Upload
lynhan
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Edward J. Malecki, The Ohio State UniversityBen Spigel, University of Edinburgh Business School
Abstract: We follow Schumpeter in attributing to entrepreneurs the spark to bring new combinations to market by combining knowledge, perceived opportunity, and other resources to form new firms. A link between innovation and entrepreneurship was first seen in new firms exploiting new technologies in high-technology regions. This context set the tone for research, which we explore in this paper. We identify five topics: entrepreneurship in high-tech contexts, spinoffs from university research, science parks (or research parks), the local/regional ecosystem or innovation system, and flows of knowledge within social and professional networks. Underlying these five attributes of high-tech innovation are cultural outlooks and orientations. Without an understanding of how culture influences entrepreneurial and innovative activities, it is difficult to study their relationship with the cultural contexts in which they take place. Building on a nexus-based view of innovation and entrepreneurship, we argue that culture is best understood as a process through which actors interpret the world around them and which can either encourage or discourage entrepreneurial and innovative activity. Keywords: Economic development, Innovation, Policy and Practice
Introduction
The connection between innovation and entrepreneurship originated with Schumpeter’s
(1934) emphasis on new combinations – new goods, new methods or processes, new markets,
or the new organization of an industry – introduced by entrepreneurs. “New combinations
are, as a rule, embodied, as it were, in new firms” (Schumpeter 1934: 66). As Landström et
al. (2012: 1155) observe, “Schumpeter’s idea was … that economic growth resulted not from
capital accumulation, but from innovations or ‘new combinations’ that create a
disequilibrium on the market.” Despite the common origins of research on both innovation
and entrepreneurship in the work of Schumpeter, they have “evolved over time as two largely
separate research fields” and remain “surprisingly disconnected from the neighbouring field
of innovation studies” (Landström et al. (2012: 1171-1172).
The definition of entrepreneurship has evolved over time (Braunerhjelm 2011; Hébert and
Link 2006). Drucker (1985) combines innovation and entrepreneurship and stresses that
entrepreneurs must be innovative, which requires systematic search and analysis of
innovative opportunities. A key aspect of new firms is that entrepreneurs have more to learn
from their local environment and actors within it than do large firms (Zahra et al. 2006).
In entrepreneurial capitalism, small, innovative firms play a significant role (Baumol et al.
2007). Such firms are the “fruit flies” of innovation, contributing to its heterogeneity (de Jong
and Marsili 2006). There are several types of innovative entrepreneurship, including new
New technologyTechnology-based Based firms Firms (NTBFs), spinoff firms, and high-
1
growth startups (Stam and Nooteboom 2011). NTBFs are acquirers, synthesizers and
introducers of new technology, and they contribute to the local or regional economy (Fontes
and Coombs 2001). Academic spinoffs are typically in research and development (R&D)-
intensive high technology, associated with new fields and emerging sectors (Lawton Smith
and Bagchi-Sen 2012).
Generally speaking, the stylized facts of innovation leave little space for entrepreneurs.
Exceptions are found in the literature on nursery cities (Duranton and Puga 2001) and cluster
formation (Bresnahan and Gambardella 2004). While The the conventional wisdom and
standard models focus on cities as the locus of innovation,; innovation occurs in small and
isolated places as well (Shearmur 2012). Recent research highlights how knowledge sparks
innovation and how it lubricates entrepreneurship (Bae and Koo 2009; Braunerhjelm et al.
2010; Iammarino and McCann 2006; Qian et al. 2013).
We review the literature on entrepreneurship and innovation in regions, highlighting dynamic
processes and supporting institutions (Stam and Nooteboom 2011). We stress that this paper
is not about the topic of spillovers and agglomeration (Feldman and Avnimelech 2011;
Feldman and Kogler 2010; van Oort and Bosma 2013). As Shearmur (2012: 2352) suggests,
“innovation dynamics do not necessarily occur in agglomerations (although of course they
can occur there).”
We identify five core topics in this paper. First, much early research on entrepreneurship
focused on high-tech contexts (for example, biotech and ICT). Second, the phenomenon of
firms spinning out of university research put a spotlight on academic and basic research as
the starting point of innovative entrepreneurship. Third, science parks (research parks in the
USA) were identified as particularly fertile locations for high-tech entrepreneurs. Fourth, the
local or regional ecosystem or innovation system has been identified as a nexus of social and
economic links and support for entrepreneurship. Fifth, flows of knowledge within social and
professional networks allow diffusion of knowledge to new places. Underlying these topics
are the regional and organizational cultures that influence the willingness of actors to engage
with the risks of the entrepreneurship process.
The high-technology context
2
Empirical observation of the link between innovation and entrepreneurship largely grew out
of the experience in California’s Silicon Valley and Route 128 outside Boston beginning in
the 1960s, and set the tone for understanding the links between high-tech innovation and
entrepreneurship. By the mid-1980s, it was well-established that places where high-
technology, R&D-intensive firms were active and abundant generated spinoffs and grew into
(what would later be called) clusters (Cooper 1986; Cooper and Folta 2000; Malecki 2011).
Silicon Valley was not the product only of entrepreneurs; large multilocational firms also
were attracted to the region and its universities and clusters of firms, and they continue to be
a lure (Adams 2011; Poon et al. 2006). Globalization of R&D has spread the potential for
high technology to new places (Malecki 2010). Large firms, together with entrepreneurs, co-
create regional high-tech clusters (Smilor et al. 2007). A vibrant global competition for high-
tech success continues (Anttiroiko 2004; Castells and Hall 1994).
Technology clusters differ significantly from other industrial clusters in that they are tied
more to the early stages of industry life cycles, and resources at the regional level support
growth and innovation (St. John and Pouder 2006). Therefore, what is considered “high tech”
changes over time, encompassing innovative sectors that present new opportunities. The
principal activity of technology-based sectors is research, and their main input as well as
output is knowledge. For firms, locating near sources of knowledge (such as universities and
research centers) and clustering in specialized labor markets maximizes opportunities for
collective learning and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities (Audretsch et al. 2006).
We may be able to identify tendencies such as those above but, as Iammarino and McCann
(2006) point out, diversity and heterogeneity continue to operate, so that we are unable to
predict with accuracy where innovative clusters will emerge.
Therefore, high technology is typically defined as innovative, and measured by through
inputs of expenditure on R&D and employment of scientists, engineers, and technicians
(Hecker 2005). Schoales (2006) expands the concept of newness to include all industries in
which product life cycles are very short, thereby embracing several service sectors including
advertising, design, fashion, finance, and others. Stoneman (2010) likewise includes products
of the ‘creative industries’, encompassing culture, media, and the arts, as examples of soft
innovation, which places emphasis on aesthetic rather than technological characteristics.
3
Finally, knowledgeKnowledge-intensive Intensive business Business services Services
(KIBS) are a “hidden engine” of high technology (Probert et al. 2013).
For several decades, we have come to consider high-tech industries and regions as innovative
and entrepreneurial. By studying innovative entrepreneurship not only in prominent high-tech
regions, but also in other locales, we have learned that innovation and entrepreneurship are
found in many, though by no means all, places.
