-resourced in the UK and the USA and provide vital support to developing and fostering entrepreneurial ecosystems. Collaboration was pointed out as an essential enabler for entrepreneurship growth.

Research Question 3: How Do Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Promote Economic Development?

EEs attract entrepreneurs who will support each other for improved business opportunities. This translates to increased productivity, increased job creation, and welfare. Most (57%) of the primary studies analyzed revealed that EEs are important drivers of economic development. Table 9 illustrates that 57% of the primary studies agreed that EEs drive economic development.

Research Question 4: What Are the Possible Strategies for Mitigating Challenges Faced by Entrepreneurial Ecosystems?

As represented in Table 10, 69% of the primary studies concurred that developed countries have strategies to mitigate the challenges faced by EEs. The strategies include strengthening the elements or domains of EEs, collaboration or “coopetition” among stakeholders, and identifying opportunities. Many governments of developed economies develop deliberate policies for promoting EEs. For example, Australia, the US, and the Netherlands have programs supporting the establishment of EEs. Innovation and technological development lead to the growth of high-tech firms, which have become ubiquitous in Silicon Valley. Such developments result from research and knowledge transfer by universities.

Table 10.

Strategies for Mitigating Challenges.

Aspect	Findings	Number of primary studies	%	Document identifier(s)
Mitigating strategies	Challenges are mitigated through collaboration, improvement of the elements of entrepreneurial ecosystems, innovation, and sustainable technologies.	19	69	A1, A2, A4, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11,A12, A14, A15, A16, A17, A19, A20, A24, A26, A27, A28.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Entrepreneurial ecosystems are prevalent in developed countries. Their governments and other stakeholders support them to ensure growth and sustainability. Elements or domains of EEs such as policy, finance, markets, human resources, support, and infrastructure are crucial for solid ecosystems. These elements must be well-developed to create enabling environments for the growth and sustainability of entrepreneurial ecosystems. This study established that developed countries have fewer challenges and more opportunities for ecosystems. It is, however, recommended that governments and other stakeholders continue to identify gaps to promote the intensity and extensity of EEs, which are celebrated for stimulating economic growth and development. Governments of developed economies support entrepreneurship growth through deliberate policies meant to create enabling environments. In addition, they provide several forms of support such as finance, human resources development, markets, supports, infrastructure, and policy.

The searched literature shows that EEs are gaining credence by the day. Their development is important and is attracting the attention of academicians, researchers, research institutes, universities, policy-makers, entrepreneurs, research funders and other stakeholders. This paper was developed as an effort to contribute to the EEs discourse to identify new lines of future research.

The findings proved the prevalence of EEs in developed countries through the use of bibliometrics, showing author, country, and organization research connections. Despite their growth, EEs still face some challenges. The challenges were identified but differed in magnitude and severity from one country to the next. The challenges are associated with Isenberg’s (2010, 2011) six domains (finance, policy, markets, human resources, supports, and culture), complexity, and barriers to sustainability. On the other hand, opportunities are also available within the six domains, innovation, and technology.

The findings conclude that EEs play a critical role in economic growth and development. Further, primary sources reviewed the importance of EEs in enhancing the livelihoods of entrepreneurs and their communities.

This paper’s contribution is fourfold. First, it possibly will stimulate debates on EEs in developed countries. Despite developed countries being rich, they still need to have strong entrepreneurial ecosystems for the sustainability of their economies.

Second, our paper adds to the extant literature on EEs in developed countries. The focus was on developed countries to check their prevalence, challenges, opportunities, and strategies that could be employed to maintain sustainability. Our second paper will focus on developing countries. It is an attempt to broaden the analysis of EEs from the developed country focus. The bibliometric analysis applied in the paper helped us to observe a considerable number of publications EEs in developed countries yet there is a dearth of similar studies in poor countries. Additionally, many scholars lamented (e.g., Ratten, 2020; Guerrero & Espinoza-Benavides, 2021; Audretsch, Belitski & Guerrero, 2023) that more research is still needed to understand the concept and to develop sound theories which could be used to underpin debates in the field of study.

