The Cultural Governance of Entrepreneurial
Ecosystems
Ben Spigela
Chancellor’s Fellow
University of Edinburgh Business School
ben.spigel@ed.ac.uk
a
Abstract: Entrepreneurial ecosystems have emerged as a popular concept to explain the
continued ability of regions to produce innovation-based startups. However, our understanding
of how ecosystems influence entrepreneurs remains vague, decreasing the usefulness of the
concept in academic and policy debates. This paper argues that ecosystems are composed of
mutually dependent cultural, social, and material attributes. This framework is used to explore
the entrepreneurial ecosystems of Calgary and Waterloo, Canada. Though both cities enjoy high
rates of technology entrepreneurship, Calgary’s entrepreneurial ecosystem is weaker than
Waterloo’s due to the lack of a strong entrepreneurial culture that normalizes entrepreneurial
networking and cooperation.
Keywords: Entrepreneurial ecosystem, geography, institutions, culture, policy
1. INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurial ecosystems (also known as entrepreneurial environments) have become
an important tool in the study of the geography of high-growth and innovative entrepreneurship.
Ecosystems are the combination of supportive cultural outlooks, dense social networks,
accessible investment capital, organizations like incubation centres and universities, and active
economic policies within a region that help to create regional environments that support the
development and growth of high-risk, innovation-based ventures. They are seen within the
academic (Feldman et al., 2005; Malecki, 2009), policy (Isenberg, 2010; World Economic
Forum, 2013) and popular literature (Feld, 2012; Hwang and Horowitt, 2012) as a critical tool
for developing resilient and growing regional economies. But despite its importance research on
ecosystems remains under-developed and under-theorized. In its current state, ecosystems
represent more of a conceptual umbrella encompassing a variety of different perspectives on the
geography of entrepreneurship rather than a cogent theory about the emergence of sustainable
communities of technology entrepreneurs. There is the implicit assumption within much of the
ecosystems literature that regions with high rates of entrepreneurship have successful ecosystems
while those with lower rates suffer from ineffective or non-existent ecosystems. This leads to a
tendency amongst policy makers to copy best practices from thriving ecosystems without regard
the underlying local social and cultural attributes on which their success depends (Harrison and
Leitch, 2010). Part of this problem stems from the fact that while previous work on
entrepreneurial ecosystems has focused on specific cultural, economic, and policy elements but
has largely ignored the interdependencies between these attributes and how they influence the
entrepreneurship process.
To address this gap, this article investigates the types of attributes that constitute
entrepreneurial ecosystems, the relationships between them, and how they influence regional
entrepreneurial processes. Through a qualitative examination of technology entrepreneurship in
1
Calgary and Waterloo, Canada the paper draws a distinction between ‘munificent’ and ‘arid’
ecosystems based on the strength of the interrelationships between the their internal attributes.
This offers a broader perspective of ecosystems that allows us to theorize about their
development and role in regional economies. The paper argues that identifying the underlying
attributes of ecosystems and how they influence the actions of entrepreneurs and other actors is
the first step in developing a cogent theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
The following section discusses recent developments in the study of entrepreneurial
ecosystems and their connections with other investigations into the geography of
entrepreneurship. Section three provides an overview of the different attributes of ecosystems
that have been identified in previous research and discusses the role of their mutual
interrelationships. Section four introduces the empirical examination of the entrepreneurial
ecosystems of Calgary and Waterloo as well as the qualitative methodologies used to study them
followed the empirical results from two cases. Section five concludes by suggesting a research
agenda for entrepreneurial ecosystems built around the attributes identified in the paper.
2. THE STRUCTURE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEMS
2.1 The Context of Ecosystem Research
Entrepreneurial ecosystems are combinations of social, political, economic, and cultural
elements within a region that support the development and growth of innovative startups and
encourage nascent entrepreneurs and other actors to take the risks of starting, funding, and
otherwise supporting high-risk ventures. As originally defined by Dubini (1989) ecosystems (or
as she called them, environments) are characterized by the presence of family businesses and
role models, a diverse economy, a strong business infrastructure, available investment capital, a
supportive entrepreneurial culture, and public polices that incentivize venture creation. Others,
such as Spilling (1996), Neck et al. (2004), and Kenney and Patton (2005) have highlighted
features such as skilled workers, support services such as lawyers and accountants specializing in
the needs of new ventures, and large local firms to act as talent attractors and spinoff generators.
More recent work by Isenberg (2010) and groups such as the World Economic Forum (2013) and
Startup Genome (2012) have argued that accessible local and international markets, available
human capital and financing, mentorship and support systems, robust regulatory frameworks,
and major universities are the most important pillars of an ecosystem.
The ecosystems literature developed out of studies of regions with long histories of
supporting and incubating large numbers of successful technology startups such as Silicon
Valley in the US (Leslie and Argon, 1996). Such work frequently cites the importance of a
supportive culture in fostering this continued entrepreneurial success (e.g. Feldman 2001;
Lafuente, et al., 2007; Mayer 2012). The success of these regions is not the result of one event or
person but rather several interlocking factors such as educational systems, role models, cultural
outlooks, and supportive political regimes. Saxenian’s (1994) work on the of the contrasting
economic trajectories of Boston and Silicon Valley has been particularly influential, describing
how Silicon Valley’s ‘open culture’ encouraged inter-firm cooperation and knowledge sharing
while Boston’s ‘closed’ culture created insulated companies that were unable to keep up with the
fast changing computer industry of the 1980s. This highlights both the importance of supportive
cultural outlooks as well as the consequences of different cultural beliefs that decrease trust,
cooperation, and knowledge sharing within a community (James, 2005; Staber, 2007). As
Malecki (2009) argues, we should also examine the social, cultural, and economic factors of less
successful regions in order to better understand the internal processes of entrepreneurial systems.
2
However, while the geographic milieu in which entrepreneurship takes place is
recognized as an important influence on the nature of the local entrepreneurship process and the
resulting structure of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, the ways in which these contexts emerge
and influence the practices of entrepreneurs and other actors remains unclear (Mason and Brown,
2014). Thus, while there is a general agreement that the geography of entrepreneurship is
important (e.g. Thorton and Flynn, 2003; Steyaert and Katz 2004; Trettin and Welter, 2011)
there is less consensus about how the overall geographic environment affect entrepreneurship
and its implications for the development of regional policies and economic trajectories (Spigel,
2013). A better understanding of the attributes that make up an ecosystem and their relationship
to the underlying regional culture is necessary in order to study how ecosystems influence the
actions of entrepreneurial actors.
2.2 The Attributes of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
Despite the growth in academic and policy research there is no clear consensus on what
constitutes a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem. Failed attempts to build new ‘Silicon Valleys’
through investments in new incubation centres or publicly funded venture funds suggest that the
attributes of ecosystems do not promote entrepreneurship in isolation but their benefits are
created through mutually supportive interactions and relationships (Lerner, 2009). Few
researchers however, with exceptions such as Spilling (1996), Harrison and Leitch (2010), and
Feldman (2014), have noted the mutual dependence between the elements of an ecosystem. It is
difficult to understand how entrepreneurial ecosystems emerge within regions and evolve in
response to both internal entrepreneurial dynamics and external economic and social shocks
without understanding the role of these relationships.