University spinoffs
Universities are frequently among the “incubator organizations” that are thethat act as the
foundation of innovative entrepreneurial regions (Mayer 2007). Spinoffs in the Boston area
were largely from MIT, rather than Harvard or the other higher education institutions in the
Boston area (Roberts 1991). Similarly, Silicon Valley evolved both from corporate spinoffs
and from entrepreneurial activity related to Stanford University. These two models are
difficult for other regions to imitate, since the numbers of spinoff firms from top research
institutions are not possible to match in other settings (Degroof and Roberts, 2004). Shane
(2004) summarizes the findings for the USA, updated by Grimaldi et al. (2011).
Both the US and European experiences have created an expectation regarding the regional
role of a university: to contribute to the regional economy through spinoffs of new firms
based on innovative technologies that flowflowing from university research (Lerner 2005;
Wright et al. (2007). Etzkowitz (1983) has documented the role of entrepreneurial scientists
and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. His picture of entrepreneurial
researchers and science parks has had broad influence, which has grown further with the
development of the “triple helix” model (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000). Universities are
not monolithic; within each, four sets of actors – individuals, research groups, departments,
and the university as an organization – compete for resources, prestige, and recognition
within universities (Deiaco et al. 2012; Etzkowitz 2003). For academic entrepreneurs, a
decision to start a firm is rooted within the values of an academic career (Franzoni and
Lissoni 2009).
Through spinoffs – and profiting from spinoffs – universities have broadened the scope of
their activities beyond teaching and research. The “entrepreneurial university” model
includes patenting, commercialization, and technology transfer as a “third stream” of revenue
4
and/or as a way to engage with the local communitycontribute to the local economy (Clark
1998). European universities are “learning to compete” and becoming multidimensional in
their entrepreneurialism and other aspects of the “knowledge business” (McKelvey and
Holmén 2009). The allure of profit has been especially strong in biomedical fields (Åstebro
and Bazzasian (2011). Rothaermel et al. (2007) and Siegel (2011) review the burgeoning
literature on academic entrepreneurship and university technology transfer.
European countries have attempted to imitate the favorable conditions found for spin-off
formation in US high-tech regions (Mustar et al. 2008; Wright et al. 2007). The variability
among national academic cultures is overwhelmed by the “imitation effect” that has “led to a
convergence of policies toward the same goal: to foster a larger number of academic spin-
offs.” Imitation also leads nearly all imitators to target biomedical and nanotechnology fields.
Such policies, however, have not imitated faculty mobility, university autonomy, and
generous support of basic research found in the US (Franzoni and Lissoni 2009; Howells et
al. 2012).
Spinoffs started by professors, researchers and other university employees are are relatively
easily easy to tracktracked when professors, researchers, and other university employees are
the entrepreneurs. However, former students (including alumni) also start firms, utilizing
knowledge and contacts that originated at a university. Many spinoffs are by graduates
(Åstebro et al. 2012), but such firms are not readily identified in available data sets (see also
Bathelt et al. 2011). Thus, recent research, reviewed by Grimaldi et al. (2011), Mustar et al.
(2006), and Pirney et al. (2003), scans moves beyond university faculty and research staff to
identify a broader cadre of university-related entrepreneurs. Broad surveys of alumni have
been conducted by MIT (Hsu et al. 2007; Roberts and Easley 2011) and Stanford (Eesley and
Miller 2012). However, A a focus on graduates or alumni will missmisses entrepreneurs who
drop out (e.g., Michael Dell and Bill Gates) as well as those who benefit indirectly from the
university environment.
The principal challenge of understanding university startups is that far more knowledge
transfer occurs than is imagined in the linear technology transfer model. Research “spills
over” and informal transfer of knowledge takes place continually as research is conducted
and as student entrepreneurship is encouraged in other ways that are underestimated and
understudied (Grimaldi et al. 2011; Nelson 2012). Many spinoffs are “spontaneous” rather
5
than planned, growing out of informal activities in the “grey zone” where tacit knowledge is
shared and transfused into society (Bathelt et al. 2010; Nilsson et al. 2010; Rappert et al
1999). Many university-related start-ups arise from “decentralized idea development” that
may have originated in a classroom or lab or from social ties that are informal and related to
the university only indirectly. Such tacit knowledge is basically unknown to and
uncontrollable by a university, yet it may well represent the majority of knowledge
transferred (Karnani 2013). Knowledge-related collaboration by academic researchers with
non-academic organizations, whether patentable or not, is innovative (Perkmann et al. 2013).
Universities produce many outputs, including new knowledge and human capital. They
transfer existing know-how and produce technological innovation. They also provide regional
leadership, co-producing the regional knowledge infrastructure. Together, the mechanisms by
which university R&D activity stimulates economic development are both broader and more
diverse than spinoffs, patenting, and licensing activity (Benneworth and Charles 2005;
Goldstein 2009; Lendel 2010).
As the discussion above suggests, research on academic spinoffs has been empirically rich
but “mainly atheoretical” (Autio 2000: 332). Spinoffs are part of the culture of
entrepreneurial universities, but they can hardly be planned and they vary greatly in nature.
Academic culture is not necessarily at odds with entrepreneurship. Scientific productivity
enhances entrepreneurial activity rather than substituting for it (Franzoni and Lissoni 2009;
Van Looy et al. 2010). In developing a spinoff strategy, a university should focus on
developing a critical mass of world class research in a few areas in which they can attract
industrial partners (Siegel et al. 2007). The exceptional university culture also builds an
institutional structure of incentives, such as profit shared among the university, departments,
and inventors. However, a research-intensive institutional culture can discourage technology
transfer or commercialization activities if they are seen as distracting from basic research and
publication.
Entrepreneurs penetrate the “knowledge filter” between research and economic use (Carlsson
et al. 2009). They are able to do so when an entrepreneur has the ability “to understand new
knowledge, recognize its value, and subsequently commercialize it by creating a firm” (Qian
and Acs 2013: 191). This ability, which Qian and Acs call entrepreneurial absorptive
capacity, involves two dimensions: scientific knowledge as well as market or business
6
knowledge. A pool of academic researchers and their new firms adds to the regional
knowledge base for further innovative entrepreneurship.
University spinoffs are innovative, applying cutting-edge research to new purposes. They
also are an unusual type of entrepreneurship, because academic entrepreneurship is counter to
long-standing scholarly models (Martin 2012). New skills must be acquired, and new
networks formed, to assemble a new spinoff firm and for it to succeed (Clarysse et al. 2005;
Vohora et al. 2004). Without question, university spinoffs combine innovation and
entrepreneurship and are the archetypes of new combinations.
Science parks and research parks
The Silicon Valley experience also highlighted the Stanford Research Park (Stanford
Industrial Park until the 1970s) as a site for the emergence and growth of firms. As the first
university-owned industrial park, it has inspired imitators since the 1970s (Anttiroiko 2004;
Miller and Coté 1987). Because of the diverse nature of science parks and the firms that
locate in them, they serve several functions and appeal to different types of firms at once
(Johannisson et al. 1994). Consequently, much recent research has focused on creating
typologies to understand this diversity (Mustar et al. 2007; Nicolau and Birley 2003; Pirnay
et al. 2003). In general, science parks of research-oriented universities, and parks that are
older are nearer to the main university campus, are more likely to contain university spinoff
companies (Link and Scott 2005).
