Journal of the Knowledge Economy

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 438–455 | Cite as

The Balanced Development of the Spatial Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Based on Principles of the Systems Compromise: A Conceptual Framework

  • Igor N. Dubina
  • David F. J. CampbellEmail author
  • Elias G. Carayannis
  • Anna A. Chub
  • Evangelos Grigoroudis
  • Olga V. Kozhevina


The central research question of this paper is how a regional or national (spatial) innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem (SIEES) can function in a sustainable mode under conditions of uncertainty of an external environment. As an attempt to answer this question, the authors consider to approach the idea of sustainable development from the standpoint of a nonlinear dynamic stability of open systems through information exchange. Addressing this issue as a multi-criteria decision problem, the authors integrate the concept of the “Innovative Helix” and its modifications, which are describing the interaction of science, government and business, as well as formal methods of game theory and business simulation games as a basis for modeling the process of sustainable development in a spatial innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem. The purpose and interest of the article is to provide input for further discussion on these and other issues related to organizing and governing the interaction of key stakeholders in such arrangements. In practical terms, also a first case study for Russia will be designed and set up for further discussion.


Adaptive institutional environment Business simulation game Game theory Innovation Innovation ecosystem Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems Risk Spatial Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Sustainable development Systems compromise Uncertainty 


  1. Al-Fawzan, M. A., & Al-Hargan, A. (2014). Promoting techno-entrepreneurship through incubation: An overview at BADIR program for technology incubators. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, 16(2), 238–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Algazin, G. I. (2009). Models of systemic compromise in socio-economic research. Barnaul: Azbuka (rus).Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention (pp. 609–625). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Auzan, A., Blokhin, A., Valitova, L., & Zolotov, A. (2009). Institutsional’nye ogranicheniya ekonomicheskoy dinamiki [Institutional constraints of the economic dynamics] (p. 524). Moscow: TEIS Publ. rus.Google Scholar
  5. Baniak, A., & Dubina, I. N. (2012). Innovation analysis and game theory: A review. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, 14(2), 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchwald, E. M. (2008). Rossiyskiy federalizm na kriticheskom rubzhe razvitiya [Russian federalism at the critical stage of development]. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 9, 70–83. rus.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell David, F. J., & Carayannis, E. G. (2016). The Academic Firm: A New Design and Redesign Proposition for Entrepreneurship in Innovation-Driven Knowledge Economy. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5, 12. doi: 10.1186/s13731-016-0040-1 (pp. 1–10) ( Scholar
  8. Carayannis, E. G. (2008). Knowledge-driven creative destruction, or leveraging knowledge for competitive advantage: Strategic knowledge arbitrage and serendipity as real options drivers triggered by coopetition, co-evolution and co-specialization. Journal of Industry and Higher Education, 22(6), 343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carayannis, E. G., & Provance, M. (2008). Measuring firm innovativeness: towards a composite innovation index built on firm innovative posture, propensity and performance attributes. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(1), 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carayannis, E. G., Provance, M., & Givens, N. (2011). Knowledge arbitrage, serendipity, and acquisition formality: Their effects on sustainable entrepreneurial activity in regions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(3), 564–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. G. (2012). The Quintuple Helix Innovation Model: Global Warming as a Challenge and Driver for Innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1–12. Scholar
  13. Carayannis, E. G., Goletsis, Y., & Grigoroudis, E. (2015). Multi-level multi-stage efficiency measurement: the case of innovation systems. Operational Research: An International Journal, 15(2), 253–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., & Goletsis, Y. (2016a). A multilevel and multistage efficiency evaluation of innovation systems: A multiobjective DEA approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 62(15), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carayannis, E. G., Provance, M., & Grigoroudis, E. (2016b). Entrepreneurship ecosystems: an agent-based simulation approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), 631–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chub, A. A. (2012). Region kak sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoe obrazovanie: faktory ustoychivosti i institutsional’nye predposylki razvitiya: avtoref. diss. dokt. ekon. Nauk. Vladimir: A region as a socio-economic formation: factors of stability and institutional development background: Doct. Diss.Google Scholar
