CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 173Entrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFirm Innovation and GrowthEconomic Growth and Productivity

Searching for the existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a regional cross-section growth regression approach

Open access
Bruns, K., Bosma, N., Sanders, M., Schramm, M.·2017·Small Business Economics
DOI 10.1007/s11187-017-9866-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a method by which the entrepreneurial ecosystem, if present, reveals itself in the data. We first follow the literature and define the entrepreneurial ecosystem as a multidimensional set of interacting factors that moderate the effect of entrepreneurial activity on economic growth. The quality of such an ecosystem, by its multidimensionality, is impossible to measure directly. But so defined, we argue that variation in entrepreneurial ecosystem quality should result in variation in the estimated marginal effect of entrepreneurial activity on economic growth. Testing for such variation is possible using a combination of a multilevel growth regression and latent class analysis. We motivate and validate our approach in simulated data before illustrating its applicability in a data set covering 107 European NUTS1-2 regions across 16 EU member states. For this dataset, we cannot reject the hypothesis of a homogeneous contribution of entrepreneurship to regional growth. That is, in this dataset, we find no evidence of statistically significant heterogeneity in the estimated slope coefficients for entrepreneurial activity across regions. There are several possible explanations for this negative result. The two we deem most likely are first that the NUTS1-2 level may not be disaggregated enough to coincide with the relevant boundaries of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. We suspect our method would reveal significant differences across smaller geographical units, but the data unfortunately do not yet allow us to empirically test this hypothesis in a multi-country regional analysis. The second possible explanation is that the growth rates from 2006 to 2014 coincided with the global financial and the European crisis, and during this time, the effect of entrepreneurship on (long-run average) growth overall has been obscured. Our simulations also suggested a third reason. If measurement error is large (in the order of 33 or 0.015% point annual GDP-growth), the effects may also have been obscured.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11187-017-9866-6

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is no moderating effect of entrepreneurial ecosystems on the relation between entrepreneurship and economic growth.

    “No moderating effect of entrepreneurial ecosystems on the relation between entrepreneurship and economic growth”

    From Toward an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research Program (2022) · cites this paper as Bruns, K., Sanders, Schramm, Bosma, N., M., & M. (2017)

    Section 5.3 (Latent class analysis; page not provided) finds no statistically detectable variation in entrepreneurship’s effect on growth across the regions studied. But Section 6 (Discussion; page not provided) explicitly says that failing to reject a homogeneous effect does not rule out a heterogeneous effect. The claim overstates a failure to find evidence as proof that no moderating effect exists. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The role of ecosystems as moderators for economic development has mixed evidence.

    “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).”

    From Toward an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research Program (2022) · cites this paper as Bruns et al., 2017