Many science parks also have an incubator function, but investigations into the survival and
performance of tenant firms have been investigated unevenly and incompleteely (Bergek and
Norrman 2008; Phan et al. 2005). Because of their diversity, typologies also have been
constructed to understand the roles and relative success of incubators (Bergek and Norrman
2008). As science park occupants – many of them university technology-based spinoffs – go
through various growth stages, different incubator services are needed in each stage (Chan
and Lau 2005; van Geenhuizen and Soetanto 2009).
Science parks not only incubate new firms but also attract established companies. For large
firms, science parks allow collaborative links to be established with a recognized academic
‘center of excellence’ and to take advantage of an agglomeration of skilled researchers and
new graduates. Proximity to a center of excellence may attract large firms, but does not
7
necessarily indicate any linkage or interaction with the local universities – or with one
another (Johannisson et al. 1994).
According to Macdonald and Deng (2004: 3), “what little evidence there is does not conclude
that science parks offer the optimum location for high technology firms. Indeed, it would
seem that the science park offers little advantage at all”. The most imitated regions were the
product of serendipity rather than of planning – but grounded in the benefits of agglomeration
economies, externalities, networking, and clustering, with most information flow taking place
informally. Despite their rather poor proof of success, science parks have remained extremely
popular as a policy tools (van Geenhuizen and Soetanto 2008).
Overall, science parks continue to be an attractive policy for universities and other regional
players. Because they are property-based, the temptation is always present to keep them filled
– with large tenants as well as small, with technology lifestyle businesses as well as high-
growth potential start-ups (Harrison and Leicht 2010). Not surprisingly, they have difficulty
to fulfill the needs of this diverse mix of firms to have positive impact, and to enhance the
reputation of the university sponsor (Chan and Lau 2005). Much depends on what is being
evaluated. Studies of science parks have focused on firms (numbers of spinoff and other
firms, innovativeness, survival, growth), the science park itself (employment, networking),
and the regional economy (numbers and types of firms, employment) (Van Geenhuizen and
Soetanto 2008). The variety of purposes and functions of science parks remains problematic.
Perhaps, as van Geenhuizen and Soetanto (2008: 106) suggest, we “need to investigate more
thoroughly why Science Parks exist in the first place.”
Regional/local ecosystems and innovation systems
Urban areas offer favorable conditions as incubators for innovative entrepreneurship, as a
result of their economies of density and the opportunities created by cities as nuclei of
broader networks, both local and global (Nijkamp 2003). Much research has aimed to
understand just what is present in the most innovative regions. Once the conditions are
known, can they be created, grown, or transferred to other places?
The synergy necessary for a self-sustaining area is found in an active local or regional
‘entrepreneurial ecosystem’ (Bahrami and Evans 1995). Silicon Valley’s innovative
ecosystem represents an the archetypical ‘entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial regional Regional
8
innovation Innovation system’ System (ERIS) (Cooke 2004). The environments found in and
around Boston (USA), Cambridge (UK) and Southern California are atypical, and can be
argued to act as “regional incubators” (Clarysse et al. 2005: 213). More broadly, such habitats
and ecosystems are ‘regional Regional innovation Innovation systems’ Systems (RISs). RISs
are, at the regional scale, the institutional characteristics that influence innovation at a scale
smaller than the Nnational innovation Innovation system System (NIS) (Asheim and Gertler
2005; Cooke 2004). Generally, entrepreneurship increases with the level of economic
development, in an S-shaped manner (Acs and Szerb 2009). The NIS and national policies
affect strongly the nature of university entrepreneurialism and constrain regional policy
(Uyarra and Flanagan 2010).
“There is no such thing as an innovation system without entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are
essential for a well functioning innovation system” (Hekkert et al. 2007: 421). Indeed,
entrepreneurial activities, together with knowledge development, knowledge diffusion
through networks, and market formation, are among the key functions of innovations. Recent
research has moved beyond a focus on individuals to emphasize the systemic nature of
entrepreneurship, whether within national and regional innovation systems (Qian et al. 2013;
Radosevic and Yoruk 2013) or as a national system of entrepreneurship (Szerb et al. 2013).
Knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship is a systemic feature of innovation systems, and new
knowledge, innovation, and entrepreneurship are inseparable elements of a dynamic
innovation system (Radosevic and Yoruk 2013: 1015). A RIS must have strength not only in
innovation, but also the capacity to generate and attract entrepreneurship and talent (Cooke
2007).
RISs can be seen to embrace other concepts at the subnational scale, including clusters,
territorial production complexes, productive systems, territorial systems, milieus, and local
systems (Asheim et al. 2011; Moulaert and Sekia 2005). A RIS also must be linked to
knowledge and innovation sources in other regions. These “pipelines” serve as conduits for
an interregional spatial innovation system (SIS) (Bathelt et al. 2004; Oinas and Malecki
2002). However, the SIS structure the structure of spatial innovation systems differs among
high-tech industries. Biotechnology is characterized by an economic geography that is less
concentrated (and more dispersed among global biotech centers) than that of semiconductors
(Kenney and Patton 2005).
9
Julien (2007) depicts the entrepreneurial milieu and identifies information and networks as
necessary conditions, and innovation as a sufficient condition, for entrepreneurship. These
attributes of innovative milieus are soft and invisible, and therefore are hard to create,
maintain, and change – and to measure. Policies and investments in education and training,
R&D, technology transfer, and marketing do not automatically ‘produce’ innovations or new
firms.
A key ingredient in ERISs is venture capital, facilitating serial start-ups (Cooke 2007; Florida
and Kenney 1988). Venture capitalists contribute more than money to entrepreneurs; they
also provide advice and guidance and links to other networks (de Clerq et al. 2006; Manigart
and Sapienza 2000; Zider 1998). Other intermediaries, such as attorneys, lawyers, and
consultants, also provide key knowledge and act as gatekeepers for entrepreneurs (Cooke
2008; Howells 2006). Finally, information, advice, and encouragement from experienced
entrepreneurs adds social capital to an entrepreneur’s own human capital (Mosey and Wright
2007).
The location of venture investors and their investments remains stubbornly concentrated in
only a few regions (Mason and Pierrakis 2013; Kenney 2011). It is difficult to create a venture
capital industry where none has existed. The emergence of a VC industry requires both a pool
of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists – and suitable capital markets for exit. Venture
capital firms based in locales that are venture capital centers outperform those elsewhere,
regardless of the stage of the investment (Chen et al. 2010), and this benefits local firms
(Zhang 2007). Such a VC system, with startups and venture capital co-evolving, can emerge
in different ways (Avnimelech et al. 2010; Kenney 2011). However, agglomeration forces
strongly affect venture capital and consequently it is very difficult to disperse to other places.
Experience in and personal links to Silicon Valley might be one route (Saxenian 2006), but
more than imitation is involved.
A key role of universities is to create and enhance the territorial regional knowledge pool
(Benneworth and Charles 2005). This is an indirect contribution to the regional economy, and
involves a densification of the techno-economic network (Fontes and Coombs 2001), which
makes the RIS more “munificent” (Dubini 1989; Malecki 2009). Uyarra (2010) outlines
several key roles of universities which affect innovation and entrepreneurship. Universities
are “knowledge factories” and “boundary-spanning institutional nodes” that are “relational,”
10
“entrepreneurial” and “developmental” within their regions. Goddard (2011) distinguishes
among three levels of university activities: first, those that are less complex, and tend to be
transactional and timebound with clear outcomes; second, those that are more complex,
whose outcomes are longer term and less tangible; and third, highly complex activities with
potential for transformational change in regions. Power and Malmberg (2008) are skeptical
about the degree to which universities actually contribute to regional development or more
broadly to regional innovation systems, other than by attaining global excellence in research,
innovation, and value creation.