  17. Coase, R. (1988). The Firm, the Market, and the Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cruz-Cázares, C., Bayona-Sáez, C., & García-Marco, T. (2013). You can’t manage right what you can’t measure well: Technological innovation efficiency. Research Policy, 42(6-7), 1239–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davey, M. (2014). Entrepreneurship in the Informal Economy. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innivation., 15(4), 287–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dubina, I. N. (2015). Game theory and business simulation game approaches to innovation ecosystem analysis. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 08(04), 45–56.Google Scholar
  21. Dubina, I. N. (2016). Osnovi Matematicheskogo Modelirovaniya sotcialno-ekonomicheskih processov [Foundations of Mathematical Modeling of Social and Economic Processes]. Moscow: YuRait (rus).Google Scholar
  22. Dubina, I. N., Kozhevina, O. V., & Chub, A. A. (2016). Innovatsionn-predprinimatelskie systemy kak faktor ustoichivosti regionalnogo razvitiya [Innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystems as a factor of sustainable regional development]. Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice, 4, 4–19. rus.Google Scholar
  23. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The Dynamics of Innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Evstigneeva, L. P., & Evstigneev, R. N. (2011). Novye grani mental’nosti. Sinergeticheskiy podkhod. Moscow: New aspects of mentality. Synergetic approach. rus.Google Scholar
  25. Forrester, J. (1971). Dinamika razvitiya goroda [The Dynamics of the city: Translation from English]. Moscow: Progress (rus).Google Scholar
  26. Forrester, J. (2003). Mirovaya dinamika [World dynamics: Translation from English]. Saint Petersburg: Terra Fantastica (rus).Google Scholar
  27. Granberg, A. G., & Valentey, S. D. (2006). Dvizhenie regionov Rossii k innovatsionnoy ekonomike [The movement of the regions of Russia to the innovative economy]. Moscow: Nauka (rus).Google Scholar
  28. Jackson D. (2011). What is an Innovation Ecosystem? Available at: Accessed 1 Feb 2015
  29. Hagerstrand, T. (1968). Innovation diffusion as a spatial process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hemphill, T. A. (2006). US innovation policy: Creating (and expanding) a national agenda for global competitiveness, Innovation: Management. Policy and Practice, 8(3), 288–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Inshakov, O. V. (2010). The strategy and tactics of the state policy of the nanotechnology industry in Russia. Materialy k dokladu na Obshchem sobranii Otdeleniya obshchestvennykh nauk, 13 dekabrya 2010 goda (Materials of the report of the General Meeting of the Social Sciences Division (The Russian Academy of Science), 13 December 2010, p. 36). Volgograd: VolGU. rus.Google Scholar
  32. Ivanova, V. A. (2012). Formation of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of the University: New Challenges. Sbornik trudov mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii (pp. 63–69). Yekaterinburg: International Research and Practice Conference. rus.Google Scholar
  33. Jackson D. What is an Innovation Ecosystem? Available at: Accessed 1 Feb 2015.
  34. Keynes, J. M. (1965). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Orlando: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  35. Kizeev, V. M. (2013). Opyt razvitiya innovattsionnoi ecosystemy v tehnicheskom vuse [Developing an innovation ecosystem in a technical university]. InVestRegio, 3, 7–12. rus.Google Scholar
  36. Kozhevina, O. V. (2004). Assessment of the imbalance of economic development of a regional agroindustrial complex. Region: Economics and Sociology., 4, 184–199. rus.Google Scholar
  37. Kozhevina, O. V. (2015). Upravlenie izmeneniyami [Management of changes]. Moscow: INFRA-M (rus).Google Scholar
  38. Lonsdale, J. (2013). Entrepreneurship: an International Introdution. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innivation., 14(2), 130–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marshall, A. (2006). Principles of Economics. Cosimo Classics; Abridged edition.Google Scholar
  40. Mensch, G. (1979). Stalemate in technology: Innovations overcome the depression. Masachusetts: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  41. Mian, S., Fayonlle, A., & Lamine, W. (2012). Building sustainable regional platforms for incubating science and technology businesses. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 13(4), 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition Harvard Business Review (pp. 75–86).Google Scholar
  43. Myrdal, G. (1939). Fiscal Policy in the Business Cycle. The American Economic Review, 21(1), 183–193.Google Scholar
