Entrepreneurial Growth Ambitions: The Case of Finnish Technology Startups

Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems

“…Is the high‐growth ecosystem only a sub‐ecosystem in a more comprehensive ecosystem? Entrepreneurs' growth ambitions also are complex socially constructed phenomena, largely determined by the (largely local) contexts in which they interact (Wallin, Still, & Henttonen, ).…”

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

“…The second definition was adopted to operationalise traditional nascent/new ventures using as follows: (a) the number of youngest start-ups with fewer than 100 employees (Lutz et al 2010) and the period required to start up a business (Misra et al 2014); (b) the percentage of the adult population of a country who is involved in the development/creation of entrepreneurial initiatives motivated by necessity or opportunity (Pinillos and Reyes 2011; Shakhovskaya and Akimova 2013); (c) the business demography (entry/exit rates) in diverse industries (Meek et al 2010; García-Posada and Mora-Sanguinetti 2015); (d) business owners during the starting phase (Bitzenis and Nito 2005;Edoho 2015;McEwan 2015); and (e) those that were intending to start a new venture, had previously carried out at least one start-up activity, expected to own part of the venture, and did not have an existing operational business (Davidsson and Henrekson 2002;Davidsson and The latter definitions have quantitatively theorised the phenomenon of innovative entrepreneurship by contrasting the percentage of self-employed against knowledge-based innovative firms (Acs et al 2009;Szabo and Herman 2014) or by contrasting the selfemployment rate against patents and grants per country (El-Harbi and Anderson 2010), and have qualitatively analysed the new technological organisations incubated within incubators (Abetti 2004;Karlsson et al 2005), existing companies (Zahra and Nambisan 2012), or during the product-market fit phase (Wallin et al 2016).…”

“…Regarding the methodology, diverse primary sources of information (single/multiple case stud(ies), longitudinal case studies, designed surveys with follow-up interviews) and secondary sources of information (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Panel Studies of Entrepreneurial Dynamics, the U.S. Bureau Census, World Bank, national judicial datasets, OECD datasets, Global Competitiveness Index) with sophisticated statistical models (multi-level regression analysis, panel data A second group measured owner demographic entrepreneurship in terms of (a) gender (Mair and A third group operationalised innovative established ventures using the comparison between the following: (a) independent and established firms with at least 20 employees enrolled in technological sectors (Davidsson and Henrekson 2002); (b) small/young firms and old/ significant firms involved in the I.T. sector (Johansson 2004); and (c) well-established technological/innovative firms involved in different sectors (Cooper and Park 2008;Zahra and Nambisan 2012) or within their scaling phase (Wallin et al 2016).…”

“…Market conditions have also acted as driver and barrier for nascent entrepreneurs in developed economies. The innovative entrepreneurs' involvement within the entrepreneurship ecosystem has produced significant effects by reducing the entry barriers for nascent entrepreneurs (Zahra and Nambisan 2012) and also by scaling business models (Wallin et al 2016). Culture also plays a crucial role in nascent entrepreneurship regarding the perception of growth and ambitions by entrepreneurs in Finland (Wallin et al 2016).…”

“…Regarding well-established innovative ventures, the implementation of public incubation/acceleration programs in Finland (Wallin et al 2016) and incentives for wealth accumulation in Sweden (Davidsson and Henrekson 2002) have supported the consolidation of ventures with technological and high-growth orientation. The available public/private financial support was focused on business growth (Davidsson and Henrekson 2002).…”