1 Introduction

Entrepreneurial ecosystem development is increasingly seen as the way forward for economies to enable productive entrepreneurship and create positive aggregate welfare outcomes (Wurth et al., 2023). But how can this be done? For this, we need to gain an understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystem development and also to provide a framework for action to improve it. The entrepreneurial ecosystem approach provides a framework for thought and action to achieve this (Feld, 2012; Isenberg, 2010; Stam, 2015). An entrepreneurial ecosystem can be defined as “a set of interdependent actors and factors that are governed in such a way that they enable productive entrepreneurship within a particular territory” (Leendertse et al., 2022: 1). Despite the popularity of the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept in science and practice, the internal functioning of entrepreneurial ecosystems and relations between entrepreneurial ecosystems are far from fully understood. There is still a need for a more in-depth understanding of the nature, dynamics, and boundaries of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Theodoraki & Catanzaro, 2022; Wurth et al., 2022). The aim of this article is to break open and to examine the content of these entrepreneurial ecosystem black boxes.

For improving our understanding and policies for the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems, we need both quantitative and qualitative research and research at macro, meso, and micro levels including their nested nature (Audretsch et al., 2019; Brown & Mason 2017; Cavallo et al., 2019; Wurth et al., 2022). However, our knowledge remains still insufficient with respect to how entrepreneurial ecosystem development takes place, what its effects are, and how an entrepreneurial ecosystem approach can enhance productive entrepreneurship and positive welfare outcomes. A recent review of empirical research on entrepreneurial ecosystems shows substantial evidence on five categories of causal mechanisms: interdependencies within entrepreneurial ecosystems, entrepreneurial ecosystems affecting entrepreneurial outputs, entrepreneurial ecosystems affecting aggregate welfare outcomes, entrepreneurial outputs and aggregate welfare outcomes affecting entrepreneurial ecosystems (downward causation), and inter entrepreneurial ecosystem links (Wurth et al., 2023). This review not only showed substantial empirical evidence about these mechanisms, but also that there is not always convergence in the results of these studies (partly due to different measures and contexts), and that there are many open questions, mainly because of a lack of rigorous longitudinal studies. More generally, scholars acknowledge the necessity to explore new datasets, new ways of data collection, and methods of analysis to explore those mechanisms. This can also enable a better understanding of the interaction between entrepreneurial ecosystem elements, actors, and spillovers contingent on particular contexts (Content et al., 2020) and the effects of entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurship on economic and social progress and on sustainable development more broadly (Roundy, 2017; Volkmann et al., 2021).

Recent research has suggested opening the black box of entrepreneurial ecosystems at a meso level of analysis to capture entrepreneurial ecosystem configurations and processes (Guéneau et al., 2022) and to connect mechanisms at the micro and macro levels (Kim et al., 2016; Theodoraki, 2024). Another avenue for opening black boxes of entrepreneurial ecosystems would be to dive into the logics of micro-foundations (Cosenz et al., 2024; Roundy & Lyons, 2023).

In this introductory article, we set the scene for opening entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) black boxes. We focus on six themes: configurations of elements, social interactions, aggregate outcomes, evolution, boundaries, and measurement. We then illustrate these themes through the contributions of the six papers of the special issue (Table 1). We conclude with directions for future research.

Table 1 Summary of special issue articles
Full size table

2 Entrepreneurial ecosystem black boxes

In spite of the popularity of the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept and approach in science and practice, the internal dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems and relations between entrepreneurial ecosystems are still not fully understood: entrepreneurial ecosystem black boxes need to be opened. An important constraint on improving our understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystems is that a lot of studies do not contribute to the accumulation of (scientific) knowledge on entrepreneurial ecosystems. This means that one can try to open entrepreneurial ecosystem black boxes and find out that they are empty, or at least without novel and valuable insights. This “scholarly bullshit” (Kirchherr, 2023) has been quite substantial: Wurth et al. (2023) show that less than half of all empirical entrepreneurial ecosystem studies in (relatively) high quality academic journals can be considered “accumulative entrepreneurial ecosystem research.” Most studies do not contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge of entrepreneurial ecosystems (as defined in this paper, and in Wurth et al., 2023), as they use the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept in a trivial or marginal way, often as a label for context, and do not acknowledge the interdependence of elements, or they use it as a label for an organizational unit, and ignore its territorial nature.

