Uncharted waters of the entrepreneurial ecosystems research: Comparing Greater Istanbul and Reading ecosystems

Abstract

This study introduces the complementarity perspective to the entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) research as a process to compare the two entrepreneurial ecosystems of Reading (United Kingdom) and Istanbul (Turkey). We apply the multiple‐case design methodology based on the rapid ethnography and the grounded theory to construct two entrepreneurial ecosystem models characterized by different EE taxonomy pillars and embedded in different local and institutional contexts. As a result of the study, two findings emerge. First, we find three distinct complementarities in both EEs: access to resources, effective use of resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and ecosystem awareness. Second, EE taxonomy pillars serve as mediators between ecosystem elements that drive entrepreneurial activity and complementarities. We argue that this approach could be applied to understand how EEs work and develop in regions with heterogeneous economic, geographical, and institutional contexts.

Taking the systems approaches out of their comfort zones: Perspectives from under explored contexts

“…This becomes particularly clear when comparing the working of incubators in Oman, described in detail by Al‐Baimani, Clifton, Jones and Pugh, with that of a concerted policy‐initiative in a favorable environment to push venture capital investments in India, detailed by Gonzalo and Kantis. Or the direct comparison, and accompanying methodological approach to doing so, of Reading and Istanbul provided by Belitski and Büyükbalci (2020).…”

“…Contrarily to this example, Gonzalo and Kantis (in press) show how orchestrated public policies embedded in a favorable institutional environment led India's venture capital market to thrive. Indeed, Belitski and Büyükbalci (2020) in this issue unpack further the specificities of institutional environments in two very different contexts: Reading and Istanbul, further interrogating the universal applicability of ecosystem concepts.…”

“…In a similar vein, Belitski and Büyükbalci (2020) conduct a comparative case study of entrepreneurial ecosystems in two very different contexts: Reading (the UK) and Istanbul (Turkey). In doing so, the authors wish to unpack how entrepreneurial ecosystems actually work on the ground in very different environments.…”

Towards the regional aspects of institutional trust and entrepreneurial ecosystems

“…We then drew on prior research on the role of stakeholders in the ecosystem (Autio and Levie, 2017;Brown and Mason, 2017;Belitski and Büyükbalci, 2020) to collect data on at least eight types of representative EE stakeholders. These included university professors, not-forprofits, governments, creative sector representatives, entrepreneurs, technopark or incubator managers, venture investors, bank or trust representatives, and multinational company C-level managers).…”

“…The entrepreneurship literature has generally focused on analysing individuals and firms. However, the emergence of the EE concept (Isenberg, 2011) has shifted the literature's focus towards regions (Szerb et al, 2019;Kansheba and Wald, 2020;Stam and Van de Ven, 2021;Kraus et al, 2021) and cities (Mack and Mayer, 2016;Spigel, 2017;Belitski and Büyükbalci, 2020). Although the research on EEs has gone from focusing on a region's startup rate, net entry, or total number of new ventures (Wurth et al, 2021) to a more specific type of entrepreneurial activity -productive entrepreneurship and the interdependences of EE attributes and how they interact with each other (Brown and Mason, 2017;Spigel, 2017;Eijdenberg et al, 2018).…”