RISs evolve for many reasons, and the concept of a RIS has also evolved (Cooke 2008).
Among the few constants in the dynamic is that high-tech regions have advantages that are
able to adapt to new conditions. “The most radical form of change is brought about by the
emergence and growth of industries based on new technological and organizational
trajectories such as knowledge-intensive and high-technology industries” and these often
grow from earlier successful high-tech sectors, even if different from the new ones (Tödtling
and Trippl 2013).
Knowledge flows within networks
Entrepreneurs exist in networks – social and personal as well as business- and innovation-
oriented (Johannisson et al. 1994). A network mix – both weak ties and strong ties, both local
and nonlocal networks, and both internal and external networks within the regional
environment – is needed to provide social ties, knowledge, technology, marketing, and
reputation for entrepreneurial success (Lechner and Dowling 2003). Networking among firms
promotes innovation in both medium-technology and high-tech clusters as well as those that
are high-tech (Cappellin and Wink 2009). Dense networks of relations and multifaceted links
between university faculty and non-academic actors are also common (Martinelli et al. 2008).
In network-intensive regions, knowledge is shared and a more favorable entrepreneurial
climate results (Malecki 1997). For high-tech firms, localized linkages are a source of
innovation (Lawton Smith 2008).
While policies to spark innovation and/or entrepreneurship are common (Hart 2003;
Lundström and Stevenson 2005), they are only partially able to influence knowledge flows.
Among the most useful knowledge is that generated by close interaction during which
knowledge remains tacit, but which may be measurable later in co-authored articles and
11
patents. High levels of tacit knowledge exchange are likely only when close links exist
between academic scientists and researchers in firms (including recent spinoffs) (Zucker et al.
2007). Other unintended, informal knowledge spillovers – from universities, within firms,
and between firms – are largely ignored (Howells 2002). Networks to identify and attract
human resources are often more important for start-ups than financial networks, and are a key
element in successful policies (Clarysse and Bruneel 2007). Overall, networks are diverse,
complex, and dynamic, changing as the needs of firms change (Steiner 2011).
Although we have not stressed the point thus far, knowledge is extremely complex, far
beyond the dichotomy between tacit and codified knowledge (Howells 2012). Howells et al.
(2012) find that informal and formal knowledge links are equally significant in influencing
innovation outcomes in firms, reinforcing one another in a complex manner.
Cultural outlooks and orientations
[Ben]Innovative entrepreneurship is not a disembodied economic activity. While an
entrepreneur may be aa “heroic economic superman” (Schumpeter, 1934: 85) who disrupts
existing value chains through novel innovation, this is not done in isolation. Rather,
entrepreneurs are deeply embedded in networks of social and cultural outlooks and beliefs.
Researchers have long argued that the social character of a place, industry, or organization
has a profound influence on innovation and entrepreneurship processes (see Saxenian, 1994;
Schoenberger, 1997; Feldman, 2001; O’Shey et al., 2005). This realization has, in turn, led to
an interest amongst policymakers on how to foster a particular kind of culture within a region
or organization that supports risk taking, cooperation, and entrepreneurship (e.g. Acs et al.,
2008; Bercovitz and Feldman 2008). The goal of such efforts is the creation of a community
that encourages the free exchange of knowledge and support, with the expectation that this
contributes to innovative entrepreneurship and therefore higher levels of of economic growth.
While the importance of culture is well understood, its complex and ephemeral nature has
made it difficult to study its role in the entrepreneurship process. Many authors fail to define
how they use culture or use only individual attributes of a person, such as nationality or
ethnicity, to identify their ‘culture’ (see Wilkinson, 1996 and Raghuram and Strange, 2001
for critiques of such studies). The lack of attention to defining culture is problematic but not
surprising: culture is a difficult word to define, with meanings ranging from the agricultural
to the artistic. The result is that research on culture within the entrepreneurship and
12
innovation literature tends to either rely on over-simplified notions of culture by assuming a
homogeneous national culture, or produces descriptive accounts of cultural attributes with
few generalizable findings.
The major focus within the entrepreneurship literature is how cultural attributes influence
decisions relating to starting, financing, and growing a new firm. This began with very broad
based investigations into differences in entrepreneurial rates and performance between
nations (Shane, 1992; Tan, 20002; Morris and Schindehutte 2005). Such research frequently
draws on the work of Greet Hofstede (2001), who identifies five core cultural attributes:
power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity
and long term/short term orientation. Hofstede provided scores for each of these attributes for
over seventy countries, allowing researchers to investigate relationships between variations in
national cultural attributes and aggregate levels of innovation and entrepreneurship. Several
articles have identified low levels ofof uncertainty avoidance (the desire to avoid risk and
uncertainty) and high levels of individualism (focus on individual over collective needs) as
important for encouraging innovation-based entrepreneurship (e.g. Shane, 1993; Lee and
Peterson, 2000). However, critics have questioned the usefulness of Hofstede’s methods for
cross-cultural research, pointing out that it ignores variation in cultural outlooks within
nations (McSweeney, 2002) and relegatesrelegates culture to a deterministic variable
(Baskerville, 2003).
In light of these criticisms, there has been a renewed interest in interpretive approaches to
understanding the relationship between culture and innovative entrepreneurship. These
studies employ qualitative, ethnographic, or historical analysis to identify salient cultural
attributes within a region, organization, or industry and show how these encourage or
discourage innovative entrepreneurial practices. Works such as Saxenian’s (1994) Regional
Advantage or Schoenberger’s (1997) The Cultural Crisis of the Firm were instrumental in
demonstrating not only the existence of cultures that are beneficial or detrimental to
innovation, but also revealing the causal relations between these outlooks and innovative
activities. However, because these methods are focused on individual case studies, they
provide few generalizable findings that are useful in other contexts. This contributes to the
movement of policies that were effective in one context to other regions, often leading to the
failure of policies that fail to connect with their new cultural environment.
13
Organizational and regional cultures have become important tools in the study of academic
entrepreneurship and university spinoffs (Jenson et al., 2003; Bathelt et al., 2011). The
culture of a university, often seeded by the university’s founders, plays a role in the creation
of formal policies and informal beliefs within the university that promote successful spinoff
and technology transfer activities, or conversely that discourage non-research activities like
patenting and commercialization (Colyvas, 2007; Bramwell and Wolfe, 2008). It is difficult
for top-down policies by university administrators to promote the formation of spinoffs
because they clash with preexisting informal cultural outlooks that dismiss entrepreneurship
as a violation of academic norms (Bathelt and Spigel, 2011). This points to the role of culture
as a social system underlying more formal programs such as tenure, promotion, and hiring:
universities such as the Stanford or MIT, which have had an industry-oriented culture since
their founding, have had greater success in seeding innovative startups than other universities
whose culture is focused on basic science. Failed attempts by other universities to foster a so-
called ‘entrepreneurial cultures’ illustrate the difficulty of overcoming cultural inertia within
large organizations with diffuse power structures.
