Article

Article
Entrepreneurship Theory and
Toward an Entrepreneurial Practice

2022, Vol. 46(3) 729–778
Ecosystem
© The Author(s) 2021
Research Program Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1042258721998948
journals.sagepub.com/home/etp
1 2
Bernd Wurth , Erik Stam , and
3
Ben Spigel
Abstract
Entrepreneurial ecosystems have become a prominent concept, yet in its current state, the
concept itself represents a paradox. While it draws on a rich intellectual history and provides an
opportunity to synthesize different strands of research, it is also under- theorized and the
mechanisms that govern ecosystem evolution are not well understood. This paper takes stock
of recent advancements in ecosystem scholarship and synthesizes the empirical reality of the
causal mechanisms. We use these dynamics to position ecosystems in a broader context,
within and beyond the domain of entrepreneurship research, and propose a transdisciplinary
research program for ecosystem research and practice.
Keywords
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial ecosystems, context, causal mechanisms, research program
The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems has gained enormous popularity within research,
pol-icy, and practitioner fields over the last decade. This contemporary popularity can be traced
to two sources: Feld’s (2012) book Startup Communities and Isenberg’s (2010) work in the
Harvard Business Review. The idea of entrepreneurial ecosystems was quickly adopted by
governments and non-governmental organizations such as the Kauffman Foundation (Stangler
& Bell-Masterson, 2015), the OECD (Mason & Brown, 2014), and the World Economic
Forum (2014). This policy excitement led to a situation where research is led by policy rather
than policy being guided by rigorous academic research (Stam & Bosma, 2015; Stam & Spigel,
2018). Even within the academic literature, the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems is mainly
used metaphorically with unclear relationships to other theories of innovation and (regional)
economic development (Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017; O’Connor et al., 2018; Scaringella &
Radziwon, 2018; Stam, 2015).
1
Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
2
Utrecht University School of Economics, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
3
University of Edinburgh Business School, University of Edinburgh, UK
Corresponding Author:
Bernd Wurth, Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship, University of Strathclyde, 199 Cathedral Street,
Glasgow, G4 0QU, UK.
Email: [email protected]
730 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 46(3)
Though entrepreneurial ecosystems quickly reached ‘buzzword’ status within research and policy
communities and the implementation of ecosystem policies quickly outpaced its research foundation
(Autio et al., 2018), the basic ideas underlying the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept are grounded
in strong research traditions. Current thinking about entrepreneurial ecosystems can be seen as the
result of developments in several related literatures: entrepreneurship context
(Autio et al., 2014; Welter, 2011), high-growth entrepreneurship (Autio & Rannikko, 2016;
Henrekson & Johansson, 2008), clusters (Delgado et al., 2010; Rocha & Sternberg, 2005; Rocha,
2004), regional innovation systems (Cooke, 2007; Sternberg, 2007; Ylinenpää, 2009), entrepre-
neurial environments (Gnyawali & Fogel, 1994; Van De Ven, 1993), and business ecosystems
(Adner, 2017; Moore, 1993). The entrepreneurial ecosystem approach provides a way to synthe-size
these often-disconnected literatures to open up new research questions and avenues of inquiry into
both policy-related issues regarding how to support economic growth and prosperity as well as more
fundamental social science questions such as the relationship between structure and agency in
modern capitalism (Spigel, 2020). Furthermore, entrepreneurial ecosystems emphasize the role of
‘place’ and provide a lens for understanding regional transformation through entrepre-neurial action
(Audretsch, 2015; Feldman & Lowe, 2018; O’Connor et al., 2018).
Given the extent of policy and research interest in entrepreneurial ecosystems it is important
to critically reflect on what work has been done and what knowledge has accumulated about
the contextual nature of the entrepreneurship process. It is hard to separate out reliable
evidence on what types of regional factors support different types of entrepreneurship from
anecdata based on exceptional case studies or analyses. There is a need to take stock of what
research has found in order to understand where the field stands and in which directions it is
traveling. We must ask: what is actually new about this concept or is it just a “fad” like many
others (Martin, 2015)? The majority of other systemic approaches remain fuzzy due to a lack of
empirical evidence of how they work and contribute to innovative and entrepreneurial activity
(Markusen, 2003). This paper aims to address this issue by structuring and synthesizing the
field of entrepreneurial ecosystem studies with a focus on the empirical evidence of the
underlying causal mechanisms (cf. Van Burg & Romme, 2014).
This paper uses a systematic literature review to (1) explain the current state of entrepreneur-ial
ecosystem research and develop a consensus definition for entrepreneurial ecosystems, and
(2) synthesize empirical studies on the causal relationships among the ecosystem elements and how
they are linked to outputs and outcomes. The aim is to develop a comprehensive understand-ing of
the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept and how it can contribute to entrepreneurship and economic
development policy and our wider understanding of the contextual nature of entrepre-neurship
(Webster & Watson, 2002). By doing so, it grounds the recent policy and practice pop-ularity of
ecosystems in the research literature and helps track the ways scholars engage with the topic. This is
an instrumental step in building a coherent research community around entrepre-neurial ecosystems
that would allow for the accumulation and development of scientific and practical knowledge.
Before we continue our analyses, we first define some key academic tools, which are used to build a
research program: concept, framework, model, theory, and mecha-nisms. The entrepreneurial
ecosystem research program starts with the general notion, concept, of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems is an abstracted idea of a real-world phenomenon. We
unpack the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystem by specifying its definition within the literature.
We identify, categorize, and organize the factors deemed most relevant to understanding
entrepreneurial ecosystems: a framework (cf. the entrepreneurial eco-system frameworks by
Isenberg, 2010; Spigel, 2017; Stam, 2015). This framework provides the bare bones for a model,
in which the specific functional relationships among particular variables or indicators are
hypothesized to operate in some well-defined set of conditions. These
Wurth et al. 731
hypotheses can be derived from or organized through theories, which are different ways to talk
about causal mechanisms explaining development and change (cf. Van De Ven & Poole, 1995,
at the organizational level).
While recent reviews of the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature (e.g., Cao & Shi, 2020; Garavan
et al., 2019; Hakala et al., 2020; Maroufkhani et al., 2018; Nicotra et al., 2018) have sought to bring
together this rapidly shifting field, we advance on these works in three key ways. First, we embrace
a broad literature covering the entirety of the entrepreneurial ecosystem con-cept, rather than
specific specialties such as ecosystems in emerging economies or specific domains. Second, we
draw on this literature to identify the casual mechanisms which link the regional contexts in which
entrepreneurship takes place with specific outcomes such as firm growth, innovation, and increases
in overall welfare. Third, we develop a new typology of the conceptual microfoundations of
entrepreneurial ecosystem thinking and use this to generate a research agenda designed to strengthen
the conceptual and empirical basis of the literature in order to make it more relevant to policymakers
and entrepreneurs as well as to researchers.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The following section outlines the
history of the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept, its intellectual origins and discusses the
novelty and applicability of the concept. We then provide a detailed account of the systematic
literature review and the analysis. An overview of the status quo of entrepreneurial ecosystem
research, followed by a detailed discussion of the causal mechanisms is presented in the
following two sections. Based on this description of the current stock of knowledge, we present
opportunities for future research for both, sharpening the theoretical foundation and
explanatory power of the ecosystem concept and how it can be applied to support policy for an
entrepreneurial economy (Thurik et al., 2013). This involves multiple academic disciplines and
explicit interaction with practice (“engaged scholarship,” Van de Ven, 2007); in short: a
transdisciplinary entrepreneurial ecosystem research program (cf. Pohl et al., 2017).
Origins of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Concept

While the recent interest in entrepreneurial ecosystems makes it appear novel, it builds on intel-
lectual traditions ranging from clusters, to innovation systems and urban economics (Acs et al.,
2017; Brown & Mason, 2017; Brown & Mawson, 2019; Malecki, 2018). The early roots of
entrepreneurial ecosystem ideas date back a century to Marshall (1920), who studied the
factors that stimulated enterprises in certain territories, so-called industrial districts. Subsequent
work has built on the notion of Marshallian industrial districts (cf. Krugman, 1991; Markusen,
1996), first with the early work on national systems of innovation (Freeman, 1995; Lundvall,
1992), learning regions (Keeble et al., 1999; Malmberg & Maskell, 2002) the Triple Helix
(Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, 1996) and then with the larger literatures on regional clusters
(Delgado et al., 2016; Porter, 1998, 2000) and regional innovation systems (Cooke, 2001;
Cooke et al., 1997). While these approaches have divergent goals, methodologies and
epistemological views of how the economy works, they are united by the central idea that there
are factors outside an organization but within a region that contribute to firm-level competitive
advantage (Spigel & Harrison, 2018).
The entrepreneurial ecosystem concept makes two advances over these existing approaches:
it shifts the focus of enquiry and it foregrounds new types of research questions by
synthesizing insights from territorial models of innovation and entrepreneurship. First,
ecosystem approaches re- orient research on entrepreneurship and economic development
toward productive entrepreneurship rather than the entirety of new venture creation and
innovation. Productive entrepreneurship has been defined as “any entrepreneurial activity
that contributes directly or indirectly to net output of the economy or to the capacity to pro-
duce additional output” (Baumol, 1990, p. 30). It is often proxied with high- growth firms (e.g.,
Stam & Bosma, 2015), which are responsible for the bulk of new job creation in devel-oped
economies, making it a crucial target for economic development policy (Brown & Mason,
2017). Productive entrepreneurship can also include innovative start- ups and entre-preneurial
employees that foster productivity in the economy (Stam, 2015). Cluster and regional
innovation system theories have generally treated entrepreneurship as something that is
peripheral to their main focus: major manufacturing or multinational companies. While some
work on these topics has engaged with new firm formation, it rarely focused on productive
entrepreneurship. Similarly, while the entrepreneurial environments literature has always
focused on how entrepreneurs are affected by their broader context (Gnyawali & Fogel, 1994;
Van de Ven, 1993), it has generally focused on all entrepreneurial activity, which is mostly
low- growth entrepreneurship that has few broader economic impacts (Welter et al., 2017).
Research on entrepreneurial ecosystems entails a shift in the unit of analysis away from a
region’s total new venture population or its socio- economy to a more specific type of entrepre-
neurial activity—productive entrepreneurship—and the actors and factors affecting this (cf.
Isenberg, 2016). More recently, there has been a further shift from productive entrepreneurship
to so-called social entrepreneurship (Harms & Groen, 2017; Thompson et al., 2018), explicitly
recognizing the wider effects of entrepreneurship beyond narrow economic terms (cf. Shepherd
& Patzelt, 2020). Situating productive entrepreneurship at the center of research agendas
allows for a closer examination of the interdependencies within networks that affect new value
creation at the firm and in the economy at large. This narrower focus allows for more precise
investiga-tions into what types of internal organizational attributes and exogenous regional
factors sup-port scalable entrepreneurial endeavors. While some aspects of entrepreneurial
scaling such as venture capital investment are well studied, other areas have received
considerably less attention.
Second, an entrepreneurial ecosystem approach allows researchers to synthesize many
differ-ent theoretical constructs (and scientific disciplines) together in order to engage with a
funda-mental question of social science: the relationships between individual agency and social
and economic structures in economic activity (Stam, 2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystem
research gives priority to the role of the entrepreneur as an organizational, innovation, and
community leader. This highlights their ability to disrupt existing structures and create new
paths based on their individual characteristics and circumstances. The other actors in an
ecosystem—including investors, civil servants, employees—also have agency in how they
choose to operate within an entrepreneurial ecosystem. This includes leverage gained from
structures that extend the local ecosystem, such as supply chains, platforms or clusters
(Auerswald & Dani, 2017). The implica-tion of this idea of the entrepreneur-led ecosystem is
that the causal mechanisms that drive the evolution of regional entrepreneurial ecosystems
might not be the same as for other territorial models of innovation (Spigel, 2017).
Thus, entrepreneurial ecosystems represent a renewed interest in localized conditions for
entrepreneurship aligned with a focus on the agency of entrepreneurial actors to create and trans-
form their own contexts. This has helped build a vibrant research landscape that is informed by both
a legacy of diverse research traditions as well as new policies being introduced in a variety of
settings around the world. Some even claim that ecosystem policy is the “New Industrial Policy”
(Startup Genome, 2020). However, there is a need to critically evaluate this new research and
approach to policy-making in order to understand what has been learnt and what blind spots
and gaps remain. In the remainder of the paper, we systematically review the extant
literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems and evaluate the dominant themes and approaches.
Wurth et al. 733
Identification of Relevant Papers

For our systematic analysis of the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature, we applied a multistage
process. In the initial stage, we searched all databases from Web of Science and Scopus for a
comprehensive overview of the literature (Frank & Hatak, 2014; Martín-Martín et al., 2018;
Webster & Watson, 2002). We only used journal papers and excluded book chapters and
confer-ence papers to avoid including multiple publications based on the same research. We
focus exclusively on the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept, which differs from other
applications of ecosystems in the management literature in terms of (1) the focus on specific
types of entrepre-neurship, and (2) the specific territorial boundaries that are placed on the
entrepreneurial ecosys-tem, usually a city, a region, or a nation (Scaringella & Radziwon,
2018). Therefore, we performed a topic search (title, abstract, keywords) with the following
keywords: “entrep* ecosys*” (419 results Web of Science Core Collection/434 Scopus),
“startup ecosys*” (26/27), “start-up eco-sys*” (18/26), “entrep* sys*” (41/60), and “sys* of
entrep*” (32/46). Using a topic search enables the required breadth at this stage of the literature
1
search. The result is an initial sample of 724 articles.
In the second stage, we used the Scimago Journal Rankings and extracted the top 25% jour-
nals of the latest edition in 2017 from the following sub areas: Business and International
Management; Business, Management and Accounting Miscellaneous; Management of
Technology and Innovation; Strategy and Management; Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Miscellaneous; Economics and Econometrics; Geography, Planning and Development; Social
Sciences Miscellaneous; and Urban Studies. This step, again, aims to balance the breadth and
depth of our review. Including journals from business, strategy, and management to economics,
geography, and urban studies allows the inclusion of a wide variety of perspectives on
entrepre-neurial ecosystems and the territorial context for entrepreneurship. In doing so, this
stage also excluded the publications in non-relevant disciplines such as health or robotics.
While including only the top 25% journals limits the depth of the review but ensures a high
level of scientific quality. The result was a list of 346 journals, with 36 being represented in our
initial sample, leaving us with an intermediate sample of 183 articles.
In the third stage, we undertook an in- depth reading of all the remaining papers. Our goal was to
be as inclusive as possible, identifying all empirical articles that use the entrepreneurial ecosystems
concept and deal substantially with the phenomenon. We excluded one call for papers, 14 editorials,
and 26 articles that did not include original, empirical research. These include review papers,
methodological, and theoretical/conceptual papers. The current state of ecosystem research is
fragmented and heterogenous with regard to theoretical approaches. We focus on empirical research
to understand what we know about how ecosystems work compared to insights based purely on
logic in theoretical work. We review the empirical literature based on a commonly accepted
framework that has also formed the basis for other reviews (e.g., Maroufkhani et al., 2018; Nicotra
et al., 2018), which does allow us to draw conclusions regard-ing the mechanisms. Further 21
articles were excluded because they used the ecosystem con-cept at the organizational level (e.g.,
universities or support organizations) and six articles because they do not report any spatial context.
These articles are not conforming with our inclusion criteria regarding the systemic nature of
ecosystems within a spatial context. We excluded 18 articles because they only used the
entrepreneurial ecosystem concept as a label
(mostly for regional characteristics or context) and 29 papers that dealt with the concept in a
trivial or marginal way, without any meaningful engagement. Lastly, six articles are excluded
because they neither use the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept itself nor do they engage with
the principles of an ecosystem. This left us with a final sample of 62 articles, which are
summa-rized in Appendix A.
Several review papers on entrepreneurial ecosystems have already been published, many of them
organized around analyzing the empirical studies of ecosystems (e.g., Cao & Shi, 2020; Garavan et
al., 2019; Hakala et al., 2020; Maroufkhani et al., 2018; Nicotra et al., 2018). Building on the
insights from these reviews, we take a concept-centered approach to our review (Fisch & Block,
2018) and focus on two issues. First, we will discuss general trends in ecosystem research in the
next section, particularly looking at ‘how’ the concept has been used in empirical research
regardless of terminologies such as ecosystems or national systems of entrepreneurship. In the
subsequent section, we synthesize and discuss the empirical findings and the resulting causal
mechanisms that drive entrepreneurial ecosystems. This allows us to draw a comprehensive pic-ture
of the current stock of knowledge with regard to how entrepreneurial ecosystems work and provide
the foundation for a new, transdisciplinary research program that will advance entrepre-neurship
research beyond the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept.
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research From 2000 to 2020

This section provides an overview of the entrepreneurial ecosystems literature over the last two
decades, with an emphasis on (1) the use of ecosystems as an ontological and epistemological
concept, (2) how the ecosystem concept is used in the context of different types of
entrepreneur-ship, and (3) the metaphorical use of the ecosystem concept versus taking
interdependence between ecosystem elements, a core characteristic of any system, seriously.
Understanding the way in which entrepreneurial ecosystems are studied and are used to study
entrepreneurship is a necessary requirement when synthesizing the findings and distilling the
causal mechanisms that drive the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Ontology and Epistemology