In order to make progress in the science and practice of entrepreneurial ecosystems, we need to prevent “scholarly bullshit” and encourage more research that is cumulative to develop a full-fledge transdisciplinary entrepreneurial ecosystem research program (see Wurth et al., 2022) that achieves a quality and progress similar to related research programs on industrial clusters (Porter, 1990), governing the commons (Ostrom, 1990), and the randomized control trials approach in development economics (Banerjee & Duflo, 2011).

One way forward is to identify which research questions are central to this entrepreneurial ecosystem research program and initiate research to answer them, for the first time, or in replication studies (cf. Van Dijk et al., 2025). In this special issue, we have grouped these questions into six main themes: (1) configurations of elements, (2) social interactions, (3) aggregate outcomes, (4) evolution, (5) boundaries, and (6) measurement.

The first theme refers to the configurations of entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. This group of questions mainly refers to the composition and organization of entrepreneurial ecosystem elements (Schrijvers et al., 2024; Spigel, 2017). Central research questions are the following: How are entrepreneurial ecosystems structured and organized, and how do these configurations benefit different types of entrepreneurs, including social and sustainable entrepreneurs? What key processes within EEs drive entrepreneurial activity and dynamics? In what ways do various EE configurations support particular types of entrepreneurship? How do spatial configurations and physical infrastructure within EEs influence their interactions with other ecosystems, and how do these factors impact access to social capital for entrepreneurs? This set of research questions seeks to explore the architecture, structure, and organizational dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems, with a specific focus on how these configurations benefit different entrepreneurial types. By addressing these questions, scholars may provide a better understanding of the internal mechanisms that catalyze entrepreneurial activity.

While the first theme involves a functional approach to interdependence, the second theme focuses on social interactions: interactions between agents, within and over time, and within and between entrepreneurial ecosystems (Guéneau et al., 2022; Neumeyer et al., 2019). This theme is shaped through research questions such as: What network characteristics within entrepreneurial ecosystems—such as the strength of ties and relationships between individuals, organizations, and communities—indicate the health and maturity of the ecosystem? How do these network attributes influence EE outcomes, and how do networking mechanisms evolve over time? How does the temporal dimension influence various dynamics within EEs, including the speed of entrepreneurial networking, ecosystem growth, the lag between policy implementation and its effects, the evolution of entrepreneurial narratives, and the emergence of particular types of entrepreneurship? These research questions focus on dissecting the network and temporal dynamics within entrepreneurial ecosystems. First, they investigate how specific network attributes, such as the strength and structure of relationships between actors, affect the quality of an EE. Second, they analyze how these attributes influence ecosystem outcomes and evolve over time.

The third theme focuses on ecosystem outcomes. This category draws its origins from Baumol’s conceptualization of productive, unproductive, and destructive entrepreneurship (Baumol, 1990; Minniti et al., 2024). Ecosystem outcomes refer to entrepreneurship output and the resulting aggregate welfare impact of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Even though the aggregate welfare outcomes can differ from one ecosystem to another, it may also differ in the way to reach these aggregate welfare outcomes, acknowledging that there are several combinations and paths to reach particular entrepreneurial outputs and welfare outcomes, a phenomenon also known as equifinality (Schrijvers et al., 2024). This theme includes questions such as: How do interactions within sub-ecosystems and between elements within EEs, as well as relationships between different ecosystems, contribute to overall ecosystem performance and sustainable development? These research questions seek to investigate how interactions within and between ecosystems enhance overall performance, sustainable development, and resilience. This holistic approach intends to uncover how EEs evolve, how sub-ecosystems interact to contribute to the ecosystem’s health, and how policies can be assessed for their real-world impact. While previous ecosystem research has been focusing on entrepreneurial outputs such as unicorns or high-growth firms, we also need to trace the impact of this on aggregate welfare.

