Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.

No abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore the dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems with both rural and urban features, as well as the varied system requirements of differing types of entrepreneurs within such an ecosystem. Design/methodology/approach Using a mixed-methods case study approach, the study examined the Roanoke–Blacksburg region in western Virginia. Researchers conducted quantitative analysis of entrepreneurial metrics and network relationships, as well as qualitative analysis of data collected through entrepreneur surveys and stakeholder interviews. Findings Findings suggest entrepreneurs of different types faced disparate challenges and uneven access to resources and networks. Innovation-driven “gazelle” enterprises (IDEs) had numerous growth-related resource needs, including angel, venture and scale-up funding; prototyping equipment and facilities; and translational research by local universities. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) required more entrepreneurial education programming, subsidized main street office space and clearer pathways through the government regulatory system. A key finding was also concerned with the different ways by which IDEs and SMEs accessed key resources within the ecosystem, illustrated through social network analysis, and supported through qualitative feedback. Research limitations/implications Study findings were limited by a relatively low survey response rate from some entrepreneur demographic segments, particularly minorities. Originality/value The study represents an in-depth, multi-methods approach that offers insight into two under-researched areas in the ecosystem literature: the dynamics of urban – rural ecosystems and the varied system requirements of different entrepreneur types. The paper includes three overarching recommendations for policy and practice: improved collection and sharing of regional metrics; differentiated approaches to entrepreneurial support based on entrepreneur type; and enhanced efforts to advance inclusive entrepreneurship.

A gap in the literature that remains largely unfilled is a discussion of how polycentrism relates to broader tensions between strategies of specialised industrial agglomeration economies and diverse regional portfolios. Relatively little is known about how strategies of polycentrism relate to the industrial composition and economic complementarity both at the regional scale and for individual cities within the region. In this paper, correspondence analysis is used to quantify complementarity in the economic profiles of cities in three polycentric regions. The findings suggest that the degree of complementarity varies greatly but has decreased in all three of the case study regions over time. Subsequent analysis of institutional structures in these three regions suggests that regions with weaker regional governments, stronger regional identities and intentional polycentric development strategies might experience higher levels of complementarity. A series of hypotheses that relate institutions to complementarity are proposed as possible directions for future research.

The Great Recession was a moment of challenge for many regions and required that leaders reflect on their economic development strategies. Given the propensity of regions to adopt ideas and strategy “fads” that then inform policy debate, we seek to understand how two very different regions with different histories framed their responses to the recession. How did they conceptualize the economic challenge in their region? What did they envision as appropriate responses to this challenge? How did these visions relate to mimetic behavior of the past, in which largely uniform visions are adopted across diverse locations? Our findings show that economic development leaders in the Buffalo and Orlando regions advocated similar high‐tech/biomedical strategies as a way to diversify their economies and make them more resilient or less vulnerable to future shocks. By conceptualizing economic diversification in such similar ways, despite substantial regional differences, this pursuit of resilience or decreased vulnerabilities through economic diversification appears highly similar to prior mimetic behaviors. We consider the implications of this finding for theories of adaptive resilience in which the focus is on economic diversification as part of resilient processes and behaviors, rather than as a fixed characteristic or end state of regions. As practiced in our case studies, diversification for the purpose of resilient outcomes differs substantially from theoretical arguments explaining adaptive resilience as both behavior and process. We caution that policy and planning visions of resilience may therefore represent yet another fad to be mimicked ad infinitum. Nevertheless, adaptive resilience as defined in the literature may still offer promise as a practical strategy—just not one that we yet observe in practice.

In exurban areas, there are commonly issues and tensions associated with development and rural life. We assess how two counties located approximately one hour west of Washington, DC manage these tensions. Although both have enabled development, they have done so in different ways and neither has simply succumbed to exurban development as a given. Utilizing stakeholder interviews and document analysis, we note the different policy approaches that the two counties have taken and contrast them with the more common imagery of areas that fully acquiesce to suburban style development. Our findings suggest that tensions between the pressures of development and the persistent appeal of the rural identity occupy much time and attention in these two counties. Both counties have adopted observable policy changes driven by development pressures in recent years, underscoring a policy landscape that is in flux and the modern tension between the commercial economy of modernity, and the rural identity that is retained from the past. We observe that rural governance is largely about land, while urban governance is largely about people. As these two cases suggest, exurban governance has to be about both issues and this tension may lead to governance that is inherently unstable.

No abstract

No abstract