A survey of the literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems reveal ten types of attributes that
are commonly cited as important characteristics of successful entrepreneurial ecosystems (see
Table 1). These are: (1) a supportive culture which encourages entrepreneurship; (2) a regional
history of entrepreneurship and the presence of successful entrepreneurs; (3) accessible pools of
skilled workers; (4) availability of investment capital in the form of angel investors and venture
capitalists; (4) strong social networks between entrepreneurs, investors, and other entrepreneurial
actors; (5) role models, mentors and dealmakers with high social capital who can advise
entrepreneurs and build networks within the community; (6) policies and government
organizations that support and train entrepreneurs; (7) research universities that provide
knowledge spillovers to the surrounding community; (8) support services such as incubation
facilities as well as lawyers and accountants accustomed to dealing with the unique needs of
startups; (9) physical infrastructure such as available office space and telecommunication
facilities; and (10) open markets free of regulatory barriers and which provide opportunities for
new ventures.
These attributes can be aggregated into three broad categories: cultural, social, and
material. Cultural attributes are the underlying beliefs and outlooks about entrepreneurship.
Aoyama (2009 p. 500) argues that regional cultures influence “entrepreneurial rationality by
shaping acceptable entrepreneurial practices and norms.” Cultural beliefs normalize outlooks
about entrepreneurship, for instance making it seem a standard part of a person’s career path or
something only to undertaken when no other options are available (Kibler et al., Forthcoming).
Regional histories of successful entrepreneurship and prominent examples of local
entrepreneurial success stories help normalize venture creation and encourage potential
entrepreneurs to take the risk of starting new firms through prominent local success stories
3
(Nelles et al., 2005). An ecosystem’s cultural attributes therefore represent underlying beliefs
about entrepreneurship within a region, including its inherent purpose, rewards, and risks.
Table 1: Commonly Cited Attributes of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
Type of
Attribute
Attribute
Description
Examples
Cultural
Supportive Culture
Cultural attitudes which support and normalize entrepreneurial
activities, risk taking, and innovation.
Aoyama (2009); Feldman (2001);
Julian, 2007
Histories of
Entrepreneurship
Prominent local example of successful entrepreneurial ventures.
Nelles et al. (2005); Feld (2012)
Worker Talent
Presence of skilled workers who are willing to work at startups.
Arruda et al (2014); Audretsch et
al. (2011); Bahrami and Evans,
1995; Harrison and Leitch (2010)
Investment Capital
Availability of investment capital from family and friends, angel
investors, and venture capitalists.
Borgh et al (2012); Kenney and
Patton (2005); Malecki (2009)
Networks
Presence of social networks that connect entrepreneurs, advisors, Dubani (1989); Malecki (1997);
investors, and workers and that allow the free flow of knowledge Neck et al (2004)
and skills.
Mentors and Role
Models
Local Successful entrepreneurs and business people who provide Feld (2012); Kenney and Patton
advice for younger entrepreneurs
(2005); World Economic Forum
(2013)
Policy and Governance
State-run programs or regulations that either support
entrepreneurship through direct funding or remove barriers to
new venture creation
Arruda et al. 2014; Borgh et al.,
2012; Isenberg, 2012
Universities
Universities and other higher education institutions which both
train new entrepreneurs and produce new knowledge spillovers
Audretsch et al. (2011); Dubani
(1989); Feldman et al. (2005);
Wolfe (2005)
Support Services
Firms and organizations that provide ancillary services to new
ventures, e.g. patent lawyers, incubators, or accountancies.
Kenney and Patton (2005); Patton
and Kenney (2005); Startup
Genome (2012)
Physical Infrastructure
Availability of sufficient office space, telecommunication
facilities, and transportation infrastructure to enable venture
creation and growth.
Audretsch et al. (2011); Mack and
Rey (2014)
Open Markets
Presence of sufficient local opportunities to enable venture
creation and unimpeded access to global markets.
Spilling (1996); World Economic
Forum (2013)
Social
Material
Social attributes refer broadly to resources and support accessed through the social
networks of entrepreneurs, investors, workers, or advisors. Social networks themselves have long
been acknowledged as critical for successful entrepreneurship, as entrepreneurs use their social
networks and capital to gather knowledge about the market place and new technologies, acquire
resources such as investment capital and access to markets (Greve and Salaff 2003; Nijkamp
2003; Patel and Conklin, 2009). Networks tend to be locally focused with the densest and
strongest ties developed within the entrepreneur’s home region (Rutten et al., 2010). Networks of
investors, ranging from friends and family to more organized angel investors and venture
capitalists, are key to enabling entrepreneurial growth within a region because investors typically
use their own social networks to identify and appraise new investment opportunities (Shane and
Cable, 2002). This dependence on networks creates a concentrated geography of financial
investment, with angels and venture capitalists tending to invest in the regions in which they are
located (Christienson 2007).
Mentors also play a central role in supporting younger entrepreneurs by providing
guidance and helping them avoid many of the common pitfalls associated with starting and
growing a new firm (Ozgen and Baron, 2007; Bosma et al., 2012). The presence of mentors
helps to increase the rate of new firm formation within regions and reduce rates of firm failure
(Lafuente et al., 2007). Much like investors, mentors connect with entrepreneurs through their
4
personal networks, meaning they are more likely to advise local entrepreneurs than those outside
their home region. Feldman and Zoller (2012, see also Feldman 2014) emphasize the importance
of ‘dealmakers,’ actors with high levels of social capital and connections that actively build
strong networks within regions and assist entrepreneurs connect with the network-based
resources they need to grow. The importance of a skilled workforce in entrepreneurship-based
regional economies is well documented (Feldman, 2001; Malecki, 2009; Audrestch et al., 2011).
This includes both technical workers as well as experienced managers who can join the boards of
startups and help them grow (World Economic Forum, 2013). However, the mere presence of
these employees is not enough: they must have a similar tolerance for risk as entrepreneurs in
order for them to thrive in jobs characterized by little job security, longer work hours, and lower
initial pay. Entrepreneurs face increased challenges in regions where workers are unaccustomed
to the unique expectations of working at startups (Spigel, 2011).
The material attributes of an ecosystem are those with a tangible presence. This presence
can be a physical location, such as with universities or infrastructure, or formalized rules like
entrepreneurial policies and well-regulated markets. Universities are one of the most discussed
attributes of ecosystems, prized for their ability to generate new knowledge, spin-off firms and to
train highly skilled workers and entrepreneurs (Krichhoff et al., 2007). Academic entrepreneurs
hold the promise of revolutionizing markets by commercializing laboratory innovations, though
the most important functions of universities is in training the next generation of technologists,
scientists, and entrepreneurs (Wolfe, 2005) Support services, both in the form of accounting,
legal, and marketing firms specializing in the needs of startups and who provide discounts or
service-for-equity schemes as well as publicly-funded entrepreneurial support organizations and
incubation facilities, supply ancillary services to startups and help entrepreneurs navigate the
complex commercial challenges of starting, growing, and exiting small, innovative firms
(Kenney and Patton, 2005; Patton and Kenney, 2005; Totterman and Stern, 2005). While the role
of physical infrastructure in entrepreneurial ecosystems is less studied than other attributes, the
presence of sufficient office space, telecommunications facilities, and transportation connections
provide space for firms to grow and tap into global markets (Neck et al., 2010; Audrestch et al.
