Diversity, innovation and entrepreneurship: where are we and where should we go in future studies?

Abstract

In this paper, we review and comment upon the development of the literature on diversity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. In an overview of previous studies and various strands of literatures, we outline and argue that to better understand the intricate dynamic relationships between diversity, innovation, entrepreneurship, and regional development there is a strong need to further develop "the economics of spatial diversity." We further argue that this development may benefit from combining various literatures based upon sound economic micro-foundations, to develop a more absolute understanding of diversity and fulfill the need of more clear mechanisms for future empirical testing. Obviously, this is important both from a research point of view and in order to provide policymakers with a powerful set of analytical tools. We call for more analytical work and more high-quality empirical studies. With a set of papers, we believe this special issue to provide a contribution in this direction.

The influence of ecosystems on the entrepreneurship process: a comparison across developed and developing economies

“…Our analysis highlights the elements of entrepreneurial ecosystems associated with each developmental stage of diverse initiatives in developed and developing countries. Our results contribute to the academic discussion about the definitions/measures of entrepreneurship (Iversen et al 2007;Henrekson and Sanandaji 2019), entrepreneurial process (Busenitz et al 2014), entrepreneurial ecosystems (Acs et al 2017;Audretsch 2019), diversity of entrepreneurship (Welter et al 2017;Karlsson et al 2019), and economic development (Urbano et al 2019). A research agenda is proposed for the analysis of those gaps identified across the entrepreneurial processes and types of economy.…”

“…Our paper contributes towards academic debates in the field: (a) the debate regarding the entrepreneurial process (Busenitz et al 2014) and operational definitions of entrepreneurship (Iversen et al 2007;Henrekson and Sanandaji 2019); (b) the discussion about which elements of entrepreneurial ecosystems are of significance per type of entrepreneurship (Acs et al 2017;Audretsch 2019); (c) the analysis of the relationship between the diversity of entrepreneurship and context (Welter 2011;Welter et al 2017;Karlsson et al 2019); and (d) the relationship between entrepreneurship, environmental conditions, and economic development (Urbano et al 2019). We hope that our study also inspires researchers to extend the analysis of the reasons why diversity is so crucial for entrepreneurship and societal development.…”

“…Distinguishing between Schumpeterian entrepreneurship and other business activities may, therefore, facilitate the differentiation between low-impact and high-impact entrepreneurship in terms of outcomes, such as employment, sales, innovation, and the wealth of the founders (Henrekson and Sanandaji 2019). By understanding the diversity inherent in entrepreneurship (Iversen et al 2007;Welter 2011;Dencker et al 2019) and capturing the notion of Schumpeterian entrepreneurship (Henrekson and Sanandaji 2019;Karlsson et al 2019), this research categorises entrepreneurship into either (a) non-Schumpeterian entrepreneurship or (b) Schumpeterian entrepreneurship. The first category (non-Schumpeterian entrepreneurship) is characterised by self-employment (individuals who do not generate employment and with outcomes that merely allow them to survive) and traditional entrepreneurs (individuals who generate lower impacts/outcomes).…”

“…Therefore, differences matter; and where, when, and why those differences matter most need to be ascertained. It opens up the discussion on the diversity of contexts and types of entrepreneurship that should be understood by analysing their nature, richness, and dynamics (Welter 2011;Karlsson et al 2019).…”

The urban–rural divide in radical right populist support: the role of resident’s characteristics, urbanization trends and public service supply

“…Jacobs (1969) discusses the urbanization process to be one of the most important growthenhancing phenomena. In comparison with less dense areas, urban areas have an advantage in having greater access to diversity both in terms of individuals and industries/firms (Glaeser 2011;Karlsson et al 2019). Transport costs are lower in cities (Glaeser et al 2001); technology is better; ideas and knowledge travel faster across individuals and firms (Jacobs 1969); and labor market matching is more efficient (Marshall 1890)-all inducing productivity in cities (Duranton and Puga 2004).…”