Steering Sustainable Economic Growth: Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Approach

Abstract

The importance of entrepreneurship in steering sustained economic growth and improved well-being has been re-echoed over the past decade. Regrettably, the sub-Saharan Africa setting lags behind from the point of harnessing the economic development impact of entrepreneurship, and the obvious implication is ever increasing unemployment and poverty. Utilising a systematic review approach, this article draws from the body of knowledge to shed light on critical strategies towards achieving productive entrepreneurship. Specifically, we forward an entrepreneurial ecosystem framework that underlines the importance of institutional level and enterprise level attributes in achieving effective entrepreneurial ecosystem and maximising economic growth gains. We highlight strategic and pro-active initiatives for ensuring active and ambitious entrepreneurial orientation that will contribute to economic growth and create employment. Towards achieving these targets, we also flag critical policy guides, drawing attention to the facilitating role that governments can play in ensuring an effective and economic growth impacting entrepreneurial ecosystem. Directions for future research have been flagged.

Keywords

Sustained economic growth entrepreneurship entrepreneurial ecosystem government policy networking unemployment sub-Saharan Africa

Introduction

The strategic importance of entrepreneurship in steering sustainable economic growth and improving well-being has been lauded in academic discourse (Auerswald, 2015; Naude, 2017; Opute, 2020). Given that importance of ensuring sustained economic growth and improved well-being, scholars, as well as government and non-governmental organisations are, over the last decades, increasingly focusing on measures towards optimising entrepreneurial impact. At the forefront of governmental drive, the United Nations Economic Programmes has repeatedly echoed in its policy guidelines the importance for strategic initiatives for achieving the sustainability goal. For example, in its blueprint for achieving a sustainable future for all by 2030, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals emphasise critical sustainable economic growth indicators, such as no poverty (goal 1), zero hunger (goal 2), and decent work and economic growth (goal 8).

On their part, researchers have, over the past four decades, invested significant effort towards understanding how to optimise the economic growth impact of entrepreneurial ventures. In that drive, considerable research effort has been made in the areas of small and medium enterprises (Opute, 2020; Opute et al., 2020a; Ratten, 2014), family businesses (Igwe et al., 2018; Ratten et al., 2017), informal entrepreneurships (Ramadani et al., 2018; Williams & Kedir, 2018). In between these, there is also increasing focus on women entrepreneurship (McAdam et al., 2018; Ratten, 2015), entrepreneurship education (Ferreira et al., 2016; Iwu et al., 2019) and incubator firms (Marlow & McAdam, 2015; McAdam & Marlow, 2011).

Until recently, a critical research space that has been ignored in the search for a holistic drive towards maximising the economic growth contribution of entrepreneurial activity is entrepreneurial ecosystems (Auerswald, 2015; McAdam et al., 2016; McAdams et al., 2018). Although the concept has demonstrable antecedents in literature such as industrial clusters, innovation systems and learning regions (Spigel & Harrison, 2017), conventional wisdom documents that entrepreneurial ecosystems literature is only five years old (Stam, 2015). Commenting on the state of knowledge, Motoyama and Watkins (2014) note that there is significant room for improvement from the point understanding the elements, as well as evolution of an ecosystem over time. The entrepreneurial ecosystem viewpoint contends that a community’s entrepreneur support network—firms and related institutions that constitute the ecosystem, is critical for the success of the firms. Thus, the entrepreneurial ecosystem viewpoint emphasises the importance of the ‘network embeddedness’ (Stam & Spigel, 2017; Turkina et al., 2016). Leveraging social networks would stimulate business growth through transaction costs reduction, creating business opportunities and knowledge sharing (Motoyama & Watkins, 2014; Turkina, 2018).

There is need to enhance the entrepreneurial ecosystems literature and how the optimisation of the dynamics in the ecosystem would drive economic growth and heeding research advocacy (McAdam et al., 2016; McAdam et al., 2018; Turkina, 2018), this study seeks to contribute to responding to that need. Leveraging the theoretical logic that supports the incorporation of the concepts of field, habitus and capital (Bourdieu, 2005), this study focuses on entrepreneurial ecosystem. We follow the theorising that while it is important to view connectivity as a domain condition for entrepreneurial ecosystems development, achieving effective networks would also potentially affect the other domain conditions, by enhancing the quantity of entrepreneurial activity (density), as well as entrepreneurial activity (which further supports fluidity; McAdam et al., 2018; Spigel, 2015; Stam & Spigel, 2017). We aim here to contribute to the literature on entrepreneurial ecosystem. In doing that, our starting point is to utilise a systematic literature review approach to capture the body of knowledge in this domain. In following that approach, we aim to highlight gaps towards developing domain literature. We also aim to inform policy. As documented earlier, this article is founded on the notion of entrepreneurship as a tool for sustainable economic growth. That in mind, we give particular attention to sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) in seeking to achieve the latter aim. We focus mainly on the SSA context for two reasons: limited entrepreneurship literature (e.g., Iwu, 2017; Iwu & Opute, 2019), and high level of unemployment, poverty and low economic growth impact of entrepreneurial activities (e.g., Iwu & Opute, 2019; Iwu et al., 2020). Thus, we aim specifically to inform policy towards steering snowballing economic growth entrepreneurship impact in that setting, as well as galvanising more research effort that would facilitate achieving that target.