Third, this paper suggests strategies that could be used to strengthen and sustain EEs for economic growth and development. The strategies are hinged on EEs support programs from the government and other stakeholders with regard to finance, markets, human resources, infrastructure, policy and culture. The discussions in this paper may open avenues for government, researchers, financing agencies, and policy-makers to explore innovative ways of supporting and strengthening EEs for entrepreneurship development.

Fourth, this paper contributes to the provision of a foundation for policy formulation. Policy directions will help to promote EEs in different communities for sustainable economic development. Policy-makers have the prerogative to develop a friendly entrepreneurial ecosystems environment for the promotion of entrepreneurship. Literature has identified EEs as a catalyst for rejuvenating and/or sustaining economies.

This paper recommends the formulation and implementation of EEs supportive policy frameworks by governments and other stakeholders to strengthen entrepreneurship in their regions. Researchers, academics, funders, and institutions could support entrepreneurship by coming up with innovative strategies. Communities need to be involved in the EEs development process and entrepreneurs should be put at the center.

This paper is not without limitations. Its limitations include the focus on developed economies in a world of emerging and developing economies. Though it might be a daunting task, exploring global EEs could provide unique results because of the complex variations that exist in the world of entrepreneurship. Another limitation stems from the selection of primary articles for the study. The SLR methodology is not exhaustive. However, the further use of bibliometrics helped us to have access to more and newer publications. Bibliometric analysis is capable of handling large amounts of data, allowing a deeper and broader analysis of EEs. Data extracted from the Dimensions database was not developed for scientific bibliometric analysis such that it cannot be exonerated from errors, which could have negatively influenced the results (Donthu, 2021).

Future lines of research could be country or regional-specific because of numerous spatial variations related to entrepreneurship. Further, comparative studies could also be carried out. Another future line of research relates to using bibliometric data from other databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Though Google Scholar is criticized for carrying gray literature, it is an important source of bibliometric data that can be extracted using Harzing’s Publish or Perish software (Diepolder et al., 2021; Harzing, 2010). From a theoretical perspective, the field of EEs still suffers from a theoretical lacuna. Future researches on EEs need to focus on developing theories and models that can be effectively used to enhance the development of EEs. Another future research topic is technology and EEs, targeting entrepreneurs, and policy-makers as the world faces dynamic shifts in the field of technology especially the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI). Policy-makers have the responsibility to create conducive environments for the growth and sustainability of EEs.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix A.

Primary Research Studies Used in the Review.