The fourth theme concerns the evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems, not only how entrepreneurial ecosystems enable productive entrepreneurship and subsequent aggregate outcomes, but more in particular how entrepreneurship and the ensuing sustainable development feedback (“downward causation”) into the subsequent state of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. This concerns questions about “entrepreneurial recycling,” referring to entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial employees “giving back” to the entrepreneurial ecosystem, in particular their financial, human, and social capital, and potentially acting as role models for a next generation of (potential) entrepreneurs (Mason & Harrison, 2006). It also concerns “big questions” on how entrepreneurial ecosystems are stuck in development traps (Minniti et al., 2024), vicious cycles, or can contribute to virtuous cycles of development (Nkontwana & Stam, 2023). Overall, this theme contributes to and is built upon process theories of entrepreneurial ecosystems (O’Connor et al., 2018; Spigel & Harrison, 2018).

The fifth theme refers to ecosystem boundaries. To enable the study of a concept, it is essential to delimit its perimeter and the necessary conditions to measure it effectively. The primary critique of entrepreneurial ecosystem research is its imprecise boundaries and the ambiguity about the degree to which entrepreneurial ecosystems are open systems. Recent studies suggest that EEs should be viewed as open systems, delineating their boundaries (Fischer et al., 2022), but also their connections outside their boundaries (Audretsch et al., 2024; Mazzoni et al., 2025; Schäfer et al., 2024). This theme recognizes the specific needs and contexts of each place rather than merely replicating successful models from other regions, and it also sheds light on the role of inter-ecosystem connections. This theme includes questions such as: How are the boundaries of entrepreneurial ecosystems defined, and how are they framed within different contexts? In what ways are entrepreneurial ecosystems spatially embedded, and how do spatial boundaries shape their interactions within and beyond their geographical settings? How are entrepreneurial ecosystems sub-divided or embedded into different units of analysis, such as sectors, industries, or communities? How do spatial boundaries influence the dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems across multiple scales, both within and beyond their immediate geographical context? This theme explores the complex nature of entrepreneurial ecosystems by focusing on how their boundaries are defined and spatially embedded. It aims to understand how these ecosystems are framed, divided, and analyzed across different scales, including geographical, sectoral, and community levels. Additionally, prior research seeks to uncover how spatial boundaries within and beyond geographical settings influence interactions, connectivity, and the overall dynamics of EEs. The goal is to provide a deeper understanding of the fluid and multi-layered structure of EEs and how their boundaries shape entrepreneurial activities across various contexts and scales.

The last theme refers to the measurement of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Credit et al., 2018; Nicotra et al., 2018; Stam & Van de Ven, 2021; Leendertse et al., 2022). While the concept presents the general idea of entrepreneurial economies as complex adaptive systems (Roundy et al., 2018; Fredin & Lidén, 2020; Stam & Van de Ven, 2021), measurement allows to concretize this general concept into measurable items. Without harmonization of data, based on shared understandings of what an entrepreneurial ecosystem is, what it is composed of, and what it enables, it is very difficult to accumulate knowledge and further develop the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach as a framework for thought and action. This theme includes questions such as: What comprehensive metrics can be used to measure the overall health of an entrepreneurial ecosystem while also assessing the performance of its individual components? What specific metrics can be employed to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of EE policies, particularly regarding investment flows, entrepreneurial activities, shifts in entrepreneurial culture, levels of support, governance structures, and the generation of ecosystem spillovers? These questions focus on developing a comprehensive framework for evaluating entrepreneurial ecosystems. They emphasize the need for metrics that can assess both the overall health of an ecosystem and the performance of its individual components, such as investment flows, entrepreneurial actions, mindset shifts, governance, and levels of support. Additionally, it explores how to measure the effectiveness of policies within these ecosystems, particularly in terms of their impact on key factors like resource allocation, entrepreneurial dynamics, and the creation of positive spillovers. The goal is to create an integrated approach that balances a holistic view of the ecosystem with detailed insights into specific elements and policy outcomes.