The article is structured as follows: Next, literature review is undertaken. Three streams of literature are considered in the review; entrepreneurship and economic growth impact; entrepreneurship and economic growth, unemployment, and poverty in SSA; and entrepreneurial ecosystem. Following that, we explain the methodological approach for literature review and then present the conclusions from this study. In the last section, we offer recommendations, while also recognising the limitations of this study. Towards steering future research, we also flag directions for future research.

Literature and Conceptual Framing

Essentially, the theoretical focus of this study is on entrepreneurial ecosystems, however framed on the established notion that entrepreneurship steers and sustains economic growth (e.g., Audretsch & Peña-Legazkue, 2012; Naude, 2017). Therefore, the theoretical contextualisation of this article embodies two components. In the first part, the significance of entrepreneurship in steering sustainable economic growth is documented. Thereafter, the entrepreneurship ecosystems framing for this study is presented.

Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth Impact

The importance of entrepreneurship as a propeller of economic growth has been severally echoed (e.g., Schumpeter, 1934; Ace et al., 2018; Audretsch et al., 2018; Naude et al., 2013). Entrepreneurship, defined by Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Global Report (2020) as any attempt at new venture or new business creation or the expansion of an existing business, or an established business, is instrumental to economic growth, job creation (Ace et al., 2018; Audretsch et al., 2018) and poverty reduction (Herrington & Coduras, 2019; Hayton & Cacciotti, 2013; Naude, 2017). However, the competitive and innovative capacity of entrepreneurships and achievability of aforementioned economic development outcomes would hinge on a range of factors, hence this association remains a valid premise for research (e.g., Audretsch & Peña-Legazkue, 2012; Naude, 2017; Opute, 2020).

In one of the first major contributions to the entrepreneurship discourse, Schumpeter (1934) underlines the role of the entrepreneur as a prime economic growth driver, a contention that is grounded on the assumption that entrepreneurs reform patterns of production by exploring new start-ups and innovative options that create new opportunities, goods and services. Despite the established view that entrepreneurship positively drives economic development, it has also been underlined in the literature that the positive association may not be evident in some settings (e.g., Bosma & Levie, 2010; Bjørnskov & Foss, 2016; Doral et al., 2018). Indeed, contingency viewpoint attributes the association outcome to a variety of factors such as the nature of institutional, political and economic environments (e.g., Ace et al., 2018; Audretsch et al., 2018; Iwu & Opute, 2019).

The above contingency view connects with neoclassical theory (Solow, 1956) which suggests investment in physical capital and labour as key determinants of economic growth. Thus, entrepreneurship contributes significantly to economic growth by not only serving as a means of stimulating innovation, knowledge, increasing competition and varieties of business (Acs et al., 2012; Ace et al., 2018; Mueller, 2007), but also enables individuals to take up activities that generate income, investment and savings that further grease the economic wheel (e.g., Audretsch & Peña-Legazkue, 2012; Naude, 2017). In many Western countries, entrepreneurships provide employment for a large population and this provides capital formation and economic independence (Acs & Naude, 2013). Based on data from 26 European countries, Stoica et al. (2020) evidence that entrepreneurship significantly impacts economic performance through the jobs that are created which subsequently serve as sources of income to the people and government.

Entrepreneurs pay salaries to their employees and thereby contribute to value and wealth creation, which is essential for capital formation and investment. Thus, entrepreneurship contributes to economic transformation by increasing the purchasing power of individuals who in turn contribute revenue to government in the form of tax (Gries & Naude, 2010). From the above, entrepreneurship contributes to the well-being of individuals through payment of salaries and thereby enabling tax payment. That conclusion is enhanced by the contention that through the human capability enablement, entrepreneurial innovations and research, entrepreneurship can significantly improve social well-being, lifestyles and happiness of the people (GEM, 2020; Naude et al., 2013).

In the discourse of entrepreneurship and economic growth association, the importance of entrepreneurial innovation has been recognised. For example, Galindo and Mendez (2014) suggest a close connection between entrepreneurial innovation and the capacity of the country to develop new cost-effective ways of driving economic growth. Furthermore, Wong et al. (2005) connect economy GDP growth to innovation, an outcome that is strongly evidenced in Germany with high capacity to enhance investment in physical capital stock and human capital. Further support is provided by Acs et al. (2018) who found that information and communication innovations improved production per unit, enhanced the capacity of individuals to access cost-effective, safe and quality services.