Identifier	Country/region	Findings	Method/theory	Source
A1 (Moore, 1993)	United States	Silicon Valley-IBM (with suppliers like Intel, Microsoft, and Lotus), Apple, and Tandy business ecosystems leaders in personal computing identified, with suppliers such as Motorola and Sony. “Microsoft-Intel” ecosystem was also identified. Wal-Mart built a strong ecosystem. Hewlett-Packard, Sun Microsystems, and Motorola were found to be part of the ecosystem (they cooperatively developed an innovative software OS (operating system). Challenges:“a profoundly altered environment,”“competition.” Survival challenges. Biotech companies has capital difficulties. Had to start alliances for survival (e.g., three firms, Merck, Eli Lilly, and Bristol-Myers).	Literature review/evolutionary approach	Google Scholar
A2 (Bahrami & Evans, 1995)	United States	California’s Silicon Valley, a unique ecosystem with high-tech, innovative, and pioneering firms. South San Francisco Bay area, and Santa Clara Valley. Identified many “clusters” including “Austin’s Silicon Hills,”“Seattle’s Technology Corridor,”“Illinois’s Silicon Prairie,”“New Jersey’s Princeton Corridor,”“San Diego’s Golden Triangle,” and “Utah’s Software Valley.” They also identified “Silicon Glen” in Scotland, Sofia Antipolis in France, and Cambridge in the UK. Challenges: complexity, barriers to permanence. Turf battles, poor collaboration, low employee motivation, liabilities of Newness/social acceptability. Opportunities: Universities education (Stanford, Berkeley), Corporate research institutes (“Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center”), venture capital community, service infrastructure, talent pool, entrepreneurial culture. Promoting Economic development: seen the growth of firms, job creation, productivity, etc.	Case study/flexible recycling model	Google Scholar
A3 (Löfsten & Lindelöf, 2003)	Sweden	Sweden and the UK: Science Parks Challenges: poorly performing assets, access to finance Opportunities: -physical infrastructures, supporting R&D, university support, financial institutions, attracting more entrepreneurs,	Quantitative/science parks	Science Direct—Elsevier
A4 (Neck et al., 2004)	United States	Boulder County (USA), Silicon Valley. Elements-university (Stanford), government support, professional services, capital, talent pool, large corporations, physical infrastructure, culture (very important-100% responses). Outcomes—“Job creation, wealth creation, business growth, and economic prosperity,” Cluster development for sustainable technologies.	Qualitative/sociological theory of isomorphism	Taylor & Francis
A5 (Cohen, 2006)	Canada	Silicon Valley, Boston’s Route (North American community). Development of eco-industrial parks. Victoria, British Columbia (Canada). Government (local and national). University (Victoria), large firms, social networks, formal & informal networks, Technology Parks, capital resources, private sector, NGOs, professional services, talent pool, physical infrastructure, culture. Challenges: maintaining the quality of life of businesses, access to capital	Quantitative/no theory	Google Scholar
A6 (Bosma & Levie, 2010)	Switzerland	Opportunities: Innovation. Innovative driven economies “Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, United States.”Challenges: fear of failure, sources of finance (venture capitalists). The GEM Model used to explain the interaction of environmental factors with entrepreneurialism for economic development.	Quantitative/no theory	GEM Reports
A7 (Foster et al., 2013)	Switzerland	Silicon Valley (USA), US—Other Cities, North America, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland. Elements: Access to finance, markets, human capital, policy, education, Major Universities as catalysts, and cultural support. These are growth accelerators on one hand but growth challenges on the other hand.	Quantitative/no theory	Google Scholar
A8 (Rahatullah Khan, 2013)	Saudi Arabia	Saudi Arabia. Mapping entrepreneurial ecosystems. Used Isenberg’s six domain—“policy, markets, human capital, supports, culture and finance.” Identified the existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems in USA and Australia. Economic development in Saudi Arabia	Mixed/theory of business incubation	Emerald Insights
A9 (Stam, 2014)	Netherlands	Netherlands—“the Dutch Entrepreneurship Miracle.” Nine attributes that should be present for a successful start-up are leadership, intermediaries (mentors and advisors), network density (deeply and well networked with stakeholders), government (policies), talent (expertise with universities support), support services (professional services), engagement (community connections, conferences, pitch days, and boot camps), large companies (supporting start-ups), capital (venture capitalists, angel investors, bankers, microfinance institutions, microinsurance, relatives, and friends	Literature review/no theory	Google Scholar
A10 (Amorós & Bosma, 2014)	Switzerland	Developed countries have high entrepreneurial activity and have several advantages in accessing resources for entrepreneurial ecosystems. However, challenges can be seen in some pockets such as marginalized areas in some cities.	Quantitative/no specific theory	GEM Reports
A11 (Cavallo et al., 2019)	Italy	The development of EEs requires guidelines that could be used to direct the processes. Poor conceptualization makes it difficult to operationalize. Policymakers have a crucial work to influence the development of EEs to encourage economic growth. Policy challenges need to be addressed.	Literature review/no specific theory	Springer
A12 (Kelly et al., 2015)	Switzerland	Norway, Australia, and the United Kingdom report the highest Entrepreneurial Employee Activity (EEA). They are innovative-driven economies. Entrepreneurial ecosystems most developed in North American and less developed in Africa. Luxembourg, Switzerland, Croatia, Slovenia, and Canada are highly entrepreneurial. Innovation-driven countries have many ecosystems for example, Israel, the UK, the US, Ireland, Japan, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and Canada.	Quantitative/no theory	GEM Reports
A13 (Fuerlinger et al., 2015)	Germany	Silicon Valley (USA), “New York, Chicago, Austin, and Seattle; and globally, Tel Aviv, Singapore, London, and Berlin” (p. 4). Hi-tech players who are high job creators, Apple, Yahoo, Google, and Facebook. The state supports the entrepreneurial ecosystems. The state plays a vital role in developing science parks and innovation hubs. Germany, the UK, Denmark, and Belgium introduced legislation for supporting commercialization of publicly funded research at universities.	Mixed/triple helix model	Springer