The special issue papers fit within these six themes of entrepreneurial ecosystem research, as briefly introduced in the next section.

3 Contributions opening entrepreneurial ecosystem black boxes

The special issue contains six original papers, next to this introduction. In the paper “Different strokes for different folks: A configurational analysis of entrepreneurial ecosystems,” Bennett et al., (2025) challenge the classical view seeing productive entrepreneurship as focused on high-growth firms and, in doing so, they emphasize the necessity to have a more nuanced view of the dynamics of EEs. The originality of this paper is related to the pluralistic view of productive entrepreneurship which enables taking into account both high-growth firms and everyday entrepreneurship that supports local economic and social development, consequently promoting a more inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. With the adoption of a three-step configurational theorizing approach (scoping, linking, naming), through fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), they are able to highlight different configurations and paths leading to entrepreneurial outputs (self-employment, new venture creation, high-growth entrepreneurship). The findings reveal that institutional arrangements are crucial for enabling self-employment and new venture creation, while resource endowments are essential for high-growth entrepreneurship. The study advocates for a context-sensitive approach to entrepreneurial ecosystems, moving away from a one-size-fits-all model to better address the trade-offs faced by EE stakeholders in fostering entrepreneurial activities that are beneficial for their communities. In sum, this study introduces a pluralistic view of productive entrepreneurship and opens the “black box” through a three-step configurational theorizing approach—scoping, linking, and naming—promoting an output-sensitive perspective on entrepreneurial ecosystems.

The paper “How do successful exits impact regional development? Longitudinal evidence from European cities” by Defort et al., (2025) investigates the impact of different types of successful start-up exits on the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The dataset encompasses 82,125 ventures, 48,193 VC deals, 1865 exits by acquisition, and 1895 exits by IPO, covering 45 European cities from 1999 to 2018. The research aims to determine if the nature of successful exits, including acquisitions or IPOs, affects EE development by focusing on three mechanisms: resource availability, legitimacy, and signaling theory. The findings draw on large-scale evidence and reveal that both acquisitions and IPOs positively influence subsequent individual investment activity and new venture creation at the city level. Moreover, acquisitions significantly boost business angels’ investment activity in the first and second years following the exit, whereas IPOs have a smaller effect on subsequent individual investment activity. However, both acquisitions and IPOs significantly and positively impact new venture creation. These findings provide more insight into the nature of entrepreneurial recycling and its role in the evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems. This study is the first to provide quantitative evidence that successful exits lead to an increase in business angel investments. While previous research, such as Mason and Harrison (2006), highlighted the role of acquisitions in entrepreneurial recycling and regional economic development through qualitative evidence, this study advances the scholarly discussion by offering quantitative, comparative, and longitudinal evidence. It also uniquely compares the effects of IPOs with acquisitions, providing a comprehensive understanding of different subsequent investment activities. Additionally, by situating these effects at the ecosystem level of analysis, the study offers a novel perspective on how these dynamics operate within entrepreneurial ecosystems. In sum, this study introduces a novel quantitative approach by analyzing how exits, including acquisitions and IPOs, rejuvenate entrepreneurial ecosystems. It opens the “black box” by examining the impact of these exits and VC deals through the lenses of resource-based view, legitimacy, and signaling theories, revealing their profound effects on ecosystem development.

