Skip to main content

Ecosystems of entrepreneurship: configurations and critical dimensions

Abstract

Entrepreneurial ecosystems research has largely focused on the profile of a handful of successful locations. This has prevented a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that shape entrepreneurial activity across the geographical space. Our goals in this research are (1) to identify the critical dimensions of entrepreneurial ecosystems, and (2) to assess whether successful ecosystems rely on heterogeneous configurations. Through fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, we address this issue with data from the State of São Paulo, Brazil. Findings generate a typological hierarchy of attributes, where the range of critical dimensions seems to be much more restricted than previously argued, and alternative configurations appear to lead to similar outcomes. A first pivotal path toward establishing a thriving ecosystem is fundamentally based on the conditions of the knowledge Infrastructure. A second approach combines elements of the socioeconomic system with the knowledge environment. Although some elements are ubiquitous, contributing attributes differ across distinct configurations, suggesting some level of heterogeneity in the dominant dimensions of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Such evidence contributes to the debate on entrepreneurial ecosystems’ dimensions and elements, offering exploratory insights on alternative ways to promote an environment conducive to knowledge-intensive ventures.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Source Adapted from Isenberg (2010), Mason and Brown (2014) and Mazzarol (2014)

Fig. 2

Source: Authors (based on research data)

Notes

  1. 1.

    While our analytical framework does not include an express mention to policy for local-level ecosystems, manifestations of institutional initiatives can be perceived in a distributed manner in most components of the model that are related both to the knowledge infrastructure and the socioeconomic system.

  2. 2.

    To complement this perspective, we plot cities in a map (Sect. 6) allowing to infer potential spillovers associated with EE.

  3. 3.

    This follows the notion that innovative entrepreneurial activity is not necessarily connected to newly founded firms (e.g., Spigel 2017; Henrekson and Sanandaji 2019; Kirzner 1997; Baumol 1996), but rather on the Schumpeterian tradition defining entrepreneurs as those who “exploit market opportunity through technical and/or organizational innovation” (Schumpeter 1965).

  4. 4.

    Ultimately, the definition of inputs and outputs will be arbitrary to some extent, as the relationships in ecosystems are complex and involve high degrees of endogeneity (Spigel 2017).

  5. 5.

    For both universities and habitats, as we deal with a pooled sample, there is the risk of a given university, incubator and/or science park springing up or closing down throughout the period. For these cases, our analysis dealt with the percentage of observed years in which the municipality had an active entrepreneurial habitat or research university.

  6. 6.

    The complete truth table is available from the authors upon request.

  7. 7.

    “A counterfactual case is a substantively relevant combination of causal conditions that nevertheless does not exist empirically” (Ragin 2008, p.9). Counterfactuals involve all possible combinations that could lead to an outcome to which data are unavailable or are redundant as an explanatory assertation. ‘Easy’ counterfactuals are those cases where available data exist, but are redundant as a causal explanation. ‘Difficult’ counterfactuals come from those cases that cannot be observed given the lack of available data.

  8. 8.

    It should be pointed out, however, that the statistical associations between research universities and other explanatory variables are moderate (Habitats and Tertiary Enrollment) or weak (Knowledge-Intensive Jobs, Diversity)—see "Appendix 3" for the detailed correlation matrix. Hence, deterministic perceptions on the role of these academic institutions as potential policy solutions to engender entrepreneurial ecosystems are not recommended.

References

  1. Ács Z, Armington C (2004) Employment growth and entrepreneurial activity in cities. Reg Stud 38(8):911–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340042000280938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ács Z, Autio E, Szerb L (2014) National systems of entrepreneurship: measurement issues and policy implications. Res Policy 43(3):47–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ács Z, Stam E, Audretsch D, O’Connor A (2017) The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Bus Econ 49(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9864-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Agénor P (2015) Public capital, health persistence and poverty traps. J Econ 115(2):103–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00712-014-0418-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alvedalen J, Boschma R (2017) A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems: towards a future research agenda. Eur Plan Stud 25(6):887–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1299694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Alves AC, Fischer B, Vonortas NS, Queiroz S (2019) Configurations of knowledge-intensive entrepreneurial ecosystems. Revista de Administração de Empresas 59(4):242–257. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020190403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Armington C, Ács ZJ (2002) The determinants of regional variation in new firm formation. Reg Stud 36(1):33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400120099843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Asheim BT, Smith HL, Oughton C (2011) Regional innovation systems: theory, empirics and policy. Reg Stud 45(7):875–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.596701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Audretsch D, Belitski M (2017) Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: establishing the framework conditions. J Technol Transf 42(5):1030–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9473-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Audretsch D, Feldman M (1996) R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. Am Econ Rev 86(3):630–640