A14 (Spigel, 2017)	Edinburgh, Scotland	Edinburgh, Scotland (UK). “Public and privately-run entrepreneurship support organisations (ESOs) form a critical part of entrepreneurial ecosystems” (p. 141). Groups such as universities, Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Funding Council support entrepreneurial ecosystems in different ways. ESOs provide professional services (such as tax filing, basic training, ecosystem coordination, financial advice, networking, and inspiring)	Literature review/institutional thickness theory	Google Scholar
A15 (Guerrero et al., 2016)	European	Entrepreneurial universities in Europe. Support through education and training. Human capital is used to measure the contribution. Technology and knowledge transfer, providing professional services and engagements (conference and community meetings or seminars).	Quantitative/institutional theory	Springer
A16 (Ester, 2017)	United States	Silicon Valley: “HQ of high-tech companies such as Google, Apple, HP, Oracle, Cisco, Facebook, LinkedIn, Uber, Airbnb, WhatsApp, Twitter, Dropbox, Instagram, Salesforce, WMware.” Has between 14,000 and 19,000 start-ups. Pool of talent with the support of private and public universities such as Stanford and Berkeley. Houses many R&D labs. Immigrant human capital is very important. Emulating Silicon Valley, “Cities such as London, Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Barcelona, Madrid, Dublin, Milan, Tallinn, and Helsinki are quickly developing into profiled European start-up innovation hubs.”(p. 22). Challenges & Opportunities: Remove institutional and cultural obstacles, change entrepreneurial attitudes (strengthen them), government role, entrepreneurial educational systems, more venture capital needed, clear start-up support and infrastructure.	Mixed/Innovation Theoretical frameworks	Google Scholar
A17 (Miller & Acs, 2017)	United States	University of Chicago campus as an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Student entrepreneurs are important. Most rich companies can be traced back to student entrepreneurship. Student activities interact with the immediate environment (local economic development) and regional economies, thus promoting entrepreneurial ecosystems.	Qualitative/Frederick Jackson Turner’s Frontier Thesis of American democracy	Springer
A18 (Ács et al., 2018)	Global/Various	The top countries in terms of entrepreneurship are “The United States, Switzerland, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Australia, United Kingdom, Ireland, and the Netherlands.” They have strong entrepreneurial ecosystems elements. Economic development is promoted.	Quantitative/Kirznerian entrepreneurship and Schumpeterian entrepreneurship	Springer
A19 (Harper-Anderson 2018)	United States	The US regions of Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Richmond. The presence of entrepreneurial support organizations (ESOs). There are many start-ups and stakeholders. Universities such as Chicago, Northwestern and DePaul are important. Policymakers, ESOs, universities, leaders, government,	Multiple case-study approach/institutional proximity and organizational proximity	Google Scholar
A20 (Rong et al., 2018)	Asia (China, Japan, and South Korea)	Co-evolution is an essential aspect of business ecosystems (entrepreneurial ecosystems). Companies in China, Japan, and South Korea became leaders of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Challenges: stakeholders may be loosely coupled. Ecosystems may be too complex, for example, Alibaba’s customer-to-customer platform with Alipay. Some institutional uncertainties in China.	Literature review/value-chain and network theories	Springer
A21 (Reidolf et al., 2019)	Estonia.	High entrepreneurial activity in Estonia. An innovation-driven economy. Stakeholders are universities, venture capitalists, banks, business angels, enterprises, and financing bodies. Local conditions (political, economic, social, cultural, technological, and legal/regulatory/policy) influence entrepreneurs. Examples of entrepreneurial ecosystems: Silicon Valley (in the US), Calgary (in Canada), and Cambridge (in the UK). Challenges: lack of ambitious plans to invest, lack of funding, underdeveloped infrastructure, support systems not always in place, policies, regulatory frameworks, less qualified employees, increasing labor costs, mismatching university research areas. Opportunities: efforts by the government to support ecosystems. Stakeholder associations for co-evolution.	Qualitative/no specific theory	Google Scholar
A22 (Roundy, 2019)	United States	Conducted study in Ohio (Newton Falls and Geneva). Small towns become economically significant as ecosystems develop, jobs are created, and the economy grows. All stakeholders in a village are essential for a robust entrepreneurial ecosystem.	Qualitative/community building approach	Springer
A23 (Pugh et al. 2021)	United Kingdom.	North West of England, Lancaster case. Entrepreneurial ecosystems were identified—the role of elements focusing on learning. Lancaster University plays a crucial role.	Mixed/entrepreneurial learning theory	Springer
A24 (Brown & Mawson, 2019)	OECD countries	There is widespread adoption of entrepreneurial ecosystems. OECD countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, and the UK) have good entrepreneurial ecosystems and Nordic countries (Finland & Denmark). They also spotted entrepreneurial ecosystems in Estonia, Russia, Tel Aviv (Israel), New Zealand, China, Ireland, and Canada. All have supportive policies. They are cognizant of the ecosystem elements.	Qualitative (documentary analysis and interviews)	Google Scholar
A25 (Brooks et al., 2019)	Poland	Entrepreneurial ecosystems exist in Poland. They identified in Polish regions Malopolska, Mazowieckie, and Pomorskie. Policymakers have challenges understanding the appropriate strategies for developing entrepreneurial ecosystems. Unclear definitions and under theorization of the concept affect its practical usage.	Qualitative/institutional theory	Emerald Insights
A26 (Yan & Guan, 2019)	OECD countries	A longitudinal study on all OECD countries. Ecosystems identified in all the 34 OECD countries studied. They have identified the importance of entrepreneurial ecosystem elements in fostering their development and growth. The entrepreneurial ecosystem is not limited to nine elements. “People are also motivated via international investment, entrepreneurial capabilities and opportunities.”	Quantitative (longitudinal study)/social cognition theory (SCT)	Springer
A27 (Szerb et al., 2019)	European Union region	121 European Union regions. Regional entrepreneurial ecosystems. Performance enhanced by good systems elements.	Literature review/no theory	Taylor and Francis
A28 (Bosma et al., 2020)	Global/Various	The 50 Economies Participated In the GEM Survey In 2019. They Were Grouped Into Regions (Europe And North America, Middle East & Africa (MEA), Latin America & Caribbean, And Asia & Pacific. Of the 50 economies, 33 are classified as high-income. The entrepreneurial elements, policy, finance, culture, support, human capital, and markets were essential for the development and sustainability of entrepreneurial ecosystems.	Quantitative/no theory	GEM Reports