Another core literature in the discourse of entrepreneurship and economic growth impact relates to the forms and impact of entrepreneurship. For example, in an analysis involving 22 European countries, Stoica et al. (2020) found that the extent of impact is differentiated by the forms of entrepreneurship. Literature distils entrepreneurship types to include small and medium enterprises (SMEs), family business, women business and joint partnership (Khavul et al., 2009), and Table 1 captures economic growth impact of entrepreneurship types in some Western countries.

Small and Medium (and family) businesses are widespread in Western countries and operate mainly as partnership or family businesses. SMEs play an instrumental role in the economic growth of European countries (see Tables 2 and 3). In countries such as Spain, Austria, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Norway and the UK, there is high level of family businesses (Colombo et al., 2014; Petlina, 2015). According to Azudin and Mansor (2018), SMEs represent 99% of the global business population, while Colombo et al. (2014) note that small and medium business (family businesses) contributed a 4.8% increase in total employment growth in the period 2006–2007 in Italy. On their part, Kelly et al. (2011) comment that across the globe, over 100 million women in 59 countries launched and grew a new SMEs business venture in 2010, while Wad and Aronoff (1991) estimate that in the USA, 40 to 60% of the gross domestic product (GDP) is created by small and medium (family) businesses.

Across the UK, SMEs are defined as any business with fewer than 250 employees account for over 99% of all businesses and employs 60% of the total employment. It is interesting to note that in this estimate, women enterprises have become more visible as 17% of the SMEs entrepreneurs are led by women contributing £85 billion to economic output amounting to 16% of gross value added contributed by all SMEs in the UK (Rhodes, 2019 p. 5, 10). Earlier report by Minniti et al. (2005) suggests that nearly 29% of all SMEs self-employed are women, and 22% of SMEs owners are women providing economic empowerment, self-employment and self-reliance to a lot of women in the UK. In France, available research shows that 30% of the entrepreneurs are women and operate under embedded family obligations and responsibilities (Vial & Richomme-Huet, 2017). In these countries, it is evidenced that women are more likely to take a break in their career for taking care of a child, thus government puts in place policies to facilitate gender equality by having women come back to work quickly (Eib & Siegert, 2019).

Table 1.

Entrepreneurship Types and Economic Development Influence.

Nature of Business	Role in Economic Growth and Development	Source
Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)	Insight from Germany suggest that entrepreneurship is an important contributor to the creation of knowledge and technological innovations.	Fuerlinger et al., 2015
	SMEs and entrepreneurship play a key role in job creation, employment and social integration across the EU counties	GEM, 2020; Hayton & Cacciotti, 2013
	SMEs was particularly apparent in Malta, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania and Italy with SMEs providing more than two thirds of the total value added generated in each of their non-financial business economies. Across many other EU countries, SMEs provides a stock of tangible and intangible knowledge assets that enables diffusion of key ICT tools to build enough internal capacity technology-intensive activities	Eurostat, 2018; The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2019b
	In the USA, SMEs is hugely important for economic growth, innovation and diversity, creating jobs, encouraging start-up innovations, for example, SMEs is at the forefront of technological innovation across many developed countries, for example, in the USA, they are widely successful entrepreneurial start-ups, for example, Apple, Yahoo, Google and Facebook that have advanced growth and development. SMEs remain an important source of economic activities, employment, innovation and savings in the US economy.	Haltiwanger et al., 2009; Bernard et al., 2009. Haltiwanger et al., 2013; Ace et al., 2018; Audretsch et al., 2018
	In Germany, SMEs contribute to expanding research and enabling market expansion, promotes social change by reducing dependence on obsolete systems and technologies.	Audretsch et al., 2018
	Across Finland and the UK, entrepreneurs serve as engine to local and national economic growth, foster a more sustainable society and act as agent of social change. In the UK and Finland, SMEs account for 90% and 70% respectfully of all clean technology businesses with improved greener supply change in local clean tech market and provides opportunity for skill and technological advancement.	Rhodes, 2019; Social Enterprise UK Publishing, 2015; OECD, 2017
Family Business	Generate job, income and wealth to family members and the economy. Contribute to economic growth through technological development and expansion into foreign markets. Provides income that support family well-being and contribute to poverty alleviation. Provide intergenerational wealth and investment for the family.	Ramadani & Hoy, 2015; Opute, 2020; Morck & Yeung, 2003; Herrington & Coduras, 2019
Women business	Women businesses serve as a vehicle for social development and create economic independence, income, self-reliant and empowerment. Women businesses contribute a lot to balancing family needs, reducing child poverty and disadvantage associated with individual differences.	Brush et al., 2010; Minniti et al., 2005; Hechavarria et al., 2019; Welsh et al., 2014; Brush et al., 2010; Minniti et al., 2005

Sources: The authors (materials collated from referenced sources).

Table 2.

Summary of SMEs Basic Fact Sheet Across Some Selected EU Countries.