The paper “Greening pastures: Entrepreneurial ecosystems for sustainable entrepreneurship” by Leendertse and Van Rijnsoever (2025) focused on the importance of sustainability in entrepreneurial ecosystems. This topic has recently attracted a lot of interest; however, many questions remain unanswered (Theodoraki, 2024). Diverse questions have been raised regarding the nature of sustainability considered an outcome or as an input into the ecosystem. Leendertse and Van Rijnsoever, (2025) consider the ecosystem for sustainable entrepreneurship as a specific layer of the generic entrepreneurial ecosystem. The authors argue that effective policies to support sustainable entrepreneurship require a thorough understanding of the interplay of “conventional” EE factors and specific regional factors influencing sustainable start-ups. They analyze data from 274 European NUTS-2 regions with 46,741 start-ups in order to identify key influences on the presence of sustainable start-ups and fellow start-ups. Their findings reveal that the quality of an entrepreneurial ecosystem significantly impacts observed rates of sustainable start-ups more than regular ones. Factors such as the presence of fellow start-ups, sustainability-oriented formal institutions, and, to a lesser extent, sustainability-oriented resources and informal institutions also positively influence the prevalence of sustainable start-ups. Their main contribution is situated at the intersection between generic and sustainability-specific EEs. By doing so, they add another layer to the traditional EE model in order to include the specificities of sustainability. This approach does not underestimate the importance of the generic ecosystem but highlights the importance of both generic and sustainability-specific factors in fostering sustainable entrepreneurship. Likewise, the originality of their study lies in demonstrating that specific EEs are nested within but also extend beyond generic EEs into sector-specific innovation systems. This provides a more integrated understanding of how entrepreneurial ecosystems function and interact. This study opens the “black box” by using a quantitative approach to analyze specific data from sustainable start-ups, identifying both unique and shared elements between generic and specific EEs.

The paper “Measuring entrepreneurial ecosystems across levels: A district approach” by Hess et al. (2025a) advanced the discussion of measuring entrepreneurial ecosystems, initially opened by the Kauffman Foundation in 2015 (Stangler & Bell-Masterson, 2015) and which is still a work in progress (Leendertse et al., 2021). It extends previous studies by capturing local-level nuances and the values, beliefs, and attitudes of entrepreneurs. The novel dataset with 257 start-up founders in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, sheds light on the importance of “substitutability” among ten EE elements and highlights district-level geographic features. The study introduces a district-level (EU NUTS-3 regions) measurement method, enabling comparison of local EE properties and examining relationships between entrepreneurs, ventures, and their ecosystems. Likewise, the study provides a major contribution by positioning at the intersection between approaches which focus on the national or regional ecosystems and approaches which focus on the entrepreneurs but without taking into account the variables of the contextual specificities. The main contribution of this study is the introduction of a comprehensive measurement approach for entrepreneurial ecosystems at the district level combined with self-reported data of entrepreneurs to address the micro-foundations of EEs, capturing local heterogeneity and the connections between entrepreneurs, ventures, and their ecosystems. Overall, this study makes a significant contribution to measurement by developing new methods for evaluating entrepreneurial ecosystems. It opens the “black box” by providing crucial insights into how local differences in EEs can be compared, highlighting the need for multiple measurement techniques.

The paper “Stagnating or flourishing? How Entrepreneurial Support Organizations (ESOs) navigate constraints in nascent ecosystems” by Negri, Ciambotti, Theodoraki, and Littlewood (2025) provides insights on the intra-ecosystem level of a resource-constrained emerging economy context. They analyze the role ESOs play as key actors of the entrepreneurial ecosystem operating as intermediaries connecting the entrepreneurs with the other actors of the ecosystem (Cloitre et al., 2024; Van Rijnsoever, 2020, 2022). The qualitative study explores the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the context of Uganda and reveals that while some ESOs adapt to their environments, others engage in “ecosystem work” which refers to the efforts to create, maintain, and transform entrepreneurial ecosystems—which may lead to more dynamic and flourishing ecosystems. Moreover, the study highlights the diversity of the various strategies of ESOs and the consequences on the development of the entire ecosystem allowing it to shed light on the important role of acting as a catalyst in the development, transformation, resilience, and growth of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. In sum, this study explores the novel role of entrepreneurial support organizations in the Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) context, examining how their influence, both positive and negative, differs compared to other regions (cf. Biru et al., 2021; Leger et al. 2025) It opens the “black box” by shedding light on the emerging dynamics of ESOs and their sponsors, offering new insights into how these factors shape entrepreneurial ecosystems in emerging, low-income economies, in Africa in particular.

