The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem

Abstract

A significant gap exists in the conceptualization of entrepreneurship in the digital age. This paper introduces a conceptual framework for studying entrepreneurship in the digital age by integrating two well-established concepts: the digital ecosystem and the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The integration of these two ecosystems helps us better understand the interactions of agents and users that incorporate insights of consumers’ individual and social behavior. The Digital Entrepreneurial Ecosystem framework consists of four concepts: digital infrastructure governance, digital user citizenship, digital entrepreneurship, and digital marketplace. The paper develops propositions for each of the four concepts and provides a theoretical framework of multisided platforms to better understand the digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Finally, it outlines a new research agenda to fill the gap in our understanding of entrepreneurship in the digital age.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Reinventing the Company. Economist Magazine, October 24, 2015.

  2. 2.

    This trend is reflected in the continuing decline in the cost of computing, the rise of open-source software, the move to the “cloud” and the emergence of huge datacenters where companies such as Amazon, Google, and Facebook are designing their own approaches.

  3. 3.

    Fifteen companies that were together worth less than $10 billion in 2000 are now among the world’s 50 top technology companies as measured by market capitalization, with a combined who of $2.1 trillion. Had Amazon been included this number would have swollen by another $250 billion (Moritz 2015).

  4. 4.

    The strategy literature acknowledges different forms of value logic (Stabell and Fjeldstad 1998) that extends Porter’s value chain logic of the firm and presents new ways of looking at firm creation approaches and different underpinning economic logics for firm creation (knowledge and network economic principles).

  5. 5.

    Some will call this a business ecosystem that is not bounded by space.

  6. 6.

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ecosystem August 4, 2014.

  7. 7.

    http://w3.marietta.edu/~biol/102/ecosystem.html October 25, 2015

  8. 8.

    We use the concept system of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystem interchangeably in this paper.

  9. 9.

    Digitization is the technical process, whereas digitalization is a socio-technological process of applying digitization techniques to broader social and institutional contexts that render digital technologies infrastructure (Tilson et al. 2010 p.3)

  10. 10.

    At the end of 2016, Facebook had 1.9 billion active users. Snapchat that went public in 2017 had 158 million users, who spent an average of 30 min each day on the site, with an average of 18 visits per day, creating $2.5 billon of them are under 25 years of age. Snap IPO tests unsocial network, The Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2017 p. A8.

  11. 11.

    Acs et al. 2014a; Autio et al. 2012, 2015; Stam 2015; Stam and Spigel 2015.

  12. 12.

    https://www.hausmanmarketingletter.com/innovation-adoption-diffusion-age-social-media/

  13. 13.

    European Commission (2017).

  14. 14.

    https://chillingcompetition.com/2016/08/29/competition-and-regulation-in-digital-markets/

  15. 15.

    https://hbr.org/2016/05/what-platforms-do-differently-than-traditional-businesses

  16. 16.

    http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/strategic-decisions-for-multisided-platforms/

  17. 17.

    https://hbr.org/2013/01/three-elements-of-a-successful-platform

  18. 18.

    According to Bloomberg as of November 20, 2015.

  19. 19.

    http://platformed.info/the-future-of-competition/

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2005). Unbundling institutions. Journal of PoliticalEconomy, 113(5), 949–995.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Acs, Z. J., Astebro, T., Audretsch, D., & Robinson, D. T. (2016). Public policy to promote entrepreneurship: a call to arms. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in large and small firms: An empirical analysis. American Economic Review, 78, 678–690.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014a). National systems of entrepreneurship: measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(1), 476–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Acs, Z. J., de Groot., & Nijkamp, P. (2002). The emergence of the knowledge economy: a regional perspective. Spring, 2002.

  6. Acs, Z. J., Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Szerb, L. (2017). Institutions, entrepreneurship and growth: the role of national entrepreneurial ecosystems, SSRN, https://papers.Ssrn.Com/sol3/papers2.Cfm?abstract_id=2912453 January 2017.