Entrepreneurial ecosystems are conceptualized in two ways in academic research, policy and
practice: ontologically, emphasizing its “being” and epistemologically, focusing on “how it can
be known.” Entrepreneurial ecosystems are often regarded as something that can be built—an
organizational form which emerges—prioritizing ontology. This strongly resonates with the
entrepreneurship and sociological approaches, emphasizing how leaders co-create
entrepreneur-ial communities (Van De Ven, 1993), and with design science approaches that
conceptualize entrepreneurial ecosystems as an artefact (O’Shea et al., 2019). Roundy et al.
(2017, p. 103) provide an example of this ontological mode of research: “[e]very region has
some level of entre-preneurial activity and a growing number have entrepreneurial
ecosystems.” The ontological view holds that entrepreneurial ecosystems arise in particular
regions at a certain critical point of entrepreneurial development, allowing us to speak of
entrepreneurial ecosystems “being” there. Conversely, the epistemological view holds that
(local, regional, national) economies are always there, but their quality as economic systems
enabling (or constraining) productive entrepreneur-ship can be known with adequate
knowledge (including both ‘objective’ data and subjective ‘local knowledge’).
The ontological view talks about entrepreneurial ecosystems emerging (Roundy et al., 2018) and
particular entrepreneurial communities (e.g., concerned with particular technologies, sec-tors, or
societal challenges) arising in countries, regions or cities. The ontological view is con-cerned with
the processes connected with the emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Papers in our review in
this realm are typically characterized by studying ecosystems through the lens of established
theories, including institutional (e.g., Stephens et al., 2019) and evolutionary theories (e.g.,
Colombelli et al., 2019) to name the most frequent. In this they attempt to identify the
Wurth et al. 735
social and economic factors associated with the emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems and
the stages ecosystems pass through as they grow, decline and ultimately disappear.
The epistemological view is focused on emergence within economic systems: to what extent
actors and localized factors create new value as an emergent property of the system (cf. Arthur,
2013). This emergence may include new products, new organizations (Katz & Gartner, 1988)
as well new industries (Garnsey et al., 2010; Yamamura & Lassalle, 2020). Studies using the
eco-system concept as a lens, typically build on economic theories (complexity economics,
evolu-tionary economics) and network theories to analyze the factors and actors in local,
regional, and national economies.
“One for All” or “All in One”

As argued above, one of the defining features of entrepreneurial ecosystems research has been a
focus on productive entrepreneurship. This form of entrepreneurship is associated with new job
creation and increases in the overall wealth of an economy. However, productive entrepreneur-ship
itself remains an elusive category. It is often measured as high-growth entrepreneurship: young,
owner-managed firms that have been able to grow beyond a certain performance thresh-old (Bos &
Stam, 2014). But this is not the only empirical measure of productive entrepreneur-ship (cf.
Davidsson, 2004; Stam, 2015), and there is a considerable amount of entrepreneurial ecosystem
studies that focus on types of entrepreneurship that do not necessarily belong to the category of
productive entrepreneurs, narrowly defined as contributing to aggregate economic value that can be
measured in monetary terms. For example, examined ecosystems of social entrepreneurs (Thompson
et al., 2018) or creative entrepreneurs (Loots et al., 2020). This calls for an opening up of the
concept of productive entrepreneurship, to also include social and eco-logical value creation that
cannot always and directly be measured in monetary terms, but which is regarded to be valuable for
society at large. We can also imagine other ecosystems that support non-productive or even
destructive entrepreneurship, such as ecosystems of lobbyists in Washington D.C. or Brussels
(Sobel, 2008) or the mafia (Gambetta, 1993).
This creates a new question: do entrepreneurial ecosystems enable all forms of
entrepreneur-ship or are productive forms of entrepreneurship affected by ecosystem context in
different ways than other forms of entrepreneurship? Furthermore, are different configurations
of ecosystems needed to stimulate nascent entrepreneurship, startups, and scale-ups,
respectively? Some authors argue for a set of generic elements that positively affect productive
entrepreneurship in general; for example, physical and institutional infrastructures. Others
argue that particular types of entrepreneurship are affected differently by entrepreneurial
ecosystems than contrasting types. Examples of contrasting types of entrepreneurship are
female and male entrepreneurship (e.g., Hechavarría & Ingram, 2019; Sperber & Linder,
2019), and high-growth firms in retail and bio-tech (Auerswald & Dani, 2017).
Metaphorical Interdependence vs. Real Interdependence

Our review of the articles using the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept shows that a substantial part
of the literature only uses the concept in a metaphorical way. These articles use the concept in name
only without acknowledging its key characteristics of interdependence. The ecosystem metaphor is
used to introduce the study of geographical contexts of entrepreneurship, but many of these studies
focus on isolated elements as variables “explaining” the prevalence of a particu-lar type of
entrepreneurship (e.g., Civera et al., 2019). There is also a subset of studies that focus on a singular
innovation project within in a spatial setting, not looking at the aggregate preva-lence of
entrepreneurship, nor at the interdependencies in the ecosystem at large (e.g., DiVito &
Ingen-Housz, 2019). This metaphorical use contributes little to the accumulation of scientific
knowledge on entrepreneurial ecosystems. The issue of interdependence between ecosystem
ele-ments will be further explored in the next section, among other mechanisms.
Causal Mechanisms
For the identification of the causal mechanisms in entrepreneurial ecosystems we use the
frame-work by Stam (2015) and Stam and Van de Ven (2019) to guide our analysis with the
aim of linking the empirical reality to the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach in order to better
under-stand entrepreneurial economies (Thurik et al., 2013). This entrepreneurial ecosystem
frame-work is implicitly based on (critical) realism, postulating that there is a reality
independent of the human mind, but that scientific research is able to perceive events that
reflect changes in reality, which are produced by underlying causes (Sayer, 1992; Van de Ven,
2007). In particular we con-sider the intra-layer causation among the ecosystem elements
(interdependence of elements); the upward causation—how the elements lead to outputs and
outcomes; and downward causation and feedback from outputs and outcomes that shape
entrepreneurial ecosystems and their ele-ments. Lastly, we include the interaction between
different ecosystems and the flow of resources and information between them (Figure 1).
Upward causation reveals how the fundamental causes of new value creation are mediated
by intermediate causes, while downward causation shows how outcomes and outputs of the
system over time also feed back into the system conditions. Intra-layer causal relations refer to
the inter-action of the different elements within the ecosystem. The links between ecosystems
have been largely neglected in the literature (Schäfer & Henn, 2018; Stam, 2014), which is
partially due to the ambiguity around the spatial boundary of ecosystems. The model is
distinctive of existing measurements of entrepreneurial (eco)systems that do not separate inputs
and entrepreneurial outputs of the system.
This approach corresponds to a complex systems perspective of the economy, in which eco-
nomic agents at the micro level experiment and interact with each other to form a constantly
evolving system. Many of these experiments fail, but some succeed and create wealth for society
(Beinhocker, 2006). Economic development does not emerge automatically: entrepreneurs are
needed to create new value which then circulates throughout the economy (Fayolle, 2007;
Schumpeter, 1934). This new value creation is an emerging property of a complex system of
economic agents and their interactions: the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Entrepreneurs might
structurally change the economy and society, as exemplified with new sets of technologies, insti-
tutions, and organizational arrangements (Arthur, 2013; Feldman, 2014). The (regional) econ-omy
cannot be separated from the agents and institutions that it is made of but is a result of a “constantly
developing set of technological innovations, institutions, and arrangements that draw forth further
innovations, institutions and arrangements” (Arthur, 2013, p. 1). Therefore, entre-preneurship is
simultaneously the result and mediator of evolution (Day, 1987): entrepreneurial behavior as an
output is enabled by the system, while the new value created, and potential struc-tural change as an
outcome of the system is mediated by entrepreneurship.
This outcome is an emergent property of the system and redefines the nature of the system through feedback effects.
Such feedback effects mean that the system and its outputs should not be interpreted as a one-way relation, as the current
state of the system might be affected by pre-vious outcomes. This comes close to the statistics problem of simultaneity,
which “arises when one or more of the explanatory variables is jointly determined with the dependent variable [...]”
(Wooldridge, 2013, p. 530). However, in dynamic systems analysis this is not a problem to be evaded, but an inherent
characteristic of system dynamics. An overview of the contributions of the reviewed papers is presented in Table 1.
2
Wurth et al. 737
3
1 Interdependencies
2 Ecosystems linked to output
3 Ecosystems linked to outcomes
4 Downward causation
2 5 Inter-ecosystem links
5
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem
Networks Leadership Finance Talent Knowledge Support services
/ intermediaries
Formal Culture Physical Demand
1
institutions infrastructure
Figure 1. Causal mechanisms in the entrepreneurial ecosystem research program (after Stam, 2015).
Interdependence of Elements
In its most basic form, market-based economic systems are composed of interdependent actors,
representing supply and demand. However, to understand economic development we need to
look beyond these traded interdependencies and also examine the untraded interdependencies
between actors that explain the differential performance of economic systems (Dosi, 1988;
Lawson, 1999; Storper, 1995). Untraded interdependencies include the complementarities
between actors and resources, and information flows which do not entirely correspond to the
flows of commodities (Richardson, 1972; Teece, 1986, 1998; Tripsas, 1997). They represent a
structured set of externalities, which is a collective asset of groups of actors within an
economy, and tend to be internalized within individual companies both independently and
interdependently of its network position (Whittington et al., 2009). Because of this inherent
connectivity, non-linearity and openness, a complex system affords limited functional
decomposability (Martin & Sunley, 2007), which suggests that the overall functioning of the
entrepreneurial ecosystem can-not be deduced from knowledge of its elements but instead
requires knowledge of how these elements are interrelated.
The empirical ecosystem literature is dominated by a focus on interdependence and the link
between ecosystems and outputs. Spigel (2017), for example, demonstrates the feedback mech-
anisms caused by supporting relationships between cultural, social, and material attributes and the
reinforcing relationships that occur in turn. This interdependence of ecosystem elements is all too
often not reflected in innovation and entrepreneurship policy. An example is the investment in
physical infrastructure without supporting the underlying cultural and social support, which turned
planned innovation hotspots into empty real estate (Pugh et al., 2018). The relative
Table 1. Overview of Causal Mechanisms.
738
Causal mechanism Main arguments Focus* Main findings Selected empirical studies
Interdependence of Individual actors can increase Accelerators Four types of accelerator expertise—connection, development, coordination, and [23] Goswami et al. (2018)
ecosystem elements connectivity and provide selection—combined lead to higher commitment among stakeholders to the
required resources by acting ecosystem, validation through faster experimentation and ecosystem additionality
beyond their expected realm
(particularly in early stages)
Through an open innovation approach, accelerators can support the connectedness [45] Pustovrh et al. (2020)
within and beyond the ecosystem and increase the resources available within the
ecosystem
Multiple elements Elements are related in a unique way for every ecosystem [30] Neck et al. (2004)
Dealmakers are essential for fostering connectivity and knowledge spillovers in EEs [42] Pittz et al. (2019)
Government Government sponsorship is an effective driver of ecosystem development beyond [37] Motoyama and Knowlton
increasing individual recipient firms’ performance (2016)
Universities Universities as hub institutions can support the development of ecosystems through [48] Schaeffer and Matt (2016)
the sequential development of boundary spanning, network building, and
orchestrator functions, but rely on the development of complementary support
structures
Learning and universities pro-actively supporting this beyond their traditional remit [43] Pugh et al. (2019)
contribute to EE development
Universities adapt to the state of the ecosystem and contribute in multiple ways [61] Wagner et al. (2019)
(often beyond their traditional remit of teaching and research)
Universities with a strong international focus can act as intermediaries of [13] Civera et al. (2019)
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 46(3)

internationalization for the ecosystem
Anchor Anchor organizations initiate and support the initial growth of ecosystems [14] Colombelli et al. (2019)
organizations
Feedback and (non-linear) co- Multiple elements Entrepreneurial culture as well as tailored stakeholder support and collaboration lead [10] Bischoff (2019)
evolutionary dynamics between reinforce the perception of the ecosystem
ecosystem elements (and the
wider socio-economic context)
Ecosystems are highly integrated into the broader socio-cultural-ideological context, [21] Fraiberg (2017)
dynamic and constantly evolving
Individual ecosystems are unique due to their co-evolving elements [27] Mack and Mayer (2016)
Ecosystem configurations can vary significantly and new policies/investments should [53] Spigel (2017)
develop support among underlying social and cultural attributes
Different forms of proximity allow for development of EE even in smaller, peripheral [62] Yamamura and Lassalle
places and the emergence of industries (2020)
(Continued)
Table 1. Continued
Wurth et al.
Governance changes from hierarchical to relational as the ecosystem evolves; [14] Colombelli et al. (2019)
similarly, the role of different actors and support organizations evolves as the
ecosystem evolves
Government and Non-linear evolution of the EE, with often contradictory developments within the [47] Radinger-Peer et al. (2018)
finance various pillars
Bottom-up evolution of ecosystems Institutions Institutions are perceived differently by ecosystem actors and are constantly co- [33] Lowe and Feldman (2017)
through individual interactions created through the interaction of these actors
Institutions and Incubators do not fundamentally address unfavorable institutions and only provide [59] van Weele et al. (2018)
incubators “symptomatic” solutions, therefore new “systemic” incubators are needed
Multiple elements Instead of isolated investments/actions, ecosystems are adaptive and evolve through [19] Feldman and Lowe (2018)
interactions of individuals with different motivations (including non-market
forces)
Ecosystems form through endogenous, bottom-up, and time-patterned processes [58] Thompson et al. (2018)
(rather than exogenous sources such as government action or instrumental
policy goals)
Interaction of individual entrepreneurial talent/aptitudes and the ecosystem (place- [44] Pushkarskaya et al. (2020)
based interactions)
Ecosystem evolution depends on both munificence (in the built environment) and the [28] Johnson et al. (2019)
dynamism and behavioral responses of agents in the ecosystem
Networks Gender issues can constrain the bottom-up evolution of ecosystems and women- [36] McAdam et al. (2019)
only networks are not sufficient improve connectedness and engagement in
entrepreneurial activities of women
Ecosystems are linked to Different ecosystem configurations Multiple elements Ecosystems are host a variety of subclusters based on organizational- and individual- [39] Neumeyer and Santos
outputs lead to different outputs, even level factors (2018)
different clusters within one
ecosystem can produce different
outputs
Start-up strategies chosen are a reflection of the perceived support from the [52] Sperber and Linder (2019)
ecosystem, the entrepreneurs’ current life situation, and the intended goals
Networks There are social clusters within EEs that focus on particular types of [40] Neumeyer et al. (2019)
entrepreneurship
Institutions Four distinct institutional settings enable different types of entrepreneurship (e.g., [17] Dilli et al. (2018)
high/medium/low-tech ventures)
Universities Regional scientific knowledge and talent has a limited effect on the internationalization [13] Civera et al. (2019)
of academic spin-offs, regional demand growth has a negative effect
739
(Continued)
Table 1. Continued
Women and men benefit in different Multiple elements Globally, women benefit more from many of the ecosystem factors than men, but in [26] Hechavarría and Ingram
ways from ecosystems and their some cases depending on the phase of economic development men might benefit (2019)
elements more
Women tend to mobilize more resources than men in order to overcome support [52] Sperber and Linder (2019)
constraints, men are more confident of their capabilities
Multiple elements Ecosystem provide the basis for high-tech entrepreneurship [38] Neck et al. (2004)
The most relevant EE factors enabling the birth and activity of high-growth startups [16] Corrente et al. (2019)
can be identified in cultural and social norms, government programs, and internal
market dynamics
Government Context makes innovative entrepreneurship difficult despite substantial government [9] Biru et al. (2020).
support
(Informal) Policy makers can use formal institutions to foster high-growth and social [24] Harms and Groen (2017)
Institutions entrepreneurship, even in nations whose cultural conditions do not seem to be
supportive of entrepreneurship
Institutions (economic freedom) at the regional level enable Schumpeterian [7] Bennett (2021)
entrepreneurship
Universities and Local presence of research-oriented universities, access to capital, and business [20] Fischer et al. (2018)
finance concentration are correlated to the emergence of knowledge-intensive
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 46(3)

entrepreneurship
High information asymmetries impede high-tech entrepreneurial ideas based on [22] Autio et al. (2018)
university knowledge to attract external finance. In provinces where residents
tend to behave opportunistically, the relative presence of cooperative
banks magnifies the positive effect of university knowledge on high-tech
entrepreneurship. Conversely, this effect is negligible in provinces with less
opportunistic residents
Ecosystems foster entrepreneurial Multiple elements Ecosystems (including internet access and connectivity) are linked to start-up rates [3] Audretsch and Belitski (2017)
activity in general (start-ups) in cities
The framework conditions of entrepreneurial ecosystems have different influences on [51] Simmons et al. (2019)
the reentry decisions of males and females who experience business failure
Overall quality of an ecosystem is positively related to entrepreneurial output [54] Stam and Van de Ven (2019)
Ventures in high-performance ecosystems perform better, higher survival chances [60] Vedula and Kim (2019)
(less important for serial entrepreneurs)
Universities Despite their prominence, university spin-offs are mostly not high-growth businesses [25] Harrison and Leitch (2010)
and do not drive an ecosystem but depend on it in their development
(Continued)
740
Table 1. Continued
Wurth et al.
Human connectedness to the physical environment, including urban design, buildings, [28] Johnson et al. (2019)
and infrastructure, can affect entrepreneurial activity
Government Ecosystems require stakeholder alignment and a holistic approach to create a fertile [29] Jung et al. (2017)
environment for entrepreneurial activity
(Informal) Ecosystem development is important for growing “entrepreneurial spirit” and [41] Öner and Kunday (2016)
Institutions support programs can lower the fear of failure
Subculture rather than mainstream culture plays a key role in EEs for fostering new [4] Audretsch et al. (2019)
venture creation in the ICT sector
Different regional institutions (the multiple dimensions of economic freedom) affect [8] Bennett (2020)
regional entrepreneurship rates in different ways
Human capital Entrepreneurial absorptive capacity drives knowledge-based entrepreneurial activity; [46] Qian et al. (2013)
high technology and cultural diversity contribute to the vibrancy of ecosystems
Smart cities Smart city policies promote entrepreneurship through fostering the ecosystem [6] Barba-Sánchez et al. (2019)
Ecosystems foster social (Informal) Policy makers can use formal institutions to foster high-growth and social [24] Harms and Groen (2017)
entrepreneuship Institutions entrepreneurship, even in nations whose cultural conditions do not seem to be
supportive of entrepreneurship
Ecosystems foster the creation of Multiple elements Quality of the ecosystem positively influences KIBS formation rates and positively [27] Horváth and Rabetino
knowledge intensive business moderates the relationship between manufacturing specialization and the rate of (2019)
services new KIBS; a healthy entrepreneurial ecosystem seems essential for an effective
territorial servitization
Ecosystems or at least many of Multiple elements Several national level ecosystem aspects have no significant impact on rates of male [26] Hechavarría and Ingram
their elements do not impact or female entrepreneurial engagement (2019)
entrepreneurial activity Universities and Regional presence of STEM talent has a negative effect on the internationalization of [13] Civera et al. (2019)
human capital academic spin-offs

Ecosystems are linked to Ecosystems foster
Multiple elements Ecosystems at the country level are linked to economic growth [2] Acs et al. (2018)
economic growth
outcomes and more efficient resource
allocation due to knowledge
spillovers
EEs contribute to national productivity by promoting Kirznerian and Schumpeterian [30] Lafuente et al. (2019)
entrepreneurship
Mature ecosystems enable knowledge spillovers, which increase efficient resource [31] Lafuente et al. (2016)
allocation
Regional development through more Multiple elements Positive impact of interaction between company–university–government on [18] Erina et al. (2017)
mature ecosystems entrepreneurial development (greater for more developed regions/ecosystems)
741
(Continued)
Table 1. Continued
Ecosystems as a moderator for Multiple elements Positive moderating effect of the ecosystem on the relation between [57] Szerb et al. (2019)
the relationship between entrepreneurship (both Kirznerian and Schumpeterian) on regional economic
entrepreneurship and economic growth
development
Ecosystems moderate the impact of regional entrepreneurial outputs on economic [15] Content et al. (2020)
development (outcomes)
No moderating effect of entrepreneurial ecosystems on the relation between [12] Bruns et al. (2017)
entrepreneurship and economic growth
Downward causation and Path dependence and Matthew Multiple elements Local/regional ecosystem characteristics are crucial for effectiveness of systemic [11] Brown et al. (2016)
path-dependency effects in regions innovation policy
Individual ecosystems are unique due to their historical, cultural, and institutional [34] Mack and Mayer (2016)
heritage
Strong path dependence in the evolution of EEs as entrepreneurial output feeds back [54] Stam and Van de Ven (2019)
into the regional EE
EE shaped by economic development of the country and high-growth firms have [35] Martínez‐Fierro et al. (2020)
greater impact on entrepreneurial ecosystem than new ventures in general
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice

State of the ecosystem affects Finance Angel investments have a positive impact on firm growth, performance, survival, and [32] Lerner et al. (2018)
individual entrepreneurs’ follow-on fundraising, which is independent of the level of venture activity and
behaviors and the influence of entrepreneur-friendliness in the country; but in less mature ecosystems only
top-down policy interventions more mature start-ups apply for angel investment
Nature and prevalence of finance changed due to changes in formal institutions and [36] Radinger-Peer et al. (2018)
the resulting regulatory changes; path development of the ecosystem is strongly
shaped by endogenous initiatives of foremost public authorities
Government Ecosystems represent higher-level system in which, e.g., clusters are embedded; [5] Auerswald and Dani (2017)
policy making needs to account for current state of the ecosystem and
interventions have different effects on involved clusters/industries
Informal Entrepreneurial readiness is a more valid representation of individual-level [50] Schillo et al., 2016
institutions characteristics than other individual traits and is also influenced by several
and human dimensions of the national environment, forming a reinforcing loop
capital
Multiple elements State of the ecosystem impacts whether entrepreneurs come/stay to start a new tech [56] Stephens et al. (2019)
venture
(Continued)
742
Wurth et al.
Table 1. Continued
Links between Actors/ideas/practices/norms travel Human capital Ecosystems are part of a wider transnational social field that shapes and is shaped by [21] Fraiberg (2017)
ecosystems and migrate between ecosystems the circulation of actors, ideologies, texts, and objects
(and across spatial or cultural
boundaries or language barriers) emigration, “sunshine return migration,” and outmigration influence the emergence [49] Schäfer and Henn (2018)
and evolution of ecosystems
Entrepreneurs’ networks are trans- Networks EEs are not static, bounded, or only mapped directly onto a global city or nation-state [21] Fraiberg (2017)
regional and -national but are dynamic, changing, and densely knotted with other systems in and across
near and distant spaces
Bi-directional learning for migrant Multiple elements Entrepreneurs coming to China must be prepared, flexible, associate themselves with [55] Steinz et al. (2016)
entrepreneurs and ecosystems reputable partners and take advice from those familiar with business in China to
overcome cultural-cognitive barriers; regulative barriers can only be removed by
the government
Note. *All studies in this list include a variety of ecosystem elements, but some emphasize the role of particular element(s) as indicated in this column.
743
importance of ecosystem elements varies depending on the overall state of the ecosystem
(Mack & Mayer, 2016). These interdependencies have been discussed in other streams of the
literature and at the city-level (Fritsch & Wyrwich, 2014; Levie & Autio, 2011) and are a
crucial assump-tion in many other ecosystem studies that focus on other causal mechanism
(e.g., Audretsch & Belitski, 2017, who link ecosystems to outputs).
These co-evolutionary dynamics are the result of the interactions of individuals within eco-
systems (Johnson et al., 2019; Thompson et al., 2018). The heterogeneity of ecosystem actors poses
both a potentially fruitful but also challenging situation. Actors within an ecosystem might have
varying motivations, even to the point of conflicting agendas (Feldman & Lowe, 2018) and might
perceive institutions and, by extension, interventions, differently (Lowe & Feldman, 2017).
Interventions must address the interdependence of the elements and actors beyond symp-tomatic
solutions that target them individually (McAdam et al., 2019; van Weele et al., 2018).
The presence of these actors and factors is not sufficient for ecosystem development. They also
need to be connected. Individual actors can increase connectivity and provide required resources by
acting beyond their expected realm (Neck et al., 2004), including accelerators (Goswami et al.,
2018; Pustovrh et al., 2020), government initiatives and policy interventions (Motoyama &
Knowlton, 2016; Radinger-Peer et al., 2018), and universities (Civera et al., 2019; Schaeffer &
Matt, 2016). Particularly in the early stages of ecosystem development, anchor orga-nizations
(universities, firms: see Agrawal & Cockburn, 2003; Feldman, 2003) are a crucial actor (Colombelli
et al., 2019). This is in line with other empirical findings such as the ‘coach’ function (as opposed to
pure ‘scouting’) of venture capital firms and how they compensate for a lack of human capital in
high potential technology-based firms (Colombo & Grilli, 2010).
Outputs
In an entrepreneurial economy, overall performance does not depend on economies of scale but
is more widely distributed among a variety of innovative firms and start-ups (Audretsch &
Thurik, 2001; Thurik et al., 2013). Ecosystems, as entrepreneurial economies, provide the con-
text and support for start-ups to emerge and for innovative firms and ventures to grow.
Depending on their level of maturity and the particular configuration of the elements, they are
said to pro-duce not only different levels of output but also different types of output (Brown &
Mason, 2017). Entrepreneurship research has in recent years overly concentrated on “gazelles”
or “uni-corns” and those companies with venture capital investments, despite these being
extremely rare outcomes (Aldrich & Ruef, 2018; Welter et al., 2017). Ecosystems research is
no stranger to this trend.
Empirical evidence is slowly emerging regarding how different ecosystem configurations lead to
different entrepreneurship outputs, and even how different clusters within one ecosystem can
produce different entrepreneurship outputs (Civera et al., 2019; Dilli et al., 2018; Neumeyer &
Santos, 2018; Neumeyer et al., 2019). More recently, gender issues and how women and men
benefit in different ways from ecosystems and their elements (Hechavarría & Ingram, 2019;
Simmons et al., 2019; Sperber & Linder, 2019) and social entrepreneurship (Harms & Groen,
2017) have demonstrated how ecosystem enable particular types of entrepreneurial behavior.
The link between ecosystems and entrepreneurial activity in general, usually proxied by
start-up rates, has been examined from different angles. These include how ecosystems support the
university spin-offs (Harrison & Leitch, 2010; Johnson et al., 2019) as well as the interplay of
government initiatives (Jung et al., 2017), institutions (Öner & Kunday, 2016), and human capital
(Qian et al., 2013) with other ecosystem elements enables the formation of new ventures. Audretsch
and Belitski (2017) showed that the ecosystem at the city-level with the addition of internet
access and the integration of immigrants into the ecosystem fosters entrepreneurial
Wurth et al. 745
activity. The link between ecosystems and high-growth firms has been studied at both the
regional (Fischer et al., 2018; Ghio et al., 2019; Neck et al., 2004) and country level (Acs et al.,
2014; Harms & Groen, 2017).
There is also an emerging body that questions whether ecosystems or at least many of their
elements impact entrepreneurial activity. These studies do, however, not account for the
system-ness of the ecosystem by looking at elements individually (Hechavarría & Ingram,
2019) or study a very specific type of output (Civera et al., 2019).
Outcomes
The links between ecosystems and outputs/outcomes cannot be separated, as productive entre-
preneurship (in whatever form) as the output fosters aggregate value creation and economic
development (in a wider sense) as the outcome (Stam, 2015). We define entrepreneurship-driven
economic development as structural changes to the economy and its ‘social and institutional fabric’
(Acemoglu, 2012) that goes beyond GDP and productivity growth or higher employment rates and
also includes other dimensions of well-being, and inequality. Therefore, this mecha-nism cannot be
separated from the previous one, as entrepreneurship is the means for creating economic
development. Rather, these two should be seen as complimentary.
The three country-level studies that are included in this review have shown a link between
entrepreneurial ecosystems and economic growth (Acs et al., 2018; Lafuente et al., 2016;
Lafuente et al., 2019). The studies emphasized a more efficient resource allocation of mature
ecosystems due to knowledge spillovers (in line with the ecosystem conceptualisation of Acs et
al., 2014; Autio & Levie, 2017). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship (Acs et
al., 2009) supports the application of Stam’s (2015) framework with entrepreneurship as the
output of the ecosystem and as a means for economic development. The regional-level studies
find some evidence for moderating effects of the entrepreneurial ecosystem on the relation
between entrepreneurship outputs and economic growth.
Different ecosystem configurations can lead to different outcomes (Brown & Mason, 2017).
For example, increasing self-employment can improve the resilience of an economy and its
flex-ibility. Innovation-driven and productive entrepreneurship are important for job creation,
increas-ing competitiveness and, eventually, economic development (Wennekers et al., 2005).
This has direct implications for policymaking both at the regional and national level and is
further sup-ported by studies in economics that empirically show long term equilibria between
productivity and human capital, R&D, and public infrastructure (which represent a
combination of different ecosystem elements; Bronzini & Piselli, 2009).
For policy makers, this provides substantial choice regarding resource allocation and incen-
tive structures (Wennekers et al., 2005). These can range from broader investments in
education and human capital to more specialized investments and policies for supporting scale-
ups and the commercialisation of research and scientific advancements. Policy makers should
always con-sider prioritizing the bottlenecks in their ecosystem (Acs et al., 2014; Autio &
Levie, 2017) and, particularly at the national level, try to create favorable conditions in which
regions with differ-ent strengths and weaknesses can flourish.
Path Dependency and Downward Causation

Entrepreneurial ecosystems, like economies as a whole, are subject to path dependencies. The
concept of path dependency goes back to the work by David (1988) and Arthur (1989) and “can be
used to offer an understanding of why some optional developments are followed, or intention-ally
chosen, over others […] path dependence conditions, but does not determine, a specific
outcome” (Henning et al., 2013, p. 1350). It is this “recursive continuous process” of

interaction between ecosystems (context), processes, and outputs/outcomes that shape the
ecosystem and the conditions for entrepreneurs (Aldrich & Martinez, 2001).
Conceptually, path-dependencies and downward causation are an integral part of ecosystems
(e.g., Stam, 2015). The studies in our review have demonstrated that path dependency is an
essential part of ecosystem evolution (Brown et al., 2016; Mack & Mayer, 2016) and that the
state of the ecosystem and previous outputs/outcomes shape individual entrepreneurial
behavior and ecosystem development (Auerswald & Dani, 2017; Lerner et al., 2018; Radinger-
Peer et al., 2018; Schillo et al., 2016; Stephens et al., 2019). The combination of upward and
downward causality is evidence for how entrepreneurship (as a phenomenon) and
entrepreneurial behavior (at the individual level) are subject to systemic influences but also
shape this systemic context (Autio, 1997).
Downward causation can take many forms as an enabler of path dependencies. Probably the
most common form is ‘entrepreneurial recycling’, in which successful entrepreneurs “use their
newly acquired wealth, allied to the experience they have accumulated, to engage in other
entre-preneurial activities, notably starting new business ventures and investing in other
businesses as business angels or venture capitalists” (Mason & Harrison, 2006, p. 55). In this
way, entrepre-neurs and employees of new ventures who successful exit can reinforce the
norms they created by returning to the ecosystem as investors, mentors, or serial entrepreneurs
(Spigel & Vinodrai, 2020; Stam et al., 2008).
Path dependency manifests itself in regional institutions, which can be characterized as ‘the
carriers of history’ ( David, 1994), and a spiky resource landscape. The most prominent exam-
ple of this is ‘pay it forward’-culture of Silicon Valley that has developed over decades and is a
distinct feature of the ecosystem. The path- dependency in ecosystems is also affected by the
industries that are present in a particular territory (Neffke et al., 2011). From a policy perspec-
tive, the smart specialization approach aims to capitalize on path dependencies by building on
the existing strengths in a region (cf. Balland et al., 2018) . Entrepreneurial ecosystems, how-
ever, are seen to be unique by enabling cross- fertilization between industries and the sharing
of business model innovation and structural knowledge, particularly in the digital context
(Autio et al., 2018). This provides a means of path- breaking behavior, which has not yet been
explored empirically.
While conceptually appealing, there is a general lack of empirical evidence for whether eco-
systems as a whole or in part are subject to path-dependencies or past-dependency, in which
the past influences the current options for ecosystems without completely ruling our alternative
tra-jectories, thereby offering elasticity. Path-dependency is based on non-reversible, non-
ergodic processes. However, there is no distinction yet which dynamic processes in ecosystems
have these properties and which are only determined by their current state. Both are place-
dependent mechanisms that need to be studied in their geographical context (Martin & Sunley,
2006). Especially ‘organizationally thin‘ ecosystems often need outside investments for path
renewal (cf. Isaksen, 2015; Tödtling & Trippl, 2005).
Inter-Ecosystem Links
The entrepreneurial ecosystem literature is dominated by a focus on the endogenous dynamics
within specific ecosystems rather than multiscalar studies (Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017). There is
also a lack of empirically demonstrated spillover effects between neighboring ecosystems’ R&D
activities and infrastructure and their economic performance into the ecosystem framework
(Bronzini & Piselli, 2009). Furthermore, there is conceptual and empirical ambiguity around
where the boundaries of entrepreneurial ecosystems are. This opens up research on
Wurth et al. 747
transnational entrepreneurs (Schäfer & Henn, 2018) and transnational entrepreneurial ecosys-
tems (Velt et al., 2020). ‘Transnational entrepreneurs‘ (Portes et al., 2002; Schäfer & Henn,
2018) and ‘returnee entrepreneurs‘ (Kenney et al., 2013) form one of the largest groups in
some of the most vibrant ecosystems. Such entrepreneurs are often key actors in their
ecosystem and by keeping ties with their country of origin and, therefore, other ecosystems. In
this way, they take on the role of ‘modern middlemen’ who “transcend the multiple
institutional environments in which they are embedded” (Terjesen & Elam, 2009, p. 1093).
From a knowledge spillover perspective, they “are capable of overcoming the sensitivity to
distance usually associated with knowledge spillovers” (Sternberg, 2007, p. 658).
In Silicon Valley, for example, it was highly educated and skilled Asian immigrants who
actively supported the growth of the ecosystem by becoming entrepreneurs and helping
facilitate interactions with their home countries (Saxenian, 2002). However, such populations
are not nec-essarily critical in the early stages of entrepreneurial ecosystems, that is, nascent
ecosystems (Spigel & Harrison, 2018) or the birth phase (Mack & Mayer, 2016). This phase is
usually driven by local entrepreneurs and regional policy makers through a combination of
bottom-up and top-down processes. Migrant, and particularly returnee entrepreneurs, were
crucial for the growth and further development of these ecosystems (Kenney et al., 2013).
Predominantly in tech and ICT sectors, many scale-ups either provide a platform themselves
or are based on other platform or innovation ecosystems (Nambisan & Baron, 2013). Global
linkages are important, both to prevent lock-ins from path-dependency and to maintain a high
level of innovativeness (Malecki, 2018; Mason & Brown, 2014; Sternberg, 2007). With
implica-tions for regional and national (e.g., immigration) policy as well as entrepreneurial
practice and ecosystem governance, the main question is how these mutually beneficial links
and transna-tional entrepreneurs can be attracted, supported, and integrated into the ecosystem
(cf. Saxenian, 2002).
The papers included in this review highlight how entrepreneurs, other ecosystem actors,
and, by extension, ideas, practices, and norms move between ecosystems and across spatial,
cultural, and language barriers (Fraiberg, 2017; Schäfer & Henn, 2018). The result is a bi-
directional learning process for both migrant entrepreneurs and ecosystems (Steinz et al.,
2016). In line with the literature on innovation networks and previous work on entrepreneurial
networks, research on regional ecosystems has also emphasized that entrepreneurs’ networks
are trans-regional and even trans-national (Fraiberg, 2017).
Consequently, ecosystems must be situated not just in the wider economic, but also the
socio-cultural-historical context. Particularly the historical context of places and the role of
entrepre-neurship and how it is embedded in these wider sociological and demographic
processes within the ecosystem and neighboring ones has not yet been explored adequately
(Stam & Welter, 2021).
An Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research Program