Acknowledgements

This work is part of my PhD work which is in progress. I want to thank my supervisor; Prof. SP van der Merwe for the guidance.

Author Note

NB: I have listed double affiliation because I am employed by Nelson Mandela University, which is funding the study, and I am conducting the research, from which the paper was drawn, in association with the North-West University. Furthermore, I am obligated to include North-West University as I am registered with them for this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: I want to thank Nelson Mandela University for funding the studies.

Ethical Approval Statement

Since the paper does not use human subjects, there is no requirement for ethics approval by the Research Ethics Committee. However, the bigger study received an ethical clearance from the North-West University Ethics Scientific Committee. The Ethics clearance number is NWU—00622—22—A4.

ORCID iD

Stephen Mago

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Ács

Z. J.

Szerb

Autio

(2016). Global entrepreneurship and development index 2015. Springer International Publishing.

Alvedalen

Boschma

(2017). A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: Towards a future research agenda. European Planning Studies, 25(6), 887–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1299694

Amorós

Bosma

(2014). Global entrepreneurship monitor2013 global reportFifteen years of assessing entrepreneurship across the Globe. Universidad del Desarrollo and Global Entrepreneurship Research Association.

Audretsch

D. B.

Belitski

Guerrero

(2023). Sustainable orientation management and institutional quality: Looking into European entrepreneurial innovation ecosystems. Technovation, 124, 102742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102742

Audretsch

D. B.

Mason

Miles

M. P.

O’Connor

(2018). The dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(3–4), 471–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1436035

Auerswald

P. E.

(2015, October). Enabling entrepreneurial ecosystems: Insights from ecology to inform effective entrepreneurship policy. Kauffman Foundation Research Series on City, Metro, and Regional Entrepreneurship. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2673843 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2673843

Bahrami

Evans

(1995). Flexible re-cycling and high-technology entrepreneurship. California Management Review, 37(3), 62–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165799

Beugré

C. D.

(2016). Building entrepreneurial ecosystems in sub-Saharan Africa: A quintuple helix model. Springer.