  7. Acs, Z. J., Szerb L., & Autio, E. (2014b). Global entrepreneruship index, The GEDI Institute, Amazon, LLC.

  8. Aghion, P. (2017). Entrepreneurship and growth: lessons from an intellectual journey. Small Business Economics, 48(1), 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Armstrong, M. (2006). Competition in two-sided markets. RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 668–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity (pp. 609–626). Princeton University Press: Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Autio, E., Cleevely, M., Hart, M., Levie, J., Acs, S. J., & Szerb, L. (2012). Entrerpeneurial profile of the UK in the light of the global entrepreneurship and developmetnt index. London: Imperial College Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Autio, E., Dahlander, L., & Frederiksen, L. (2013). Information exposure, opportunity evaluation, and entrepreneurial action: an investigation of an online user community. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1348–1371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Autio, E., Kenny, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Entrepreneurial innovation: the imortance of context. Research Policy, 43, 1097–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Autio, E., & Levie. (2015). Management of entrepreneurial ecosystems. London: Imperial College Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Autio, E., & Thomas, L. (2016). Tilting the playing field: Towards an endogenous strategic action theory of ecosystem creation. Forthcoming in. In S. Nambisan (Ed.), Open Innovation, Innovation Ecosystems, and Entrepreneurship: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Baller, S., Dutta, S., & Lanvin, B. (Eds.). (2016). The global information technology report 2016: innovating in the digital economy. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Baumol, W. (1990). Entrepreneurship, Productive, Unproductive and Destructive, Journal of Political Economy.

  18. Binham, C. (2016). UK regulators are the most fintech friendly. Financial times. Accessed December 30, 2016 https://www.ft.com/content/ff5b0be4-7381-11e6-bf48-b372cdb1043a

  19. Caillaud, B., & Jullian, B. (2003). Chick and egg: competing matchmakers. RAND Journal of Economics, 34(2), 309–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: an economic theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

  21. Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Contextualization and value-in-context: how context frames exchange. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 35–49.

  22. Coad, A., Frankish, J. S., Roberts, R. G., & Storey, D. J. (2016). Predicting new venture survival and growth: does the fog lift? Small Business Economics, 47(1), 217–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, new series, 4(16), 386–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cooks, P., Urangs, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: institutional and organizational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4–5), 475–491.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cusumano, M. A., & Goeldi, A. (2013). New businesses and new business models. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 239–261). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Daunfeldt, A. O., & Halvarsso, D. (2015). Are high-growth firms one-hit wonders: evidence from Sweden. Small Business Economics, 44, 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. de Moraes, J. A., & de Andrade, E. B. (2015). Who are the citizens of the digital citizenship? International Review of Information Ethics, 23, 11.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dexheimer, E., & Hamilton, J. (2016) The US will regulate some Fintech companies like traditional lenders. Bllomberg. Accessed 12.30.2016 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-02/fintech-firms-get-chance-to-be-regulated-like-wall-street-banks

  29. Dini, P., Iqani, M., & Mansell, R. (2011). The (im) possibility of interdisciplinary lessons from constructing a theoretical framework for digital ecosystems. Culture, theory and critique, 52(1), 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation: technologies, institutions, and organizations. Psychology Press.

  31. Estrin, S., Korosteleva, J., & Mickiewicz, T. (2013). Which institutions encourage entrepreneurial growth aspirations? Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 564–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. European Commission, Enterprise and industry directorate-general, “strategic policy forum on digital entrepreneurship”, Brussels, 2017.

  33. Evans, D. S., & Schmalensee, R. (2016). Matchmakers: the new economics of multisided platforms. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Florida, R. (2004). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Haefliger, S., Jäger, P., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Under the radar: industry entry by user entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 39(9), 1198–1213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hanseth, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: the case of building internet. Journal of Information Technology, 25(1), 1–19.

  37. Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 519–530.

  38. Henfridsson, O., & Bygstad, B. (2013). The generative mechanisms of digital infrastructure evolution. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 907–931.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Henrekson, M., & Sanandjai, T. (2011). The interaction of entrepreneurship and institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(1), 47–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hilbert, M. (2011). The end justifies the definition: the manifold outlooks on the digital divide and their practical usefulness for policy-making. Telecommunications Policy, 35, 715–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hussain, A., Wang, H., & Nobakhti, A. (2010). Editorial: advances in complex control systems theory and applications. IET Control Theory & Applications, 4(2), 173–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Katz, M., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities. Competition and Compatibility, American Economic Review, 75, 424–440.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition & entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Leibenstein, H. (1968). Entrepreneurship and development. American Economic Review, 58, 72–83.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Li, W., Badr, Y., & Biennier, F. (2012). Digital ecosystems: challenges and prospects. In proceedings of the international conference on management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems (pp. 117–122). ACM.

  46. Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National systems of innovation: an analytical framework. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: a service-dominant logic perspective. Mis Quarterly, 39(1), 155–175.

  48. Mathews, C., & Brueggemann, R. (2015). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Moore, J. F., (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition, Harvard Business Review, 71 30, 76.

  50. Moritz, 2015 The fall and rise of technology juggernauts, financial times. Accessed online June 1, 2016 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6b859714-99ba-11e5-9228-87e603d47bdc.html#axzz4CiJeVWJm

  51. Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2007). The internet, society, and participation. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Nelson, R. R. (1994). National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.