2011; Mack and Rey, 2014). Polices and markets are less ‘material’ in the sense that they do not
have a physical location, but instead materialize through the rules and regulations enacted
through state power. Policies represent laws and directives that create publicly funded support
programs designed to encourage entrepreneurship through tax benefits, investment of public
funds, or reductions in bureaucratic regulation (Huggins and Williams, 2011). Open markets
refer both to the lack of legal barriers to opening a firm as well as the presence of sufficient
economic opportunities to support multiple entrepreneurial endeavours (Spilling, 1996; World
Economic Forum, 2013).
3.2 Relationships Between Ecosystem Attributes
The cultural, social, and material attributes of an ecosystem do not exist in isolation;
rather they develop and work in concert with one another. Cultural attributes can be seen as the
‘foundation’ of an ecosystem because they influence the basic attitudes and outlooks towards
entrepreneurship. Actors’ underlying beliefs about the legitimacy of entrepreneurship as a career
choice and the wider social status of entrepreneurship within the community affect their desire to
engage in venture creation or their willingness to support the entrepreneurial endeavours of
others (Liñan et al., 2011; Spigel, 2013). By normalizing support for entrepreneurship within the
larger community an ecosystem’s cultural attributes create a context through which supportive
social attributes can emerge. Supportive cultural values can encourage nascent entrepreneurs to
5
start a firm, successful entrepreneurs and experienced business people to dedicate time towards
networking and mentoring, skilled workers to join startups, and high net-worth individuals to
consider investing in them. This contributes to the formation of denser and richer networks
between entrepreneurs, investors, and advisors. The legitimation of entrepreneurship within the
local culture generates a context in which the social attributes of an ecosystem can emerge and
flourish.
The presence of thriving social elements in an ecosystem foster a context in which the
material attributes can have a significant positive impact on the entrepreneurship process.
Entrepreneurship, innovation and technology transfer policies frequently fail without suitable
social institutions within the wider community to support them (Hughes, 2007). Policies
designed to encourage entrepreneurship through training, public funding, or incubators struggle
in the absence of an underlying community of other entrepreneurs, advisors, and workers to
support these new programs and the new ventures they create. Similarly, it is difficult to develop
networks of firms that provide support services for startups in the absence of supportive cultural
and social attributes that encourage non-entrepreneurs to help smaller ventures. The presence of
thriving material ecosystem attributes therefore depend on strong social attributes like networks
of entrepreneurs, investors, and workers, which in turn require a preexisting supportive culture to
develop.
However, the relationship between attributes in an ecosystem is not necessarily a
hierarchy of ‘lower’ elements supporting ‘higher’ ones. The development and success of
material attributes can reinforce social attributes, in turn strengthening the underlying cultural
attributes (see Figure 1). Economic development agencies or entrepreneurial support
organizations can play an important role in fostering networks of entrepreneurs and raising the
profile of successful local startups. This encourages new actors to engage in networking
activities, increasing the amount of financial, technical, and mentorship resources within local
social networks. Strong sets of social attributes such as networks, mentors, and investment
capital within a region then help to reinforce and reproduce the ecosystem’s pre-existing culture
by normalizing these practices and creating new stories of successful entrepreneurship that enter
in the region’s history.
6
Figure 1: Relationships Between Ecosystem Attributes
The relationships between the three types of attributes help distinguish strong
‘munificent’ entrepreneurial ecosystem from weaker ‘arid’ ecosystems. Munificent ecosystems
feature supportive feedback loops between the three categories of attributes, with each
strengthening and reproducing the others. This helps to develop a resilient entrepreneurial
economy that can respond to external shocks and internal economic and social changes. Thus,
ecosystems are not defined by their current high or low rates of entrepreneurial activity but rather
the extent to which they possess a self-sustaining economic, social, and cultural environment that
promotes entrepreneurship over the long term. While arid ecosystems can have high rates of
startup activity, the lack of connections between the ecosystem’s attributes means that the
regional economy is vulnerable to shocks like the loss of a major employer or market.
Entrepreneurial ecosystems are more than regions with high rates of innovative or growth
oriented entrepreneurship. They are complex systems which encourage particular activities such
as entrepreneurship, risk taking, investment, and networking and which are reproduced by both
the conscious efforts of dealmakers and policy officials as well as through the daily activities of
entrepreneurs, workers, and investors. Understanding the influence of entrepreneurial ecosystems
7
on regional economic trajectories therefore requires an examination of how these attributes form,
evolve, and influence both one another as well as the actions of entrepreneurial actors.
4. ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEMS IN CALGARY AND WATERLOO, CANADA
4.1 Case Study Selection
The study of entrepreneurial ecosystems, and of entrepreneurial geographies more
generally, is bifurcated between quantitative methodologies which seek to identify beneficial
entrepreneurial environments amongst a large number of regions (e.g. Feldman and Zoller, 2012;
Qian et al., 2013) and qualitative studies that attempt to examine the underlying processes that
underlie particular ecosystems (e.g. Aoyama, 2009). While both perspectives are necessary, case
study based approaches are well suited to study the complex array of localized factors that
constitute an ecosystem. The goal of such studies is to use the experiences of actors within an
ecosystem to understand how their entrepreneurial practices and outlooks are affected by the
dynamics of the ecosystem and how these practices and outlooks in turn have affected how the
ecosystem functions. A comparative approach highlights features within particular ecosystems in
order to better show which are unique to the region and which are more standardized parts of the
entrepreneurship phenomena and Schumpeterian innovative capitalism. The present study adopts
Peron and Ram’s (2004) ‘multiple stories milieu’ approach in order to explore how
entrepreneurial actors develop their practices within their larger regional contexts and how this
affects the structure of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The cases of Calgary, Alberta and Waterloo, Ontario (part of the larger KitchenerWaterloo-Cambridge census metropolitan area) are a useful comparison to understand the
consequences of the differing relationships between ecosystem attributes. Both cities are centres
of high-tech entrepreneurship, ranking first and second, respectfully, in a study of Canadian
technology entrepreneurship (Pennington, 2009). As shown in Table 2, both cities perform much
better than the Canadian average in terms of their human capital, GDP per capita, and size of
venture capital investments. The lower rates of self-employment in Waterloo are due to the
region’s comparatively large industrial sector and belie the high rates of technology startup
activity in the region. Despite the differences in size they have many points in common which
make them a useful comparison. Each city is home to leading research universities (the
University of Calgary and the University of Waterloo), headquarters of locally founded global
technology firms (SMART Technologies in Calgary, a smart whiteboard company and
Blackberry, the smartphone company formally known as RIM, in Waterloo), public
entrepreneurship support programs, and large pools of skilled workers and investment capital. As
Calgary and Waterloo are smaller and less culturally diverse than larger urban centres like
Toronto, Montréal, or Vancouver, it is easier to identify specifically regional cultural
characteristics, increasing the reliability of the comparison.
KitchenerWaterloo
Calgary
Canada
477,160
1,096,833
33,476,688
Self-Employment Rate (%)
8.55%
11.29%
11.02%
Labour force in natural and applied science
occupations (%)
8.87%
11.91%
7.16%
Population with bachelor’s degree or higher
(%)
21.65%
28.82%
20.85%
Population
8
KitchenerWaterloo
Calgary
Canada
Bachelors degrees or higher in STEM fields
(%)
11.60%
15.14%
9.82%
GDP per capita (2007 dollars)
$50,161
$73,151
$45,704
93
196
6004
$1,979,297
$2,866,391
$239,583
19.49
17.87
17.93
Number of VC investments 2000 - 2011
Average size of VC investment, 2000-2011
(2007 dollars)
VC investments per 100,000 residents (20002011)
Source: Statistics Canada (2011); Conference Board of Canada (2012); Thompson Reuters
(2013)
Table 2: Demographic and Economic Data for Waterloo and Calgary
4.2 Qualitative Methodology
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 71 technology entrepreneurs, investors,
and economic development officials between 2010 and 2012 (see Table 3). Interviews focused
on respondents’ views of their region’s entrepreneurial community and how it has affected the
practices they used to start, run, and grow new ventures. In order to avoid a bias towards the
founders of larger and more successful startups, a random pool of technology firms younger than
20 years old was constructed using Scotts Business Directory, a Canadian firm directory.1 After
eliminating firms that did not sell a technological product, subsidiaries of larger firms, and where
the founder had left, 83 firms were contacted for interviews in Calgary and 84 in Waterloo,
leading to 28 (33.7%) and 23 (27.3%) entrepreneur interviews, respectively. Interviews were
conducted until data saturation occurred.
Waterloo
Entrepreneurs
Calgary Total
23
28
51
Investors
5
5
10
Economic Development Officials
4
6
10
32
39
71
Total
Table 3: Type and Location of Interviews
1
Firms from the following industries were included in the sample: Computer and peripheral equipment
manufacturing; Software publishers; Data processing, hosting and related services; Computer systems design and
related services; Other scientific and technical consulting services; Engineering services.
9
5. THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES IN ARID AND MUNIFICENT
ECOSYSTEMS
5.1’Arid’ Ecosystem in Calgary, Alberta
Calgary has undergone a profound economic transformation as a result of the extraction
of Alberta’s natural gas and petroleum reserves. The discovery of nearby natural gas deposits in
the early 1900s and the later development of the Athabasca Tar Sands in Northern Alberta in the
last two decades helped build Calgary from a small frontier town to a command and control
centre for Canada’s resource sector and associated finance and support services (Chastko, 2004).
All of Canada’s ten largest energy firms are headquartered in Calgary and the city’s financial
industry has begun to displace Toronto as the gateway for investment into Canada’s resource
sector. One of Canada’s largest entrepreneurial communities has developed around this
economic engine: nearly 12% of Calgary’s population is self-employed, the highest rate in
Canada (Statistics Canada, 2012).
Many of the region’s technology startups are oriented towards the energy industry, which
interviewees saw as rich in entrepreneurial opportunities and more focused on speed of product
development rather than price. As the founder of a software firm serving this industry said:
“They weren't interested in saving money, they were only interested in getting it done. How
much money isn't an issue” (C103). Other interviewees generally concurred with this view, with
one investor saying, “A lot of technology [entrepreneurship] happens here. I think that 10 or 11%
of the population is employed in the technology sector, but 99.5% of that is in technology for oil
and gas.” (C135) Indeed, the oil and gas sector was the primary market for 17 of the 28 (68%)
entrepreneurs interviewed in Calgary. This suggests that the oil and gas market within Calgary
plays a critical role in the region’s entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The cultural foundation of Calgary’s entrepreneurial ecosystem is strongly influenced by
the organizational culture of the oil and gas industry. The cultural outlooks of the industry are
almost hegemonic within the region. As early as the 1980s, House (1980 p. 2) argued: “oil
dominates the economic and social life of the city”. More recently, Langford et al. (2010) quote a
successful Calgarian entrepreneur as saying: “This is an oil and gas town” (p. 3). The discourses
of cowboys and roughnecks have contributed to a local culture that emphasizes the pursuit of
wealth rather than the social prestige of building an advanced technology or stable enterprise.
These cultural attitudes create higher social rewards for personal wealth than it does for
technological or business achievements, such as being featured in a technology magazine like
Wired or creating an internationally recognized business. These views are common within the
region’s economy, affecting business practices in both large and small firms (Miller, 2002). In
essence, interviews suggest that the region’s culture places a higher value of the economic
rewards of entrepreneurship than on the social value of building a company, developing an
advanced technology, or being one’s own boss.
These cultural outlooks have a profound influence on the nature of the ecosystem’s social
and material attributes. This is most apparent when looking at interviewees’ attachment to
entrepreneurship. Because of the importance of creating wealth within the region’s culture, most
entrepreneurs structured their firms to grow as quickly as possible and positioned themselves for
an eventual buyout offer from a larger firm rather than for long-term sustainability. 12 of the 28
(42%) interviewed entrepreneurs in Calgary were categorized as ‘profit-oriented’ because they
had structured the firm to maximize their short-term personal profit rather than long term
sustainability, compared to 1 of 23 entrepreneurs (4%) in Waterloo (𝛘2 = 7.936, p < .01). The
visible presence of other startups that achieved profitable exits provides many examples for new
10
entrepreneurs about the viability of profit-oriented entrepreneurship. In the words of one
entrepreneur in the resource sector: “...especially [in] the gas business, these little firms get
bought up, merged, and some of them bail, but most get merged and their assets get bought by a
bigger fish...that’s just the nature of the oil business.” (C104)
As a result, few interviewees reported strong connections to their firms or to
entrepreneurship in general. One entrepreneur reported that he had “created something that
someone wants to buy, [but] I’ve got no emotional attachment to it. It's just a company... If
someone today came and gave me an offer on [my firm], I'd be gone tomorrow. No emotional
ties to this stuff what so ever.” (C127) Another said: “I wouldn't say that I dreamed about
[entrepreneurship], but I also wouldn't say that I saw myself as doing a 9-to-5 employee gig for
the rest of my life. I think it was sort of a preference, but it wasn't central to my being that I must
be an entrepreneur, that I must start a business.” (C119) Other entrepreneurs reported selling
more than 50% of their firms’ equity to investors, effectively giving up control of the firm in
order enable faster growth. This suggests a lowered social status of entrepreneurship within the
local culture, where the outcome (windfall profits from exiting the venture) is seen as more
important than the overall entrepreneurial experience. Such outlooks contribute to a situation
where there are fewer experienced serial entrepreneurs or independent startups to act as role
models, reducing the capacity of the ecosystem to produce both direct mentors to advise new
entrepreneurs or inspirational exemplars to motivate potential founders to take the risks of
starting their own firm. Economic development officials in Calgary corroborated this view, with
one saying: “We don’t have the RIMs,” meaning that there is no great startup success stories in
the region to encourage entrepreneurs in the region (C107).
The low value placed on entrepreneurship within Calgary’s ecosystem negatively
affected the willingness of employees to work at startups. Almost all interviewees reported that
they could not compete with the high salaries and other fringe benefits offered by the major oil
companies. The founder of an e-learning startup said: “Two days ago we had a new employee
who spent one day here and said he got a better offer,” (C110) while an another entrepreneur
outside the resource industry complained: “It’s energy, energy, energy [in Calgary]. If you’re
doing tech or you’re a designer or a programmer, if you’re motivated by money it’s great. If
you’re motivated by doing something a little bit different or creative it might not be as good of a
fit.” (C121) Workers’ focus on wages suggests they also shared the perception of the lower
social prestige for working at an innovative startup compared to a larger energy firm, reducing
the number of potential employees willing to work in startups.
Furthermore, the focus on the economic gains of entrepreneurship over the social status
of building a successful firm or technology affected the propensity of entrepreneurs to develop
strong social ties with other entrepreneurs, limiting the effectiveness of social networks within
the ecosystem. Most respondents expressed little desire to share advice or learn from the
experiences of other entrepreneurs. Only 46% of interviewed entrepreneurs in Calgary reported
seeking advice about the running business from family and friends, compared to 70% in
Waterloo (�2 = 3.638, p < .1). Entrepreneurs in Calgary typically thought it was more important
to build their networks within the oil and gas industry, which many saw as an “old-boys
network,” (C129) rather than with other local entrepreneurs. On the whole, interviewees reported
frequently engaging in networking activities to keep abreast of new developments in the
marketplace and find new clients, but that they spent little time meeting with other entrepreneurs
to develop new their business skills. This suggests that while entrepreneurs do actively network,
11
their focus is on finding new clients rather than meeting other entrepreneurs and sharing advice
and support with them.
These outlooks towards networking contribute to the ineffectiveness of the ecosystem’s
entrepreneurship support programs and other material attributes. While Innovate Calgary (a
publicly funded startup incubation facility and entrepreneurial support organization) runs
entrepreneurship training and networking programs, none of the interviewed entrepreneurs —
even tenants of Innovate Calgary’s incubation centre — reported participating in them. Nor did
interviewees regularly participate in networking events hosted by the city’s Chamber of
Commerce or the University of Calgary. As one entrepreneur explained: “there’s been quite a
few different entrepreneurship groups, but what I have found is that most of them are there
because they think they’re going to get a chance to meet potential clients. What it ends up being
is a bunch of people like themselves.” (C104) Another characterized them as “breakfast clubs
where an unsuccessful car salesman and an unsuccessful relator and an unsuccessful insurance
salesmen would get together for breakfast once a week.” (C127)
The local market is the most important attribute of Calgary’s ecosystem: large energy and
natural resources firms are a constant source of new opportunities for startups. As one
entrepreneur put it: “If you live in Calgary, and you want to make money, you should be in
energy.” (C119) Calgary’s high rates of entrepreneurship and self-employment are almost
entirely based around this industry and the large and open market for energy services is the main
force behind its entire entrepreneurial ecosystem. However, the culture of this industry has
contributed to an undervaluing of certain entrepreneurial activities within the region’s underlying
culture, such as building networks with other entrepreneurs, focusing the firm on innovation
rather than quick growth, or working for startups rather than large corporations. As a result, there
is less support for material attributes of the ecosystem such as networking events or training to
improve entrepreneurial skills. The absence of such programs contributes to the lowered
importance of entrepreneurship within in the ecosystem.
5.2 ‘Munificent’ Ecosystem in Waterloo, Ontario
Waterloo, Ontario, a city-region approximately 110 kilometers west of Toronto, is
commonly seen as one of the major hubs of Canadian technology entrepreneurship. The presence
of major firms such as Blackberry and the University of Waterloo, one of the world’s leading
computer science and engineering universities, have contributed to the development of a regional
economy propelled by a strong entrepreneurial ecosystem. This ecosystem is characterized by
supportive relationships between its cultural, social, and material attributes; the presence of
several active entrepreneurial support agencies help encourage and strengthen local networks of
entrepreneurs, mentors, and workers and help publicize entrepreneurial success stories, which
reproduces and reinforces the region’s underlying entrepreneurial culture.
Many observers connect this ecosystem with an entrepreneurial culture dating back to the
region’s founding by Mennonite farmers and German immigrants in the 19th century (Bramwell
et al., 2008). While the reality of this connection is questionable, waves of German migrants to
the region throughout the early 20th century helped create a thriving industrial economy that was
instrumental in the founding of the University of Waterloo in 1957 as a polytechnic university
intended to supply local firms with skilled engineers (Scott, 1967; Bathelt and Spigel, 2011). As
a result, the university has had an applied, entrepreneurial outlook that lead to the creation of
features such as a mandatory co-op program in which students spend several semesters working
at firms and acting as conduits for knowledge spillovers and an intellectual property regime in
which faculty and students own the rights their innovations. These factors have led to to high
12
rates of research spinoffs and academic entrepreneurship (Eastwood, 1987; Kenney and Patton,
2011). A similar culture has developed throughout the larger region that supports entrepreneurial
risk taking and provides entrepreneurs and related actors with a great deal of social prestige. In
the words of a local economic development officer: “[entrepreneurship] is a part of our
DNA…entrepreneurs matter. It’s a badge of honour.” (W101). Numerous interviewees discussed
how an entrepreneurial ethos permeates the community and how, in the words of one
entrepreneur: “...we’re just so lucky that everyone is prepared to share and be involved and that
there’s a bunch of structured mentoring and networking and there’s a ton of informal stuff that
just happens that people just take care of each other in the region.” (W115).
This culture is based around two pillars. The first is the presence of many success stories
from local startups that grew into internationally competitive firms. While Blackberry’s journey
from a small pager designer to an international smartphone leader is the most famous, other local
successes include OpenText, a database company spun out of the University of Waterloo and
KIK, an instant messaging service with over 100 million users founded by a University of
Waterloo alumnus. These success stories inspire others to follow in their path. As a local investor
argued: “everybody you talk to wants to get that big, wants to grow fast and to be able to get into
the international markets as quickly as possible, and all the entrepreneurs really try to be RIM….
and to understand and realize that it can be done.” (W128). Second, the University of Waterloo
attracts numerous students with preexisting entrepreneurial intentions and its history of
successful spinoffs and entrepreneurship programs helps foster these outlooks in the rest of the
study body. These students will develop positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship by the time
they enter the local labour market, encouraging them to either start their own firm or to work at
startups.
This culture promotes the formation of strong and dense social networks between
entrepreneurs, workers, advisors, and investors. Many respondents believed that sharing their
experiences and learning from others was an essential part of being an entrepreneur in Waterloo.