    Google Scholar 

  11. Audretsch D, Link A (2019) The fountain of knowledge: an epistemological perspective on the growth of U.S. SBIR-funded firms. Int Entrep Manag J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00596-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Audretsch DB, Heger D, Veith T (2015) Infrastructure and entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 44(2):219–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9600-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Audretsch D, Kuratko D, Link A (2016) Dynamic entrepreneurship and technology-based innovation. J Evol Econ 26(3):603–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-016-0458-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Auerswald P, Dani L (2017) The adaptive life cycle of entrepreneurial ecosystems: the biotechnology cluster. Small Bus Econ 49(1):97–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9869-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Auerswald P, Dani L (2018) Economic ecosystems. In: Clark G, Feldman M, Gertler M, Wojcik D (eds) The new oxford handbook of economic geography. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 245–268

    Google Scholar 

  16. Autio E, Kenney M, Mustar P, Siegel D, Wright M (2014) Entrepreneurial innovation: the importance of context. Res Policy 43(7):1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Baglieri D, Baldi F, Tucci C (2018) University technology transfer office business models: one size does not fit all. Technovation 76–77:51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Balland P, Jara-Figueroa C, Petralia S, Steijn M, Rigby D, Hidalgo C (2018) Complex economic activities concentrate in large cities [papers in evolutionary economic geography #18.29]. Utrecht Univ Urban Reg Res Centre. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3219155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Banks-Leite C, Ewers RM (2009) Ecosystem boundaries. Wiley, Chichester. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0021232

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Baumol W (1996) Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive, and destructive. J Bus Ventur 11(1):3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)00014-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Belderbos R, Sleuwaegen L, Somers D, and De Backer K (2016) Where to locate innovative activities in global value chains: does co-location matter? [Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers n. 30]. OECD. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/23074957

  22. Bercovitz J, Feldman M (2006) Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: a conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. J Technol Transf 31(1):175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-5029-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Boschma R, Martin R (2010) The aims and scope of evolutionary economic geography. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1001, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2010. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849806497.00007

  24. Bosma NS, Schott T, Terjesen S, Penny K (2015) Global entrepreneurship monitor. Babson College, London Business School and Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bresnahan T, Gambardella A, Saxenian A (2001) Old economy inputs for new economy outcomes: cluster formation in the new Silicon Valleys. Ind Corp Change 10(4):835–860. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/10.4.835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Brown R, Mason C (2017) Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualization. Small Bus Econ 49(1):11–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9865-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bruns K, Bosma N, Sanders M, Schramm M (2017) Searching for the existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a regional cross-section growth regression approach. Small Bus Econ 49(1):31–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9866-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cao Z, Shi X (2020) A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging economies. Small Bus Econ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00326-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chatterji A, Glaeser E, Kerr W (2013) Clusters of entrepreneurship and innovation. [Working Paper 19013]. Nat Bureau Econ Res Work Paper Ser. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3386/w19013

  30. Coduras A, Clemente JA, Ruiz J (2016) A novel application of fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to GEM data. J Bus Res 69(4):1265–1270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Corrente S, Greco S, Nicotra M, Romano M, Schillaci C (2019) Evaluating and comparing entrepreneurial ecosystems using SMAA and SMAA-S. J Technol Transf 44(2):485–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9684-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Crescenzi R, Rodríguez-Pose A (2012) An integrated framework for the comparative analysis of the territorial innovation dynamics of developed and emerging countries. J Econ Surv 26(3):517–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118427248.ch8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Crescenzi R, Rodríguez-Pose A (2017) The geography of innovation in China and India. Int J Urban Reg Res 41(6):1010–1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Crevoisier O (2004) The innovative milieus approach: toward a territorialized understanding of the economy? Econ Geogr 80(4):367–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2004.tb00243.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Delgado M, Porter M, Stern S (2010) Clusters and entrepreneurship. J Econ Geogr 10(4):495–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbq010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Di Gregorio D, Shane S (2003) Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Res Policy 32(2):209–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00097-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Doeringer P, Evans-Klock C, Terkla D (2004) What attracts high performance factories? Management culture and regional advantage. Reg Sci Urban Econ 34(5):591–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2003.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Dorfman N (1983) Route 128: the development of a regional high technology economy. Res Policy 12(6):299–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(83)90009-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Duranton G, Puga D (2002) Diversity and specialisation in cities: Why, where and when does it matter? In: McCann P (ed) Industrial location economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 151–186

