Ács et al. (2014Ács, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National Systems of Entrepreneurship: Measurement issue and policy implications. Research Policy, 43, 476-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.016
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08...
) |
The approach is grounded in both theoretical and empirical foundations. The index comprises variables related to individual behavior and the institutional context, and these variables are weighted using the novel index methodology to mitigate issues related to arbitrariness and normalization. Institutional variables are incorporated as weights for individual-related variables, leading to differing impacts of attitude, skills, and ambition on entrepreneurship, according to the changes in the institutional environment across countries. |
The article presents 30 metrics, which encompass various geographical approaches and the dimension categories proposed by Isenberg. In terms of geographical approach, the article incorporates metrics at the national, international, and subnational levels. As for dimension segmentation, the metrics span across dimensions such as Culture, Finance, Output, Markets, Support networks, Human capital, Public policy & Regulation, and General characteristics. |
|
Arruda et al. (2013Arruda, C., Cozzi, A., Nogueira, V., & Costa, V. (2013). O Ecossistema Empreendedor Brasileiro de Start-ups: Uma análise dos determinantes do empreendedorismo no Brasil a partir dos pilares da OCDE. Fundação Dom Cabral.) |
The Isenberg EE model served as a guide for the conduction of the qualitative research conducted, while the OECD model formed the basis for the quantitative research. |
The article introduces 91 metrics spanning across the dimension categories proposed by Isenberg. Regarding the geographical approach, the article includes national-level metrics. In terms of dimension segmentation, the metrics encompass the Culture, Finance, Markets, Human capital, Public policy & Regulation, Support networks, and General characteristics dimensions. |
| Inácio Jr et al. (2016) |
The Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEI) methodology was used to analyze the Brazilian entrepreneurial ecosystem in the context of the National Systems of Entrepreneurship (NSE) theory. |
The article provides 13 metrics, spanning across the dimensions proposed by Isenberg. Concerning the geographical approach, it encompasses national-level metrics. In terms of dimension segmentation, the metrics cover the Culture, Finance, Output, Markets, Support networks, Human capital, and Public policy & Regulation dimensions. |
Souza et al. (2016Souza, L., Gerhard, F., La Rovere, R. L., & Câmara, S. (2016). Entrepreneurship and creation of new business: key factors of Brazilian entrepreneurial ecosystem. Revista de Negócios, 20(4), 30-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.7867/1980-4431.2015v20n4p30-43
http://dx.doi.org/10.7867/1980-4431.2015...
) |
Primary data collected from a survey was the foundation of the quantitative study. |
The article introduces 31 metrics, which vary within Isenberg's proposed dimension categories. Regarding the geographical approach, the article includes national-level metrics. In terms of dimension categories, the metrics encompass dimensions such as Culture, Finance, Support networks, Human capital, Public policy & Regulation, and General characteristics. |
Bruns et al. (2017Bruns, K., Bosma, N., Sanders, M., & Schramm, M. (2017). Searching for the existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: A regional cross-section growth regression approach. Small Business Economics, 49, 31-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9866-6
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9866-...
) and Content et al. (2020Content, J., Bosma, N., Jordaan, J., & Sanders, M. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems, entrepreneurial activity and economic growth: new evidence from European regions. Regional Studies 54, 1007-1019. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1680827
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.16...
) |
A formal model created through empirical analysis that tests and classifies heterogeneity among entrepreneurial ecosystems with the aim of revealing the impact of entrepreneurial activity on growth differentials across multiple regions. |
The articles introduce 8 metrics that correspond to Isenberg's proposed dimension categories. Concerning geographical focus, the articles encompass subnational-level metrics. As for dimension categories, the metrics span across the Culture, Output, Human capital, and General characteristics dimensions. |
Credit et al. (2018Credit, K., Mack, M. A., & Mayer, H. (2018). State of the field: Data and metrics for geographic analyses of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography Compass 12(9). https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12380
https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12380...