Similarly, there has been a bourgeoning interest in qualitative studies of entrepreneurial
cultures. This is part of a larger movement within entrepreneurship studies to highlight the
discursive and social aspects of entrepreneurship (Dodd, 2002; Steyaert and Katz, 2004). As
Licht and Siegel (2006: 516) argue: “culture bears a profound impact on all facets of
entrepreneurship in society.” The development of these perspectives in management science
has been mirrored by other allied disciplines such as economic geography, where a growing
body of work has investigated the origins and influence of regional cultures on
entrepreneurship. Feldman’s (2001; Feldman et al., 2005) work on Washington D.C and
James’ (2005) work on Salt Lake City examine the development of local cultural norms
towards entrepreneurship and how this has influenced networks of entrepreneurs, advisors,
and investors. Evidence suggests that these entrepreneurial cultures develop over time in
response to both long-term economic and demographic developments as well as through
short-term shocks like the loss of a major employer.
The examination of culture has been a principal feature of recent research into entrepreneurial
ecosystems. Entrepreneurial ecosystems are combinations of public programs, innovation-
producing universities, support networks of advisors, and availability of venture and angel
investment within a region that create the conditions for successful entrepreneurship- led
14
economic growth and innovation (Kenney and Patton, 2005; Malecki, 2009; Harrison and
Leitch, 2010). As with innovation ecosystems, entrepreneurial ecosystems provide a context
in which new ideas constantly circulate through local networks, providing opportunities for
nascent entrepreneurs and where successful firm founders act as both role models and
investors for fast-growing ‘gazelle’ startups. All of these elements, in turn, depend on
existence of an underlying culture — or as Malecki (1997:82) terms it, “entrepreneurial
climate,” that normalizes the high risk, long hours, and absence of immediate rewards that
characterize innovative entrepreneurship.
While the importance of culture in entrepreneurial ecosystems is well accepted (Nijkamp,
2003; Julien, 2007), the processes through which cultural outlooks catalyze and reproduce
ecosystems are unclear. Entrepreneurs are to some extent culturally embedded in their home
region, meaning that they internalize the collective understandings and social ‘scripts’ within
the community (Zukin and DiMaggio, 1990). A supportive entrepreneurial culture might then
normalize certain activities such as knowledge sharing and cooperation amongst knowledge
workers, mentoring relationships between entrepreneurs, or a tendency for angel investors
and successful businesspeople to actively network with startup founders. Similarly, a non-
entrepreneurial culture might normalize actions detrimental to entrepreneurship like risk
aversion (James, 2005; Malecki, 2009). However, while embeddedness provides some clues
to how culture contributes to entrepreneurial ecosystems, it does not explain how these
cultures initially develop within a region or how they change over time (James, 2007).
Further work is necessary to reveal the connections between cultural outlooks and innovative
and entrepreneurial activities with regions and organizations.
Innovative entrepreneurship depends on more than the presence of financial and knowledge
endowments: it also requires a supportive set of cultural outlooks to normalize the risks it
entails. While researchers have long acknowledged the importance of culture to innovation
and entrepreneurship, our understanding of how such culture develop within regions or
organizations and actually influences the actions of entrepreneurs remains underdeveloped.
As policy makers and corporate leaders embrace entrepreneurship as a key factor in
economic growth, the importance of regional and organizational cultures will grow even
further.
Conclusions
15
Building innovative, entrepreneurial regions remains an imperfect art. Entrepreneurs and
innovations can arise in any industry and from universities and other institutions. Much of
what we know is based on a few success stories and on case studies. Less is known about
regions that fail to create innovation-led economies or those which passively wait for
innovative entrepreneurs to appear. The presence of individual ingredients, such as research
universities, large innovative firms, or science parks, does not guarantee success.
Nearly all regions aspire to high-tech success, targeting biotech and nanotech; few will
succeed in the short term, but many will improve their development capacity and …future
innovative potential.
While creative destruction as a consequence of discontinuous technological change is a
central theme in the literature on innovation and technology, incumbent firms are also able to
evolve a “creative accumulation” in response (Bergek et al. 2013).
Both innovation and entrepreneurship are complex processes, and policy options are many
and varied. The creation of new research campuses in Abu Dhabi and New York City suggest
a continued appetite for multi-billion dollar state investments in research and development.
At the same time, policy makers also are turning towards fostering existing regional assets to
encourage innovative entrepreneurship, through the cultivation of stronger networks linking
researchers, entrepreneurs, and investors or small scale incubators and accelerators for new
technology-based firms or university spinoffs.
However, innovation policy does not exist in a vacuum. Policies that fail to account for the
cultural outlooks they exist in are to likely flounder. Instead, policy makers must craft new
programs taking into account the local cultural outlooks, for instance considering their
tolerance for the risks of leaving stable employment to lead a startup. At the same time,
policymakers must keep in mind that culture is not static: the presence of successful,
innovative entrepreneurs can spur others to follow in their footsteps while a period of
economic decline can lead to a retrenchment where the risks of innovation and
entrepreneurship seem increasingly untenable.
References
16
Acs, Z., Glaeser, E., Litan, R., Fleming, L., Goetz, S. J., Kerr, W., Klepper, S., Sorenson, O. and Strange, W. C. (2008). ‘Entrepreneurship and Urban Success: Toward a Policy Consensus’, Kansas City, MO: The Kauffman Foundation.
Acs, Z.J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D.B. and Carlsson, B. (2009) ‘The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship’, Small Business Economics, 32: 15-30.
Acs, Z.J. and Szerb, L. (2009) ‘The Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEINDEX)’, Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5 (5): 341-435.
Adams, S.B. (2011) ‘Growing where you are planted: exogenous firms and the seeding of Silicon Valley’, Research Policy, 40: 368-379.
Anttiroiko, A.-V. (2004) ‘Editorial: global competition of high-tech centres’, International Journal of Technology Management, 28: 289-323.
Asheim, B. and Gertler, M. (2005) ‘The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems’, in J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery and Nelson, R.R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 291-317.
Asheim, B.T., Lawton Smith, H. and Oughton, C. (2011) ‘Regional innovation systems: theory, empirics and policy’, Regional Studies, 45: 875-891.
Åstebro, T. and Bazzazian, N. (2011) ‘Universities, entrepreneurship, and local economic development’, in M. Fritsch (ed.) Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship and Regional Development: National and Regional Perspectives, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 252-333.
Åstebro, T., Bazzazian, N. and Braguinsky, S. (2012) ‘Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy’, Research Policy, 41: 663-677.
Audretsch, D.B., Keilbach, M.C. and Lehmann, E.E. (2006) Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Autio, E. (2000) ‘Growth of technology-based new firms’, in D.L. Sexton and H. Landström (eds) Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Oxford: Blackwell, 329-347.
Avnimelech, G., Rosiello, A. and Teubal, M. (2010) ‘Evolutionary interpretation of venture capital policy in Israel, Germany, UK and Scotland’, Science and Public Policy, 37: 101-112.
Bae, J. and Koo, J. (2009) ‘The nature of local knowledge and new firm formation’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 18: 473-496.
