Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Entrepreneurial ecosystems and social network centrality: the power of regional dealmakers

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Networks of serial entrepreneurs, investors, and their affiliated companies play a critical role in driving entrepreneurial behavior, investor focus, and innovation hot spots within specific industry sectors and are critical for shaping the character of robust regional economies. This research explores the impact of “dealmakers” Zoller ( 2010; Senor and Singer 2009) who are actors that have founded, managed, or invested in multiple private entrepreneurial firms, and hold concurrent equity ties to multiple firms. By studying the scope and connectivity of the dealmaker network within the Tampa area metropolitan statistical area, this study attempts to move the literature beyond aggregate analyses of social capital Feldman & Zoller (Regional Studies, 46: 23–37, 2012) to focus on the individuals within a specific regional ecosystem who drive entrepreneurial performance. The results of this study are influential for scholars of social network theory and for private individuals searching for strategic partners, targeting serial investors, performing competitive analysis, and gaining access to investor and entrepreneur networks. For the economic development community, this dealmaker analysis delivers fresh insight for strategic implementation of cluster and sector development and for the stimulation of inter-regional marketing, recruitment, and business development efforts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A metropolitan statistical area (MSA), or a multi-core metropolitan area, is designated as a consolidated statistical area (CSA). MSAs have at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or greater population plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration to the urban core as measured by commuting ties.

  2. https://www.census.gov

References

  • Acs, Z., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z., Astrebro, T., Audretsch, D., & Robinson, D. (2016). Public policy to promote entrepreneurship: a call to arms. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretesch, D., & Belitski, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: establishing the framework conditions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5), 1030–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., & Feldmann, M. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86(1), 630–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., & Lehmann, E. (2005). Mansfield’s missing link: the impact of knowledge spillovers on firm growth. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1&2), 207–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., Keilbach, M., & Lehmann, E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and growth. Oxford University Press.

  • Baumol, W. (2002). Entrepreneurship, innovation and growth: the David-Goliath symbiosis. The Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance and Business Ventures, 7(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S., & Halgin, D. (2011). On network theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1168–1181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S., Mehra, A., Brass, D., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., & Sternberg, R. (2014). Entrepreneurship as an urban event? Empirical evidence from European cities. Regional Studies, 48(6), 1016–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., & Malerba, F. (2001). The geography of innovation and economic clustering: some introductory notes. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 817–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresnahan, T., Gambardella, A., & Saxenian, A. (2001). Old economy inputs for new economy outcomes: cluster formation in the new silicon valleys. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 835–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R., & Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 49(11), 11–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dees, G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, M., Porter, M., & Stern, S. (2014). Clusters, convergence, and economic performance. Research Policy, 43(10), 1785–1799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai, S., & Motoyama, Y. (2015). The regional environment: Indianapolis insights from high-growth companies. Kauffman Foundation Research Series on City, Metro, and Regional Entrepreneurship: 1–28.

  • Dodd, D., & Anderson, A. (2007). Mumpsimus and the mything of the individualistic entrepreneur. International Small Business Journal, 25(4), 341–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enright, M. (2003). (2003). Regional clusters: What we know and what we should know. In J. Brocker, D. Dohse, & R. Soltwedel (Eds.), Innovation clusters and interregional competition (pp. 99–129). Berline: Springer Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ethier, W., & Markusen, J. (1996). Multinational firms, technology, diffusion, and trade. Journal of International Economics, 41, 1&2): 1–1&2):28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feld, B. (2012). Startup communities: building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., & Audretsch, D. (1999). Innovation in cities: science-based diversity, specialization, and local competition. European Economic Review, 43(2), 409–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., & Zoller, T. D. (2012). Dealmakers in place: social capital connections in regional entrepreneurial economies. Regional Studies, 46(1), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R., & Kenney, M. (1988). Venture capital, high technology, and regional development. Regional Studies, 22(1), 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frenken, K., Cefis, E., & Stam, E. (2015). Industrial dynamics and clusters: a survey. Regional Studies, 49(1), 10–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E., Scheinkman, J., & Shleifer, A. (1995). Economic growth in a cross-section of cities. Journal of Monetary Economics, 36(1), 117–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, I., & McCann, P. (2000). Industrial clusters: complexes, agglomeration, and/or social networks. Urban Studies, 37(3), 513–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 6(1), 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, R., & Leitch, C. (2010). Voodoo institution or entrepreneurial university? Spin-off companies, the entrepreneurial ecosystem, and regional development in the UK. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1241–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. (1993). Power, social influence, and sensemaking: effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 277–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Insel, P., & Moos, R. (1974). Psychological environments: expanding the scope of human ecology. American Psychologist, 29(3), 179–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isenberg, D. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. (1975). Diversity, stability, and maturity in ecosystems influenced by human activities. In W. H. van Dobben & R. H. Lowe-McConnell (Eds.), Unifying concepts in ecology. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny, T., Feldman, M., Ethridge, F., & Zoller, T. (2015). The economic value of local social networks. Journal of Economic Geography. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/1bv043.

  • Kilduff, M. (2010). Organizational social network research: core ideas and key debates. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 317–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 74–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motoyama, Y., Konczal, J., Bell-Masterson, J., & Morelix, A. (2014). Think locally, act locally: building a robust entrepreneurial ecosystem. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Napier, G., & Hansen, C. (2011). Ecosystems for young scalable firms. Cophehagen: FORA Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neck, H., Meyer, B., Cohen, B., & Corbett, A. (2004). An entrepreneurial system view of new venture creation. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(1), 190–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitelis, C. (2012). Clusters, entrepreneurial ecosystem co-creation, and appropriability: a conceptual framework. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(6), 1359–1388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1996). Competitive advantage, agglomeration economies, and regional policy. International Regional Science Review, 19(1&2), 85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V., Barry, D., & Ketchen, D. (2009). Entrepreneurship as emancipation. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 477–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Senor, D., & Singer, S. (2009). Start-up nation, the story of Israel’s economic miracle. New York, NY: Hachette.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serrat, O. (2017). Social network analysis. In Knowledge solutions. Singapore: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Spigel, B. (2015). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2017) Towards a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, forthcoming.

  • Spilling, O. (1996). The entrepreneurial ecosystem: on entrepreneurship in the context of a mega-event. Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 91–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stangler, D., & Bell-Masterson, J. (2015). Measuring an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Kauffman Foundation. Online at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2580336

  • Steyaert, C., & Katz, J. (2004). Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: geographical, discursive, and social dimensions. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 16(3), 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tichy, N., Tusham, M., & Fombrun, C. (1979). Social network analysis for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 507–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2008). Portfolio entrepreneurship, habitual and novice founders, new entry and mode of organizing. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 32(1), 701–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, T., & Shepherd, D. (2017). Mixed method social network analysis: combining inductive concept development, content analysis, and secondary data for quantitative analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 268–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharakis, A., Shepard, D., & Coombs, J. (2003). The development of venture-capita-backed internet companies: an ecosystem perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 217–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, T. (2010). The dealmaking milieu: an alternative view of social capital brokerage. A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill February 24, 2010.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lowth Entrepreneurship Center at the Sykes College of Business, University of Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA

    Thomas G. Pittz & Rebecca White

  2. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Ted Zoller

Authors
  1. Thomas G. Pittz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ted Zoller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas G. Pittz.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pittz, T.G., White, R. & Zoller, T. Entrepreneurial ecosystems and social network centrality: the power of regional dealmakers. Small Bus Econ 56, 1273–1286 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00228-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00228-8

Keywords

JEL classifications

Search

Navigation