Biru

Gilbert

Arenius

(2020). Unhelpful help: The state of support programmes and the dynamics of entrepreneurship ecosystems in Ethiopia. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 32, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2020.1734267

10.

Bleady

Ali

A. H.

Ibrahim

S. B.

(2018). Dynamic capabilities theory: Pinning down a shifting concept. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 22(2), 1–16.

11.

Boland

Cherry

Dickson

(Eds.). (2017). Doing a systematic review: A student’s guide. Sage.

12.

Bosma

Levie

(2010). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2009 Global report. https://www.gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileId=47108

13.

Boutillier

Carré

Levratto

(2016). The key concepts of territorial analysis: From the actors to the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, 2, 43–72. https://www.wiley.com

14.

Branham

W. M.

(1964). Countdown. Voice of God Recordings, Jeffersonville, Indiana, USA

15.

Brooks

Vorley

Gherhes

(2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in Poland: Panacea, paper tiger or Pandora’s box? Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 8(3), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-04-2019-0036

16.

Brown

Mawson

(2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and public policy in action: A critique of the latest industrial policy blockbuster. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 12(3), 347–368.

17.

Cao

Shi

(2021). A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging economies. Small Business Economics, 44(4), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00326-y

18.

Carayannis

E. G.

Grigoroudis

Wurth

(2022). OR for entrepreneurial ecosystems: A problem-oriented review and agenda. European Journal of Operational Research, 300(3), 791–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.10.030

19.

Castillo-Palacio

Batista-Canino

R. M.

Zúñiga Collazos

(2017). The relationship between culture and entrepreneurship: From cultural dimensions of GLOBE project. Espacios, 38(34), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2040-724620220000015003

20.

Cavallo

Ghezzi

Balocco

(2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem research: Present debates and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(4), 1291-1321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0526-3

21.

Chapman

(2020). What is an entrepreneurial ecosystem?Chapman and Company. https://www.chapmanandcompany.co/blog/what-is-a-entrepreneurial-ecosystem

22.

Cochrane Collaboration. (2005). Glossary terms in the Cochrane collaboration (2005). https://www.cochrane.Org

23.

Cohen

(2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.428

24.

Diepolder

C. S.

Weitzel

Huwer

(2021). Competence frameworks of sustainable entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Sustainability, 13(24), 13734.

25.

Donthu

Kumar

Mukherjee

Pandey

Lim

W. M.

(2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296.

26.

Ester

(2017). Accelerators in Silicon Valley: building successful startups. Amsterdam University Press.

27.

EHL Insights. (2020). Singapore start-up ecosystem: An entrepreneurs’ Paradise?https://hospitalityinsights.ehl.edu/bridging-valley-death-singapore

28.

Foster

Shimizu

Ciesinski

Davila

Hassan

Jia

Morris

(2013). Entrepreneurial ecosystems around the globe and company growth dynamics. World Economic Forum, 11, 1–36. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_EntrepreneurialEcosystems_Report_2013.pdf

29.

Fredin

Lidén

(2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Towards a systemic approach to entrepreneurship? Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 120, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2020.1769491

30.

Fuerlinger

Fandl

Funke

(2015). The role of the state in the entrepreneurship ecosystem: Insights from Germany. Triple Helix, 2(1), 1–26.

31.

Funke

(2015). A canvas that describes relationships within an entrepreneurship ecosystem. Global Entrepreneurship Research Network. https://startupfactoryacademycom.wordpress.com/2015/10/17/a-canvas-that-describes-relationships-within-an-entrepreneurship-ecosystem/26/09/2020

32.

Gehling

(2019). What is an ecosystem? A Sioux Falls case study. Chapman & Company. https://www.chapmanandcompany.co/home-case-studies/spn-report-2018-hfbhg

33.

Guerrero

Espinoza-Benavides

(2021). Does entrepreneurship ecosystem influence business re-entries after failure? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17, 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00694-7

34.