Bahrami, H. and Evans, S. (1995) ‘Flexible re-cycling and high-technology entrepreneurship’, California Management Review, 37 (3): 62-89.
Baskerville, R. F. (2003) ‘Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting’, Organizations and Society, 28: 1–14.
Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. (2004) ‘Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation’, Progress in Human Geography, 28: 31-56.
Bathelt, H., Kogler, D. F., & Munro, A. K. (2011) ‘Social Foundations of Regional Innovation and the Role of University Spin-Offs: The Case of Canada’s Technology Triangle’, Industry & Innovation, 18: 461–486.
Bathelt, H., & Spigel, B. (2011) ‘University spin-offs and regional policy in comparative perspective: The cases of Columbus (Ohio) and Toronto and Waterloo (Ontario)’, International Journal of Knowledge-Based Design, 3:202–219.
Baumol, W.J., Litan, R.E. and Schramm, C.J. (2007) Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Benneworth, P. and Charles, D. (2005) ‘University spin-off policies and economic development in less successful regions: learning from two decades of policy practice’, European Planning Studies, 13: 537-557.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008) ‘Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level’, Organization Science, 19:69–89.
Bergek, A., Berggren, C., Magnusson, T. and Hobday, M. (2013) ‘Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: destruction, disruption or creative accumulation?’, Research Policy 42: 1210-1224.
Bergek, A. and Norman, C. (2008) ‘Incubator best practice: a framework’, Technovation, 28: 20-28.Bramwell, A., Nelles, J., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008) ‘Knowledge, Innovation and Regional Culture in
Waterloo’s ICT Cluster’, Regional Studies, 42: 101–116.Braunerhjelm, P. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth’, in D.B. Audretsch, O.
Falck, S. Heblich and A. Lederer (eds) Handbook of Research on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 161-209.
17
Braunerhjelm, P., Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B. and Carlsson, B. (2010) ‘The missing link: knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth’, Small Business Economics, 34: 105-125.
Bresnahan, T.F. and Gambardella, A. (eds) (2004) Building High-Tech Clusters: Silicon Valley and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cappellin, R. and Wink, R. (2009) International Knowledge and Innovation Networks: Knowledge Creation and Innovation in Medium-technology Clusters, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Carlsson, B., Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B. and Braunerhjelm, P. (2009) ‘Knowledge creation, entrepreneur-ship, and economic growth: a historical review’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 18: 1193-1229.
Castells, M. and Hall, P. (1994) Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st Century Industrial Complexes, London: Routledge.
Chan, K.F. and Lau, T. (2005) ‘Assessing technology incubator programes in the science park: the good, the bad and the ugly’, Technovation, 25: 1215-1228.
Chen, H., Gompers, P., Kovner, A. and Lerner, J. (2010) ‘Buy local? The geography of venture capital’, Journal of Urban Economics, 67: 90-102.
Clark, B. (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation, Oxford: Pergamon.
Clarysse, B. and Bruneel, J. (2007) ‘Nurturing and growing innovative start-ups: the role of policy as integrator’, R&D Management 37: 139-149.
Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E. and Vohora, A. (2005) ‘Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions’, Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 183-216.
Cooke, P. (2004) ‘Introduction: regional innovation systems – an evolutionary approach’, in P. Cooke, M. Heidenreich and H.-J. Braczyk (eds) (2004) Regional Innovation Systems, second ed., London: Routledge, 1-18.
Cooke, P. (2007) ‘Regional innovation, entrepreneurship and talent systems’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 7: 117-139.
Cooke, P. (2008) ‘Regional innovation systems, clean technology & Jacobian cluster-platform policies’, Regional Science Policy and Practice, 1: 23-45.
Cooper, A.C. (1986) ‘Entrepreneurship and high technology’, in D.L. Sexton and R.W. Smilor (eds) The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 153-168.
Cooper, A.C. and Folta, T. (2000) ‘Entrepreneurship and high-technology clusters’, in D.L. Sexton and H. Landström (eds) Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Oxford: Blackwell, 348-367.
Colyvas, J. (2007) ‘From Divergent Meanings to Common Practices: The Early Institutionalization of Technology Transfer in the Life Sciences at Stanford University’, Research Policy, 36:456–476.
Degroof, J.-J. and Roberts, E.B. (2004) ‘Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 29: 327-352.
Deiaco, E., Hughes, A. and McKelvey, M. (2012) ‘Universities as strategic actors in the knowledge economy’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36: 525-541.
De Jong, J.P.J. and Marsili, O. (2006) ‘The fruit flies of innovations: a taxonomy of innovative small firms’, Research Policy, 35: 213-229.
De Clerq, D., Fried, V.H.. Lehtonen, O. and Sapienza, H.J. (2006) ‘An entrepreneur’s guide to the venture capital galaxy’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 20 (3): 90-112.
Dodd, S. D. (2002) ‘Metaphors and Meaning: A Grounded Cultural Model of US Entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 17: 519–535.
Drucker, P.F. (1985) Innovation and Entrepreneurship, New York: Harper & Row.Dubini, P. (1989) ‘The influence of motivations and environment on business start-ups: some hints for
public policies’, Journal of Business Venturing, 4: 11-26.Duranton, G. and Puga, D. (2001) ‘Nursery cities: urban diversity, process innovation, and the life cycle of
products’, American Economic Review, 91: 1454-1477.Eesley, C.E. and Miller, W.F. (2012) Impact: Stanford University’s Economic Impact via Innovation and
Entrepreneurship. Online. Available HTTP: <http://engineering.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Stanford_Alumni_Innovation_Survey_Report_102412_1.pdf> (22 August 2013).
Etzkowitz, H. (1983) ‘Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science’, Minerva, 21: 198-233.
18
Etzkowitz, H. (2003) Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy 32 (1): 109-121.
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000) ‘The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations’, Research Policy, 29: 109-123.
Feldman, M.P. (2001) ‘The Entrepreneurial Event Revisited: Firm Formation in a Regional Context’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10:861–891.
Feldman, M.P. and Avnimelech, G. (2011) ‘Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation – revisited: a 20 years’ perspective on geography of innovation’, in D.B. Audretsch, O. Falck, S. Heblich, S. and A. Lederer (eds) Handbook of Research on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 150-160.
Feldman, M.P., Francis, J., & Bercovitz, J (2005). ‘Creating a Cluster While Building a Firm: Entrepreneurs and the Formation of Industrial Clusters’, Regional Studies, 39: 129–141.
Feldman, M.P. and Kogler, D.F. (2010) ‘Stylized facts in the geography of innovation’, in B.H. Hall and N. Rosenberg (eds) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, vol 1, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 381-410.
Florida, R. and Kenney, M. (1988) ‘Venture capital-financed innovation and technological change in the USA’, Research Policy, 17: 119-137.
Fontes, M. and Coombs, R. (2001) ‘Contribution of new technology-based firms to the strengthening of technological capabilities in intermediate economies’, Research Policy, 30: 79-97.
Franzoni, C. and Lissoni, F. (2009) ‘Academic entrepreneurs: critical issues and lessons for Europe’, in A. Varga (ed.) Universities, Knowledge Transfer and Regional Development, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 163-190.
Goddard, J. (2011) Connecting Universities to Regional Growth: A Practical Guide, Brussels: European Commission, DG Regional Policy.