  44. Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. (2013). Entrepreneurship in Innovation Ecosystems: Entrepreneurs’ Seif-Regulatory Processes and Their Implications for New Venture Success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1071–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nogin, V. D. (2002). Prinyatie Resheniy v Mnogokriterialnoy Srede: Kolichestvenniy Podhod [Decision-making in a Multi-criteria Environment: A Quantitative Approach]. Moscow: Fizmatlit (rus).Google Scholar
  46. North, D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions) (p. 159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521397346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nureev, R. (2000). Teorii razvitiya: Keinsianskie modeli stanovleniya rynochnoy ekonomiki [Development theories: Keynesian Models of Establishing Market Economy]. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 4, 6–9. rus.Google Scholar
  48. Park, H. W. (2014). Transition from the Triple Helix to N-Tuple Helices? An inter-view with Elias G. Carayannis and David F. Journal Campbell Scientometrics, 99, 203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Prigozhin, I., & Stengers, I. (1986). Poryadok iz khaosa: Novyy dialog cheloveka s prirodoy [Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with the nature]. Moscow: Progress (rus).Google Scholar
  50. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Schwartz, D., & Bar-El, R. (2015). The role of a local industry association as a catalyst for building an innovation ecosystem: An experiment in the State of Ceara in Brazil. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, 17(3), 383–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sorokin, D. E. (2009). Problemy perestroiki rossiyskoy ekonomiki v usloviyah globalnogo krizisa [Problems of reforming Russian economy under a global crisis]. Economic Journal, 6, 39–42.Google Scholar
  53. Soros, G. (2001). Alkhimiya finansov [The Alchemy of finance] (p. 208). Moscow: INFRA-M (rus).Google Scholar
  54. Tambovtsev, V. (2006). Ulucchenie zachity prav sobstvennosti – neispol’zuemiy rezerv ekonomicheskigo rosta Rossii? [Improvement of Property Rights Protection — Dormant Reserve of Russia’s Economic Growth?]. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 1, 22–38. rus.Google Scholar
  55. Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2009). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market, and organizational change. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  56. Twiss, B. (1974). Managing technological innovation. Prentice Hall Press.Google Scholar
  57. Veblen, T. (1923). Absentee Ownership and Business Enterprise in Recent Times: The Case of America. New York: B.w. Heubsch.Google Scholar
  58. Voronin, A. E. (2009). Nelineynaya schema kompromissov v mnogokriterialnykh zadachah otsenivaniya I optimizatsii [A nonlinear scheme of compromises in multi-criteria problems of assessment and optimization], Kibernetika i Systemniy Analiz (Vol. 4, pp. 106–115).Google Scholar
  59. Walras, L. (1874). Elements of Pure Economics, or the Theory of Social Wealth. Jaffé: Transl. W.Google Scholar
  60. Wessner Ch. Entrepreneurship and the Innovation Ecosystem policy lessons from the US. Discussion Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy. Max Planck Institute for Research into Economic Systems Group Entrepreneurship. Available at: Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
  61. Zang, V. B. (1999). Sinergeticheskaya ekonomika. Vremya i peremeny v nelineynoy ekonomicheskoy teorii (p. 335). Moscow: The synergetic economics. Time and changes in the nonlinear economic theory (rus).Google Scholar
  62. Zhang, J. F. (2013). International comparison of national innovation system efficiency, Tech Monitor, April-June, 23-29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Igor N. Dubina
    • 1
    • 2
  • David F. J. Campbell
    • 3
    Email author
  • Elias G. Carayannis
    • 4
  • Anna A. Chub
    • 5
  • Evangelos Grigoroudis
    • 6
  • Olga V. Kozhevina
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of International Economics, Mathematical Methods and Business-InformaticsAltai State UniversityBarnaulRussia
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical Methods in EconomicsNovosibirsk National Research State UniversityNovosibirskRussia
  3. 3.Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt, Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (iff), Institute of Science Communication and Higher Education Research (WIHO)ViennaAustria
  4. 4.Department of Information Systems & Technology Management, School of BusinessThe George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Anti-Crisis and Strategic Management of the FinancialUniversity under the Government of the Russian Federation (the Financial University)MoscowRussia
  6. 6.School of Production Engineering and ManagementTechnical University of Crete, University CampusChaniaGreece
  7. 7.Center for the Analysis of the Efficiency and Effectiveness Governance of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian FederationThe Financial UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations