On the Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: A Comparative Assessment of Green and 'Traditional' Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship.
| Autor | da Rocha, Anne Kathleen Lopes |
| Cargo | Research Article |
INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurial ecosystems (EE) are crucial meta-organizations in promoting adaptive economies based on entrepreneurial innovation (Autio, Nambisan, Thomas, & Wright, 2018; Roundy, Bradshaw, & Brockman, 2018). EE is comprehensively defined as a "set of interconnected entrepreneurial actors, entrepreneurial organizations, institutions, and entrepreneurial processes which formally and informally coalesce to connect, mediate and govern the performance within the local entrepreneurial environment" (Mason & Brown, 2014, p. 5). Thus, the core contribution of EE for entrepreneurial events is associated to the dynamic and systemic interaction of actors, institutions, and processes in cities and regions (Brown & Mason, 2017; Stam, 2015).
A specific view of the processes underlying the interactions between innovation, technology institutions, and socioeconomic dynamics relates to the evolutionary approach, where innovation and knowledge exchange act as fundamental processes (Malerba & McKelvey, 2020; Stam, 2015). Knowledge-intensive entrepreneurs are involved in the creation, diffusion, and use of knowledge by introducing new technologies, products, and services, promoting change and dynamism in the economy. Thus, knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship (KIE) are small, innovation-oriented companies that manage to improve the ecosystems in which they operate (Malerba & McKelvey, 2020).
Scholars have extensively investigated the entrepreneurial ecosystem's dynamics over recent years, aiming to develop a more consistent comprehension of configurations and connections that lead to more intense entrepreneurial activity (Alves, Fischer, & Vonortas, 2021; Audretsch & Belitski, 2017). In this realm, ecosystem dynamics appear to depend on the quality of interactions, which have a strong local character, considering elements such as resource availability, market and institutional conditions, and availability of knowledge generation and dissemination (Isaksen & Trippl, 2017). Complementarily, distinct ecosystem profiles have been observed, thus outlining that these productive structures may not be effectively represented by isomorphic models (Alves et al., 2021; Vedula & Fitza, 2019; Spigel, 2017).
In addition, different sectors and areas of activity can result in high levels of heterogeneity in KIE dynamics, which reflects a need for specific assessments (Malerba & McKelvey, 2020). This has raised recent interest in sectoral specificities attached to entrepreneurial activity, such as fintechs (Spigel, 2022). A particular type of KIE that has gained prominence for its capacity to generate sustainable transitions in ecosystems is termed as 'green entrepreneurship,' i.e., new ventures oriented toward ecologically-friendly activities (Hall, Daneke, & Lenox, 2010; O'Neill & Gibbs, 2016; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011). Green entrepreneurship is connected to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and assists in the necessary structural changes to ecosystems (Horne, Recker, Michelfelder, Jay, & Kratzer, 2020; Parrish, 2010), especially so when these firms are involved in knowledge-intensive endeavors (Horbach, 2020).
Although we have come a long way in our understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystems, we still fall short in comprehending how localized phenomena shape transitions to environmentally sustainable economic structures (Demirel, Cher Li, Rentochini, & Pawan, 2019; Theodoraki, Dana, & Caputo, 2021), especially within the scope of developing countries (Hansen & Coenen, 2015; Potluri & Phani, 2020). This becomes increasingly relevant due to the current global context, where all regions find it challenging to foster ecosystems dedicated to addressing green and sustainable practices (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2019).
In this context, the research objectives of our assessments are: (1) to analyze the impact of knowledge and socioeconomic dimensions on entrepreneurial ecosystem dynamics; and (2) to verify whether these contextual dynamics differ when addressing green and traditional KIEs. Thus, the research question is: Do typical EE components affect green KIE similarly to traditional KIE? Besides assessing the specificities of a particular cohort of KIE, the novelty of our research includes a view on ecosystem dynamics as an outcome--instead of the usual approach dealing with the number of new ventures created. In this regard, ecosystem dynamics is approached as a constructed based on intensity of technology transfer, strength of university-industry linkages, and technological activity measured through patents per capita at the city level. We believe this is a valid approach to evaluate entrepreneurial ecosystems' health and maturity, a feature that has been scantly examined by prior literature.