Goldstein, H.A. (2009) ‘What we know and what we don’t know about the regional economic impacts of universities’, in A. Varga (ed.) Universities, Knowledge Transfer and Regional Development, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 11-35.
Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D.S. and Wright, M. (2011) ‘30 years after Bayh-Dole: reassessing academic entrepreneurship’, Research Policy, 40: 1045-1057.
Harrison, R.T. and Leicht, C. (2010) ‘Voodoo institution or entrepreneurial university? Spin-off companies, the entrepreneurial system and regional development in the UK’, Regional Studies, 44: 1241-1262.
Hart, D.M. (ed.) (2003) The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hébert, R.F. and Link, A.N. (2006) ‘Historical perspectives on the entrepreneur’, Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2 (4): 261-408.
Hecker, D.E. (2005) ‘High-technology employment: a NAICS-based update’, Monthly Labor Review, 128 (7): 57-72.
Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A.A., Negro, S.O., Kuhlmann, S. and Smits, R.E.H.M. (2007) ‘Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74: 413-432.
Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Howells, J. (2002) ‘Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography’, Urban Studies, 39: 871-884.Howells, J. (2006) ‘Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation’, Research Policy, 35: 715-
728.Howells, J. (2012) ‘The geography of knowledge: never so close but never so far apart’, Journal of
Economic Geography, 12: 1003-1020.Howells, J., Ramlogan, R. and Cheng, S.-L. (2012) ‘Innovation and university collaboration: paradox and
complexity within the knowledge economy’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36: 703-721.Hsu, D.H., Roberts, E.B. and Eesley, C.E. (2007) ‘Entrepreneurs from technology-based universities:
evidence from MIT’, Research Policy, 36: 768-788.Iammarino, S. and McCann, P. (2006) ‘The structure and evolution of industrial clusters: transactions,
technology and knowledge spillovers’, Research Policy, 35: 1018-1036.James, A. (2005) ‘Demystifying the Role of Culture in Innovative Regional Economies’, Regional Studies,
39: 1197–1216.
19
James, A. (2007) ‘Everyday Effects, Practices and Causal Mechanisms of “Cultural Embeddedness”: Learning from Utah’s High Tech Regional Economy’. Geoforum, 38: 393–413.
Jensen, R., Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2003) ‘Disclosure and Licensing of University Innovations: `The Best We Can Do With the S**t We Get To Work With’, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21:1271–1300.
Johannisson, B., Alexanderson, O., Nowicki, K. and Senneseth, K. (1994) ‘Beyond anarchy and organization: entrepreneurs in contextual networks’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 6: 329-356.
Julien, P.-A. (2007) A Theory of Local Entrepreneurship in the Knowledge Economy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Karnani, F. (2013) ‘The university’s unknown knowledge: tacit knowledge, technology transfer and university spin-offs findings from an empirical study based on the theory of knowledge’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 38: 235-250.
Kenney, M. (2011) ‘How venture capital became a component of the US national system of innovation’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 20: 1677-1723.
Kenney, M. and Patton, D. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurial geographies: support networks in three high-technology industries’, Economic Geography, 81: 201-228.
Landström, H., Harirchi, G. and Astrom, F. (2012) ‘Entrepreneurship: exploring the knowledge base’, Research Policy, 41: 1154-1181.
Lawton Smith, H. (2008) ‘Inter-firm networks in high-tech clusters’, in C. Karlsson (ed.) Handbook of Research on Innovation and Clusters, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 107-123.
Lawton Smith, H. and Bagchi-Sen, S. (2012) ‘The research university, entrepreneurship and regional development: research propositions and current evidence’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24: 383-404.
Lechner, C. and Dowling, M. (2003) ‘Firm networks: external relationships as sources for the growth and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 15: 1-26.
Lee, S. M., & Peterson, S. (2000) ‘Culture, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Global Competitiveness’, Journal of World Business, 35:401–416.
Lendel, I. (2010) ‘The impact of research universities on regional economies: the concept of university products’, Economic Development Quarterly, 24: 210-230.
Lerner, J. (2005) ‘The university and the start-up: lessons from the past two decades’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 30: 49-56.
Licht, A. N., & Siegel, J. I. (2006) ‘The Social Dimension of Entrepreneurship’, in M. Casson, B. Yeung, A. Basu, & Wadeson N. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 511–539.
Link, A.N. and Scott, J.T. (2005) ‘Opening the ivory tower’s door: an analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies’, Research Policy, 34: 1106-1112.
Lundström, A. and Stevenson, L. (eds) (2005) Entrepreneurship Policy: Theory and Practice, Berlin: Springer.
Macdonald, S. and Deng, Y. (2004) ‘Science parks in China: a cautionary exploration’, International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 1: 1-14.
Malecki, E.J. (1997) ‘Entrepreneurs, networks, and economic development: a review of recent research’, in J.A. Katz (ed.) Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, vol. 3, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 57-118.
Malecki, E.J. (2009) ‘Geographical environments for entrepreneurship’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 7: 175-190.
Malecki, E.J. (2010) ‘Global knowledge and creativity: new challenges for firms and regions’, Regional Studies, 44: 1033-1052.
Malecki, E.J. (2011) ‘Technology clusters’, in P. Cooke (ed.) Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 315-329.
Manigart, S. and Sapienza, H.J. (2000) ‘Venture capital and growth’, in D.L. Sexton and H. Landström, eds. Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Oxford: Blackwell, 240-258.
Martin, B.R. (2012) ‘Are universities and university research under threat? Towards an evolutionary model of university speciation’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36: 543-565.
Martinelli, A., Meyer, M. and von Tunzelmann, N. (2008) ‘Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 33 (3): 259-283.
20
Mason, C. and Pierrakis, Y. (2013) ‘Venture capital, the regions and public policy: the United Kingdom since the post-2000 technology crash’, Regional Studies, 47: 1156-1171.
Mayer, H. (2007) ‘What is the role of the university in creating a high-technology region?’, Journal of Urban Technology, 14 (3): 33-58.
McKelvey, M. and Holmén, M. (2009) Learning to Compete in European Universities: From Social Institution to Knowledge Business, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
McSweeney, B. (2002) ‘Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith - a failure of analysis’, Human Relations, 55:89–118.
Miller, R. and Coté, M. (1987) Growing the Next Silicon Valley, Lexington MA: Lexington Books.Morris, M., & Schindehutte, M. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurial Values and the Ethnic Enterprise: An
Examination of Six Subcultures’, Journal of Small Business Management, 43: 453–479.Mosey, S. and Wright, M. (2007) ‘From human capital to social capital: a longitudinal study of
technology-based academic entrepreneurs’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31: 909-935.Moulaert, F. and Sekia, F. (2005) ‘Territorial innovation models: a critical survey’, Regional Studies, 37:
289-302.Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M.G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., Wright, M., Clarysse, B. and
Moray, N. (2006) ‘Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy’, Research Policy, 35: 293-308.
Mustar, P., Wright,M. and Clarysse, B. (2008) ‘University spin-off firms: lessons from ten years of experience in Europe’, Science and Public Policy, 35 (2): 67-80.
Nelson, A.J. (2012) ‘Putting university research in context: Assessing alternative measures of production and diffusion at Stanford’, Research Policy, 41: 678-691.
Nicolaou, N. and Birley, S. (2003) ‘Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 333-359.