Guerrero

Urbano

Fayolle

Klofsten

Mian

(2016). Entrepreneurial universities: Emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics, 47, 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9755-4

35.

Harzing

A. W.

(2010). The publish or perish book. Tarma Software Research Pty Limited.

36.

Isenberg

D. J.

(2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 41–49. https://www.hbr.org

37.

Isenberg

D. J.

(2011). The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economic policy: Principles for cultivating entrepreneurship. Institute of International European Affairs.

38.

Isenberg

D. J.

(2016). Applying the ecosystem metaphor to entrepreneurship: Uses and abuses. The Antitrust Bulletin, 61(4), 564–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X16676162

39.

Isenberg

D. J.

Onyemah

(2016). Fostering scaleup ecosystems for regional economic growth (innovations case narrative: Manizales-Mas and Scale Up Milwaukee). Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 11(1–2), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1162/inov_a_00248

40.

Kelly

Singer

Herrington

(2015). GEM 2015/16 global report (pp. 1–78). Global entrepreneurship monitor. https://www.gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileId=49480

41.

Khattab

Al-Magli

O. O.

(2017). Towards an integrated model of entrepreneurship ecosystem. Journal of Business & Economic Policy, 4(4), 80–92. https://www.jbepnet.com

42.

Koltai

S. R.

(2016). Peace through entrepreneurship: Investing in a start-up culture for security and development. Brookings Institution Press.

43.

Latona

(2020). The world’s top 10 most entrepreneurial nations. https://thebossmagazine.com/top-10-entrepreneurial-nations/

44.

Löfsten

Lindelöf

(2003). Determinants for an entrepreneurial milieu: Science Parks and business policy in growing firms. Technovation, 23(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00086-4

45.

Lux

A. A.

Macau

F. R.

Brown

K. A.

(2020). Putting the entrepreneur back into entrepreneurial ecosystems. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(5), 1011–1041. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-01-2020-0031

46.

Malecki

E. J.

(2018). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography Compass, 12(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12359

47.

Mack

E. J.

Mayer

(2016). The evolutionary dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Urban Studies, 53(10), 2118–2133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015586547

48.

Mason

Brown

(2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship. Final Report to OECD, 30(1), 77–102. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260870819

49.

Merriam-Webster Inc. (2020). Merriam-Webster dictionary (Version 2.0) [Mobile application].

50.

Moore

J. F.

(1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.

51.

Moore

J. F.

(1996). The death of competition leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. Wiley Harper Business.

52.

Morant-Martínez

Santandreu-Mascarell

Canós-Darós

Millet Roig

(2019). Ecosystem model proposal in the tourism sector to enhance sustainable competitiveness. Sustainability, 11(23), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236652

53.

Neck

H. M.

Meyer

G. D.

Cohen

Corbett

A. C.

(2004). An entrepreneurial system view of new venture creation. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2), 190–208.

54.

Neumeyer

Corbett

A. C.

(2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Weak metaphor or genuine concept? In The great debates in entrepreneurship (advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth, Vol. 27, pp. 35–45). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1048-473620170000027005

55.

O’Brien

M. Cooney

Blenker

(2019). Expanding university entrepreneurial ecosystems to under-represented communities. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 8(3), 384–407. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-03-2019-0025

56.

O'Connor

Stam

Sussan

Audretsch

(2018). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: The foundations of place-based renewal. In O'Connor

Stam

Sussan

Audretsch

(Eds.), Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Place-based transformations and transitions (pp. 1–21). Springer International Publishing.

57.

Peters

C. A.

Coble

T. X.

Lewis

(2021). Place and ecosystem. In Investment aftercare explained (pp. 225–292). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003174950-10/place-ecosystem-carolina-arriagada-peters-david-coble-toby-li-brendan-lewis

58.

Prahalad

C. K.

(2005). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Wharton School Publishing.

59.

Pugh

Soetanto

Jack

S. L.

Hamilton

(2021). Developing local entrepreneurial ecosystems through integrated learning initiatives: The Lancaster case. Small Business Economics, 56, 833–847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00271-5

60.

Qian

Acs

Z. J.

Stough

R. R.

(2013). Regional systems of entrepreneurship: The nexus of human capital, knowledge and new firm formation. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(4), 559–587. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbs009

61.