As one explained:
Here, unlike any other community that I’ve lived or worked [in], there’s a strong
sense of not just a desire, but a responsibility, to help up and coming companies,
especially technology companies…We do a good job of integrating people into
the community and that builds strong ties...I’d hazard a guess that we have more
individuals in this community that have very broad, expansive networks than
other communities. (W114)
Local policymakers held similar views, with one saying: “what you’ll find is that this community
is very well networked. There are networking functions daily. I can go to any of those functions
and know most of the people in that room. And we all circulate in different circles, but we’re all
connected.” (W107) Comments like these suggest that networking is a highly valued practice
within the community. This is born out by the significantly higher rates of entrepreneurs in
Waterloo reporting to have discussed their firm issues with family and friends discussed above.
The importance of entrepreneurship and networking in the region’s culture has
encouraged many successful business people to participate in these networks, contributing to
their high perceived valued by entrepreneurs. A local venture capitalist explained that: “the
CEOs of the large companies, whether it’s [former co-CEOs] Mike [Lazaridis] and Jim
[Balsillie] at RIM or Tom Jenkins at OpenText…will help the next generation of entrepreneurs.
[If I] sent a note over to [them] to say I met with this company, the CEO has been struggling
13
with this or that, would you be able to help them. I know they’re going to get a response.”
(W115)
The cultural importance of entrepreneurship within the community has helped build
strong networks of skilled workers accustomed to the unique demands and opportunities of
working in a startup. None of the entrepreneurs interviewed in Waterloo experienced the same
the challenges as their counterparts in Calgary did of competing against the much higher salaries
from larger firms. Instead, the normalization of working within startups has allowed
entrepreneurs leeway in offering lower salaries or job security in favour of a more relaxed
workplace and the possibility of revenue sharing. The social status accorded workers in firms
that are seen as particularly innovative can serve as a substitute for more pecuniary interests. For
example, one entrepreneur reported that his workers were willing to forgo their pay during
periods of low cash flow in exchange for flexible working conditions and a portion of future
revenues. The founder believed that: “the model of being able to work from home, be your own
boss and get to be a participant in a pretty cool product made up for not getting a pay check.”
(W130)
The material attributes of Waterloo’s ecosystem helped maintain the strong cultural
support for entrepreneurship amongst workers, mentors, and successful business as well as the
entrepreneurs themselves. Communitech, a non-profit entrepreneurship support organization, has
been very successful in promoting the ethos of technology entrepreneurship throughout the
region. Some of this support is direct, such as its Accelerator Centre and Hyperdive incubator
that supply subsidized office space, early stage funding, and expert advising to selected local
startups. Other programs provide less direct support to individual firms but help create a
community entrepreneurs can turn to when necessary. The organization’s peer-to-peer groups
and networking events give entrepreneurs the opportunity to meet both other firm founders as
well as executives from larger firms and prospective investors, advisors and mentors. Many
interviewees said these networking programs helped them learn from other entrepreneurs who
had encountered similar problems as them as well as introducing them to more senior business
people who can provide guidance on long-term strategic decisions. As one entrepreneur
described: “[Communitech] was instrumental for us at the early stage. It gives you access to
facilities, access to contacts and the events. Again, that’s induced serendipity. You attend events
certainly to pick up information, but you also run into the types of people who are maybe
interested in investing or who can help out.” (W118)
These events do more than simply help entrepreneurs connect with like-minded people:
by allowing new entrepreneurs to meet with more successful entrepreneurs, Communitech and
other local organizations are able to promote a particular vision of high-growth technology-led
firms. This vision helps reproduce the cultural importance of technology entrepreneurship within
the region’s ecosystem by celebrating successful entrepreneurs and normalizing particular
practices like young university graduates founding growth-oriented companies. Communitech is
in a position to influence how entrepreneurship is understood, in effect allowing it to reinforce
the ecosystem’s social and cultural attributes. However, Communitech could not have become
such a successful material attribute of the ecosystem without the support of local business and
political leaders that came about through the preexisting social and cultural attributes that
supported technology-based entrepreneurship. The high social status of entrepreneurship
encourages successful business people to pledge both time and money to support these
organizations.
6. DISCUSSION
14
Both Calgary and Waterloo feature feedback loops between the cultural, social, and
material attributes of their ecosystems (see Figure 2). In the case of Waterloo, organizations like
Communitech and the University of Waterloo promote networking amongst entrepreneurial
actors as well as highlight local examples of successful technology entrepreneurship, increasing
the social status of entrepreneurship. This encourages actors within the region to participate in
these networks, to dedicate their limited time to advising or mentoring entrepreneurs, or to work
in a high-risk startup. The high level of entrepreneurial activity created by this reproduces and
reinforces the region’s pre-existing cultural outlooks towards entrepreneurship. The strength of
these attributes and their relationships creates a rich, ‘munificent’ ecosystem for technology
entrepreneurship.
Calgary represents a more ‘arid’ ecosystem. The predilection for personal wealth creates
an incentive to build startups whose focus is on creating quick profits by serving the immediate
needs of the local resource sector rather than building an advanced technology with global
demand or a sustainable business model. This should not be interpreted as greed, but instead that
social standing within Calgary’s entrepreneurial community is largely created through personal
wealth rather than other types of business accomplishments. As a result, entrepreneurs have little
incentive to dedicate a great deal of time to networking with other entrepreneurs or advisors
when they could focus on scanning their environment for new business opportunities. Given this
context, it is difficult for entrepreneurial support organizations like Innovate Calgary to
strengthen existing networks amongst entrepreneurs or build new ones. This leads to the low
levels of engagement within the ecosystem’s social attributes, which is further perpetuated by the
pre-existing profit-oriented culture. The weakness of Calgary’s ecosystem stands in contrast to
its high rates of technology entrepreneurship; the region’s booming economy acts as a catalyst
for entrepreneurial activity.
Figure 2: Relationships Between Ecosystem Attributes in Calgary and Waterloo
15
To build on the biological metaphor inherent in the term ‘ecosystem’: Calgary’s
ecosystem can be thought of as an industrialized cornfield while Waterloo’s is more similar to a
meadow. A cornfield is capable of extraordinary yields, but only when it is constantly fertilized,
ploughed, and protected with pesticides. Its productivity quickly collapses without this
intervention. Without strong relationships between its cultural, social, and material attributes, it
is likely that Calgary’s entrepreneurial economy would deteriorate if the local resource sector
were to suffer a protracted downturn due to declining petroleum prices, as it did in the 1980s and
1990s. A meadow has lower productivity, but its rich web of plants and animals creates a
resilient and self-perpetuating ecology. The strong linkages between its cultural, social, and
material attributes suggest that Waterloo’s ecosystem will be resilient to shocks such as the
decline of Blackberry since 2012.
7. CONCLUSION
Studying the interplay between cultural, social, and material attributes is key to
understanding the larger role of entrepreneurial ecosystems within regional economies.
Entrepreneurial ecosystems should not be defined simply as regions with high rates of
entrepreneurship; this mistakes the effect for the cause. This would mistake the effect for the
cause. Instead, there should be increased attention to the internal dynamics of ecosystems to
better understand how they actually support the entrepreneurship process. This paper draws a
distinction between munificent and arid ecosystems. In munificent ecosystems like Waterloo, the
strong connections between attributes create a mutually reinforcing system in which the cultural
outlooks that foster dense networks and effective public programs are themselves strengthened
by these factors. In arid ecosystems like Calgary, the lack of these relationships contributes to an
overall weaker ecosystem that is less able to cope with economic shocks or downturns in its local
economy. Thus, the effects of entrepreneurial ecosystems do not exist in isolation but rather
materialize through the combined influence of multiple attributes.
This relational perspective of cultural, social, and material attributes makes three
contributions to the study of entrepreneurial ecosystems and the geography of entrepreneurship
more broadly. First is the identification of various categories of elements that constitute an
ecosystem. This provides a framework for future research methodologies that can analyze and
compare entrepreneurial ecosystems to reveal the different ways in which they emerge, change
over time, and act influence the entrepreneurship process. Second, it provides for an expanded
view of entrepreneurial ecosystems, which acknowledges that the underlying attributes exist in
many different regions, even those that do not appear to be traditionally successful
entrepreneurial regions. This suggests that many regions contain the potential for a strong
ecosystem but their attributes, particularly their cultural and social attributes, must be cultivated
over a long period of time. It also demonstrates that high rates of entrepreneurship do not
necessarily imply a well functioning entrepreneurial ecosystem or environment. Finally, the
importance of relationships between the different attributes demonstrate that new material
attributes such as entrepreneurial support organizations, state-financed startup investment
schemes, or new university technology and knowledge transfer programs, are unlikely to succeed
if they are not underpinned by complimentary social and cultural attributes. Regional
entrepreneurial policy therefore should focus on building underlying support for these new
programs rather than expecting the programs themselves to create entrepreneurial cultures and
networks.
16
As research on entrepreneurial ecosystems continues to develop, there is a need for a
detailed theoretical framework to understand the processes through which ecosystems emerge,
change, and influence the activities of entrepreneurial actors within them. Without this, research
on ecosystems risks devolving into simple description of successful regions that lacks any claim
to more generalizable findings about ecosystem’s internal dynamics or its role in economic
development. Identifying the attributes of entrepreneurial ecosystems and their relationships is
the first part of a much broader research agenda. There is also a need for a dynamic perspective
that seeks to understand how the structure and influence of ecosystems change over time in
response to both external economic and social shocks as well to internal changes, such as
entrepreneurial successes or the concerted philanthropic or organizational efforts of a few
‘ecosystem entrepreneurs.’ At the same time, researchers must develop metrics that can be used
to identify the presence of the ecosystem attributes discussed in this paper and compare them
between different regions. While some metrics, such as startup rates, VC investment, and the size
of entrepreneurial exits are readily available, gathering comparable data on cultural outlooks or
the effectiveness of social networks is much more difficult. These research developments will
provide both a more nuanced and rigorous understanding of how entrepreneurial ecosystems
affect the entrepreneurship process but will also enable more precise and reliable policy
recommendations to strengthen existing ecosystems and develop them in regions without
histories of successful entrepreneurial growth.
Without a strong theoretical foundation and clear metrics, the term ‘entrepreneurial
ecosystem’ risks becoming a buzz word that encourages policy interventions that do little more
than generate consultancy fees. But as a concept, entrepreneurial ecosystems provides several
important insights into the nature of entrepreneurship within a community that makes it a
valuable addition to the literature. It emphasizes the importance of the larger community in
creating and sustaining supportive environments and highlights the fact that entrepreneurship is
an interactive process involving a diverse array of parties rather than the act of a solitary
entrepreneur. Therefore, the development of research on entrepreneurial ecosystems should focus
not on the rates of entrepreneurship within a region but rather the development of supportive (or
non-supportive) attributes and communities and the processes through which these affect the
actions, outlooks, and practices of entrepreneurial actors.
17
Aoyama, Y., 2009. Entrepreneurship and Regional Culture: The Case of Hamamtsu and Kyoto, Japan. Regional
Studies 43, 495–512.
Arruda, C., Nogueira, V.S., Costa, V., 2014. The Brazilian Entrepreneurial Ecosystem of Startups: an analysis of
entrepreneurship determinants in Brazil as seen from the OECD pillars. Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation Management 2, 17–57.
Audretsch, D.B., Falck, O., Feldman, M.P., Heblich, S., 2011. Local Entrepreneurship in Context. Regional Studies
46, 379–389.
Audretsch, D.B., Keilbach, M., 2004. Does Entrepreneurship Capital Matter? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
28, 419–429.
Bahrami, H., Evans, S., 1995. Flexible Re-Cycling and High-Technology Entrepreneurship. California Management
Review 37, 62–89.
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.
Bosma, N., Hessels, J., Schutjens, V., van Praag, M., Verheul, I., 2012. Entrepreneurship and Role Models. Journal
of Economic Psychology 33, 410–424.
Bramwell, A., Nelles, J., Wolfe, D.A., 2008. Knowledge, Innovation and Regional Culture in Waterloo’s ICT
Cluster. Regional Studies 42, 101–116.
Chastko, P., 2004. Developing Alberta’s Oil Sands: From Karl Clark to Kyoto. University of Calgary Press,
Calgary.
Christensen, J.L., 2007. The Development of Geographic Specialization of Venture Capital. European Planning
Studies 15, 818–833.
Conference Board of Canada, 2012. Metropolitan Forecast: GDP at Basic Prices by Industry. Toronto, ON.
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.
Eastwood, D.G., 1987. The University of Waterloo, high technology and new firm creation, in: Walker, D.F. (Ed.),
Manufacturing in Kitchener-Waterloo: A Long-Term Perspective. Department of Geography, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, pp. 151–166.
Feld, B., 2012. Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in your City. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Feldman, M., 2001. The Entrepreneurial Event Revisited: Firm Formation in a Regional Context. Industrial and
Corporate Change 10, 861–891.
Feldman, M., 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., Zoller, T.D., 2012. Dealmakers in Place: Social Capital Connections in Regional Entrepreneurial
Economies. Regional Studies 46, 23–37.
Feldman, M.P., 2014. The character of innovative places: entrepreneurial strategy, economic development, and
prosperity. Small Business Economics.
Greve, A., W., S.J., 2003. Social Networks and Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28, 1–22.
Harrison, R.T., Leitch, C., 2010. Voodoo Institution or Entrepreneurial University? Spin-off Companies, the
Entrepreneurial System and Regional Development in the UK. Regional Studies 44, 1241–1262.
House, J.D., 1980. The last of the free enterprisers: The oilmen of Calgary. MacMillian of Canada, Toronto.
Huggins, R., Williams, N., 2011. Entrepreneurship and regional competitiveness: The role and progression of
policy. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 23, 907–932.
Hughes, A., 2007. Innovation Policy as Cargo Cult: Myth and Reality in Knowledge-led Productivity Growth, in:
Bessant, J., Venables, T. (Eds.), Creating Wealth from Knowledge: Meeting the Innovation Challenge.
Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 416–441.
Hwang, V.W., Horowitt, G., 2012. The rainforest: the secret to building the next Silicon Valley. Regenwald, Los
Altos, Calif.
Isenberg, D.J., 2010. The Big Idea: How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution. Harvard Business Review 88, 40–
50.