The paper “Multinational enterprise spillover mechanisms in the genesis and evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems” by Rizvi et al. (2025) answers an important question: In what way can multinational enterprises (MNEs) contribute to the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems? The issue is of clear importance for governments which want to ensure the development of their EE and choose to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) to do so. Rizvi et al. (2025) provide an overview on insights gained with a systematic literature review on how six key MNE spillover mechanisms affect the genesis and evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems: spinouts and spinoffs, demonstration, co-specialization, local linkage, labor mobility, and competition. This reveals both the positive effects of the presence or entry of MNEs in EE, as well as the negative spillovers like crowding-out effects. The paper reveals that EEs can be deeply interconnected with established, multinational organizations, thereby broadening the understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystem evolution (cf. Herzog et al., 2024; Zahra & Hashai, 2022).

This special issue unravels the multi-faced and complex nature of entrepreneurial ecosystems by positioning the special issue contributions to the “black box” themes. This special issue offers novel insights into intra-ecosystem dynamics, such as the roles of Entrepreneurial Support Organizations (ESOs) within resource-constrained EEs like Uganda (Negri et al., 2025), the interaction between multinational enterprises (MNEs) and EEs (Rizvi et al., 2025), and alternative level measurements (Hess et al., 2025a). Additionally, it explores the effects on different types of entrepreneurship, specifically sustainable entrepreneurship in European regions (Leendertse & Van Rijnsoever, 2025) and self-employment, new firm creation, and high-growth firms in US regions (Bennett et al., 2025). The findings in this special issue also contribute to the understanding of downward causation and feedback mechanisms, as evidenced in the entrepreneurial recycling study by Defort et al. (2025).

4 Conclusion

This special issue aimed to advance the field of entrepreneurial ecosystem research by inviting contributions that examine the complex and underexplored mechanisms driving entrepreneurial ecosystem development, often referred to as the “black box” of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The intention was to offer fresh insights that not only deepen academic understanding but also inform policies and practices for fostering successful entrepreneurial ecosystems with broader economic and social benefits. By focusing on key themes—configuration of elements, social interactions, outcomes, evolution, boundaries, and measurement—it aimed to shed light on how entrepreneurial ecosystems are structured and configured, how they evolve through dynamic relationships, and how policies impact entrepreneurship and sustainable development.

While entrepreneurial ecosystem research has become accumulative, and black boxes have been opened, many opportunities for improvement and expansion remain. Future research could explore the inclusivity within and beyond entrepreneurial ecosystems, examining how different groups participate and benefit from these ecosystems. Additionally, investigating the underpinning dynamics between the different levels and layers of entrepreneurial ecosystems can provide deeper insights into how these systems interact and evolve. This can help identify strategies to enhance inclusivity and effectiveness, ensuring that entrepreneurial ecosystems support a diverse range of participants and foster sustainable development. Additionally, more longitudinal research is essential. Longitudinal studies can capture the long-term effects and evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems, offering insights that cross-sectional studies cannot provide. Moreover, improved research designs are necessary for tracing causality more effectively. Current developments suggest the need for transdisciplinary understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystems, as well as epistemological and methodological development to provide rigorous protocols to analyze entrepreneurial ecosystems (Wurth et al., 2022). Utilizing advanced methodologies and designs will ensure more robust and reliable findings, enhancing the overall quality of research in this field. Finally, increasing the focus on policy-informed research is crucial (cf. Hess et al. 2025b). By informing research efforts with policy needs, scholars can provide actionable insights for policymakers aiming to foster entrepreneurial ecosystems and achieve sustainable development, ultimately contributing to more effective and efficient policies.