Country	SMEs Share of Enterprise (%)	SMEs Share of Persons Employed (%)	SMEs Share of Value Added to the Economy (%)
Spain	99.9	71.9	61.3
The UK	97.9	53.8	47.7
Germany	99.5	63.7	54.4
Italy	99.9	78.1	66.9
Finland	99.7	65.2	59.6
France	99.9	64.1	55.8
Greece	100	87.9	63.5

Sources: The authors. Facts collated from OECD (2019a, 2019b) SMEs basic fact sheet.

Table 3.

Economic Growth and Development Performance of SMEs According to Selected European Countries.

Country	Facts About Economic Growth Impact of Entrepreneurships
The UK	SMEs in the UK ‘non-financial business economy’ have experienced solid growth in recent years. Between 2014 and 2018, SME employment increased by 10.4%. More recently, between 2017 and 2018, SME employment grew by 1.2%, while SME value added rose by 3.4%, comparable with the 4% value-added growth in large firms. SME employment is projected to increase by 2.1% between 2018 and 2020, estimated to create around 228,400 new SME jobs by 2020. SME value added is also forecast to grow by 10.9% over the same period (OECD, 2019a, 2019b SBA Fact Sheet).
Germany	SMEs generate 54.4% of overall value added and 63.7% of overall employment in the German ‘non-financial business economy’, slightly less than the respective EU averages of 56.4% and 66.6%. In 2014–2018, overall SME value added in the ‘non-financial business economy’ in Germany increased by 17.9%, with the greatest rise of 21.1% generated by small firms. Over the same period, SME employment grew by 8.6%. For German SMEs, the outlook is very positive, with predicted value-added growth of 10.2% and employment growth of 5.1% in 2018–2020, although global trade disputes and other risks may dampen this outlook (OECD, 2019a, 2019b SBA Fact Sheet).
Italy	SMEs generate 66.9% of overall value added in the Italian ‘non-financial business economy’, exceeding the EU average of 56.4%. The share of employment generated by SMEs is even larger, at 78.1%, compared to the EU average of 66.6%. Micro firms are particularly important, providing 44.9% of employment compared to the EU average of 29.7%. In 2014–2018, overall SME value added rose by 12.4%. In contrast, SME employment rose by only 4.7% in 2014–2018, still 9.3% below its 2008 pre-crisis level. More recently, in 2017–2018, SME employment grew by only 1.1%, while SME value added also increased by only 1.8% (OECD, 2019a, 2019b SBA Fact Sheet).
Spain	SMEs generate 61.3% of total value added and 71.9% of total employment in Spain. Between 2014 and 2018, SME value added rose by 19% and employment by 13.5%. The outlook for SMEs in Spain continues to be positive. SME value added is expected to grow again by 6.4% between 2018 and 2020. Over the same period, SME employment is forecast to increase by 2.8%, with an expected 249,600 new SME jobs created by 2020 (OECD, 2019a, 2019b SBA Fact Sheet, 2019).
Finland	SMEs in Finland currently account for 59.6% of value added and 65.2% of employment. In recent years, SMEs have generated steady value-added growth, with an increase of 22.1% in 2014–2018. The growth in Finnish SME value added is expected to continue at a moderate rate, with a rise of 4.6% in 2018–2020. However, in the same period the forecast for SME employment is less favourable as it is predicted to fall by 0.1% leading to an estimated loss of 1,000 SME jobs (OECD, 2019a, 2019b SBA Fact Sheet).
France	SMEs in the ‘non-financial business economy’ in France generate 55.8% of value added and 64.1% of employment. This is roughly on a par with the respective EU averages of 56.4% and 66.6%. In 2014–2018, SMEs in France generated steady growth, outperforming large firms in the ‘non-financial business economy’. The outlook for SMEs in France is very positive. In 2018-2020, SME value added is expected to rise by 8.8%. SME employment is also expected to increase by 4.5% in the same period, corresponding to around 461,400 new SME jobs (OECD, 2019a, 2019b SBA Fact Sheet).
Greece	Greek SMEs represent 63.5% of total value added (EU average 56.4%) and an employment share of 87.9% (EU average 66.6%). In 2014-2018, overall SME value added increased by 11.8%, with small firms generating the largest rise (25.7%) and micro firms showing a fall of 11.9%. The overall outlook for Greek SMEs is positive, with predicted growth of 21.3% in value added and of 13.1% in employment in 2018-2020 (OECD, 2019a, 2019b SBA Fact Sheet).

Source: OECD, 2019a, 2019b SBA Fact Sheet. https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/38662/attachments/12/translations/en/renditions/native

Sub-Saharan Africa: Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth, Poverty and Unemployment

In this article, we take an approach that recognises that unlike in the Western context, SSA is still lagging behind from the point of leveraging entrepreneurial drive to steer and sustain a stable economic growth, a consequence of which is the persistent increase in the level of poverty and unemployment in that setting. In this section therefore, we capture entrepreneurship discourse relating to SSA and further substantiate the conceptual emphasis of that setting in this study by highlighting poverty and unemployment trends in SSA.