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: an empiri- cal investigation. American Economic Review, 91, 1369- 1401.
  2. Acemoglu, D.J.S., & Robinson, J. (2000). The colonial origins of comparative development: an empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91, 1369-1401.
  3. Acs, Z.J., & Sanders, M. (2012). Patents, knowledge spillovers, and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 801-817.
  4. Acs, Z.J., Szerb, L., & Autio, E. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: measurement and policy. Research Policy Implications, 43(476-494), 43:476-494.
  5. Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in inno- vation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technol- ogy generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 306- 333.
  6. Audretsch, D.B., Link, A.N., & Walshok, M.L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of local competitiveness, chapter 8 (pp. 145-190). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford Univer- sity Press.
  7. Audretsch, D. (1995). Innovation and industry evolution. Mas- sachusetts: MIT Press.
  8. Audretsch, D.B., Link, A.N., & Walshok, M.L. (2015). The Oxford handbook of local competitiveness. Oxford Univer- sity Press: Oxford, United Kingdom.
  9. Autio, E. (1998). Evaluation of RTD in regional systems of innovation. European Planning Studies, 6(2), 131-140.
  10. Baumol, W. (1990). Entrepreneurship: productive, unproduc- tive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 893- 921.
  11. Bos, J.W., Economidou, C., Koetter, M., & Kolari, J.W. (2010). Do all countries grow alike? Journal of Development Eco- nomics, 91(1), 113-127.
  12. Bosma, N. (2009). The geography of entrepreneurial activ- ity and regional economic development. PhD thesis, PhD Series at Urban and Regional research centre Utrecht.
  13. Bosma, N., van Stel, A., & Suddle, K. (2008). The geography of new firm formation: evidence from independent start- ups and new subsidiaries in the Netherlands. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(2), 129- 146.
  14. Bosma, N.S. (2013). The global entrepreneurship monitor and its impact on entrepreneurship research. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 143-248.
  15. Carree, M., & Thurik, A. (1998). Small firms and economic growth in europe. Atlantic Economic Journal, 26(2), 137- 146.
  16. Ciccone, A. (2002). Agglomeration effects in Europe. European Economic Review, 46(2), 213-227.
  17. Cooke, P. (2002). Regional innovation systems: general findings and some new evidence from biotechnology clusters. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 133-145.
  18. Doloreux, D. (2002). What we should know about regional sys- tems of innovation. Technology in society, 24(3), 243-263.
  19. Easterly, W. (2001). The elusive quest for growth: economists' adventures and misadventures in the tropics. MA: MIT press Cambridge.
  20. Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation: technologies, institu- tions and organizations. Hove, United Kingdom: Psychol- ogy Press.
  21. Feldman, M.P. (2014). The character of innovative places: entrepreneurial strategy, economic development, and pros- perity. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 9-20.
  22. Freeman, C. (1995). The national system of innovation in histor- ical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5-24.
  23. Fritsch, M., & Mueller, P. (2008). Effects of new business for- mation on regional development over time: the case of Germany. Regional Studies, 30(8), 15-29.
  24. Glaeser, E., Rosenthal, S., & Strange, W. (2010a). Urban eco- nomics and entrepreneurship. Journal of Urban Economics, 67(1), 1-14.
  25. Glaeser, E.L., Kerr, W.R., & Ponzetto, G.A. (2010b). Clusters of entrepreneurship. Journal of Urban Economics, 67, 150- 168.
  26. Hechavarria, D.M., & Reynolds, P.D. (2009). Cultural norms & business start-ups: the impact of national values on opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5, 417-437.
  27. Henrekson, M., & Johansson, D. (2010). Gazelles as job cre- ators: a survey and interpretation of the evidence. Small Business Economics, 35(2), 227-244.
  28. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598.
  29. King, R.G., & Levine, R. (1993). Finance, entrepreneurship and growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 32(3), 513-542.
  30. Leckie, G., Pillinger, R., Jenkins, J., & Rasbash, J. (2010). School, family and neighbourhood: which is most impor- tant to a child's education. pages 67-70.
  31. Lucas, R. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3-42.
  32. Mankiw, N., Romer, D., & Weil, D. (1992). A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 407-437.
  33. Michelacci, C. (2003). Low returns in R&D due to lack of entrepreneurial skills. The Econimic Journal, 113(484), 207-225.
  34. Nickell, S. (1996). Competition and corporate performance. Journal of political economy, 724-746.
  35. Nickell, S., Nicolitsas, D., & Dryden, N. (1997). What makes firms perform well? European Economic Review, 41(3), 783-796.
  36. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and eco- nomic performance. Cambridge University Press.
  37. Nunn, N. (2008). The long-term effects of Africa's slave trades. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123, 139-176.
  38. Reynolds, P., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., De Bono, N., Servais, I., Lopez-Garcia, P., & Chin, N. (2005). Global entrepreneurship monitor: data collection design and implementation 1998-2003. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 205-231.
  39. Reynolds, P., Storey, D., & Westhead, P. (1994). Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates. Regional Studies, 28(4), 443-456.
  40. Romer, P. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. The Journal of Political Economy, 6, 1002-1037.
  41. Sala-i Martin, X. (1994). Cross-sectional regressions and the empirics of economic growth. European Economic Review, 38, 739-747.
  42. Sala-i Martin, X. (1996). Regional cohesion: evidence and theories of regional growth and convergence. European Economic Review, 40, 1325-1352.
  43. Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2007). Entrepreneurship and the process of firms' entry, survival and growth. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(3), 455-488.
  44. Schumpeter, J. (1912). The economic theory of development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  45. Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy, (1942) volume 20. London: Routledge.
  46. Snijders, T.A.B., & Bosker, R.J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage Publications, Inc.
  47. Sobel, R.S. (2008). Testing Baumol: institutional quality and the productivity of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 641-655.
  48. Spigel, B. (2015). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. doi:10.1111/ etap.12167. · DOI · Paper page
  49. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional pol- icy: a sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759-1769.
  50. Stam, E., Bosma, N., van Witteloostuijn, A., de Jong, J., Bogaert, S., Edwards, N., & Jaspers, F. (2012). Ambi- tious entrepreneurship. a review of the academic literature and new directions for public policy. Number 41 in AWT rapport.
  51. Stenholm, P., Acs, Z., & Wuebker, R. (2011). Exploring country-level institutional arrangements on the rate and type of entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing.
  52. Stephens, H., & Partridge, M. (2011). Do entrepreneurs enhance economic growth in lagging regions? Growth and Change, 42(4), 431-465.
  53. Szerb, L., Acs, Z.J., Ortega-argilés, R., & Komlosi, E. (2015). The entrepreneurial ecosystem: the regional entrepreneur- ship and development index. Mimeo. Available at SSRN 2642514.
  54. Thissen, M., Limtanakool, N., & Hilbers, H. (2011). Road pric- ing and agglomeration economies: a new methodology to estimate indirect effects applied to the Netherlands. The Annals of Regional Science, 47(3), 543-567.
  55. Unger, J.M., Rauch, A., Frese, M., & Rosenbusch, N. (2011). Human capital and entrepreneurial success: a meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 341-358.
  56. van Praag, C.M., & Versloot, P.H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics Journal, 29(4), 351-382.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bruns, K., Bosma, N., Sanders, M., & Schramm, M.
Affiliations
Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Bruns, K.
ORCID
Venue
Small Business Economics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-05-08
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
31-54
ISSN
  • 0921-898X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0913
DOI
10.1007/s11187-017-9866-6
OpenAlex
W2611236932
Cited by
173
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
27.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Small Business Economics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Utrecht University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Firm Innovation and Growth
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Growth and Productivity
Keywords
entrepreneurial ecosystems, entrepreneurship and economic growth, regional economic growth, latent class analysis, NUTS regions, measurement error, regional comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review