Research on entrepreneurial ecosystems is evolving and this paper has sought to paint a clearer
picture of what these complex socio-economic systems are and how they work. Our review has also
highlighted the theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and empirical gaps. Therefore, we propose
a transdisciplinary entrepreneurial ecosystem research program. The program itself is divided into
four research streams (context, structure, microfoundations, and complex systems) and four cross-
sectional themes (methodologies and measurements, theory, critical research, and transdisciplinary
research) as illustrated in Figure 2. The research streams are shown with clear boundaries only for
illustrative purposes; in reality, these streams have considerable overlap. For
Figure 2. Entrepreneurial ecosystem research program with four research streams

(horizontal) and four cross-sectional themes (vertical).
example, studying the structure of ecosystems is impossible without knowledge about the con-
text and the processes that helped create this structure.
Both the research streams and themes are relevant for entrepreneurship scholars in general
beyond the study of ecosystems (Busenitz et al., 2003; Wiklund et al., 2011; Zahra et al.,
2014). We will elaborate on the individual streams and themes in the following and provide
exemplary research questions to stimulate future research on ecosystems. In Table 2, we
provide exemplary research questions that link each research stream to the five mechanisms
that we used to review the literature. This is not a comprehensive list, but shows how this
broader research agenda trans-lates into specific new studies.
Research Streams
Context
The first area of research is ecosystems as contexts and the context of ecosystems, which links
ecosystems to embeddedness and the context of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial ecosystems are
open systems, which are to some degree dependent on or sensitive to outside conditions. This
nestedness points at a ‘russian doll’ phenomena. For example, formal local institutions are nested in
the regional level, which is nested in the national level, which is then nested within suprana-tional
institutions. Also, there might be important (competitive or mutualistic) inter- ecosystem links for
example between world cities such as New York, London, and Paris. This means we should expect a
substantial heterogeneity in the inputs required to build a well-functioning entre-preneurial
ecosystem as well as differences in the outputs of ecosystems with similar structures.
For example, research on Chinese ecosystems suggest a much larger role for the state than in
Western cases for creating not just the economic conditions for high- growth entrepreneurship
but the cultural and social norms as well (Chen et al., 2020).
Wurth et al.
Table 2. Exemplary Research Questions That Link Our Proposed Research Streams and the Causal Mechanisms From Our Review.
Interdependencies Outputs Outcomes Downward Inter-EE
Context • What is the appropriate • How are EEs • How do EEs drive • How do EEs (and • How do EEs benefit
geo-socio-political boundary linked to outputs economic growth at which level of from/struggle due to
of an EE? historically? across varieties of aggregation) absorb other (neighboring) EEs?
• • •
How do these boundaries
evolve over time? What role
How are different EE
configurations linked
• capitalism?
How are different EE
the positive/negative
outputs/outcomes?
Is there a minimum/
maximum distance
does the history of places to specific types of configurations linked
• How and at what (social, cognitive,
play? outputs? to specific types of level of aggregation organizational,
• What are the relevant
• What is the impact outcomes? can policy influence configurational, cultural)?
elements? of EEs on the digital the development of
• What is the role of external economy (digital EEs?
enablers in the evolution of marketplaces,
EEs? platforms, and
• What is the role of infrastructure)?
polynuclear and multilevel
governance for EEs?
Structure
• How do entrepreneurs
• What is the impact
• How are different
• How do EEs adapt
• How are EEs linked
navigate the EE? of informal (e.g., network structures their structure within a country and
• What are the critical links mentoring) and linked to specific types following policy beyond?
within EEs? formal (e.g., supply of outcomes? interventions or
• Who are the
• How are EEs intertwined chains, alliances)
• How do different other significant “gatekeepers” and what
with clusters and supply and networks within EEs structures increase the events (e.g., big is their impact?
value chains? on entrepreneurial resilience of the EE? exits)?
• How is the structure
• What is the role of behavior? And is this a trade-off
• What is the role of an EE affected by
hierarchies within EEs?
• How are different to performance? of renascent the presence of global
• How do hyper-connected network structures entrepreneurs in platform firms?
actors influence the density linked to specific connecting the EE
and connectivity of the EE? types of outputs? and enabling the flow
of knowledge and
resources?
(Continued)
749
Table 2. Continued
Interdependencies Outputs Outcomes Downward Inter-EE
Microfoundations • What are the micro- • How does an EE • How are EEs linked • How do • How do entrepreneurs
foundations of EEs? affect different types to wider economic entrepreneurs build (global) networks?
• How and why do of entrepreneurship? development (i.e., and other actors
• How do gatekeepers
organizations and individuals • How does the increased efficiency integrate ’ecosystem and hyper-connected
go beyond their regular support or hinder and wellbeing)? knowledge’ into actors support the
scope to support the EE? product, process, the entrepreneurial development of the EE?
• •
What are the processes
that drive the co-evolution
and business model
innovation?
• process?
How does
How do EEs support
internationalization
between EE actors?
• How does the role entrepreneurial and what is the effect
• What are the processes of an EE different for recycling work within of international
behind resources allocation digital and non-digital EEs? entrepreneurship on
and orchestration within entrepreneurship? the EE?
EEs?
• How is in-migration

absorbed and integrated
into the EE?
Complex
• What are the co-
• What is ‘optimal’
• How does the interplay • What is the role of
• What support and
Systems evolutionary dynamics configuration, of the multitude of systemic shocks and incentive systems are
between EE elements? resource allocation, entrepreneurship perturbations? required at the national
• What is the timescale at and strategy within (high-growth, social,
• How are industry level to support EEs?
which different elements different contexts? etc.,.) lead to economic composition and
evolve? development? economic complexity
• Are there tipping points in linked to EEs?
the evolution of the EE?
• How is learning
enabled and
facilitated within
the EE?
750
Wurth et al. 751
These differences call into question what is generalizable about entrepreneurial ecosystems
as opposed to what is inherently bound up in local social, economic, and political contexts, and
to what degree research and policy implications that are largely derived from the Anglo-
American context are applicable to the Global South (Tsvetkova et al., 2019) and emerging
economies (Cao & Shi, 2020). More research is necessary on how different localized contexts
affect entrepreneur-ial ecosystems and their constitutive systems. This is particularly important
when considering the policy push to use entrepreneurial ecosystem frameworks as economic
development tools in very different contexts. We must ask if the (current) entrepreneurial
ecosystem concept is capable of explaining entrepreneurial dynamics in a variety of contexts or
whether it is limited to a small number of regions in high-income countries?
The majority of studies in our final sample investigates ecosystems at the city or regional
level (44 papers), with the remaining 18 papers applying the concept to the national level.
These should be seen as complementary rather than opposing applications of the ecosystem
concept for two reasons. First, ecosystems are not an absolute but an artificial unit of analysis.
Entrepreneurial activity is not limited to a particular territory. Many entrepreneurial ventures
are part of the plat-form economy (Thomas et al., 2014) and innovation ecosystems (Autio &
Thomas, 2014; Scaringella & Radziwon, 2018) and therefore require global links beyond the
dense localized networks within the regional entrepreneurial ecosystem (Malecki, 2011).
Complex products and platform technologies rely on the division of labor across regional
ecosystems and often coun-tries, and both the interactions within and outside the
entrepreneurial ecosystem are vital for technological progress (Oinas & Malecki, 2002).
Second, ecosystem elements are present and interact at all spatial levels (with varying inten-
sity) and can be (dis)aggregated. Entrepreneurial ecosystems do not replace other concepts like
clusters. Industrial clusters co-evolve within the same network, often driven by cross-
fertilization (Autio & Levie, 2017) as the main competitors are based outside the ecosystem
(Autio et al., 2018) or ‘coopetive’ relationships are formed (Gnyawali et al., 2011).
Entrepreneurial ecosys-tems represent the “higher-order complex of social, cultural, political,
and economic feedback mechanisms within which the adaptive life cycle of any particular
industrial cluster is embed-ded” (Auerswald & Dani, 2017, pp. 98–99).
Future research should adopt a more multicalar perspective that goes beyond studying inter-
dependence of ecosystem elements at different levels of spatial aggregation but also examine
the interdependence of the levels of aggregation. In combination with insights from
polynuclear governance (Ostrom, 2010) and multilevel governance (Bache et al., 2016), this
line of research promises both scientific advancements in our understanding of ecosystems and
frameworks that can be operationalized for policy and entrepreneurial practice.
Structure
The second stream for further research concerns structure, in particular networks and connect-
edness. Entrepreneurial ecosystems are as much a social phenomenon as they are an economic
one. The development, reproduction, and outputs of entrepreneurial ecosystems depend on the
social ties between actors (Spigel, 2017) . Entrepreneurs and other ecosystem actors are, there-
fore, not autonomous decision makers in isolation and their entrepreneurial behavior is enabled
and constrained by their networks (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986). These often- informal relation-
ships enable the circulation of resources and know- how within the ecosystem along with com-
municating cultural norms and expectations that influence actors’ behavior. In addition,
personal relationships and networks also play a role, as entrepreneurs base decisions such as
where to start or grow their business not solely on economic factors but also social factors such
as the amount of encouragement they get from family and friends (Sorenson, 2018 ). While
some work on ecosystems has involved structural network analysis to identify key players
(Motoyama & Knowlton, 2016 ; Pittz et al., 2019 ), there is room for further research on the
cognitive and relational aspects of these networks. A major gap is the lack of theorization over
how relational connections develop in entrepreneurial ecosystems and how these ties are
affected by broader contextual factors. A social capital perspective allows for an examination
not just of the resources present in networks or the nature of the ties between actors, but also
the role of cultural factors like trust in how actors affect the relationships which drive the eco-
system. This requires both qualitative and quantitative research designs and longitudinal stud-
ies that combine processes and mechanisms with outputs and outcomes (cf. Hoang & Antoncic,
2003). Drawing on these perspectives allows for the use of a well- developed theoretical base
around social interaction, networking, and the use of social capital to strengthen the explana-
tory power of entrepreneurial ecosystems research.
Microfoundations
The third area of research concerns processes at the micro-level, the microfoundations of entre-
preneurial ecosystems. Agents within entrepreneurial ecosystems are expected to be heteroge-nous
with respect to their entrepreneurial attitudes and abilities, their domain-specific knowledge, and
their ability to collaborate with others (in teams, organizations, and inter-organizational
arrangements). These actor characteristics are known to strongly influence the probability of
entrepreneurial activities to emerge and to succeed. They are, however, also known to be influ-
enced by the context in which agents have been situated. These microfoundations need to be
researched in more detail to better understand the co-evolution of agents with entrepreneurial
ecosystems and their connection with the resulting forms of entrepreneurship in their community
(male and female, lifestyle and ambitious entrepreneurship, independent entrepreneurs and intra-
preneurs, etc.). Although we assume that the structure of entrepreneurial ecosystems guides indi-
viduals’ decisions about participating in entrepreneurial activities or ecosystem development, we
can only claim that the ecosystem facilitates or constrains entrepreneurship rates in aggregates, and
not individual entrepreneurial behavior. It is difficult to demonstrate causality between ephemeral
phenomenons such as cultural or institutional structures with specific individual deci-sions. We
must be aware of the ecological fallacy (Robinson, 2009), wherein researchers errone-ously
interpret and deduce inferences about individuals based on the group data (Terjesen et al., 2016).
This means that research on ecosystem microfoundations needs to be sensitive to actors’ agency
within their communities rather than assuming that they are cultural or institutional
‘dupes’ who follow locally established norms.
Complex Systems
Fourth, research should explore the complex systems nature of ecosystems. Many ecosystem
studies isolate elements and regress them on the prevalence of (some kind of) entrepreneurship
output (e.g., Hechavarría & Ingram, 2019). This ignores the systemness of entrepreneurial eco-
systems and thus ignores one of the main arguments of the (eco)system perspective (Fredin &
Lidén, 2020; Stam & Van de Ven, 2019).
Conceptualizing entrepreneurship as emergence and ‘order creating’ (McKelvey, 2004) as
well as a source of resilience (Roundy et al., 2017) helps to improve our understanding of the
context that enables entrepreneurship, emergence and resilience of the system in the first place
(cf. Arthur, 2015; Martin & Sunley, 2007). Rigorously applying principles of complex systems
to ecosystems beyond a metaphorical comparison will contribute to a better understanding of
the ’messiness‘ of ecosystems. Furthermore, complex systems approaches are more equipped
to deal with non-Gaussian distributions that dominate ecosystem characteristics, despite the
widespread use of Gaussian approaches (Crawford et al., 2015).
Wurth et al. 753
This requires both methodological innovation using models of heterogeneous agents in con-
trast to the use of the homogeneous agents of physics and mathematics (McKelvey, 2004) and
for linking ecosystems to other emerging theories such as ‘relatedness‘ (Hidalgo et al., 2018).
Related variety, for example, provides a promising avenue to integrate previous work on
clusters and industrial dynamics into the entrepreneurial ecosystem framework. This could
serve a means of studying the promise of cross-fertilization within entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Studies in this area have, for example, demonstrated how related variety in a region enables
Schumpeterian entrepreneurship (Content et al., 2019).
Cross-Sectional Themes
Methodologies and Measurements
Entrepreneurial ecosystem research is dominated by methods that emphasize observation and case
studies as opposed to experiments as a research design, making it difficult to infer causality (cf. Hsu
et al., 2017). These observational methods often lead to “pale copies of both the realities they
attempt to model and the theoretical constructs they aim to study” (Grégoire et al., 2019, p. 284).
Experimental research designs can simultaneously create rigorous theoretical knowledge as well as
practical insights “by providing more reliable knowledge about what causes changes in
entrepreneurs’ affect, cognitions, behaviors, and performance, about what may lead to the
emergence and disappearance of entrepreneurship, and about the relationship between entrepre-
neurship and economic and social development” (Williams et al., 2019, p. 216).
Beyond experimentation, we call for further methodological pluralism and innovation,
includ-ing more mixed-method approaches. This is required for capturing the diversity and
richness of entrepreneurial ecosystems and finding new measures and data-driven approaches
to modeling entrepreneurial ecosystems (Leendertse et al., 2020). With new longitudinal
datasets as well as ‘big data’ approaches and innovative data sources, researchers can advance
our understanding of what constitutes entrepreneurial ecosystems and their impact on
entrepreneurial behavior and economic development and vice versa (Credit et al., 2018;
Schwab & Zhang, 2019; von Bloh et al., 2020). Another relevant aspect in this context are
replication studies as a means to accu-mulate knowledge and increase confidence in our
findings (Davidsson, 2004). An example is the role of ecosystems as moderators for economic
development, where evidence is currently mixed (Bruns et al., 2017; Content et al., 2020).
A second issue is the measurement and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystem policies.
More work is required to synthesize academic studies and work by NGOs and private bodies
such as the Kauffman Foundation, Startup Genome, or the ASPEN Institute. Building on our
review of the processes and mechanisms, a key question for academics is what constitutes com-
prehensive assessments of ecosystem performance? Measuring ecosystems impact and perfor-
mance must go beyond simple output indicators. What are the relevant processes and
interactions that can provide more real-time indicators of how an entrepreneurial ecosystem is
developing and allow for timely intervention if necessary?
Theory
The entrepreneurial ecosystem concept has been applied in combination with a variety of theo-
retical lenses, both for empirical work (as highlighted by our review) and theoretical and concep-
tual research. One might even regard the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach as an integrative
device of existing theories. More work is required to integrate these theories, including a more
nuanced discussion about underlying (and possibly competing) assumptions and their implica-tions
for entrepreneurial ecosystem research and entrepreneurship research in general. With
institutional and evolutionary as well as social capital theories being the most prominent in our
research, further research is required that differentiates to how these theories apply at different
levels of aggregation.
But when theorizing about entrepreneurial ecosystems, researchers must also look beyond
these obvious choices. How are entrepreneurial ecosystems affected by digital governance;
what role do agency, authority and uneven social, political, or economic power distributions
play; and what is the link between ecosystems, architectural knowledge and business model
innovation? What are the microfoundations of institutional change and how are these related to
capabilities, processes, and routines? This will also help further distinguish the ecosystem
concept from other systems of innovation and entrepreneurship. Table 3 provides an overview
of exemplary research questions that link our proposed research streams and the
‘methodologies and measurements’ and ‘theory’ themes.
Critical Research
Policymakers are increasingly turning to entrepreneurial ecosystem approaches as cost-
effective economic development and resilience tools, a strategy likely to increase as regions
look toward their post-COVID-19 recovery. However, this approach reflects an implicit
assumption within both research and policy communities that entrepreneurship is good for
economies and that increasing the amount of entrepreneurship will lead to increases in social
welfare through job creation, in-bound investment, and redistributive taxes (Spigel, 2020). But
the empirical reality is less clear, with some research finding little to no connection between,
for example, high-growth entrepreneurship and overall regional prosperity (Lee & Rodríguez-
Pose, 2021; Lee & Clarke, 2019).
Entrepreneurial ecosystem policies often ignore the increased risk and precarity entrepreneur-
ship places on both founders and workers and the other negative side effects of entrepreneurship
(McNeill, 2016). Beyond this, numerous aspects of how entrepreneurial ecosystems work, from the
role of networks to the importance of gatekeepers such as investors and mentors, create the potential
for discrimination against entrepreneurs who are women, minority, older, or otherwise outside of the
white, male, mainstream of entrepreneurship (e.g., Abraham, 2020; Huang et al., 2020). Due to the
many avenues for exclusion and discrimination in entrepreneurial ecosystems it is not at all clear
who entrepreneurial ecosystems are for and if they can play a role in reducing inequality or if they
instead contribute to its reproduction. This makes it incumbent on research-ers to demonstrate the
normative value of entrepreneurial ecosystems to the broader community as well as to investigate
the problems that emerge as entrepreneurial ecosystems grow and spur productive entrepreneurship,
such as increasing housing prices and more uneven development issues. More research with critical
perspectives is needed to better understand if and how entre-preneurial ecosystems are actually
increasing the prosperity and social welfare of regions or if it is simply entrenching wealth within a
small subset of society.
Transdisciplinary Research
The fourth research theme is concerned with a shift from research on ecosystems and policy to
research for policy and practice. Work on entrepreneurial ecosystems was originally dominated by
practitioners, with academic literature catching up later on. Moving forward, a better integra-tion of
research and practice is required. Entrepreneurial ecosystems are an organizing concept at the heart
of a transdisciplinary, yet concentrated effort to improve socio-economic wellbeing through
entrepreneurship. We propose that this transdisciplinary is reflected in research on entre-preneurial
ecosystems, based on the “functional-dynamic collaboration of discipline and societal actors to
investigate and handle [entrepreneurial] issues” (Pohl et al., 2017, p. 44; see also Beaulieu et al.,
2018) and the principles of ‘engaged scholarship’ (Van de Ven, 2007).
• How can we integrate social network theory with other
approaches to relationships such as agency theory, proximity
or uneven social power and authority?
• What is the role of social cohesion in EEs and the role of
homophily in ego-centric networks?
• How are individual characteristics, personalities, and
(informal) institutions dynamically linked to the structure of
EEs and vice versa?
• How can we bridge research on the structure of EEs with dynamic
capabilities and resources of its actors?
(Continued)
Table 3. Exemplary Research Questions That Link Our Proposed Research Streams and the “Methodologies and Measurements” and “Theory” Themes.
Methodologies and measurements Theory
(How can we acquire knowledge and measure EEs?) (What are the theoretical gaps? How can we make sense of data?)
Context • How can ‘big data’ approaches and novel data sources such as • How can we synthesize institutional and evolutionary approaches,
social media be used to capturing a wider array of information particularly across different spatial and temporal scales at which EE
and paint a more nuanced picture of EEs? elements evolve?
• How can novel approaches to data retrieval and analysis reduce • How do digital governance (e.g., link to political science) and
bias in self-reported data? information systems linked to EEs and vice versa?
• How can ethnographic studies and other longitudinal qualitative • How can we better integrate and synthesize research and
approaches capture more detail and change over time? insights from other systemic approaches to innovation and
• How can we provide a complete measure of the entrepreneurship?
interdependencies and quality of an EE?
• How can post-structuralist methods contribute to a deeper
understanding of the role of different demographics within EEs?
Structure
• How can we elicit the structure of EEs through a combination
of qualitative and quantitative information?
• How can we model EEs as multilayer networks and what are
the relevant layers?
• How can the nestedness of communities within the EE and of
EEs within the larger national system be modelled and studied?
• How can we aggregate the structure of EEs?
• How can we measure the flow of information and spread of
755
capabilities and resources through EEs?
Wurth et al.
756
Methodologies and measurements
(How can we acquire knowledge and measure EEs?)
Table 3. Continued
Theory
(What are the theoretical gaps? How can we make sense of data?)
in EEs?
Microfoundations • •
How can event-driven research and feedback thinking help link What is the influence of uncertainty within the processes that
individual processes to the outputs and outcomes? drive EEs?
• How can we use experiments such as RCTs to understand
• How do EEs support business model innovation?
• cause and effect of ecosystem actors’ actions? • How do we reconcile the role of strategizing, experimentation,
How can process-based measures complement output-based and related concepts from organization studies for (institutional)
measures? entrepreneurs in EEs?
• How can we measure spillovers from entrepreneurial behavior
• How is entrepreneurial orientation and cognition affected by the
within EEs? involvement in an EE?
• How can we integrate research on processes and structure?
• How can we synthesize the microfoundations of institutional
• How can we measure activity within EEs beyond frequency change, individuals and organizations and their capabilities,
measures? processes and routines?
• How can we reconcile insights from event- and outcome driven
research on EEs?
Complex
• How can we use simulation methods for capturing feedback
• What is the inter-relationship between localized entrepreneurial
systems effects both within and across levels of aggregation? And systems and non-local systems related to industries, political
experimentation in a cost-efficient environment? networks, and mobility?
• How can mixed-method approaches help explain the interplay
• How do systemic (policy) interventions affect complex
of bottom-up and top-down dynamics across levels of entrepreneurial systems?
aggregation?
• How can we link EEs closer to complexity theory and how do EE
• How can we develop a comprehensive assessment of the become “more than the sum of their parts”?
performance and returns of EEs? What is the right balance
• How can we integrate learning theories at the individual and
between activity measure, connectivity, outputs, and outcomes? collective level?
• How can we measure path-dependencies and path-elasticities
• How can we link EEs to theories of (macro) economic growth?
Wurth et al. 757
These efforts should cumulate in an ‘entrepreneurial ecosystem knowledge platform,’ which