Modern economic theories recognise that entrepreneurship drives economic growth and prosperity (e.g., Sergi et al., 2019; Auerswald, 2015), and combats unemployment and poverty (e.g., Opute, 2020; Ahmed & Nwankwo, 2013). Given that rationality much attention is focused on understanding that relationship (e.g., Chigwenya & Mudzengerere, 2013; García-Rodríguez et al., 2017; Almodovar-Gonzalez et al., 2019).

Entrepreneurship creates employment opportunities and thereby fostering the economic growth of a nation. Literature has substantially documented the significant role that entrepreneurships play in sustaining economic growth and creating employment in developed economies (see Tables 1, 2 and 3), culminating ultimately to a high standard of living.

The literature on entrepreneurship relating to SSA is scanty (Naudé & Havenga, 2005; Opute, 2020; Ratten & Jones, 2018). That in mind, coupled with the established notion that entrepreneurship in the SSA setting is relatively passive, survivalist oriented and lack the capacity to meaningfully contribute to economic growth nor create employment, let alone reduce the poverty level (e.g., Iwu & Opute, 2019; Iwu et al., 2020), this article aims primarily to steer productive entrepreneurship towards sustained economic growth in the SSA setting.

Literature documents a marked difference in the extent of economic growth impact of entrepreneurship between developed and developing countries (e.g., Frimpong, 2013; Opute, 2020). According to the Global Entrepreneurship Index 2017, the first 10 well-performing and booming economies are developed countries. Unlike the Western contexts (see Tables 1, 2 and 3), the SSA regions have largely failed to effectively leverage entrepreneurship to drive economic growth and improve the well-being of individuals (e.g., Opute, 2020; Iwu & Opute, 2019; Baah-Boateng, 2015).

Poverty, unemployment and slow economic growth remain daunting issues for most developing economies, especially in SSA. The World Bank (2020) estimates youth unemployment in Africa to be 60 %, while the International Futures modelling platform projected that SSA would account for nearly 60 % of the world population living in poverty (Zachary, 2020). To address these challenges, efforts must be directed towards active and ambitious entrepreneurship in the SSA setting. In that effort, careful attention must be given to core impediments to productive entrepreneurship in the SSA setting (e.g., Iwu & Opute, 2019; Iwu et al., 2020; Gyimah et al., 2019): lack of government support, expensive requirements and bureaucratic procedures for business establishment, lack of adequate financial support, harsh policies and procedures, poor infrastructures and environmental conditions. Supporting the viewpoint of major impediments in the SSA setting, Atiase et al. (2017) categorise internal (poor business execution, lack of focus, insufficient capital and poor customer service) and external (poor government policies, lack of enabling environment, lack of infrastructural development and lack of financial support [business loans] factors).

Given the aforementioned challenges, it is not surprising that entrepreneurships in the SSA setting lack the capacity to contribute to economic growth (e.g., Kusi et al., 2015; Gyimah et al., 2019; Okpara, 2011). To turn the tide, and ensure entrepreneurship activity that will sustain economic growth as well as contribute to reduction in unemployment and poverty in the SSA setting, there is pertinence for supportive initiatives that will enable entrepreneurships develop and acquire productive capacity that is pro-active, innovative and utilise market opportunities (e.g., Atiase et al., 2017; Frimpong, 2013; Iwu et al., 2020).

Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: A Review of Literature and Conceptual Framework for This Study

In this section, we explain the theoretical framing of this study towards achieving the objective of steering active and economic growth impacting entrepreneurship in the SSA setting. According to Simatupang et al. (2015 p. 393), ‘an effective entrepreneurship ecosystem depends on the integration of activities of various stakeholders at three different levels, namely the strategic level (policymaking), the institutional level (support institutions) and the enterprise level (entrepreneurs and business entities).’ While drawing from the strategic viewpoint of entrepreneurship marketing (e.g., Opute, 2020), the theoretical focus in this study relates to the institutional level and enterprise level. This conceptualisation is rationalised on literature on the SSA setting: (a) entrepreneurship activity in the SSA setting is relatively passive and survivalist natured (Iwu, 2017; Iwu & Opute, 2019) and (b) the government not actively playing its facilitating role in steering economic growth impacting entrepreneurship (e.g., Iwu & Opute, 2019; Iwu et al., 2020). A fundamental foundation of entrepreneurial ecosystem is that the flow between entrepreneurs and other actors creates and utilises resources for productive entrepreneurship (Spigel & Harrison, 2017), and in this study, we take the entrepreneurial ecosystem viewpoint that incorporates the network, policy and universities (research—see research agenda) attributes.

Entrepreneurial Ecosystem: What Is It?

