Cited by 167Entrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation ModelsCultural Industries and Urban Development

Entrepreneurial ecosystems: a systematic review

Maroufkhani, Parisa, Wagner, Ralf, Wan Ismail, Wan Khairuzzaman·2018·Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy

Abstract

Purpose: The literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems is fragmented, and yet, no studies have paid attention to integrating the available studies. The purpose of this study is to provide a systematic review of contributions related to entrepreneurial ecosystems. Design/methodology/approach: This literature review evaluates studies that are covered in the Web of Science index. Findings: In addition to the recent state of research (covering industries, geographical scopes, methodologies, etc.), this study provides an extension of Isenberg’s (2011) model of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Research limitations/implications: A new avenue arises for both conceptual and empirical research by emphasizing crowdsourcing as a contributing element for the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Future studies can evaluate the effectiveness of different types of crowdsourcing profoundly to make sure whether creating a promising ecosystem all types of crowdsourcing have a similar value or impact. Practical implications: For public policy and local decision-makers, both collaboration opportunities and interaction interfaces between the stakeholders of the entrepreneurial need to be reconsidered in the design of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Social implications: Higher degrees of collaboration, information exchange and innovation are likely to yield favorable entrepreneurship environments. Originality/value: Novelty of this study arises from integrating crowdsourcing theory in the systematic review of entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/jec-03-2017-0025

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The review uses a commonly accepted framework that has also formed the basis for other reviews, which allows drawing conclusions regarding the mechanisms.

    “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 regarding the mechanisms.”

    From Toward an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research Program (2022) · cites this paper as Maroufkhani et al., 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maroufkhani, P., Wagner, R., & Wan Ismail, W. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Technology Malaysia (MY)
  • University of Kassel (DE)
Venue
Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2018-07-10
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
545-564
ISSN
1750-6204 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2867663180
Cited by
167
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 12
FWCI
3.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Enterprising Communities People and Places in the Global Economy (publishedVersion)
  • UTM Institutional Repository (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › University-Industry-Government Innovation Models
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Cultural Industries and Urban Development
Keywords
entrepreneurial ecosystems, crowdsourcing, stakeholder collaboration, entrepreneurship policy, innovation, information sharing

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