documents policy-based and researcher-led interventions and links them to an emerging body
of research. Experimentation by economic actors has not yet been the subject of ecosystem
research, that is, combining both failed and successful experiments and how they (even in the
case of fail-ure) shape the ecosystem and affect its actors. Furthermore, attention should be
paid to how policies were designed or how firms’ business models were affected by imitation
and experimen-tation and the support from other ecosystem actors. Many studies show no or
even negative relations between government support programs and entrepreneurial outputs
(Hechavarría & Ingram, 2019). This does not necessarily dismiss these programs per se, but it
also does not reveal a particularly high efficacy. We need to learn more about how to design
and implement efficient and effective programs for improving entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Entrepreneurial ecosystem research should aim at developing a set of design principles in
response to these issues (see the exemplary research questions in Table 4). Design principles
complement the established links from research to practice (testing) and vice versa (generating)
and support more reflective research (learning from practice) and more operationalizable entre-
preneurial ecosystem interventions (Berglund et al., 2018). The principles, despite being
context-dependent, would improve the implementation of ecosystem research and address the
knowledge-practice gap (cf. Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999).
Conclusions
The entrepreneurial ecosystem approach provides a prominent framework for research, policy
and entrepreneurial practice. Prior attempts at synthesizing the entrepreneurial ecosystem liter-
ature have provided high- level summaries of the field, but there had yet to be a critical review
of the empirical evidence of the mechanisms behind entrepreneurial ecosystems. This review
has shed light on the breadth of empirical ecosystem research and the variety of theoretical and
methodological approaches as well as the interdisciplinary nature of the research, and the sub-
stantial and metaphorical use of the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept. With the widespread
metaphorical use of the concept, there is a possibility that it will only be a fad that has come
into fashion, and will be out of fashion sooner or later, without any meaningful accumulation of
knowledge.
Our critical review of the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature has shown that the entrepre-
neurial ecosystem concept has sparked interdisciplinary discussions and the entrepreneurial
eco-system framework has shown the potential to synthesize a variety of research streams.
However, it still lacks a consistent theoretical foundation and empirical base. The usefulness of
the ecosys-tem concept for research and policy-making depends on an advanced understanding
of the causal mechanisms discussed in this paper. Without such knowledge, we are left with
little besides a ‘cargo cult’ policy-making based on copying the most prominent features of
successful regions. The way forward must not be based on developing new and isolated micro-
theories, but a better holistic understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystems, how it relates to
other concepts, and the empirical reality of ecosystems. While the concept itself is subject to
increasing scrutiny and is being explored from a variety of perspectives, more work is required
that focuses on the interplay between these mechanisms.
Ultimately, we need more insight into whether and how entrepreneurship can be a force for
good, how entrepreneurial ecosystems enable entrepreneurship that enhances regional, national
and global well-being. With more data than ever on well-being, entrepreneurship and entrepre-
neurial ecosystem elements, accumulating knowledge has not only been easier to realize, but
also more necessary than ever.
Table 4. Exemplary Research Questions That Link Our Proposed Research Streams and the “Critical Research” and “Transdisciplinary Research” Themes.
Critical research Transdisciplinary research
(How can we advance EE research through problematization and (How can we broaden the relevance of EE research and increase co-
critical inquiry?) creation?)
Context • •
How are the nature of EE situated in the context of neo- liberal How can we move studies away from Anglo-American contexts to
capitalist systems? embrace the diversity of EE contexts in developing economies and
• How are socio-political contexts imprinted on EE? non-technology-based economies?
• How is the evolution of the EE linked to the prevalence
• How can we include non-economic contexts such as ethnicity,
of stress, depression, and other mental health issues of migration status, and age, and how they affect individual experiences
entrepreneurs? in an EE?
• Is the EE concept viable with a shift in the importance of
• How can policy cope with dynamic boundaries of EEs?
geographical proximity (e.g., working from home, remote • With EEs being very sensitive to initial conditions, how can
• working, digital economy)?
How is the development of EEs linked to (de)regulation?
practitioner and policy makers adapt insights from the literature?