Recent entrepreneurship discourse documents a closer embodiment of the fields of entrepreneurship studies, economic geography, urban economics and the economics of entrepreneurship (Autio et al., 2014; Ucbasaran et al., 2001; Zahra et al., 2014). This trend, along with the growing understanding that not all entrepreneurship activities contribute to economic growth (e.g., Henrekson & Sanandaji, 2014; Stam et al., 2011), as well as the growing interest on entrepreneurial actors within urban and regional economics (e.g., Acs & Armington, 2004; Glaeser et al., 2010), have steered an emerging entrepreneurial ecosystem approach that considers how urban and regional contexts condition ambitious entrepreneurship (Stam & Spigel, 2016). Productive entrepreneurships, as coined by Baumoil (1990), are direct outcomes of successful ambitious entrepreneurships (Stam & Spigel, 2017). According to Stam et al. (2012), ambitious entrepreneurships explore opportunities towards identifying and evaluation of new goods and services and leveraging them to optimise added value. That viewpoint, which shares contextual affinity with Marshall’s (1920) ‘active entrepreneurs’ (cited in Whaples, 2013, p. 73) connotation, connects closely to Ahmad and Seymour’s (2008, p. 14) description of entrepreneurial activity: ‘the enterprising human action in pursuit of the generation of value, through the creation or expansion of economic activity, by identifying and exploiting new products, processes or market.’

Globally, economies are facing enormous challenge to figure out how to strategically steer sustainable economic growth (Opute, 2020), and especially for the SSA landscape, this challenge is even the more daunting (e.g., Iwu & Opute, 2019; Opute, 2020). Founded in the sustainable economic growth thinking, this article activates the ‘active entrepreneurs’ and ‘entrepreneurial activity’ theoretical framings in forwarding an entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Although the ideas behind a systemic view on entrepreneurship existed much earlier (e.g., Dubini, 1989; Van de Ven, 1993), the first major use of the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystem was by Cohen (2006 p. 3) who defined it as ‘… an interconnected group of actors in a local geographic community committed to sustainable development through the support and facilitation of new sustainable ventures.’ Grounded on Bourdieu’s (2005) theory of embodied practice, and with particular focus on his concepts of field, habitus and capital – a perspective that has gained increasing attention in entrepreneurship (e.g., Spigel, 2015; Stam & Spigel, 2017; McAdam et al., 2018), entrepreneurial ecosystem emphasises the need for interactions between entrepreneurial system elements to optimise entrepreneurial performance of a region.

Thus, the entrepreneurial ecosystem viewpoint emphasises the importance of the relational aspect (Stam & Spigel, 2017; Turkina, 2018; Turkina et al., 2016). Embedded in diverse forms of social relationships, either through formal inter-organisational networks or informal networks (friendships and family ties), businesses and business owners are undoubtedly affected in their decision-making and business performance outcomes (Turkina et al., 2016; Turkina & Thai, 2013). Businesses can leverage such social networks to boost business growth through transaction costs, creating business opportunities and knowledge exchange. As globalisation and increased competition becomes the trend, inter-organisational networks participation and cooperation becomes a critical competitive tool (Kofler & Marcher, 2018; Pechlaner & Bachinger, 2010). When entrepreneurs leverage social networks, they are more able to respond to market opportunities by embracing innovative strategies (product, service and or marketing) and thereby actively create wealth and growth (Opute, 2020; Stam, 2015).

Embracing entrepreneurial ecosystem orientation is a critical strategic approach for productive (growing and economic growth impacting) entrepreneurship (e.g., Zahra & Nambisan, 2012; Turkina et al., 2019). Explaining the interactionist dynamics in entrepreneurial ecosystem, the latter group of scholars underline that the interplay, coexistence and leveraging of connectedness sparks innovation, as firms have to organise their operations to compete favourably. On their part, Zahra and Nambisan coin strategic thinking as the response path for making the edge in an entrepreneurship ecosystem. According to them, succeeding in entrepreneurial ecosystems requires cooperation and competition, and effectively achieving these hinges on strategic thinking to effectively leverage a firm’s resources and capabilities. They further note that strategic thinking and the entrepreneurship activities in an ecosystem influence one another in a cycle, and this ultimately sparks innovation, a conclusion that connects to the view by Turkina et al. (2019). In a view that reinforces this innovation and strategic thinking notions, Auerswald (2015) emphasises the need for entrepreneurs to think big and move fast, if the gains of entrepreneurial ecosystem approach is to be fully maximised towards achieving sustained economic growth and improved well-being.

The theorising of entrepreneurial ecosystem in this study draws from the conceptualisation in Stam and Spigel (2017): entrepreneurial ecosystems encompass interdependent actors and factors that are optimally coordinated to enable productive entrepreneurship within a particular territory. Embracing this conceptualisation is rationalised on the underlying focus of this study, which is to leverage critical emergent cues from reviewed literature to steer policy informing guidelines for strategically facilitating economic growth boosting entrepreneurship in the SSA context that is facing high unemployment and poverty challenge. Entrepreneurial ecosystems discourse has stressed the need to take a multi-dimensional approach, given that multiple domains surround and interact with entrepreneurship (Auerswald, 2015; Motoyama & Watkins, 2014). The ecosystem conceptualisation in this study considers the connectedness between the entrepreneurships, government and education (research).