    Google Scholar 

  40. Etzkowitz H (2019) Is silicon valley a global model or unique anomaly? Ind Higher Educ 33(2):83–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422218817734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Feld B (2012) Startup Communities: building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city. Wiley, Hoboken. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119204459

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Feldman M (2005) The Locational dynamics of the Us biotech industry: knowledge externalities and the anchor hypothesis. In: Quadrio Curzio A, Fortis M (eds) Research and technological innovation. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 201–224

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Feldman M, Lendel I (2011) The emerging industry puzzle optics unplugged. In: Bathelt H, Feldman MP, Kogler DF (eds) Beyond territory dynamic geographies of knowledge creation diffusion and innovation. Routledge, London and New York, pp 107–148

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fini R, Grimaldi R, Santoni S, Sobrero M (2011) Complements or substitutes? The role of universities and local context in supporting the creation of academic spin-offs. Res Policy 40(8):1113–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Fischer M, Nijkamp P (2018) The nexus of entrepreneurship and regional development. [Working Papers in Regional Science #2018/05]. WU Vienna University of Economics and Business. http://epub.wu.ac.at/id/eprint/6362

  46. Fischer B, Queiroz S, Vonortas N (2018a) On the location of knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship in developing countries: lessons from São Paulo, Brazil. Entrep Reg Develop 30(5–6):612–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1438523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Fischer B, Schaeffer P, Silveira J (2018b) Universities’ gravitational effects on the location of knowledge-intensive investments in Brazil. Sci Pub Policy 45(5):692–707. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Fischer B, Schaeffer P, Queiroz S (2019) High-growth entrepreneurship in a developing country: regional systems or stochastic process? Acc Manag 64(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.22201/fca.24488410e.2019.1816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Fitjar R, Rodríguez-Pose A (2011) Innovating in the periphery: firms, values and innovation in Southwest Norway. Eur Plan Stud 19(4):555–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.548467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  51. Florida R (2005) The world is spiky: globalization has changed the economic playing field, but hasn’t leveled it. Atl Mon 296(3):48

    Google Scholar 

  52. Florida R, Mellander C (2016) Rise of the startup city: the changing geography of the venture capital financed innovation. Calif Manag Rev 59(1):14–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125616683952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Fotopoulos G (2014) On the spatial stickiness of UK new firm formation rates. J Econ Geogr 14(3):651–679. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbt011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Fritsch M (2019) The regional emergence of innovative start-ups: a research agenda. In: Audretsch D, Lehmann E, Link A (eds) A research agenda for entrepreneurship and innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  55. Fritsch M, Sorgner A, Wyrwich M, Zazdravnykh E (2019) Historical shocks and persistence of economic activity: evidence on self-employment from a unique natural experiment. Reg Stud 53(6):790–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1492112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Galope R (2014) What types of start-ups receive funding from the small business innovation research (SBIR) program? Evidence from the Kauffman firm survey. J Technol Manag Innov 9(2):17–28. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27242014000200002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Gilbert B, Audretsch D, McDougall P (2004) The emergence of entrepreneurship policy. Small Bus Econ 22(3–4):313–323. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:sbej.0000022235.10739.a8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Giner JM, Santa-María MJ, Fuster A (2016) High-growth firms: does location matter? Int Entrep Manag J 13(1):75–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0392-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Glaeser E (2011) Triumph of the city: how our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier and happier. Penguin Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  60. Godley A, Morawetz N, Soga L (2019) The complementarity perspective to the entrepreneurial ecosystem taxonomy. Small Bus Econ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00197-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Greckhamer T, Misangyi VF, Fiss PC (2013) The two QCAs: from a small-N to a large-N set theoretic approach. In: Fiss P, Cambré B, Marx A (eds) Configurational theory and methods in organizational research. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 49–75

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  62. Hayter C, Nelson A, Zayed S, O’Connor A (2018) Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: a review, analysis and extension of the literature. J Technol Transf 43(4):1039–1082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9657-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Henrekson M, Sanandaji T (2019) Measuring entrepreneurship: do established metrics capture Schumpeterian entrepreneurship? Entrep Theory Pract. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719844500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Hernández C, González D (2017) Study of the start-up ecosystem in Lima, Peru: analysis of interorganizational networks. J Technol Manag Innov 12(1):71–83. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27242017000100008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hidalgo C et al (2018) The principle of relatedness. In: Morales A, Gershenson C, Braha D, Minai A, Bar-Yam Y (eds) Unifying themes in complex systems IX. ICCS 2018. Springer proceedings in complexity. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  66. Howell S (2017) Financing innovation: evidence from R & D grants. Am Econo Rev 107(4):1136–1164. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Isaksen A, Trippl M (2017) Innovation in space: the mosaic of regional innovation patterns. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 33(1):122–140. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grw035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Isenberg D (2010) How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harv Bus Rev 88(6):40–51