Structure • •
Do EEs foster or reduce spatial inequality at different spatial How can EE knowledge be democratized in practice and shared
scales (e.g., support national economic development but globally? And how can this reach all actors across each EE?
increase inequality within the country)?
• How can we build communities of researchers and practitioners/
• Do EE structures exclude certain actors based on ethnicity, policy makers?
gender, age, or education?
• How can we combine entrepreneurial practice, enterprise policy,
• How do power structures emerge within EE and how do and academic research into assessment tools and methods that can
these structures affect the flow of entrepreneurial resources? guide both practice and research?
Microfoundations
• What social processes within EE are associated with
• What are the relevant processes studied in the literature and how
discrimination or exclusion? do they map on entrepreneurial practice and EE development?
• What processes preserve existing power structures and
• How can we build capacity for developing EEs and the required
relationships within ecosystems? environment at different spatial scales (e.g., integrating EEs into
• What are the processes that connect EE growth with overall education, specialized training, methodological support for policy
economic and social improvements? makers, handbooks, toolboxes)?
(Continued)
758
Wurth et al.
Table 4. Continued
Critical research Transdisciplinary research
(How can we advance EE research through problematization and (How can we broaden the relevance of EE research and increase co-
critical inquiry?) creation?)
Complex • Who are EEs built for? Who has the ability to influence the • How can academics and practitioners co-create an “entrepreneurial
systems evolution of systems? ecosystem knowledge platform”? How can policy initiatives based
• Which types of ecosystem actors and resources are studied on the EE concept be studied systematically?
using simulation and experimentation methods and which are
• What policies or support are required at different spatial scales to
not? develop EEs and nurture entrepreneurship?
• Does the EE concept suggest a misleading overconfidence in
our ability to actively “grow” entrepreneurship?
759
Appendix A: Summary of included articles
ID Authors (Year) Journal Method (Data Source) Theory or concept Spatial context Key findings
1 Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Weighted index- Institutions, systems Country (88 Ecosystem elements are interrelated at
Szerb, L. (2014) development (based theory countries) the national level with a penalty for
Research Policy on e.g., GEM, WEF, bottlenecks among elements
World Bank)
2 Acs, Z. J., Estrin, S., Fixed effects model Growth theory, systems Country (46 Ecosystems at the country level are linked
Mickiewicz, T., & (GEM, Penn World theory, agency, countries) to economic growth
Szerb, L. (2018) Table, World Bank, institutions
Small Business WEF)
Economics
3 Audretsch, D. B., Exploratory factor Cluster emergence and City (70 European Ecosystems (including internet access and
& Belitski, M. analysis, SEM evolution cities) connectivity) are linked to start-up
(2017) Journal of (Eurostat, REDI) rates in cities
Technology Transfer
4 Audretsch, D.B., Exploratory factor Cultural amenities Region (69 largest Subculture rather than mainstream culture
Lehmann, E.E., & analysis (Census urban districts/ plays a key role in EEs for fostering
Seitz, N. (2019) data 2011 combined independent new venture creation in the ICT
Small Business with e.g., Grü cities in sector
Economics nderszene.de, Germany)
Urban audit,
Eurostat, etc.)
5 Auerswald, P. E., & Dani, Case study with Evolutionary perspective Region (Washington, Ecosystems represent higher-level system
L. (2017) Small descriptive statistics D.C.–Baltimore in which e.g., clusters are embedded;
Business Economics (based on e.g., ACS, Combined policy making needs to account for
Inc 5000, NSF, Metropolitan current state of the ecosystem and
USPTO, WoS) Statistical Area) interventions have different effects
on involved clusters/industries
6 Barba-Sánchez, V., Multiple linear regression Knowledge spillover City (44 Spanish Smart city policies promote
Arias-Antúnez, E., & theory of Smart City entrepreneurship through fostering
Orozco-Barbosa, L. entrepreneurship initiatives) the ecosystem
(2019) Technological
Forecasting and
Social Change
7 Bennett, D.L. (2021) Small Panel data econometric New Institutional Region (294 US Institutions (economic freedom) at the
Business Economics methods (US Economic theory Metropolitan regional level enable Schumpeterian
Census Bureau statistical areas) entrepreneurship
Business Dynamism
Statistics)
8 Bennett, D.L. (2020) Small Panel data econometric Institutions Region (294 US Different regional institutions (the multiple
Business Economics methods (US Metropolitan dimensions of economic freedom)
Census Bureau statistical areas) affect regional entrepreneurship rates
Business Dynamism in different ways
Statistics)
9 Biru, A., Gilbert, D., & In-depth. Semistructured Ecosystem theory Country (Ethiopia) Context makes innovative
Arenius, P. (2020) interviews (36 (evolved from entrepreneurship difficult despite
Entrepreneurship with Ethiopian cluster theory) substantial government support
and Regional entrepreneurs;
Development 4 with support
providers),
document analysis
and observation
10 Bischoff, K. (2019) Small OLS regression (106 Stakeholder theory City/region Key success factors for a strong
Business Economics survey respondents) (Wuppertal and sustainable entrepreneurial
Graz) ecosystem include an
entrepreneurial culture as well as
tailored stakeholder support and
collaboration
11 Brown, R., Gregson, G., Longitudinal case study Innovation systems, Country (Scotland), Local/regional ecosystem characteristics
& Mason, C. (2016) (wide range of evolutionary but the are crucial for effectiveness of
Regional Studies secondary sources; perspective discussion systemic innovation policy
44 interviews at focusses on not-
three points in time further-defined
over 10 years) regions within
Scotland
12 Bruns, K., Bosma, N., Multilevel growth Institutions Region (107 NUTS1- No moderating effect of entrepreneurial
Sanders, M., & regression, latent 2 regions across ecosystems on the relation between
Schramm, M. (2017) class analysis 16 EU member entrepreneurship and economic
Small Business (Eurostat, GEM) states) growth
Economics
(Continue
d)
Wurth et al. 761
(Continued)
13 Civera, A., Meoli, M., Regression analysis, Knowledge spillover Region (Italian Universities with a strong international
& Vismara, S. difference-in- theory of NUTS2 regions) focus can act as intermediaries
(2019) Journal of differences, entrepreneurship of internationalization for the
Technology Transfer propensity score ecosystem. Regional scientific
matching (1568 knowledge and talent has a limited
innovative Italian effect on the internationalization
start-ups) of academic spin-offs, regional
demand growth has a negative
effect. Regional presence of STEM
talent has a negative effect on the
internationalization of academic
spin-offs
14 Colombelli, A., Paolucci, Case study with archives, Evolutionary perspective City (Turin) Anchor institutes initiate and support
E., & Ughetto, questionnaires, the initial growth of ecosystems.
E. (2019) Small structured Governance changes from
Business Economics interviews, SNA hierarchical to relational as the
ecosystem evolves; similarly, the
role of different actors and support
organizations evolves as the
ecosystem evolves
15 Content, J., Bosma, Latent class analysis Schumpeterian Region (169 NUTS-2 In that way the EE is conceptualized as
N., Jordaan, J., & (GEM) entrepreneurship and −1 regions driving not only the level of
Sanders, M. (2020) in 25 European entrepreneurial activity in a region,
Regional Studies countries) but also as a mediator of the effect of
16 Corrente, S., Greco, Stochastic multicriteria (?) Country (24 such activity on the economy at large
The most relevant EE factors
S., Nicotra, M., acceptability analysis European enabling the birth and activity of
Romano, M., & (GEM, Eurostat EIP) countries) high-growth start-ups can be
Schillaci, C.E. identified in cultural and social
(2019) Journal of norms, government programs,
Technology Transfer and internal market dynamics
17 Dilli, S., Elert, N., & PCA and OLS regression Varieties of capitalism, Country (20 Four distinct institutional settings enable
Herrmann, A. (Eurostat, OECD, institutional theory European different types of entrepreneurship (e.g.,
M. (2018) Small World Bank) countries and high/medium/low-tech ventures)
Business Economics the US)
18 Erina, I., Shatrevich, V., Factor analysis (data Stakeholder theory Country (Latvia)
Positive impact of interaction between
& Gaile-Sarkane, E. from 368 Latvian company–university–government
(2017) European companies) on entrepreneurial development
Planning Studies (greater for more developed
19 Feldman, M. P., & Triangulating of Complexity theory, Region (North regions/ ecosystems)
Instead of isolated investments/actions,
Lowe, N. J. (2018) secondary data evolutionary theory Carolina’s ecosystems are adaptive and
Cambridge Journal sources; in-depth (mentioned only) Research evolve through interactions of
of Regions, Economy interviews and Triangle Park individuals with different motivations
and Society focus groups with and adjacent (including non-market forces)
founders area)
20 Fischer, B. B., Queiroz, Descriptive statistics Agglomeration City (114 cities in Ecosystem concept has to be
S., & Vonortas, with year-to-year economies the state of São adapted for developing
N. S. (2018) variations with Paulo, Brasil) economies due to influences of
Entrepreneurship Heckit correction (dis)economics of agglomeration
and Regional (1196 proposals to
Development FAPESP)
21 Fraiberg, S. (2017) Ethnographic study (14 Cultural–historical Country (Israel) Ecosystems are highly integrated into the
Journal of Business interviews, visits, activity theory broader socio-cultural-ideological
and Technical websites, other context; dynamic and constantly
Communication documents) evolving; and densely connected
22 Ghio, N., Guerini, M., Zero-inflated negative Knowledge spillover Region (Italian beyond (artificial) spatial boundaries
High information asymmetries impede
& Rossi-Lamastra, binomial theory of provinces) high-tech entrepreneurial ideas
C. (2019) Small specification entrepreneurship based on university knowledge
Business Economics (792 industry/ to attract external finance. In
province pairs, provinces where residents tend
8 industries*99 to behave opportunistically, the
provinces, relative presence of cooperative
accounting for banks magnifies the positive effect
3774 new high-tech of university knowledge on high-tech
firms created in the entrepreneurship. Conversely, this
period 2012– 2014, effect is negligible in provinces with
data from less opportunistic residents
Movimprese, Bank
of Italy)
(Continue
d)
(Continued)
23 Goswami, K., Mitchell, J. 54 interviews; secondary Socially situated City (Bangalore) Four types of accelerator expertise—
R., & Bhagavatula, data (49 websites, entrepreneurial connection, development,
S. (2018) Strategic 13 online video cognition approach coordination, and selection—
Entrepreneurship interviews, 26 (based on combined lead to higher commitment
Journal online news process-focused among stakeholders to the
sources, and 301 entrepreneurial ecosystem, validation through faster
pages of policy cognition lens) experimentation and ecosystem
documents) additionality
24 Harms, R., & Groen, A. OLS regression (Gelfand Institutions Country (18 Policy makers can use formal institutions
(2017) Technological et al., 2011; GEM, countries) to foster high-growth and social
Forecasting and OECD, World entrepreneurship, even in nations
Social Change Bank) whose cultural conditions do
not seem to be supportive of
entrepreneurship
25 Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, Case study (fifteen spin- (?) Region (Belfast) Despite their prominence, university
C. (2010) Regional off companies from spin-offs are mostly not high-growth
Studies Queen’s University, businesses and do not drive an
Belfast) and ecosystem but depend on it in their
descriptive statistics development
(HEFCE)
26 Hechavarría, D.M., & Regression, General (?) Country (75 Globally, women benefit more from many
Ingram, A.E. (2019) Method of Moments countries) of the ecosystem factors than men,
Small Business (GMM) estimator but in some cases depending on the
Economics (World Bank phase of economic development men
Development might benefit more. Several national
Indicators, GEM level ecosystem aspects have no
APS & NES) significant impact on rates of male or
female entrepreneurial engagement
27 Horváth, K., & Rabetino, Spatial Durbin cross- Knowledge spillovers Region (67 EU NUTS- Quality of the ecosystem positively
R. (2019) Regional section models 1 regions and influences KIBS formation rates and
Studies (EURO-STAT, GEM, 54 EU NUTS-2 positively moderates the relationship
REDI) regions) between manufacturing specialization
and the rate of new KIBS; a healthy
entrepreneurial ecosystem seems
essential for an effective territorial
servitization
28 Johnson, D., Bock, A.J., & 2 Case studies based on (?) City (Edinburgh, Ecosystem evolution depends on
George, G. (2019) 34 interviews and Madison) both munificence (in the built
Industrial and document analysis environment) and the dynamism and
Corporate Change behavioral responses of agents in the
ecosystem. Human connectedness
to the physical environment,
including urban design, buildings,
and infrastructure, can affect
entrepreneurial activity
29 Jung, K., Eun, J.-H., & Q-Methodology (i.e., the Stakeholder theory Region (around the Ecosystems require stakeholder
Lee, S.-H. (2017) systematic study of 17 CCEIs in alignment and a holistic approach
European Planning subjectivity) with 44 Korea) to create a fertile environment for
Studies statements, based entrepreneurial activity
on semistructured
interviews
30 Lafuente, E., Acs, Z.J., Data envelopment Kirznerian and Country (45 EEs contribute to national productivity
Sanders, M., & Szerb, analysis (IMF, GEM, Schumpeterian countries) by promoting Kirznerian and
L. (2019) Small GCI, Doing Business entrepreneurship Schumpeterian entrepreneurship
Business Economics Index)
31 Lafuente, E., Szerb, Data envelopment Knowledge spillover Country (63 Mature ecosystems enable knowledge
L., & Acs, Z. J. analysis (DBI, GCI, theory of countries) spillovers, which increase efficient
(2016) Journal of GEM, World Bank) entrepreneurship resource allocation
Technology Transfer
32 Lerner, J., Schoar, A., Regression discontinuity (?) Country (angel Angel investments have a positive impact
Sokolinski, S., & (self-reported data groups in 12 on firm growth, performance,
Wilson, K. (2018) from angel groups) countries and survival, and follow-on fundraising,
Journal of Financial applicants from which is independent of the level of
Economics 21) venture activity and entrepreneur-
friendliness in the country; but in
less mature ecosystems only more
mature start-ups apply for angel
investment
(Continue
d)
Wurth et al. 763
(Continued)
33 Lowe, N. J., & Feldman, M. Triangulating of Institutional theory Region (North Institutions are perceived differently by
P. (2017) Geography secondary data Carolina’s ecosystem actors and are constantly
Compass sources; in-depth Research co-created through the interaction of
interviews and focus Triangle Park these actors
groups and adjacent
area)
34 Mack, E., & Mayer, H. Semistructured Evolutionary perspective Metropolitan region Ecosystems are unique due to their
(2016) Urban Studies interviews (23 and (Phoenix) historical, cultural, and institutional
122 at two points in heritage and co-evolving elements
time), archival data
35 Martínez-Fierro, S., SEM (GEM, NES) (?) Country (62 EE shaped by economic development
Biedma-Ferrer, J.M., countries) of the country and high-growth
& Ruiz-Navarro, firms have greater impact on
J. (2020) Business entrepreneurial ecosystem than new
Strategy and the ventures in general
Environment
36 McAdam, M., Harrison, In-depth interviews (28, Bourdieu’s (2005) Region (a peripheral Gender issues can constrain the bottom-
R.T., & Leitch, purposive sample), theory of embodied European region) up evolution of ecosystems and
C.M. (2019) Small reflexive critical practice women-only networks are not
Business Economics approach to data sufficient improve connectedness
analysis and engagement in entrepreneurial
activities of women
37 Motoyama, Y., & Semistructured Social network theory City (St. Louis) Government sponsorship is an effective
Knowlton, K. (2016) interviews (46 firms driver of ecosystem development
Entrepreneurship and 15 support beyond increasing individual recipient
and Regional organizations) firms’ performance
Development
38 Neck, H. M., Meyer, Interviews (informal Evolutionary perspective Region (Boulder Elements are related in a unique way for
G. D., Cohen, B., with 5 VCs, County) every ecosystem and provide the
& Corbett, A. C. semistructured basis for high-tech entrepreneurship
(2004) Journal of with 15 founders),
Small Business survey to develop
Management genealogical model
(184 responses)
39 Neumeyer, X. & Santos, Social network analysis; Social network theory Region (two Ecosystems are host a variety of
S. C. (2018) interviews (45 per municipalities in subclusters based on organisational-
Journal of Cleaner region) the Southeast and individual-level factors
Production US)
40 Neumeyer, X., Santos, Social network analysis; Social network theory City/municipality There are social clusters within EEs
S.C., & Morris, M.H. interviews (300 (Chicago, that focus on particular types of
(2019) Journal of ecosystem Orlando) entrepreneurship
Technology Transfer participants)
41 Öner, M. A. & Kunday, Ö. Regression with Organizational/resource- Country (Turkey) Ecosystem development is important for
(2016) Technological moderator analysis based approach growing ‘entrepreneurial spirit’ and
Forecasting and (GEM, Turkish support programs can lower the fear
Social Change Chamber of of failure
Commerce)
42 Pittz, T.G., White, R., & Social network analysis Social network theory, Region (Tampa MSA) Dealmakers are essential for fostering
Zoller, T. (2019) social capital connectivity and knowledge spillovers
Small Business in EEs
Economics
43 Pugh, R., Soetanto, Case study Learning region, Region (North- Learning and universities pro-actively
D., Jack, S.L., & collective learning West England supporting this beyond their
Hamilton, E. (2019) and Lancaster traditional remit contribute to EE
Small Business University) development
Economics
44 Pushkarskaya, H., Scale construction, Entrepreneurial self- Region (Kentucky) Interaction of individual entrepreneurial
Fortunato, M.W.-P., linear regression efficacy talent and aptitudes and the EE/place
Breazeale, N., & Just, (semistructured
D.R. (2020) Small interviews, focus
Business Economics group; 1402 useable
survey responses)
45 Pustovrh, A., Rangus, Semistructured interviews Resource dependence Region Through an open innovation approach,
K., & Drnovšek, M. (10 top executives theory, open accelerators can support the
(2020) Technological of accelerators and innovation paradigm connectedness within and beyond
Forecasting and 9 start-up founders), the ecosystem and increase the
Social Change secondary data resources available within the
available online, ecosystem
public and internal
materials and
reports
(Continue
d)
(Continued)
46 Qian, H., Acs, Z. J., & SEM (Business Absorptive capacity Region (US Entrepreneurial absorptive capacity drives
Stough, R. R. (2013) Information theory of metropolitan knowledge-based entrepreneurial
Journal of Economic Tracking System, knowledge spillover statistical areas) activity; high technology and cultural
Geography Integrated entrepreneurship diversity contribute to the vibrancy
Postsecondary Data of ecosystems
Set, Milken Institute,
US Census, USPTO)
47 Radinger-Peer, V., Case study (22 Evolutionary perspective Region (Vienna) Non-linear evolution of the EE, with
Sedlacek, S., & semistructured often contradictory developments
Goldstein, H. (2018) interviews within the various pillars. Nature
European Planning supported by and prevalence of finance changed
Studies secondary data) due to changes in formal institutions
and the resulting regulatory changes;
path development of the ecosystem
is strongly shaped by endogenous
initiatives of foremost public
authorities
48 Schaeffer, V., & Case study (21 (?) Region (Strasbourg) Universities as hub institutions can
Matt, M. (2016) semistructured support the development of
Entrepreneurship interviews over 12 ecosystems through the sequential
and Regional years, supported development of boundary
Development by supplementary spanning, network building, and
documents and orchestrator functions, but rely on
information) the development of complementary
support structures
49 Schäfer, S., & Henn, S. 27 interviews, secondary (?) Region (Tel Aviv Remigration, ‘sunshine return migration’,
(2018) Cambridge qualitative Metropolitan and outmigration influence the
Journal of Regions, information, Area) emergence and evolution of
Economy and Society secondary statistics ecosystems
50 Schillo, R. S., Persaud, A., Exploratory factor Institutions, social Country (63 Entrepreneurial readiness is a more valid
& Jin, M. (2016) Small analysis, partial cognitive theory countries) representation of individual-level
Business Economics least squares-based characteristics than other individual
confirmatory factor traits and is also influenced by
analysis, multilevel several dimensions of the national
logistic regression environment, forming a reinforcing
(GEM, World Bank, loop
GCI)
51 Simmons, S.A., Wiklund, Hierarchical linear Stigma theory Country (35 The framework conditions of
J., Levie, J., Bradley, modeling (data of countries) entrepreneurial ecosystems have
S.W., & Sunny, 8171 entrepreneurs different influences on the reentry
S.A. (2019) Small from GEM, WDI, decisions of males and females who
Business Economics Flash EB Nos. 192, experience business failure
283, and 354)
52 Sperber, S., & Linder, Configurational Expectancy theory Region/community Start-up strategies chosen are a reflection
C. (2019) Small analysis based of the perceived support from the
Business Economics on fsQCA (data ecosystem, the entrepreneurs’
for 987 nascent current life situation, and the
entrepreneurs intended goals. Women tend to
from Panel Study mobilize more resources than men
of Entrepreneurial in order to overcome support
Dynamics II) constraints, men are more confident
of their capabilities
53 Spigel, B. (2017) Case study (71 Multiple stories milieu Region (Waterloo Ecosystem configurations can vary
Entrepreneurship semistructured approach and Calgary) significantly and new policies/
Theory and Practice interviews with investments should develop support
tech entrepreneurs, among underlying social and cultural
investors, economic attributes
development
officials)
54 Stam, E., & Van de Ven, Descriptive statistics, Complex systems Region (12 Dutch Strong path dependence in the evolution
A. (2019) Small principal component NUTS-2 of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Business Economics analysis, index provinces) EE should be treated as a system
construction, (strong path-dependency within
linear regression its evolution), with overall quality
model (Quality of positively related to entrepreneurial
Government, CBS, output, which in turn feeds back into
EU RCI, Nat Assoc the regional EE
of Private Equity,
Birch)
(Continue
d)
Wurth et al. 765
(Continued)
55 Steinz, H. J., Van 43 interviews and Institutional theory Region (6 Chinese Entrepreneurs coming to China must
Rijnsoever, F. J., & observations from regions) be prepared, flexible, associate
Nauta, F. (2016) attending five themselves with reputable partners
Business Strategy meetings and five and take advice from those familiar
and the Environment seminars with business in China to overcome
cultural-cognitive barriers; regulative
barriers can only be removed by the
Government
56 Stephens, B., Butler, Logistic regression and Institutional theory Region (Austin, State of the ecosystem impacts whether
J.S., Garg, R., & 45 semistructured, Silicon Valley, entrepreneurs come/stay to start a
Gibson, D.V. (2019) in-depth interviews Boston, New new tech venture
Technological with technology York)
Forecasting and entrepreneurs
Social Change
57 Szerb, L., Lafuente, E., OLS regression models (?) Region (121 EU Positive moderating effect of the
Horváth, K., & Páger, (EURO-STAT, GEM, regions, including ecosystem on the relation
B. (2019) Regional REDI) NUTS-1 and between entrepreneurship (both
Studies NUTS-2) Kirznerian and Schumpeterian)
on regional economic growth
58 Thompson, T. A., Purdy, Structured interviews Field theory Region (Seattle) Ecosystems form through endogenous,
J. M., & Ventresca, (10 social bottom-up, and time-patterned
M. J. (2018) Strategic entrepreneurs, processes (rather than exogenous
Entrepreneurship 15 ecosystem sources such as government action
Journal stakeholders) or instrumental policy goals)
supported by
secondary data
(public records,
web sites, news
outlets, and blogs to
capture web pages,
documents)
59 van Weele, M., van Multi-case study (90 Institutional theory Region (regions in Incubators do not fundamentally address
Rijnsoever, F. J., semistructured four Western unfavorable institutions and only
Eveleens, C. P., interviews in European provide ‘symptomatic’ solutions,
Steinz, H., van Stijn, Western Europe countries; plus therefore new ‘systemic’ incubators
N., & Groen, M. and a total of 191 Silicon Valley; are needed
(2018) Journal of in the other four greater Boston
Technology Transfer regions) area; and regions
in Israel and
Australia)
60 Vedula, S., & Kim, P.H. Index development, (?) Region (301 US Ventures in high-performance ecosystems
(2019) Industrial and semiparametric Cox MSAs) perform better, higher survival
Corporate Change hazard regression chances (less important for serial
(data from a variety entrepreneurs)
of public and private
secondary sources,
Kauffman Firm
Survey)
61 Wagner, M., Schaltegger, Multiple embedded case Knowledge spillover Region (three State of the ecosystem determines the
S., Hansen, E.G., & studies (secondary theory of German regions: required actions by its actors (often