James, A., 2005. Demystifying the Role of Culture in Innovative Regional Economies. Regional Studies 39, 1197–
1216.
Julien, P.-A., 2007. A theory of local entrepreneurship in the knowledge economy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Kenney, M., Patton, D., 2005. Entrepreneurial Geographies: Support Networks in Three High-Technology
Industries. Economic Geography 81, 201–228.
18
Kenney, M., Patton, D., 2011. Does inventor ownership encourage university research-derived entrepreneurship? A
six university comparison. Research Policy 40, 1100–1112.
Kibler, E., Kautonen, T., Fink, M., (Forthcoming). Regional Social Legitimacy of Entrepreneurship: Implications for
Entrepreneurial Intention and Start-up Behaviour. Regional Studies.
Krichhoff, B.A., Newbert, S.L., Hasan, I., Armington, C., 2007. The influence of University R&D Expenditures in
New Business Formations and Employment Growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31, 543–559.
Lafuente, E., Yancy, V., Rialp, J., 2007. Regional Differences in the Influence of Role Models: Comparing the
Entrepreneurial Process of Rural Catalonia. Regional Studies 41, 779–795.
Langford, C.H., Li, B., Ryan, C.D., 2010. Innovation from an Oil and Gas Platform: Calgary (Integrated Document).
Innovation Systems Research Network, Toronto, ON.
Lerner, J., 2009. Boulevard of broken dreams why public efforts to boost entrepreneurship and venture capital have
failed, and what to do about it. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Leslie, S.W., Kargon, R.H., 1996. Selling Silicon Valley: Frederick Terman’s Model for Regional Advantage. The
Business History Review 70, 435–472.
Liñán, F., Urbano, D., Guerrero, M., 2011. Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions: Start-up intentions of
university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 23, 187–215.
Mack, E.A., Rey, S.J., 2014. An econometric approach for evaluating the linkages between broadband and
knowledge intensive firms. Telecommunications Policy 38, 105–118.
Malecki, E.J., 1997. Entrepreneurs, networks, and economic development: a review of recent research, in: Katz, J..
(Ed.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 57–
118.
Malecki, E.J., 2009. Geographical Environments for Entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Small Business 7, 175–190.
Mason, C.M., Brown, R., 2014. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship (Background
Paper). OECD LEED Program, The Hague.
Mayer, H., 2012. Entrepreneurial Community in Kansas City: From Fragmented to Collaborative? (SSRN Scholarly
Paper No. ID 2184357). Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, Missouri.
Miller, G., 2002. The Frontier, Entrepreneurialism, and Engineers: Women Coping with a Web of Masculinities in
an Organizational Culture. Culture and Organization 8, 145–160.
Neck, H.M., Meyer, G.D., Cohen, B., Corbett, A.C., 2004. An Entrepreneurial System View of New Venture
Creation. Journal of Small Business Management 42, 190–208. x
Nelles, J., Bramwell, A., Wolfe, D.A., 2005. History, Culture and Path Dependency: Origins of the Waterloo ICT
Cluster, in: Wolfe, D.A., Lucas, M. (Eds.), Global Networks and Local Linkages: The Paradox of
Development in an Open Economy. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal and Kingston, pp. 227–
252.
Nijkamp, P., 2003. Entrepreneurship in a Modern Network Economy. Regional Studies 37, 395–405.
Ozgen, E., Baron, R.A., 2008. Social sources of information in opportunity recognition: Effects of mentors, industry
networks, and professional forums. Journal of Business Venturing 22, 174–192.
Patel, P.C., Conklin, B., 2009. The Balancing Act: The Role of Transnational Habitus and Social Networks in
Balancing Transnational Entrepreneurial Activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33, 1045–1078.
Patton, D., Kenney, M., 2005. The Spatial Configuration of the Entrepreneurial Support Network for the
Semiconductor Industry. R&D Management 35, 1–17.
Pennington, S., 2009. The Opportunity for Entrepreneurship in Ontario: An Analysis of Self-Employment across
City-Regions (Working paper No. 2009-WPONT-018). Martin Prosperity Institute, Toronto.
Perren, L., Ram, M., 2004. Case-Study Method in Small Business and Entrepreneurial Research Mapping
Boundaries and Perspectives. International Small Business Journal 22, 83–101.
Qian, H., Acs, Z.J., Stough, R.R., 2013. Regional systems of entrepreneurship: the nexus of human capital,
knowledge and new firm formation. J Econ Geogr 13, 559–587.
Rutten, R., Westlund, H., Boekema, F., 2010. The spatial dimension of social capital. European Planning Studies 18,
863–871.
Saxenian, A., 1994. Regional advantage: culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Scott, J., 1967. Of Mud and Dream: University of Waterloo: 1957-1967. The Ryerson University Press, Toronto.
Shane, S., Cable, D., 2002. Network Ties, Reputation, and the Financing of New Ventures. Management
Science 48, 364–381.
19
Spigel, B., 2011. A series of unfortunate events: The growth, decline and rebirth of Ottawa’s Entrepreneurial
Institutions, in: Libecamp, D., Hoskinson, S. (Eds.), Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship,
Innovation, and Economic Development. Emerald Group, Bingley, pp. 47–72.
Spigel, B., 2013. Bourdieuian approaches to the geography of entrepreneurial cultures. Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development 25, 804–818.
Spilling, O.R., 1996. The entrepreneurial system: On entrepreneurship in the context of a mega-event. Journal of
Business Research 36, 91–103.
Staber, U., 2007. A Matter of Distrust: Explaining the Persistence of Dysfunctional Beliefs in Regional Clusters.
Growth and Change 38, 341–363.
Startup Genome Project, 2012. Startup Ecosystem Report 2012.
Statistics Canada, 2012. Census of Canada, 2011: Labour [computer file].
Steyaert, C., Katz, J., 2004. Reclaiming the Space of Entrepreneurship in Society: Geographical, Discursive and
Social Dimensions. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 16, 179–196.
Storper, M., 1997. The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. Guilford Press, New York.
Thomson Reuters, 2013. Special Tabulation: Private Equity and Venture Capital.
Thorton, P.H., Flynn, K.H., 2003. Entrepreneurship, Networks, and Geographies, in: Acs, Z., Audretsch, D. (Eds.),
Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction. Springer, Berlin,
pp. 401–433.
Totterman, H., Sten, J., 2005. Start-ups: Business Incubation and Social Capital. International Small Business
Journal 23, 487–511.
Trettin, L., Welter, F., 2011. Challenges for spatially oriented entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development 23, 575–602.
Van der Borgh, M., Cloodt, M., Romme, A.G.L., 2012. Value creation by knowledge-based ecosystems: evidence
from a field study. R&D Management 42, 150–169.
Wolfe, D., 2005. The Role of Universities in Regional Development and Cluster Formation, in: Jones, G.,
McCarney, P., Skolnik, M. (Eds.), Creating Knowledge, Strengthening Nations. University of Toronto
Press, Toronto, pp. 167–194.
World Economic Forum, 2013. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Around the Globe and Company Growth Dynamics
(Industry Agenda). World Economic Forum.
20