Quinn

J. B.

(1979). Technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategy. Sloan Management Review, 20(3), 19. https://www.proquest.com/docview/206802232?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

62.

Rahatullah Khan

(2013). Mapping entrepreneurship ecosystem of Saudi Arabia. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 9(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/20425961311315700

63.

Rashid

Ratten

(2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystems during COVID-19: The survival of small businesses using dynamic capabilities. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 17(3), 457–476. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-09-2020-0110

64.

Ratten

(2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Future research trends. Thunderbird International Business Review, 62(5), 623–628.

65.

Reidolf

Küttim

Michelson

Rozeik

Kallaste

(2019). Applying the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems in Estonia. Zeitschrift för Wirtschaftsgeographie, 63(2–4), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw-2018-0028

66.

Rong

Lin

Burström

Butel

(2018). Business ecosystem research agenda: More dynamic, more embedded, and more internationalized. Asian Business & Management, 17, 167–182.

67.

Roundy

P. T.

(2016). Start-up community narratives: The discursive construction of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 25(2), 232–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971355716650373

68.

Roundy

P. T.

Bradshaw

Brockman

B. K.

(2018). The emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: A complex adaptive systems approach. Journal of Business Research, 86, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.032

69.

Roundy

P. T.

Fayard

(2019). Dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial ecosystems: The micro-foundations of regional entrepreneurship. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 28(1), 94–120.

70.

Segers

J. P.

(2015). Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem [Conference session]. University-Industry Interaction Conference (UIIC), June, Berlin, Germany.

71.

Shwetzer

Maritz

Nguyen

(2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: A holistic and dynamic approach. Journal of Industry-University Collaboration, 1(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIUC-03-2019-0007

72.

Spigel

(2017). The relational organisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167

73.

Spilling

O. R.

(1996). The entrepreneurial system: On entrepreneurship in the context of a mega-event. Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00166-2

74.

Stam

(2014). The Dutch entrepreneurial ecosystem. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2473475.

75.

Stam

(2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484

76.

Stam

F. C.

Van de Ven

(2018). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: A systems perspective. USE Working Paper Series, 18(6), 1–30. www.uu.nl/use/research

77.

Stam

van de Ven

(2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics, 56(2021), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6

78.

Stough

R. R.

(2017). Steven Koltai with Matthew Muspratt (2016) “Peace through Entrepreneurship:Investing in a Start-up Culture for Security and Development”. Small Business Economics, 49(3), 717–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9850-1

79.

Sussan

Acs

Z. J.

(2017).The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 49(2017), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9867-5

80.

Szerb

Lafuente

Horváth

Páger

(2019). The relevance of quantity and quality entrepreneurship for regional performance: The moderating role of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Regional Studies, 53(9), 1308–1320. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1510481

81.

Teece

D. J.

(2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640

82.

Teece

D. J.

Pisano

Shuen

(1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

83.

Tsujimoto

Kajikawa

Tomita

Matsumoto

(2018). A review of the ecosystem concept—Towards coherent ecosystem design. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.032

84.

Yan

Guan

(2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem, entrepreneurial rate and innovation: The moderating role of internet attention. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(2), 625–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0493-8

Exploring Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Developed Countries: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

The Concepts, Terminologies, and Contexts

Ecosystems and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Theoretical Reflection

Isenberg’s Six Domains Model

The Dynamic Capabilities (DC) Theory

Methodology

Systematic Literature Review

Journal Articles Selection

Data Search and Search Strings

Finalizing Article Selection Strategy

Results and Discussion

Research Question 1: What Is the Prevalence of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems?

Bibliometric Analysis

Data Extraction and Analysis

Number of Publications Per Year

Bibliometric Coupling and Authors

Co-Authorship Analysis

Bibliometric Coupling of Countries

Bibliometric Coupling of Organizations

Research Question 2: What Are the Challenges and Opportunities of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems?

Research Question 3: How Do Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Promote Economic Development?

Research Question 4: What Are the Possible Strategies for Mitigating Challenges Faced by Entrepreneurial Ecosystems?

Conclusion and Recommendations

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgements

Author Note

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Approval Statement

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References