Fichter, K. (2019) data on selected entrepreneurship, Augsburg, beyond their traditional remit)
Small Business support programs; theory of change Lueneburg,
Economics primary data Oldenburg)
covered participant
observation,
workshops,
interviews, and desk
research)
62 Yamamura, S., & Lassalle, Qualitative case study Proximity Country (Malta) Different forms of proximity allow for
P. (2020) European with 10 expert development of EE even in smaller,
Planning Studies interviews and peripheral places and the emergence
industry and of industries
national institutions’
reports
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the senior editor, Friederike Welter, and two anonymous reviewers for
their constructive feedback. Furthermore, we are grateful for discussions and comments on prior versions
of this paper from Ron Boschma, Jonathan Levie, Colin Mason, and Rolf Sternberg, as well as
participants of the Academic Workshop on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (Utrecht University, 2019).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID IDs
Bernd Wurth https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6688-4270
Erik Stam https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9827-0516
Ben Spigel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2634-6021
Notes
1. Search date: 12 March 2020.
2. The structure of the table is adapted from Clough et al. (2018).
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
Abraham, M. (2020). Gender-role incongruity and audience-based gender bias: An examination of
networking among entrepreneurs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 151–180. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0001839219832813
Acemoglu, D. (2012). Introduction to economic growth. Journal of Economic Theory, 147(2), 545–550.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2012.01.023
*Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and
policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.016
Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of
entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-
9157-3
*Acs, Z. J., Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Szerb, L. (2018). Entrepreneurship, institutional economics, and
economic growth: An ecosystem perspective. Small Business Economics, 51(2), 501–514.
https://doi. org/10.1007/s11187-018-0013-9
Acs, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B., & O’Connor, A. (2017). The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem
approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9864-8
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management,
43(1), 39–58.
Agrawal, A., & Cockburn, I. (2003). The anchor tenant hypothesis: Exploring the role of large, local, R&D-
intensive firms in regional innovation systems. International Journal of Industrial Organization,
21(9), 1227–1253.
Aldrich, H. E., & Martinez, M. A. (2001). Many are called, but few are chosen: An evolutionary
perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 41–56.
https://doi. org/10.1177/104225870102500404
Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2018). Unicorns, gazelles, and other distractions on the way to understanding
real entrepreneurship in the United States. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 458–472.
https://doi.org/ 10.5465/amp.2017.0123
Aldrich, H. E., & Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. In D. Sexton & R.
Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship. Ballinger.
Wurth et al. 767
Alvedalen, J., & Boschma, R. (2017). A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: Towards a
future research agenda. European Planning Studies, 25(6), 887–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09654313.2017.1299694
Arthur W. B, (2013). Complexity economics: A different framework for economic thought, SFI Working
Paper 2013-04-012.
Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The
Economic Journal, 99(394), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234208
Arthur, W. B. (2015). Complexity and the economy. Oxford University Press.
Audretsch, D. B. (2015). Everything in its place: Entrepreneurship and the strategic management of
cities, regions, and states. Oxford University Press.
*Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: Establishing the
framework conditions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5), 1030–1051.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9473-8
*Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Seitz, N. (2019). Amenities, subcultures, and entrepreneurship.
Small Business Economics, 28(2–3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00190-5
Audretsch, D. B., & Thurik, R. (2001). What’s new about the new economy? Sources of growth in the
managed and entrepreneurial economies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(1), 267–315. https://
doi.org/10.1093/icc/10.1.267
*Auerswald, P. E., & Dani, L. (2017). The adaptive life cycle of entrepreneurial ecosystems: The
biotechnology cluster. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 97–117. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11187-
017-9869-3
Autio, E. (1997). New, technology-based firms in innovation networks symplectic and generative
impacts. Research Policy, 26(3), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00906-7
Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The
importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.
015
Autio, E., & Levie, J. (2017). Management of entrepreneurial ecosystems. In G. Ahmetoglu, T.
Chamorro-Premuzic, B. Klinger, & T. Karcisky (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of entrepreneurship.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D. W., & Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial
affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,
12(1), 72–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1266
Autio, E., & Rannikko, H. (2016). Retaining winners: Can policy boost high-growth entrepreneurship?
Research Policy, 45(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.002
Autio, E., & Thomas, L. D. W. (2014). Innovation ecosystems: Implications for innovation management.
In M. Dodgson, D. M. Gann, & N. Phillips (Eds.), The oxford handbook of innovation management.
Oxford University Press.
Bache, I., Bartle, I., & Flinders, M. (2016). Multi-level governance. In C. Ansell & J. Torfing (Eds.),
Handbook on theories of governance. Edward Elgar.
Balland, P. -A., Boschma, R., Crespo, J., & Rigby, D. L. (2018). Smart specialization policy in the
European Union: Relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification. Regional studies,
53(9), 1252–1268. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1437900
*Barba-Sánchez, V., Arias-Antúnez, E., & Orozco-Barbosa, L. (2019). Smart cities as a source for
entrepreneurial opportunities: Evidence for Spain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
148(8), 119713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119713
Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political
Economy, 98(5, Part 1), 893–921. https://doi.org/10.1086/261712
Beaulieu, M., Breton, M., & Brousselle, A. (2018). Conceptualizing 20 years of engaged scholarship: A
scoping review. Plos One, 13(2), e0193201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193201
Beinhocker, E. D. (2006). The origin of wealth: Evolution, complexity, and the radical remaking of
economics. Random House Business.
*Bennett, D. L. (2020). Local institutional heterogeneity & firm dynamism: Decomposing the metropolitan
economic freedom index. Small Business Economics, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-
00322-2
*Bennett, D. L. (2021). Local economic freedom and creative destruction in America. Small Business
Economics, 56(1), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00222-0
Berglund, H., Dimov, D., & Wennberg, K. (2018). Beyond bridging rigor and relevance: The three-body
problem in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 9(5), 87–91. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jbvi.2018.02.001
*Biru, A., Gilbert, D., & Arenius, P. (2020). Unhelpful help: The state of support programmes and the
dynamics of entrepreneurship ecosystems in Ethiopia. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,
16(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2020.1734267
*Bischoff, K. (2019). A study on the perceived strength of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems on the
dimensions of stakeholder theory and culture. Small Business Economics, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11187-019-00257-3
Bos, J. W. B., & Stam, E. (2014). Gazelles and industry growth: A study of young high- growth firms in
the Netherlands. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(1), 145–169. https:// doi.org/10.1093/icc/
dtt050
Bronzini, R., & Piselli, P. (2009). Determinants of long-run regional productivity with geographical
spillovers: The role of R&D, human capital and public infrastructure. Regional Science and Urban
Economics, 39(2), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2008.07.002
*Brown, R., Gregson, G., & Mason, C. (2016). A post-mortem of regional innovation policy failure:
Scotland’s intermediate technology initiative (ITI). Regional Studies, 50(7), 1260–1272. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00343404.2014.985644
Brown, R., & Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: A critical review and conceptualisation of
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11187-017-9865-7
Brown, R., & Mawson, S. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and public policy in action: A critique of
the latest industrial policy blockbuster. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 12(3),
347–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsz011
*Bruns, K., Bosma, N., Sanders, M., & Schramm, M. (2017). Searching for the existence of
entrepreneurial ecosystems: A regional cross-section growth regression approach. Small Business
Economics, 49(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187- 017-9866-6
Busenitz, L., West III, G. P., Shepherd, D. A., Nelson, T., Chandler, G. N., & Zacharakis, A. (2003).
Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions. Journal of Management,
29(3), 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00013-8
Cao, Z., & Shi, X. (2020). A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and
emerging economies. Small Business Economics, 51(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00326-y Chen, J.,
Cai, L., Bruton, G. D., & Sheng, N. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: What we know and where we move as
we build an understanding of China. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 32(5-6),
370–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2019.1640438
*Civera, A., Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2019). Do academic spinoffs internationalize? Journal of
Technology Transfer, 44(2), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9683-3
Clough, D. R., Pan Fang, T., Vissa, B., & Wu, A. (2018). Turning lead into gold: How do entrepreneurs
mobilize resources to exploit opportunities? The Academy of Management Annals, 13(1).
https://doi. org/ 10.5465/annals.2016.0132
Wurth et al. 769
*Colombelli, A., Paolucci, E., & Ughetto, E. (2019). Hierarchical and relational governance and the life
cycle of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 52(2), 505–521. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11187-017-9957-4
Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2010). On growth drivers of high-tech start-ups: Exploring the role of
founders human capital and venture capital. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(6), 610–626. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.01.005
*Content, J., Bosma, N., Jordaan, J., & Sanders, M. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems, entrepreneurial
activity and economic growth: New evidence from European regions. Regional Studies, 54(8),
1007– 1019. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1680827
Content, J., Frenken, K., & Jordaan, J. A. (2019). Does related variety foster regional entrepreneurship?
Evidence from European regions. Regional Studies, 53(11), 1531–1543. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00343404.2019.1595565
Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 10(4), 945–974. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/10.4.945
Cooke, P. (2007). Regional innovation, entrepreneurship and talent systems. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 7(2–5), 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.
2007.012878
Cooke, P., Gomez Uranga, M., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and
organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4–5), 475–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(
97)00025-5
*Corrente, S., Greco, S., Nicotra, M., Romano, M., & Schillaci, C. E. (2019). Evaluating and comparing
entrepreneurial ecosystems using SMAA and SMAA- S. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2),
485–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9684-2
Crawford, G. C., Aguinis, H., Lichtenstein, B. B., Davidsson, P., & McKelvey, B. (2015). Power law
distributions in entrepreneurship: Implications for theory and research. Journal of Business
Venturing, 30(5), 696–713. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.01.001
Credit, K., Mack, E. A., & Mayer, H. (2018). State of the field: Data and metrics for geographic analyses
of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography Compass, 12(9), e12380. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12380
David, P. A. (1988). Path-dependence: Putting the past into the future of economics. Institute for
Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences Technical Report No. 533: Stanford University Press.
David, P. A. (1994). Why are institutions the ‘carriers of history’?: Path dependence and the evolution of
conventions, organizations and institutions. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5(2), 205–
220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0954-349X(94)90002-7
Davidsson, P. (2004). Researching entrepreneurship. Springer.
Day, R. (1987). The general theory of disequilibrium economics and of economic evolution. In D. Batten,
J. Casti, & B. Johansson (Eds.), Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems: Economic
evolution and structural adjustment (pp. 46–63). Springer.
Delgado, M., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2010). Clusters and entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic
Geography, 10(4), 495–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbq010
Delgado, M., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2016). Defining clusters of related industries. Journal of
Economic Geography, 16(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbv017
*Dilli, S., Elert, N., & Herrmann, A. M. (2018). Varieties of entrepreneurship: exploring the institutional
foundations of different entrepreneurship types through ‘Varieties-of-Capitalism’ arguments. Small
Business Economics, 51(2), 293–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0002-z
DiVito, L., & Ingen-Housz, Z. (2019). From individual sustainability orientations to collective
sustainability innovation and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics,
43(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00254-6
Dosi, G. (1988). Institutions and markets in a dynamic world. The Manchester School, 56(2), 119–146.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1988.tb01323.x
*Erina, I., Shatrevich, V., & Gaile-Sarkane, E. (2017). Impact of stakeholder groups on development of a
regional entrepreneurial ecosystem. European Planning Studies, 25(5), 755–771. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09654313.2017.1282077
Fayolle, A. (2007). Entrepreneurship and new value creation: The dynamic of the entrepreneurial
process. Cambridge University Press.
Feld, B. (2012). Startup communities: Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your City. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Feldman, M. (2003). The locational dynamics of the US biotech industry: Knowledge externalities and
the anchor hypothesis. Industry and Innovation, 10(3), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1366271032000141661
*Feldman, M., & Lowe, N. (2018). Policy and collective action in place. Cambridge Journal of Regions,
Economy and Society, 11(2), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsy011
Feldman, M. P. (2014). The character of innovative places: Entrepreneurial strategy, economic
development, and prosperity. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 9–20. https:// doi.org/10.1007/
s11187-014-9574-4
Fisch, C., & Block, J. (2018). Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management
research. Management Review Quarterly, 68(2), 103–106. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-
0142-x
*Fischer, B. B., Queiroz, S., & Vonortas, N. S. (2018). On the location of knowledge-intensive
entrepreneurship in developing countries: Lessons from São Paulo, Brazil. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 30(5-6), 612–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1438523
World Economic Forum. (2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems around the globe and early- stage company
growth dynamics. World Economic Forum.
*Fraiberg, S. (2017). Start-up nation: Studying transnational entrepreneurial practices in israel’s start-up
ecosystem. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(3), 350–388. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1050651917695541
Frank, H., & Hatak, I. (2014). Doing a research literature review. In A. Fayolle & M. Wright (Eds.), How
to get published in the best entrepreneurship journals. Edward Elgar.
Fredin, S., & Lidén, A. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Towards a systemic approach to
entrepreneurship? Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 120(2), 87–97. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00167223.2020.1769491
Freeman, C. (1995). The “National system of innovation” in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 19(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035309
Fritsch, M., & Wyrwich, M. (2014). The long persistence of regional levels of entrepreneurship: Germany,
1925–2005. Regional Studies, 48(6), 955–973. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.816414
Gambetta, D. (1993). The Sicilian Mafia: The business of private protection. Harvard University Press.
Garavan, T. N., McCarthy, A., & Carbery, R. (2019). An ecosystems perspective on international human
resource development: A meta-synthesis of the literature. Human Resource Development Review,
18(2), 248–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484319828865
Garnsey, E., Stam, E., & Thomas, B. (2010). The emergence and development of the Cambridge ink jet
printing industry. In D. Fornahl, S. Henn, & M. P. Menzel (Eds.), Emerging clusters: Theoretical,
empirical and political perspectives on the initial stage of cluster evolution. Edward Elgar.
*Ghio, N., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2019). The creation of high-tech ventures in entrepreneurial
ecosystems: Exploring the interactions among university knowledge, cooperative banks, and individual
attitudes. Small Business Economics, 52(2), 523–543. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11187-017-
9958-3
Wurth et al. 771
Gnyawali, D. R., & Fogel, D. S. (1994). Environments for entrepreneurship development: Key
dimensions and research implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(4), 43–62.
https://doi.org/10. 1177/104225879401800403
Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B.-.J, Park, B.-J. (2011). Co- opetition between giants: Collaboration with
competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.respol.2011.01.009
*Goswami, K., Mitchell, J. R., & Bhagavatula, S. (2018). Accelerator expertise: Understanding the
intermediary role of accelerators in the development of the Bangalore entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 117–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1281
Grégoire, D. A., Binder, J. K., & Rauch, A. (2019). Navigating the validity tradeoffs of entrepreneurship
research experiments: A systematic review and best-practice suggestions. Journal of Business
Venturing, 34(2), 284–310. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.10.002
Hakala, H., O’Shea, G., Farny, S., & Luoto, S. (2020). Re ‐storying the business, innovation and
entrepreneurial ecosystem concepts: The model ‐narrative review method. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 22(1), 10–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12212
*Harms, R., & Groen, A. (2017). Loosen up? Cultural tightness and national entrepreneurial activity.Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 121, 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.013
*Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. (2010). Voodoo institution or entrepreneurial university? Spin- off
companies, the entrepreneurial system and regional development in the UK. Regional Studies, 44(9),
1241–1262. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903167912
*Hechavarría, D. M., & Ingram, A. E. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem conditions and gendered
national-level entrepreneurial activity: A 14-year panel study of GEM. Small Business Economics,
53(2), 431– 458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-9994-7
Henning, M., Stam, E., & Wenting, R. (2013). Path dependence research in regional economic
development: Cacophony or knowledge accumulation? Regional Studies, 47(8), 1348–1362.
https://doi.org/ 10. 1080/00343404.2012.750422
Henrekson, M., & Johansson, D. (2008). Competencies and institutions fostering high-growth firms.
Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 1–80. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000026 Hidalgo,
C. A., Balland, P.-A., Boschma, R., Delgado, M., Feldman, M. P., Frenken, K., & Zhu, S. (2018).
The principle of relatedness. In A. J. Morales, C. Gershenson, D. Braha, A. A. Minai, & Y. Bar-
Yam (Eds.), Unifying themes in complex systems IX. Springer.
Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review.
Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00081-2
*Horváth, K., & Rabetino, R. (2019). Knowledge-intensive territorial servitization: Regional driving
forces and the role of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Regional Studies, 53(3), 330–340.
https://doi.org/10. 1080/00343404.2018.1469741
Hsu, D. K., Simmons, S. A., & Wieland, A. M. (2017). Designing entrepreneurship experiments: A
review, typology, and research agenda. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 379–412.
https://doi.org/10. 1177/1094428116685613
Huang, L., Joshi, P., Wakslak, C., & Wu, A. (2020). Sizing up entrepreneurial potential: Gender
differences in communication and investor perceptions of long-term growth and scalability.
Academy of Management Journal, . https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1417
Isaksen, A. (2015). Industrial development in thin regions: Trapped in path extension? Journal of
Economic Geography, 15(3), 585–600. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbu026
Isenberg, D. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–50.
Isenberg, D. J. (2016). Applying the ecosystem metaphor to entrepreneurship. The Antitrust Bulletin, 61(4),
564–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X16676162
*Johnson, D., Bock, A. J., & George, G. (2019). Entrepreneurial dynamism and the built environment in
the evolution of university entrepreneurial ecosystems. Industrial and Corporate Change, 28(4),
941–959. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtz034
*Jung, K., Eun, J.-H., & Lee, S.-H. (2017). Exploring competing perspectives on government-driven
entrepreneurial ecosystems: Lessons from centres for creative economy and innovation (CCEI) of
South Korea. European Planning Studies, 25(5), 827–847. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09654313.2017.
1282083
Katz, J., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 13(3), 429–441. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr. 1988.4306967
Keeble, D., Lawson, C., Moore, B., & Wilkinson, F. (1999). Collective learning processes, networking
and ‘institutional thickness’ in the Cambridge region. Regional Studies, 33(4), 319–332.
https://doi.org/ 10.1080/713693557
Kenney, M., Breznitz, D., & Murphree, M. (2013). Coming back home after the sun rises: Returnee
entrepreneurs and growth of high tech industries. Research Policy, 42(2), 391–407.
https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.respol.2012.08.001
Krugman, P. (1991). Geography and trade. MIT Press.
*Lafuente, E., Acs, Z. J., Sanders, M., & Szerb, L. (2019). The global technology frontier: Productivity
growth and the relevance of Kirznerian and Schumpeterian entrepreneurship. Small Business
Economics, 55(1), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187- 019-00140-1
*Lafuente, E., Szerb, L., & Acs, Z. J. (2016). Country level efficiency and national systems of
entrepreneurship: A data envelopment analysis approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer,
41(6), 1260–1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9440-9
Lawson, C. (1999). Towards a competence theory of the region. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2),
151–166. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/23.2.151
Lee, N., & Clarke, S. (2019). Do low-skilled workers gain from high-tech employment growth? High-
technology multipliers, employment and wages in Britain. Research Policy, 48(9), 103803. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.05.012
Lee, N., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2021). Entrepreneurship and the fight against poverty in US cities.
Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 53(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0308518X20924422
Leendertse J, Schrijvers M. T, Stam F. C, (2020). Measure twice, cut once: Entrepreneurial ecosystem