    Google Scholar 

  69. Jacobides M, Cennamo C, Gawer A (2018) Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strateg Manag J 39(8):2255–2276. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Kantis, H. (2018). Mature and developing ecosystems: a comparative analysis from an evolutionary perspective. [Working Paper #1/2018]. Prodem. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/88453

  71. Keeble D, Walker S (2006) New firms, small firms and dead firms: spatial patterns and determinants in the United Kingdom. Reg Stud 28(4):411–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409412331348366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Kirzner I (1997) Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. J Econ Lit 35:60–85

    Google Scholar 

  73. Lerner J (2002) When bureaucrats meet entrepreneurs: the design of effective public venture capital programmes. Econ J 112(477):F73–F84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Link A, Sarala R (2019) Advancing conceptualization of university entrepreneurship ecosystems: the role of knowledge-based entrepreneurial firms. Int Small Bus J 37(3):289–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242618821720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Malecki EJ (1997a) Entrepreneurs, networks, and economic development. Adv Entrep Firm Emerg Growth 3:57–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1074-754020180000020010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Malecki EJ (1997b) Technology and Economic development. Addison Wesley Longman, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  77. Malecki EJ (2018) Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geopgrf Compass 12(3):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Malerba F, McKelvey M (2018) Knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship integrating Schumpeter, evolutionary economics, and innovation systems. Small Bus Econ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0060-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Marshall A (1920) Principles of economics. MacMillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  80. Mason C, Brown R (2014) Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship. Paris Final Rep OECD 30:77–102

    Google Scholar 

  81. Mazzarol T (2014) Growing and sustaining entrepreneurial ecosystems: what they are and the role of government policy. [White Paper 01–2014]. Small Enterprise Association of Australia and New Zealand Ltd

  82. Meijers E, Burger M (2017) Stretching the concept of ‘borrowed size.’ Urban Stud 54(1):269–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015597642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Mittelstaedt JD, Ward WA, Nowlin E (2006) Location, industrial concentration and the propensity of small US firms to export—entrepreneurship in the international marketplace. Int Mark Rev 23(5):486–503. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330610703418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Motoyama Y, Danley B (2012) An analysis of the geography of entrepreneurship: understanding the geographic trends of Inc. 500 companies over thirty years at the State and Metropolitan levels. [Report] Kauffman Foundation. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2145480

  85. Neto J, Farias Filho J, Quelhas O (2014) Raising financial resources for small and medium enterprises: a multiple case study with Brazilian venture capital funds in the cities of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. Int J Innov Sustain Develop 8(1):77–91. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijisd.2014.059223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Nicotra M, Romano M, Giudice M, Schillaci C (2018) The causal relation between entrepreneurial ecosystem and productive entrepreneurship: a measurement framework. J Technol Transf 43(3):640–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9628-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Pan F, Yang B (2019) Financial development and the geographies of startup cities: evidence from China. Small Bus Econ 52(3):743–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9983-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Porter ME (1998) Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  89. Qian H (2018) Knowledge-based regional economic development: a synthetic review of knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Econ Develop Quart 32(2):163–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242418760981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Qian H, Haynes K (2014) Beyond innovation: the small business innovation research program as entrepreneurship policy. J Technol Transf 39(4):524–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9323-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Radosevic S, Yoruk E (2013) Entrepreneurial propensity of innovation systems: theory, methodology and evidence. Res Policy 42(5):1015–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.01.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Ragin C (2000) Fuzzy-set social science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  93. Ragin C (2006) Set relations in social research: evaluating their consistency and coverage. Polit Anal 14(3):291–310. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpj019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Ragin C (2008) Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226702797.001.0001

    Book  Google Scholar 

  95. Rasmussen E, Moen Ø, Gulbrandsen M (2006) Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation 26(4):518–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.11.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Rice MP, Habbershon TG (2007) Introduction. In: Rice MP, Habbershon TG (eds) Entrepreneurship: the engine of growth. Praeger, Westport, CT