) |
Systematic research aimed at identifying studies that use secondary data, followed by a categorization of the sources and types of data used. Additionally, the detection of the trends and gaps presented by these data was conducted. |
The article provides 32 metrics varying across geographical approaches and Isenberg's proposed dimension model. In terms of geographical coverage, the article encompasses national and subnational-level metrics. Regarding dimension categories, the metrics span across Culture, Output, Markets, Infrastructure, Human capital, and General characteristics dimensions. |
Liguori et al. (2018Liguori, E., Bendickson, J., Solomon, S., & McDowell, W. C. (2018). Development of a multi-dimensional measure for assessing entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31, 7-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1537144
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.15...
) |
Proposed a Multidimensional Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Scale (MEES). |
The article provides 22 metrics spanning across different dimensions proposed by Isenberg. Regarding the geographical approach, the article incorporates metrics at multiple levels. In terms of dimension categorization, the metrics encompass aspects of the Culture, Finance, Markets, Support networks, Human capital, and Public policy & Regulation dimensions. |
Nicotra et al. (2018Nicotra, M., Romano, M., Del Giudice, M., & Carmela, C. E. (2018). The causal relation between entrepreneurial ecosystem and productive entrepreneurship: a measurement framework. Journal of Technology Transfer 43, 640-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9628-2
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9628-...
) |
Causal model of an entrepreneurial ecosystem, emphasizing the coevolutionary perspective of different organizations and institutions that interact with each other in a cooperative and competitive manner, playing complementary roles and aiming to meet their own needs and interests. |
The article introduces 26 metrics, spanning across geographical approaches and the dimensions proposed by Isenberg. In terms of geographical scope, the article includes both national and subnational-level metrics. Regarding dimension segmentation, the metrics assessed span across the Culture, Finance, and Output dimensions. |
O’connor et al. (2018O’Connor, A., Stam, E., Sussan, F., & Audretsch, D. V. (2018). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Place Based Transformations and Transitions. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, 38, 173-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63531-6
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63531-...
) |
The Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) approach was used. |
The study presents 16 metrics, which correspond to the dimensions proposed by Isenberg. In terms of geographical scope, the article includes subnational-level metrics. Regarding dimension categories, the metrics cover a range of dimensions, including Culture, Finance, Output, Markets, Support networks, Human capital, and Public policy & Regulation. |
Stam (2018Stam, E. (2018). Measuring Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. In O’Connor, A., Stam, E., Sussan, F., & Audrestch, D. (Eds.). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Place-based Transformations and Transitions. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63531-6
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63531-...
) |
The creation of an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Index was proposed using input elements measured with indicators from official databases. Results are correlated with some of the Output elements. |
Seventeen empirical indicators representing ten ecosystem dimensions were identified, including Formal institutions, Entrepreneurship culture, Physical infrastructure, Demand, Networks, Leadership, Talent, Finance, New knowledge, and Intermediate services. |
Alves et al. (2019Alves, A. C., Fischer, B., Vonortas, N. S., & Queiroz, S. R. R. (2019). Configurações de Ecossistemas de Empreendedorismo Intensivo em Conhecimento. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 59(4). https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020190403
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-7590201904...
) |
The Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) method was used. |
The article presents 12 metrics that mirror the dimension model proposed by Isenberg. Concerning the geographical approach, the article includes subnational and regional-level metrics (Knowledge-intensive EE). In terms of dimension segmentation, the metrics encompass dimensions such as Finance, Output, Markets, Support networks, Human capital and General characteristics. |
Corrente et al. (2019Corrente, S., Greco, S., Nicotra, M., Romano, M., & Schilaci, C. E. (2019). Evaluating and comparing entrepreneurial ecosystems using SMAA and SMAA-S. The Journal of Technology Transfer 44, 485-519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9684-2
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9684-...