Networking and the Levels of Connections in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

In the entrepreneurial ecosystems discourse, the need to improve the understanding of the relationships between elements in the ecosystem and the evolution of the ecosystem has been emphasised (e.g., Motoyama & Watkins, 2014; Auerswald, 2015; McAdam et al., 2016). Agreeing to that need, the conceptualisation for this study incorporates the networking attribute.

Increasingly, collaborative networks involving entrepreneurships, and SMEs in particular (McAdam et al., 2016) is associated with productive entrepreneurship and achieving sustained economic development (e.g., Auerswald, 2015; McAdam et al., 2018; McAdam et al., 2016; Motoyama & Watkins, 2014). Consequently, several configurations have been considered in the effort to understand this network (McAdam et al., 2016; Wilhelm, 2011).

An important call for innovation in SMEs extend to inter-entrepreneurial networks which hold critical resource-saving and risk-sharing strategy propensity (e.g., Kofler & Marcher, 2018; McAdam et al., 2014; McAdam et al., 2016). Competition thus become more intense in the market and engaging in inter-organisational networks and cooperation become more critical, especially as innovation increases in importance as the cutting edge strategy, and SMEs lack the financial capabilities and human resources for pursuing that operational strategy independently (Kofler & Marcher, 2018; McAdam et al., 2016; Opute, 2020).

Drawing from the social network analysis (Scott, 1988) as a basis of understanding social network interactions in horizontal collaborative networks, this literature review focuses on the social network factors that can interact within a network entity leading to innovation: behavioural, interactional, contextual and structural factors (e.g., Demirkan, 2007; McAdam et al., 2016). While the behavioural factors include aptitudes, dispositions and interactions among actors in the network and contains three sub-factors such as market orientation, cooperative spirit, and an active initiator SME that functions as the bridge enterprise (Boschma & Lambooy, 2002; McAdam et al., 2016), interaction factors depict perceptions of individual SMEs and other actors in the network regarding the need for collaboration (McAdam et al., 2016; Shaw, 2006). Mitchell (1969) categorised five sub-interaction-factors: content, intensity, frequency, durability and direction. The contextual factors contains three sub-factors, namely market type, social cohesiveness and existing institutional support in the network (Lamprinopoulou et al., 2006; McAdam et al., 2016), and structural factors contains four sub-components: anchorage, reachability, density and range (McAdam et al., 2016).

Entrepreneurs in an ecosystem need to utilise the networks in the ecosystem. One critical step for entrepreneurs in the ecosystem towards enabling them achieve productive entrepreneurship that would contribute significantly to economic growth and reduce unemployment is for entrepreneurs to create an inventory that enables them know clearly who are the participants in the ecosystem and the nature of connections between them (Auerswald, 2015). The government can play a major role in creating this inventory and mapping the nature, directions and magnitude of roles and interactions and relationships between the entrepreneurship types. Armed with that resource, entrepreneurs and community members would be able to develop vital strategies for engagement and competing effectively in the market.

Leveraging the goodwill in the entrepreneurial ecosystem also involves utilising the social networks in the system to offset the areas of shortcomings that individual entrepreneurs may have. Entrepreneurs should avoid artificially segmenting their community or strategies (Auerswald, 2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems are composed of active participants that often play multiple roles, and a core resource that entrepreneurs can leverage in the ecosystem is to utilise the unique skillsets of the versatile community members (Auerswald, 2015; Opute, 2020). For example, entrepreneurs can leverage network resources such as knowledge (management and marketing), including also new ways of doing things and accessing market channels that may not have been accessible (Opute, 2020).

Maximising the Sustained Economic Growth Impact of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem: Government Facilitating Role

Within this target of maximising the sustained economic growth and improved well-being impact, a further point that has been flagged in the entrepreneurial ecosystem discourse relates to the critical facilitating role that governments can play, a point that is of significant importance to the theorising of this article which is tailored towards steering active and ambitious entrepreneurial activity in the SSA setting where the governments seem mainly dormant and negligent of their enabling role to the entrepreneurial wheel. The strive for ways to enable entrepreneurial ecosystem is one of practical importance (Auerswald, 2015). Understanding clearly entrepreneurial ecosystems would enable policymakers ask relevant questions, figure out better approaches and evaluate resultant outcomes (Auerswald, 2015). Scholars stress the importance supportive government policies and regulations play in any setting that seriously recognises entrepreneurial ecosystem as an economic model (e.g., Auerswald, 2015; Motoyama & Watkins, 2014; Stam, 2015; Stam & Spigel, 2017). Policymakers should enact policies and regulations that motivate and facilitate active entrepreneurship, for example, policies that address bottlenecks and disadvantages faced not only by entrepreneurial entrants into new and existing markets (e.g., Auerswald, 2015; Opute et al., 2020b) but also already existing entrepreneurs (e.g., Iwu, 2017; Iwu & Opute, 2019).