    Google Scholar 

  97. Roundy PT, Bradshaw M, Brockman BK (2018) The emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a complex adaptive systems approach. J Bus Res 86:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Salles-Filho S, Bonacelli M, Carneiro A, Castro P, Santos F (2011) Evaluation of ST & I programs: a methodological approach to the brazilian small business program and some comparisons with the SBIR program. Res Eval 20(2):157–169. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211x12941371876184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Salles-Filho S, Fischer B, Zeitoum C, Feitosa P, Colugnati F (2019) Non-traditional indicators for the evaluation of SBIR-like programs: Evidence from Brazil. In: Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, September 2–5, Rome

  100. Saxenian A (1994) Regional advantage: culture and competition in silicon valley and route 128. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  101. Scherngell T (2013) The geography of networks and R & D collaborations. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02699-2

    Book  Google Scholar 

  102. Schneider CQ, Wagemann C (2012) Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: a guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139004244.001

    Book  Google Scholar 

  103. Schumpeter JA (1965) Economic theory and entrepreneurial history. In: Aitken HG (ed) Explorations in enterprise. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  104. Spigel B (2017) The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrep Theory Pract 41(1):49–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Stam, E. (2009). Entrepreneurship, evolution and geography. [Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography]. Utrecht University—Urban and Regional Research Centre. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849806497.00014

  106. Stam E, Spigel B (2016) Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. [Discussion Paper Series n. 16–13]. Utrecht University—Utrecht School of Economics

  107. Stam E, van de Ven A (2019) Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Bus Econ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Stam E, Romme AGL, Roso M, van den Toren JP, van der Starre BT (2016) Knowledge triangles in the Netherlands: an entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  109. Sternberg R, Bloh J, Coduras A (2019) A new framework to measure entrepreneurial ecosystems at the regional level. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw-2018-0014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Storper M (1995) The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later the region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies. Eur Urban Reg Stud 2(3):191–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/096977649500200301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Subrahmanya M (2017) How did Bangalore emerge as a global hub of tech start-ups in India? Entrepreneurial ecosystem—evolution, structure and role. J Develop Entrep 22(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1084946717500066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Tiffin S, Jimenez G (2006) Design and test of an index to measure the capability of cities in Latin America to create knowledge-based enterprises. J Technol Transf 31(1):61–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-5013-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Van der Vlist A, Gerking S, Folmer H (2004) What determines the success of states in attracting SBIR awards? Econ Develop Quart 18(1):81–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242403258154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Vedula S, Fitza M (2019) Regional recipes: a configurational analysis of the regional entrepreneurial ecosystem for US venture capital-backed startups. Strateg Sci 4(1):4–24. https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2019.0076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Zahra SA, Wright M, Abdelgawad SG (2014) Contextualization and the advancement of entrepreneurship research. Int Small Bus J 32(5):479–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242613519807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Zou Y, Zhao W (2014) Anatomy of Tsinghua University Science Park in China: institutional evolution and assessment. J Technol Transf 39(5):663–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9314-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge support by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) in connection to the São Paulo Excellence Chair “Innovation Systems, Strategy and Policy” (InSySPo) at the University of Campinas (UNICAMP) (Grant 2013/50524-6). Fischer also acknowledges Grant n. 2016/17801-4. Vonortas acknowledges the infrastructural support by UNICAMP’s Department of Science and Technology Policy and by the Institute for International Science and Technology Policy at the George Washington University. Fischer and Vonortas also acknowledge support from the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics within the framework of the subsidy to the HSE by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5–100’. None of these organizations is responsible for the contents of this paper. Valuable contributions from the Editor, Martin Andersson, and three anonymous reviewers were essential for this article. Remaining mistakes and misconceptions are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruno Brandão Fischer.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table

Table 6 Crossover points and thresholds for full membership and full non-membership

6.

Appendix 2: Frame of reference for knowledge-intensive activities (NACE Rev. 2)

Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products (20), Manufacture of rubber and plastic products (22), Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products (26), Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers (29), Repair and installation of machinery and equipment (33), Computer programming, consultancy and related activities (62), Information service activities (63), Activities auxiliary to financial services and insurance activities (66), Legal and accounting activities (69), Activities of head offices; management consultancy activities (70), Architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis (71), Scientific research and development (72), Advertising and market research (73), Other professional, scientific and technical activities (74).

Appendix 3

See Table

Table 7 Correlation matrix for analytical variables (original values)

7.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cherubini Alves, A., Fischer, B.B. & Vonortas, N.S. Ecosystems of entrepreneurship: configurations and critical dimensions. Ann Reg Sci 67, 73–106 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-020-01041-y

Download citation

JEL Classification

  • L26
  • M21
  • R12
  • R58