Nijkamp, P. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurship in a modern network economy’, Regional Studies, 37: 395-405.Nilsson, A.S., Rickne, A. and Bengtsson, L. (2010) ‘Transfer of academic research: uncovering the grey
zone’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 35: 617-636.Oinas, P. and Malecki, E.J. (2002) ‘The evolution of technologies in time and space: from national and
regional to spatial innovation systems’, International Regional Science Review, 25: 102-131.O’Shea, R., Allen, T., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer
and spinoff performance of U.S. universities’, Research Policy, 34: 994–1009.Patton, D., & Kenney, M. (2005) ‘The Spatial Configuration of the Entrepreneurial Support Network for
the Semiconductor Industry’, R&D Management, 35:1–17. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geunae, A.,
Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A. and Sobrero, M. (2013) ‘Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations’, Research Policy, 42: 423-442.
Phan, P.H., Siegel, D.S. and Wright, M. (2005) ‘Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research’, Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 165-182.
Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B. and Nlemvo, F. (2003) ‘Toward a typology of university spin-offs’, Small Business Economics, 21: 359-369.
Poon, J., Hsu, J.-Y. and Jeongwook, S. (2006) ‘The geography of learning and knowledge acquisition among Asian latecomers’, Journal of Economic Geography, 6: 541-559.
Power, D. and Malmberg, A. (2008) ‘The contribution of universities to innovation and economic development: in what sense a regional problem?’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1: 233-245.
Probert, J., Connell, D. and Mina, A. (2013) ‘R&D service firms: the hidden engine of the high-tech economy?’, Research Policy, 42: 1274-1285.
Qian, H. and Acs, Z.J. (2013) ‘An absorptive capacity theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship’, Small Business Economics, 40: 185-197.
Qian, H., Acs, Z.J. and Stough, R.R. (2013) ‘Regional systems of entrepreneurship: the nexus of human capital, knowledge and new firm formation’, Journal of Economic Geography, 13: 559-587.
Radosevic, S. and Yoruk, E. (2013) ‘Entrepreneurial propensity of innovation systems: theory, methodology and evidence’, Research Policy, 42: 1015-1038.
Rappert, B., Webster, A. and Charles, D. (1999) ‘Making sense of diversity and reluctance: academic-industrial relations and intellectual property’, Research Policy, 28: 873-890.
21
Roberts, E.B. (1991) Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, E.B. and Eesley, C.E. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurial impact: the role of MIT — an updated report’, Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 7: 1-149.
Raghuram, P., & Strange, A. (2001) ‘Studying Economic Institutions, Placing Cultural Politics: Methodological Musings from a Study of Ethnic Minority Enterprise’, Geoforum, 32: 377–388.
Rothaermel, F.T., Agung, S.D. and Jian, L. (2007) ‘University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 16: 691-791.
Saxenian, A. (1994) Regional advantage: culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Saxenian, A. (2006) The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global Economy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schoales, J. (2006) ‘Alpha clusters: creative innovation in local economies’, Economic Development Quarterly, 20: 162-177.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Schoenberger, E. J. (1997) The cultural crisis of the firm. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Shane, S. A. (1992) ‘Why do some societies invent more than others?’, Journal of Business Venturing,
7:29–46. Shane, S. (1993) ‘Cultural Influences on National Rates of Innovation’, Journal of Business Venturing,
8:59–73.Shane, S. (2004) Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation, Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.Shearmur, R. (2012) ‘The geography of intrametropolitan KIBS innovation: distinguishing agglomeration
economies from innovation dynamics’, Urban Studies, 49: 2331-2356.Siegel, D.S. (2011) ‘The rise of university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship: managerial
and policy implications’, in D.B. Audretsch, O. Falck, S. Heblich and A. Lederer (eds) Handbook of Research on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 300-314.
Siegel, D.S., Wright, M. and Lockett, A. (2007) ‘The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: organizational and societal implications’. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16: 489-504.
Smilor, R., O’Donnell, N., Stein, G. and Wellborn, R.S. (2007) ‘The research university and the development of high-technology centers in the United States’, Economic Development Quarterly, 21: 202-222.
Stam, E. and Nooteboom, B. (2011) Entrepreneurship, innovation and institutions, in D.B. Audretsch, O. Falck, S. Heblich and A. Lederer (eds) Handbook of Research on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 421-438.
Steyaert, C., & Jerome, K. (2004) ‘Reclaiming the Space of Entrepreneurship in Society: Geographical, Discursive and Social Dimensions’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 16: 179–196.
St. John, C.H. and Pouder, R.W. (2006) ‘Technology clusters versus industry clusters: resources, networks, and regional advantages’, Growth and Change, 37: 141-171.
Steiner, M. (2011) ‘Regional knowledge networks’, in P. Cooke (ed.) Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 222-233.
Stoneman, P. (2010) Soft Innovation: Economics, Product Aesthetics, and the Creative Industries, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Szerb, L.A., Acs, Z. and Autio, E. (2013) ‘Entrepreneurship and policy: the national system of entrepreneurship in the European Union and in its member countries’, Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 3: 9-34.
Tan, J. (2002) ‘Culture, Nation, and Entrepreneurial Strategic Orientations: Implications for an Emerging Economy’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26: 96–111.
Tödtling, F. and Trippl, M. (2013) ‘Transformation of regional innovation systems: from old legacies to new development paths’, in P. Cooke (ed.) Re-Framing Regional Development, London: Routledge, 297-317.
Uyarra, E. (2010) ‘Conceptualizing the regional roles of universities, implications and contradictions’, European Planning Studies, 18: 1227-1246.
Uyarra, E. and Flanagan, K. (2010) ‘From regional systems of innovation to regions as innovation policy spaces’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28: 681-695.
22
van Geenhuizen, M. and Soetanto, D.P. (2008) ‘Science parks: what they are and how they need to be evaluated’, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 4: 90-111.
van Geenhuizen, M. and Soetanto, D.P. (2009) ‘Academic spin-offs at different ages: A case study in search of key obstacles to growth’, Technovation, 29: 671-681.
Van Oort, F.G. and Bosma, N.S. (2013) ‘Agglomeration economies, inventors and entrepreneurs as engines of European regional economic development’, Annals of Regional Science, 51: 213-244.
Vohora, A., Wright, M. and Lockett, A. (2004) ‘Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies’, Research Policy, 33: 147-175.
Wilkinson, B. (1996) ‘Culture, Institutions and Business in South Asia’, Organization Studies, 17: 421–447.
Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P. and Lockett, A. (2007) Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J. and Davidsson, P. (2006) ‘Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: a review, model and research agenda’, Journal of Management Studies, 43: 917-955.
Zhang, J. (2007) ‘Access to venture capital and the performance of venture-backed start-ups in Silicon Valley’, Economic Development Quarterly, 21: 124-147.
Zider, B. (1998) ‘How venture capital works’, Harvard Business Review, 76 (6): 131-139.Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., Furner, J., Liu, R.C. and Ma, H. (2007) ‘Minerva unbound: knowledge stocks,
knowledge flows and new knowledge production’, Research Policy, 36: 850-863.Zukin, S., & DiMaggio, P. (1990) ‘Introduction’, in S. Zukin & DiMaggio P. (eds.), Structures of Capital:
The Social Organization of the Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-38.
23