In this sense, the EE is not the result of an individual decision (public or private), but of a set of interactions that emerge in the absence of a “global controller” (Roundy et al. 2018). The BE also includes a set of interrelationships between different stakeholders, which may include not only other businesses, consumers, etc., but also universities or non-profit organizations. Autio et al. (2014) criticize the theories of entrepreneurship that essentially focus on the individual dimension of the entrepreneur while neglecting the contextual aspects (industrial, technological, organizational, institutional, social, temporal and spatial). Cultural dimensions are largely emphasized to characterize an EE through the sharing of common values. Venture capitalists also present on the territory support the creation of start-ups there because they are convinced of their chances of success. Regional or local public authorities organize events to support entrepreneurial activity at the territorial level (Scaringella and Radziwon 2018). By emphasizing the role of the entrepreneur, the EE also includes the idea of bottom-up development, generally by poorer populations who find in entrepreneurship an opportunity to create their own jobs. In this context, we will speak of an agile innovation that comes from the combination of reduced resources. The institutional changes that emerged from the 1990s with the end of the Cold War and the planned economy are widely discussed. The market and the creation of companies within the framework of these changes have been singled out as powerful tools to fight poverty (Prahalat 2005).
Criticizing the use of the term ecosystem, which is used excessively in their opinion (BE, EE, innovation, etc.), Scaringella and Radziwon (2018) constructed a reading grid to identify the invariants of the ecosystem approach. We will use it to distinguish the BE from the EE, highlighting invariants and characteristics. The invariants are the following: 1) territory 2) values; 3) stakeholders; 4) economic theories; 5) social policy; 6) knowledge and 7) results obtained by the BE or EE (see Table 3.1).
Table 5.1. Business and entrepreneurial ecosystems, invariants and own characteristics (source: Scaringella and Radziwon (2018))
| Invariants | Description | |
| Business ecosystem | Entrepreneurial ecosystem | |
| Territory | Close relationships between stakeholders | Preferred geographical dimension (region, country) |
| Values: trust, sense of community, mutual understanding, reduced uncertainty, culture, history, routines | Trusting relationships between stakeholders forming a community involved in a co-creation process | Sharing of common values uniting stakeholders with a shared vision of entrepreneurship |
| Stakeholders: firms, inter-firm networks, other stakeholders | A network of interacting inter-company relations facilitating the dynamics of learning processes between stakeholders who develop complementary activities Apart from firms, other stakeholders play a major role: consumers, suppliers, subcontracting firms, manufacturers of related products and services | Network of inter-firm relations and support institutions for business creation (e.g. incubator) Importance of the role of the public authority in supporting local development through business creation and innovation. |
| Economic theories | Economics of localization, spin-offs, industrial economy (economies of scale) | |
| Social: cooperative/competitive relationships between stakeholders, job creation, human resources | Cooperative and/or competitive relationships within the framework of a co-opetitive relationship Symbiosis between stakeholders Importance of job creation | Stimulation of technical progress, socioeconomic interactions between private companies in symbiotic relationships and the production of new knowledge through interactions |
| Knowledge: different types, dynamics of creation, synergistic relationships | Protection of knowledge (patent) Knowledge mobility and synergistic relationships between innovation resources | Production of new knowledge through interaction relationships Creation of start-ups |
| Outcome: innovation and entrepreneurship development | Value creation Innovations to improve performance Competitive advantage through collaboration in a network of value creation in a process of adaptation/evolution | GDP growth Radical innovations A process of co-creation and evolution encouraged by public policies |
There are subtle differences between the BE and EE. The dominant idea is the creation of an economic community whose members maintain synergistic and co-creative relationships to encourage innovation. The territorial dimension is diminished in the BE as opposed to the EE, which also emphasizes coherence, which is reinforced by appropriate public policy measures. The BE is part of a reflection that favors individual initiative. Poorer populations are thus accorded a route out of poverty by innovating. Emphasis is placed on the coherence of the ecosystem and on the sharing of common values and objectives among stakeholders. The role of innovation support institutions (e.g. incubators) is frequently emphasized in the BE. On the other hand, in the BE, it is the pivotal firm that is designated as a driver for innovation.
5.3. References
Boutillier, S. and Tiran, A. (2016). La théorie de l’entrepreneur, son évolution et sa contextualisation. Innovations. Revue d’économie et de management de l’innovation, 50, 211–234.
Boutillier, S. and Uzunidis, D. (2016). The Entrepreneur: The Economic Function of Free Enterprise. ISTE Ltd, London and John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Boutillier, S., Carré, D., Levratto, N. (2016). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. ISTE Ltd, London and John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Brown, R. and Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: A critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 49, 11–30.
Fréry, F., Gratacap, A., Isckia, T. (2012). Les écosystèmes d’affaires, par-delà la métaphore. Revue française de gestion, 222, 69–75.
Kuckertz, A. (2019). Let’s take the entrepreneurial ecosystem metaphor seriously! Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 11 [Online]. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352673419300095.
Marshall, A. (1885). Economics of Industry. Macmillan, London.
Moore, J. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.
Moore, J. (1996). The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems. Harper Business, New York.
Perroux, F. (1950). Les espaces économiques. Economie appliquée. Archives de l’ISEA, 1, 225–244.
Porter, M. (1990). The Competitive Avantage of Nations. The Free Press, New York.
Pustovrh, A., Rangus, K., Drnovsek, M. (2020). The role of open innovation in developing an entrepreneurial support ecosystem. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 152 [Online]. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162518315488.
Roundy, P.T. (2019). Back from the brink: The revitalization of inactive entrepreneurial ecosystem. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 12 [Online]. Available at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S2352673419300885?token=5DCCDEE880F1008A05D70B924F4E1651AD4630A54C6293C87B58677B28B78F76031179525377DF3733E0F504B9F69B7A.