No abstract

Research on entrepreneurial ecosystems has largely taken a macro-perspective to better conceptualize and map the determinants and evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems, yet has neglected the micro-level interactions of various entrepreneurial ecosystem actors. Recent criticisms of entrepreneurial ecosystems have centered on the lack of explicit case and effect relationships, attribution, units of analysis, the different use of network definitions as well as the static nature of existing frameworks. The purpose of our paper is to present a micro level principal investigator (PI)-centered governance framework that addresses these posited criticisms and in doing so identifies the value creation indicators (benefits), PI capabilities, the problem categories (costs), and solving mechanisms that PIs can use to govern effectively and efficiently large-scale publicly funded research programs. In leading such research programs, PIs interact with different actors within entrepreneurial ecosystems and manage governance issues, conflicts, and tensions effectively at the micro level to deliver the anticipated benefits and costs for each actor. Our framework provides the basis for future empirical research on entrepreneurial ecosystem as we have attributed cause and effect at an individual actor level and conceptualized the governance challenges at a micro rather than at the macro level that overcomes the static nature of previous frameworks.

The Silicon Valley model of high-tech entrepreneurship has been placed in the spotlight by academics in the past at the expense of the plenitude of Main Street businesses-businesses beyond the high-tech and ICT sector and the highly scalable platform economy. This study aims at resolving this one-sidedness contributing to unexplained aspects of entrepreneurship theory. Our focus lies on a subgroup of Main Street companies, known as hidden champions, as the counterpart of Silicon Valley high-growth firms, the unicorns. In spite of a worldwide distribution, just as unicorns are highly skewed to a few countries and regions, so are hidden champions. On a snapshot, it appears that unicorns and hidden champions are substitutes rather than complementary to one another. We illustrate that the emergence and skewed distribution of these two types of firms can be explained by the institutional context, in particular the provision of human capital. In an explorative approach, our line of reasoning puts forward that the centralization (public provision) vs. decentralization (individual investment) in organizing the accumulation of human capital helps to explain the different and path dependent evolution of both, the Silicon Valley and the Main Street model of entrepreneurship.

No abstract

This study investigates the impact of both university spillovers and firms’ absorptive capacities on firms’ financial performance, using a multilevel approach. Considering internal firm characteristics as well as external regional characteristics, our results clearly show that university spillovers do not have a per se stimulating effect. It is the interaction between firms’ absorptive capacities and local university spillovers, which proves to have a positive and significant effect on firms’ economic performance. We further find that there is an optimal level of absorptive capacities, implying that ‘a more the better’ logic does not apply. Our findings give impetus to a call for more comprehensive public policy strategies. Policy makers have to balance the support provided to knowledge producing regional actors such as universities as well as knowledge exploiting actors such as knowledge-based firms to leverage local resources and ultimately create economic value within regional innovation systems by enabling efficient technology transfer processes.