) |
The Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis technique was used. |
The article introduces 12 metrics, which vary across the dimensions proposed by the Isenberg EE model. In terms of the geographical approach, the article includes national-level metrics. Regarding the dimension segmentation, the metrics covered span across the Cultural, Finance, Markets, Infrastructure, Human capital, and Public policy & Regulation dimensions. |
|
Gasparoto and Fischer (2019Gasparoto, M. R. M., & Fischer, B. (2019). A Universidade e o Ecossistema de Empreendedorismo: Um Estudo Utilizando Análise de Redes Sociais. XLIII Encontro da ANPAD, São Paulo.) |
The Social Network Analysis (SNA) was used to analyze entrepreneurial ecosystems. |
The network formed during data collection consisted of 540 nodes representing various institutions, and a total of 1,184 connections between them. Among the 51 participating institutions, 35 were businesses, while the remaining 16 were entities supporting entrepreneurship. Within the business category, a significant portion (31) were spin-offs originating from Unicamp. There are a total of 5 distinct networks, each representing institutions, with the key difference being in how the nodes are presented. Networks A, B, C and D depict institutions individually, where each node corresponds to a specific institution. In contrast, network E organizes nodes into groups based on the categories of the organizations. Network B is a subnetwork of network A, and networks C and D are subnetworks of network B. |
Maysami et al. (2019Maysami, A. M., Elvasi, G. M., Dehkordi, A. M., & Hejazi, S. R. (2019). Toward the Measurement Framework of Technological Entrepreneurship Ecosystem. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 27, 419-444. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495819500158
https://doi.org/10.1142/S021849581950015...
) |
The meta-synthesis method was applied to propose the main components of the technological entrepreneurship ecosystem, and twelve dimensions were identified in the ETE approach in addition to the outlining of the principles that govern the development of a measurement framework for EEs. Results include the definition of six criteria. Finally, eighteen measuring frameworks associated with the ETE were reviewed. |
The 12 dimensions identified in the conduction of the ETE approach are: Governance, Capital, Culture, Support Services, Infrastructure, Talent, Education & Research, Customers & Markets, Networks & Relations, Special conditions, Organizations, and Tech Entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, the 6 criteria established for ecosystem measurement are: Comprehensiveness/Complexity, Types of Measures, Designing Method, Data Gathering Method, Assessment Level and Implementation Period. |
|
Leenderstse et al. (2020Leenderstse, J., Schrijvers, M., & Stam, E. (2020). Measure Twice, Cut Once. Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Metrics. Conference: Utrecht University School of Economics Working Paper Series.) |
The methodology consists of two axes: quantification, achieved by measuring key elements through official data sources, and qualification, carried out through the development of a methodology that provides an insightful take on the interdependence between elements, the overall quality of the entrepreneurial economy, and the relationship between elements and the system's output. |
The article introduces 41 metrics, spanning across geographical approaches and the dimensions proposed by Isenberg. Regarding the geographical approach, the article considers both national and subnational-level metrics. As to dimension segmentation, the metrics assessed span across the Culture, Finance, Output, Markets, Human capital, Public policy & Regulation, Support networks, and General categories dimensions. |
Beneli et al. (2022Beneli, D. S., Carvalho, S. A. D. de, & Furtado, A. T. (2022). Indicador composto estadual de inovação (ICEI): uma metodologia para avaliação de sistemas regionais de inovação. Nova Economia, [S. l.], 32(2), 359-395. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6351/6982
https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6351/6982...
) |
The procedures employed included a review of bibliographic materials, the adaptation of the methodology proposed by the European Innovation Scoreboard, and the compilation of available databases within the Brazilian statistical system. The report suggests outlining the theoretical model that underpins the selection of indicators linked to the measured phenomena and applying statistical procedures to replace the arbitrary nature of indicators. |
The article introduces 15 metrics, which correspond to the dimensions proposed by the Isenberg EE model. Regarding the geographical approach, the article includes subnational-level metrics (SRI). In terms of dimension segmentation, the metrics assessed span across the Culture, Output, Human capital, and Public Policy & Regulation dimensions. |
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Note: The authors’ own elaboration (2022).
Note: The authors’ own elaboration (2022).