Our empirical analysis uses data from 645 municipalities in the state of Sao Paulo and 1,372 companies participating in the Innovative Research in Small Businesses (PIPE) program administered by the Sao Paulo Research Foundation (Fapesp). Of these projects, 343 are green KIEs (25% of the total), and 1,029 are traditional KIEs, which allowed a comparative analysis. Main findings point to a high dependence on geographic location for green KIE. This result is significant for developing economies, which find it more challenging to create distributed entrepreneurial hubs. Furthermore, results indicate that ecosystem configurations and contextual dynamics are homogeneous between cities that contain green KIE and cities that do not in developing countries, suggesting that green and traditional ecosystems follow similar patterns in terms of dynamics and configurations. Thus, it does not seem to be necessary to adopt new policy strategies to foster sustainable transitions in Brazilian EE. Rather, a stronger orientation of technological development can likely have positive effects on the generation of green new ventures. In addition, results have implications for developing public policies in emerging economies to help address the challenges in the knowledge and socioeconomic dimensions.
After this introductory section, the article is structured as follows: Section 2 explores key concepts and elements associated with entrepreneurial ecosystem dynamics, knowledge and socioeconomic dimensions, and green entrepreneurial events. Section 3 presents the conceptual model of the research, and Section 4 the methodological aspects. Section 5 presents the results. Section 6 outlines our discussions and Section 7 closes with concluding remarks.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The dynamics of the entrepreneurial ecosystems
The ecosystem perspective is cross-disciplinary since different fields have adopted it to explore financial, economic, sociodemographic, or political issues (Theodoraki et al., 2021). An entrepreneurial view "consists of all the interdependent actors and factors that enable and constrain entrepreneurship within a particular territory" (Stam & van de Ven, 2021, p. 809). Thus, there is an assortment of elements that interacts with entrepreneurship.
An entrepreneurial ecosystem model is assembled by institutional arrangements that legitimate, regulate, and incentivize entrepreneurship (such as universities, incubators, and tech parks), and public resource endowments of basic scientific knowledge, financing mechanisms, and pools of competent labor (as technology transfer, patents per capita, and university-industry interactions) (Stam & van de Ven, 2021). These are sorted to attend market demand and business activities engaging in productive entrepreneurship.
The dynamics of an ecosystem refer to how its components interact and generate outcomes that can influence and shape opportunities (Clayton, Donegan, Feldman, Forbes, Lowe, & Polly, 2019). In an entrepreneurial ecosystem, these conditions can be deemed as even more critical, because such meta-organizations encompass companies based on the intense use of knowledge and innovation, as well as technological and market disruption, which are often embedded in the economic trajectories of these cities and regions (Malerba & McKelvey, 2020; Sousa & Silva, 2019). Accordingly, companies that have a high impact on the ecosystem are essential to generate sustainable competitive advantages and make regions innovative, increasing the importance of the dynamics of this ecosystem (Han, Ruan, Wang, & Zhou, 2021).
Thus, when these ecosystem dynamics generate innovative outcomes, the institutional arrangements that legitimize, regulate, and encourage entrepreneurship are acting positively in this ecosystem. Therefore, market competitiveness, both the knowledge side--such as universities, incubators, and technology parks--and the socioeconomic side--such as financing mechanisms and pools of competent labor--manage to contribute to the dynamics of operation within these ecosystems (Stam & van de Ven, 2021).
Knowledge dimension
Among the factors and connections needed to stimulate a KIE, a key point is the availability of knowledge in the region (Qian, 2018; Baglieri, Baldi, & Tucci, 2018; Nicotra, Romano, Giusice, & Schillaci, 2018; Stam, 2009; Isaksen & Trippl, 2017). Such conditions can have a twofold impact in the health of entrepreneurial ecosystems: on one hand, they set the stage for local entrepreneurs to tap into knowledge sources and use them as platforms for new business models, and, on the other hand, they act as magnets for entrepreneurial individuals located elsewhere.
Following the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship, such phenomenon is attached to the notion that knowledge cannot be fully internalized by economic agents, thus opening up opportunities for entrepreneurs to absorb and exploit these intangible assets (Acs, Braunerhjelm, Audretsch, & Carlsson, 2009). Local presence of universities represents the best example in this case, as prior literature has identified these institutions as pivotal hubs in entrepreneurial...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