  54. Ofer, G. (1987). Soviet economic growth: 1928-1985. Journal of Economic Literature, 25(4), 1767–1833.

  55. Parker, S. (2002). The economics of self-employment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

  57. Porter, M. (1998) Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review 76(6), 77–90.

  58. Read, S. (2016). Organic or deliberate: a comment on “Applying the ecosystem metaphor to entrepreneurship: uses and abuses”. The Antitrust Bulletin, 61(4), 574–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Read, S., Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S. D., Song, M., & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Marketing under uncertainty: the logic of an effectual approach. Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Rice, J. C., & Sussan, F. (2016). Digital privacy: a conceptual framework for business. Journal of Payments Strategy & Systems, 10(3), 260–266.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Richter, C., Kraus, S., & Syrjä, P. (2015). The share economy as a precursor for digital entrepreneurship business models. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 25(1), 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Rippé, C. B., Weisfeld-Spolter, S., Yurova, Y., & Sussan, F. (2015). Is there a global multichannel consumer? International Marketing Review, 32(3/4), 329–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2004). Defining two-sided markets. Toulouse, France: mimeo, IDEI.

  64. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S71–S102.

  65. Rong, K., & Shi, Y. (2015). Business ecosystems, New York Sage Publishing.

  66. Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. in R.R. Nelson, National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford, pp 3-22

  67. Salter, A. J., & McKelvey, M. (2016). Evolutionary Analysis of Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Sidney G. Winter—recipient of the 2015 Global award for entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Schumpeter, J. [1934 (1911)]. The theory of economic development, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  69. Spigel, B. (2015). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystem. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, in press.

  70. Shah, S. K., & Tripsas, M. (2007). The accidental entrepreneur: the emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 123–140.

  71. Shane, S., & Venkatraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Shaver, K. (2003). The social psychology of entrepreneurial behavior. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research: an interdisciplinary survey and introduction (pp. 331–358). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Stabell, C. B., & Fjeldstad, Ø. D. (1998). Configuring value for competitive advantage: on chains, shops, and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 413–437.

  74. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies. 1–11.

  75. Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. Chapter for the SAGE Handbook for Entrepreneurship and Small Business.

  76. Stenholm, P., Acs, Z. J., & Wuebker, R. (2013). Exploring country level institutional arrangements on the rate and type of entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 176–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Stone, B. (2017). The upstarts: how Uber, Airbnb, and the killer Companies of the New Silicon Valley are changing the world. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Sussan, F. (2012). Consumer interaction as intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 13(1), 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Sussan, F., Gould, S., & Weisfeld-Spolter, S. (2006). Location, location, location: the relative roles of virtual location, online word-of-mouth (eWOM) and advertising in the new-product adoption process. NA-Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 33.

  80. Szerb, L., Acs, Z. J. Ortega-Argilés, R., & Komlosi, E. (2014). The entrepreneurial ecosystem: the regional entrepreneurship and development index (May 30, 2015). Available at SSRN: http://Ssrn.Com/Abstract=2642514 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2642514

  81. Terjesen, S., Acs, Z J., Audretsch, D. B., Hechavarria, D., Stam, E., & White, R. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: the search for performance, Small Business Economics, this issue.

  82. Terranova, T. (2000). Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy. Social text, 18(2), 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & Sørensen, C. (2010). Research commentary-digital infrastructures: the missing IS research agenda. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 748–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

  85. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.

  86. Vicente, M. R., & Gil-de-Bernabé, F. (2010). Assessing the broadband gap: from the penetration divide to the quality divide. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 816–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Von Hippel, E. (2006). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Webster Jr., F. E., & Lusch, R. F. (2013). Elevating marketing: marketing is dead! Long live marketing! Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 389–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Weitzman, M. L. (1970). Soviet postwar economic growth and capital-labor substitution. The American Economic Review, 60(4), 676–692.

  90. Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Winter, S. G. (2016). 6 in “The Economics that Might Have Been”. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 15–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Zittrain, J. L. (2006). The generative internet. Harvard Law Review, 2006, 1974–2040.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Zittrain, J. (2008). The future of the internet—and how to stop it. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper draws on several research projects over the years that the authors have been involved in. We wish to thank Erkko Autio, Laszlo Szerb, Erik Stam, and Johnathan Levie who have contributed to previous projects on the topic of entrepreneurship ecosystems and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments. All errors remain ours.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fiona Sussan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sussan, F., Acs, Z.J. The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Bus Econ 49, 55–73 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9867-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Entrepreneurship
  • Ecosystem
  • Matchmakers
  • Digital infrastructure
  • Digital governance
  • Digital citizenship
  • Multisided platforms
  • Information technologies

JEL classification

  • L26
  • 011
  • P40
  • P00