metrics, USE Working Paper series, 20(1).
*Lerner, J., Schoar, A., Sokolinski, S., & Wilson, K. (2018). The globalization of angel investments:
Evidence across countries. Journal of Financial Economics, 127(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jfineco.2017.05.012
Levie, J., & Autio, E. (2011). Regulatory burden, rule of law, and entry of strategic entrepreneurs: An
international panel study. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1392–1419.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-6486.2010.01006.x
Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a triple-helix of University-industry-government
relations. Science and Public Policy, 23(5), 279–286.
Loots, E., Neiva, M., Carvalho, L., & Lavanga, M. (2020). The entrepreneurial ecosystem of cultural and
creative industries in Porto: A sub‐ecosystem approach. Growth and Change, 30(3). https://doi.org/
10.1111/grow.12434
*Lowe, N. J., & Feldman, M. P. (2017). Institutional life within an entrepreneurial region. Geography
Compass, 11(3), e12306. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12306
Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive
learning. Pinter Publishers.
Wurth et al. 773
*Mack, E., & Mayer, H. (2016). The evolutionary dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Urban
Studies, 53(10), 2118–2133. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0042098015586547
Malecki, E. J. (2011). Connecting local entrepreneurial ecosystems to global innovation networks: Open
innovation, double networks and knowledge integration. International Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Innovation Management, 14(1), 36–59. https://doi.org/ 10.1504/IJEIM.2011.040821
Malecki, E. J. (2018). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography Compass, 12(3),
e12359. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12359
Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2002). The elusive concept of localization economies: Towards a
knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,
34(3), 429–449. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3457
Markusen, A. (1996). Sticky places in slippery space: A typology of industrial districts. Economic
Geography, 72(3), 293–313. https://doi.org/10.2307/144402
Markusen, A. (2003). Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy distance: The case for rigour and policy
relevance in critical regional studies. Regional Studies, 37(6-7), 701–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0034340032000108796
Maroufkhani, P., Wagner, R., & Wan Ismail, W. K. (2018). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: A systematic
review. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 12(4),
545–564. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-03-2017-0025 Marshall,
A. (1920). Principles of Economics. (Rev ed.). Macmillan.
Martin, R. (2015). Rebalancing the spatial economy: The challenge for regional theory. Territory,
Politics, Governance, 3(3), 235–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2015.1064825
Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic
Geography, 6(4), 395–437. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbl012
Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2007). Complexity thinking and evolutionary economic geography. Journal of
Economic Geography, 7(5), 573–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbm019
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E., & López-Cózar, E. D.
(2018). Google scholar, web of science, and scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252
subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.
002
*Martínez‐Fierro, S., Biedma‐Ferrer, J. M., & Ruiz‐Navarro, J. (2020). Impact of high ‐growth start ‐ups
on entrepreneurial environment based on the level of national economic development. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1007–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2413
Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship.
OECD LEED.
Mason, C. M., & Harrison, R. T. (2006). After the exit: Acquisitions, entrepreneurial recycling and regional
economic development. Regional Studies, 40(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400500450059
*McAdam, M., Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. M. (2019). Stories from the field: Women’s networking as gender
capital in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 53(2), 459–474. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11187- 018-9995-6
McKelvey, B. (2004). Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing,
19(3), 313–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00034-X
McNeill, D. (2016). Governing a city of unicorns: Technology capital and the urban politics of San
Francisco. Urban Geography, 37(4), 494–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1139868
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3),
75.
*Motoyama, Y., & Knowlton, K. (2016). From resource munificence to ecosystem integration: The case
of government sponsorship in St. Louis. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5-6), 448–
470. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08985626.2016.1186749
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2013). Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: Entrepreneurs’ self-
regulatory processes and their implications for new venture success. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 37(5), 1071–1097. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00519.x
*Neck, H. M., Meyer, G. D., Cohen, B., & Corbett, A. C. (2004). An Entrepreneurial system view of new
venture creation. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2), 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1540-627X.2004.00105.x
Neffke, F., Henning, M., & Boschma, R. (2011). How do regions diversify over time? Industry
relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions. Economic Geography, 87(3), 237–
265. https:// doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2011.01121.x
*Neumeyer, X., & Santos, S. C. (2018). Sustainable business models, venture typologies, and
entrepreneurial ecosystems: A social network perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172(4),
4565–4579. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.216
*Neumeyer, X., Santos, S. C., & Morris, M. H. (2019). Who is left out: Exploring social boundaries in
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 462–484.
https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10961-018-9694-0
Nicotra, M., Romano, M., Del Giudice, M., & Schillaci, C. E. (2018). The causal relation between
entrepreneurial ecosystem and productive entrepreneurship: A measurement framework. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 43(3), 640–673. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10961-017-9628-2
Oinas, P., & Malecki, E. J. (2002). The evolution of technologies in time and space: From national and
regional to spatial innovation systems. International Regional Science Review, 25(1), 102–131.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016001702762039402
*Öner, M. A., & Kunday, Ö. (2016). A study on Schumpeterian and Kirznerian entrepreneurship in
Turkey: 2006–2013. Technological forecasting and social change, 102(2), 62–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2015.09.005
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems.
American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer. 100.3.641
O’Connor, A., Stam, E., Sussan, F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2018). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: The
foundations of place-based renewal. In A. O’Connor, E. Stam, F. Sussan, & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.),
Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Place-based transformations and transitions. Springer.
O’Shea, G., Farny, S., & Hakala, H. (2019). The buzz before business: A design science study of a
sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 1–24.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (1999). Knowing “what” to do is not enough: Turning knowledge into action.
California Management Review, 42(1), 83–108.
*Pittz, T. G., White, R., & Zoller, T. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and social network centrality: The
power of regional dealmakers. Small Business Economics, 43(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-
00228-8
Pohl, C., Krütli, P., & Stauffacher, M. (2017). Ten reflective steps for rendering research Societally relevant.
GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 26(1), 43–51.
https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia. 26.1.10
Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77–90.
Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy.
Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 089124240001400105
Portes, A., Guarnizo, L. E., & Haller, W. J. (2002). Transnational entrepreneurs: An alternative form of
immigrant economic adaptation. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 278–298. https://doi.org/10.
2307/3088896
Pugh, R., MacKenzie, N. G., & Jones-Evans, D. (2018). From ‘Techniums’ to ‘emptiums’: The failure of
a flagship innovation policy in Wales. Regional Studies, 52(7), 1009–1020.
https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00343404.2018.1444272
Wurth et al. 775
*Pugh, R., Soetanto, D., Jack, S. L., & Hamilton, E. (2019). Developing local entrepreneurial ecosystems
through integrated learning initiatives: The Lancaster case. Small Business Economics, 47(5).
https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00271-5
*Pushkarskaya, H., Fortunato, M. W. -P., Breazeale, N., & Just, D. R. (2020). Enhancing measures of
ESE to incorporate aspects of place: Personal reputation and place-based social legitimacy. Journal
of Business Venturing, 103(2), 106004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106004
*Pustovrh, A., Rangus, K., & Drnovšek, M. (2020). The role of open innovation in developing an
entrepreneurial support ecosystem. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 152, 119892.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119892
*Qian, H., Acs, Z. J., & Stough, R. R. (2013). Regional systems of entrepreneurship: The nexus of human
capital, knowledge and new firm formation. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(4), 559–587.
https:// doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbs009
*Radinger-Peer, V., Sedlacek, S., & Goldstein, H. (2018). The path-dependent evolution of the entrepreneurial
ecosystem (ee) – dynamics and region-specific assets of the case of Vienna (Austria). European Planning
Studies, 26(8), 1499–1518. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1494136
Richardson, G. B. (1972). The organisation of industry. The Economic Journal, 82(327), 883–896. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2230256
Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. International Journal of
Epidemiology, 38(2), 337–341. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyn357
Rocha, H. O. (2004). Entrepreneurship and development: The role of clusters. Small Business Economics,
23(5), 363–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-004-3991-8
Rocha, H. O., & Sternberg, R. (2005). Entrepreneurship: The role of clusters theoretical perspectives and
empirical evidence from Germany. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 267–292. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11187-005-1993-9
Roundy, P. T., Bradshaw, M., & Brockman, B. K. (2018). The emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems:
A complex adaptive systems approach. Journal of Business Research, 86(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.032
Roundy, P. T., Brockman, B. K., & Bradshaw, M. (2017). The resilience of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8(3), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2017.08.002
Saxenian, A. (2002). Silicon valley’s new immigrant high-growth entrepreneurs. Economic Development
Quarterly, 16(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0891242402016001003
Sayer, R. A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. Routledge.
Scaringella, L., & Radziwon, A. (2018). Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and business
ecosystems: Old wine in new bottles? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136(7), 59–
87. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.023
*Schaeffer, V., & Matt, M. (2016). Development of academic entrepreneurship in a non-mature context:
The role of the University as a hub- organisation. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(9-
10), 724–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1247915
*Schäfer, S., & Henn, S. (2018). The evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems and the critical role of
migrants. A phase-model based on a study of it startups in the greater TEL Aviv area. Cambridge
Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(2), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsy013
*Schillo, R. S., Persaud, A., & Jin, M. (2016). Entrepreneurial readiness in the context of national systems
of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 46(4), 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-
016-9709-x
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press.
Schwab, A., & Zhang, Z. (2019). A new methodological frontier in entrepreneurship research: Big data
studies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(5), 843–854. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1042258718760841
Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2020). A call for research on the scaling of organizations and the scaling
of social impact. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 61(3), 104225872095059.
https://doi.org/10. 1177/1042258720950599
*Simmons, S. A., Wiklund, J., Levie, J., Bradley, S. W., & Sunny, S. A. (2019). Gender gaps and reentry
into entrepreneurial ecosystems after business failure. Small Business Economics, 53(2), 517–531.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-9998-3
Sobel, R. S. (2008). Testing Baumol: Institutional quality and the productivity of entrepreneurship.
Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.01.004
Sorenson, O. (2018). Social networks and the geography of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics,
51(3), 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0076-7
*Sperber, S., & Linder, C. (2019). Gender-specifics in start-up strategies and the role of the entrepreneurial
ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 53(2), 533–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-9999-2
*Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 41(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167
Spigel, B. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Theory, practice, futures. Edward Elgar.
Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2018). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1268
Spigel, B., & Vinodrai, T. (2020). Meeting its Waterloo? Recycling in entrepreneurial ecosystems after
anchor firm collapse. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 37(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.
1080/08985626.2020.1734262
Stam, E. (2014). The Dutch Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2473475
Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European
Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484
Stam, E., Audretsch, D., & Meijaard, J. (2008). Renascent entrepreneurship. Journal of Evolutionary
Economics, 18(3-4), 493–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-008-0095-7
Stam, E., & Bosma, N. (2015). Local policies for high-growth firms. In D. B. Audretsch, A. Link, & A.
Walshok (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of local competitiveness. Oxford University Press.
Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2018). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. In R. Blackburn, D. De Clercq, & J. Heinonen
(Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of small business and entrepreneurship. Sage.
*Stam, E., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6
Stam, E., & Welter, F. (2021). Geographical contexts of entrepreneurship: Spaces, places and
entrepreneurial agency. In M. Gielnik, M. Frese, & M. Cardon (Eds.), The psychology of
entrepreneurship: The next decade (pp. 263–281).
Stangler, D., & Bell-Masterson, J. (2015). Measuring an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Ewin Marion
Kauffman Foundation.
Startup Genome. (2020). The Global Startup Ecosystem Report GSER 2020: The New Normal for the
Global Startup Economy and the Impact of COVID-19. Startup Genome.
*Steinz, H. J., Van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Nauta, F. (2016). How to green the red dragon: A start-ups’ little
helper for sustainable development in china. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(8), 593–
608. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1899
*Stephens, B., Butler, J. S., Garg, R., & Gibson, D. V. (2019). Austin, Boston, Silicon Valley, and New
York: Case studies in the location choices of entrepreneurs in maintaining the technopolis.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146(4), 267–280. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.
2019.05.030
Sternberg, R. (2007). Entrepreneurship, proximity and regional innovation systems. Tijdschrift voor
Economische en Sociale Geografie, 98(5), 652–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2007.
00431.x
Wurth et al. 777
Storper, M. (1995). The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: The region as a nexus of
Untraded interdependencies. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2(3), 191–221.
*Szerb, L., Lafuente, E., Horváth, K., & Páger, B. (2019). The relevance of quantity and quality
entrepreneurship for regional performance: The moderating role of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Regional Studies, 53(9), 1308–1320. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1510481
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration,
licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-
7333(86) 90027-2
Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know- how, and
intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3), 55–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165943
Terjesen, S., & Elam, A. (2009). Transnational entrepreneurs’ venture internationalization strategies: A
practice theory approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(5), 1093–1120. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00336.x
Terjesen, S., Hessels, J., & Li, D. (2016). Comparative international entrepreneurship: A review and
research agenda. Journal of Management, 42(1), 299–344.
Thomas, L. D. W., Autio, E., & Gann, D. M. (2014). Architectural leverage: Putting platforms in context.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 198–219. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2011.0105
*Thompson, T. A., Purdy, J. M., & Ventresca, M. J. (2018). How entrepreneurial ecosystems take form:
Evidence from social impact initiatives in Seattle. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 96–
116. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1285
Thurik, A. R., Stam, E., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). The rise of the entrepreneurial economy and the
future of dynamic capitalism. Technovation, 33(8-9), 302–310.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013. 07.003
Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy
approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219.
Tripsas, M. (1997). Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent
survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 119–142. https://doi.org/
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<119::AID-SMJ921>3.0.CO;2-0
Tsvetkova, A., Pugh, R., & Schmutzler, J. (2019). Beyond global hubs: Broadening the application of
systems approaches. Local Economy, 34(8), 755–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094219897535
van Burg, E., & Romme, A. G. L. (2014). Creating the future together: Toward a framework for research
synthesis in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 369–397.
https://doi.org/ 10.1111/etap.12092
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford
University Press.
Van De Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080329
Van De Ven, H. (1993). The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 8(3), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(93)90028-4
*van Weele, M., van Rijnsoever, F. J., Eveleens, C. P., Steinz, H., van Stijn, N., & Groen, M. (2018).
Start-EU-up! Lessons from international incubation practices to address the challenges faced by
Western European start-ups. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(5), 1161–1189.
https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10961-016-9538-8
*Vedula, S., & Kim, P. H. (2019). Gimme shelter or fade away: the impact of regional entrepreneurial
ecosystem quality on venture survival. Industrial and Corporate Change, 28(4), 827–854.
https://doi. org/10.1093/icc/dtz032
Velt, H., Torkkeli, L., & Saarenketo, S. (2020). Transnational entrepreneurial ecosystems: The
perspectives of Finnish and Estonian born- global start-ups. In Research handbook on start-up
incubation ecosystems (pp. 110–134). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Von Bloh, J., Broekel, T., Özgun, B., & Sternberg, R. (2020). New(s) data for entrepreneurship research?
An innovative approach to use big data on media coverage. Small Business Economics, 55(3), 673–
694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00209-x
*Wagner, M., Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. G., & Fichter, K. (2019). University-linked programmes for
sustainable entrepreneurship and regional development: How and with what impact? Small Business
Economics, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00280-4
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature
review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship-conceptual challenges and ways forward.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.
00427.x
Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B., & Gartner, W. B. (2017). Everyday entrepreneurship—A call for
entrepreneurship research to embrace Entrepreneurial diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 41(3), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12258
Wennekers, S., van Wennekers, A., Thurik, R., & Reynolds, P. (2005). Nascent entrepreneurship and the
level of economic development. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 293–309.
https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11187-005-1994-8
Whittington, K. B., Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2009). Networks, propinquity, and innovation in
Knowledge-intensive industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 90–122.
https://doi.org/10. 2189/asqu.2009.54.1.90
Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Karlsson, C. (2011). The future of entrepreneurship research.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00420.x Williams,
D. W., Wood, M. S., Mitchell, J. R., & Urbig, D. (2019). Applying experimental methods to advance
entrepreneurship research: On the need for and publication of experiments. Journal of
Business Venturing, 34(2), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.12.003
Wooldridge, J. M. (2013). Introductory econometrics – A modern approach (5th ed.). South-Western
Cengage Learning.
*Yamamura, S., & Lassalle, P. (2020). Proximities and the emergence of regional industry: Evidence of
the liability of smallness in Malta. European Planning Studies, 28(2), 380–399.
https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09654313.2019.1668915
Ylinenpää, H. (2009). Entrepreneurship and innovation systems: Towards a development of the ERIS/IRIS
concept. European Planning Studies, 17(8), 1153–1170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310902981011 Zahra, S.
A., Wright, M., & Abdelgawad, S. G. (2014). Contextualization and the advancement of entrepreneurship
research. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship,
32(5), 479–500. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0266242613519807
Author Biographies
Bernd Wurth is a Lecturer in Entrepreneurship at the Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship,
University of Strathclyde.
Erik Stam is Professor of Strategy, Organization & Entrepreneurship and Dean of the Utrecht
University School of Economics. He is currently Visiting Professor at the IMT School of
Advanced Studies Lucca.
Ben Spigel is a Senior Lecturer in Entrepreneurship at the University of Edinburgh Business

School.

Article

Uploaded by

Article

Uploaded by

Article

Entrepreneurship Theory and

Toward an Entrepreneurial Practice

Research Program Article reuse guidelines:

Origins of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Concept

Identification of Relevant Papers

Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research From 2000 to 2020

Ontology and Epistemology

“One for All” or “All in One”

Metaphorical Interdependence vs. Real Interdependence

3 Ecosystems linked to outcomes

Networks Leadership Finance Talent Knowledge Support services

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 46(3)

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 46(3)

human capital academic spin-offs

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice

Path Dependency and Downward Causation

outcome” (Henning et al., 2013, p. 1350). It is this “recursive continuous process” of

An Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research Program

Figure 2. Entrepreneurial ecosystem research program with four research streams

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice

These efforts should cumulate in an ‘entrepreneurial ecosystem knowledge platform,’ which

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice

Appendix A: Summary of included articles

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Ben Spigel is a Senior Lecturer in Entrepreneurship at the University of Edinburgh Business

You might also like