The importance of developing entrepreneur friendly policies that correct market failures has also been emphasised in the entrepreneurial ecosystems (e.g., Auerswald, 2015). Towards enabling entrepreneurial ecosystem that impacts economic growth, the government should actively engage entrepreneurs in developing and implementing strategic policies that encourage dynamism, increase diversity and stimulate activity such as idea exploration, product development and increased deal flow (Auerswald, 2015, p. 1; Kristiansen & Booyens, 2011).

While disruptions are inevitable parts of economic and social life, economic disruptions create opportunities (Auerswald, 2015). As part of the entrepreneurial ecosystem enabling role, policymakers should not only be able to anticipate such disruptions, but also enable the entrepreneurial ecosystems actors to effectively utilise the opportunities that emerge from such disruptions.

Education (Research)

Within the focus of the government playing the facilitating role, it is important for the government to also play its role in supporting and enabling research as a tool for informing policy and practice. Doing that is a critical process towards optimising the gains of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Especially in the SSA setting, where entrepreneurship is under-researched (e.g., Iwu & Opute, 2019; Iwu et al., 2020; Atiase et al., 2017), the government needs to work harmoniously with educational institutions to facilitate researches that would enable the government understand clearly entrepreneurship dynamics, and in response offer research-led policies and procedures that would facilitate productive entrepreneurship towards sustained economic growth and combating unemployment and reducing poverty. There is need for reshaping entrepreneurship development in SSA to be innovation driven and economic growth oriented.

Methodological Approach

Primarily, the focus of this study is to draw attention to entrepreneurial ecosystem as a critical model towards steering productive entrepreneurship that imparts economic growth. In doing that, we focus particularly on the SSA setting that is documented to be plagued by high unemployment and poverty. To achieve the goal of this study, qualitative approach that involved the review of existing literature was followed (e.g., Opute et al., 2020). Given its suitability, a systematic review strategy was used to collate a robust evidence on the central theoretical themes for this study as it allows for systematic and transparent approach to capture and evaluate relevant literature on a given topic or question (e.g., Cronin et al., 2008; St. John & McNeal, 2017). Second, a systematic review was deemed appropriate in this study as it enables the identification of core research gaps and important cues for steering future research (Cochrane, 1972; Irene et al., 2020).

Systematic review in this study consisted of three steps (Cronin et al., 2008): searching the literature, analysing, and synthesising the literature, and writing the review. To locate relevant literature, we scanned several databases using key search terms (Silverman, 2016). We searched key databases such as Science Direct, Emerald, Scopus to identify studies relevant to the focus of this study. Grey literature search was also carried out utilising Google Scholar to capture relevant literature. Keywords used in the literature search included sustainable economic growth, unemployment, poverty, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship innovation, strategic entrepreneurship marketing, productive entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial ecosystem, networking, SSA, among others, and our initial search captured 237 articles.

Following methodological guideline (Patton, 1990), we used the criteria of language, relevance, and type of research to identify studies for inclusion in this study. Using that approach, we excluded articles that contained non-English contents (partially or fully) as well as articles that did not fit closely to the thematic premise of this study. Also, book chapters were excluded, except in a few cases (e.g., Stam & Spigel, 2017; Bourdieu, 2005; Dana, 2004; Opute, 2020) where the contents connected significantly to the theoretical framing of this study. The collection of articles used in this study was 160. The papers that were considered in this review and academic journals considered have been documented in the Appendix. The articles considered in this review were published in the period of 1989 to 2020 and the review lasted about two months.

Content analysis in this study followed the inductive lens (Thomas, 2006). This involved thorough reading of the selected studies to capture the state of knowledge in the domain of this study (e.g., Opute et al., 2020a). To ensure that knowledge is captured accurately, an iterative approach that involved reading the text back and forth was used (e.g., Opute et al., 2020a; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Analysing the relevant literature, we focused on identifying the core thematic threads in the discourse (see Appendix) in each selected paper. In concordance with the central aim of this review, data abstracted were in the form, effect and findings, and conceptualisation of ideas or theoretical perspectives (Snyder, 2019).

Conclusions

Grounded on the cues obtained from reviewed literature, Figure 1 presents the entrepreneurial ecosystem model that contextualises a pro-active and strategic approach towards steering active and productive entrepreneurship that would drive economic growth as well as create employment and combat poverty.

Taking the cue from entrepreneurial developments in developed economies, our review posits a huge emphasis on the need for entrepreneurs to enjoy an entrepreneurial ecosystem that supports sustainable socioeconomic development in the SSA region. It is understood that the SSA is synonymous with negligible infrastructural utilities such as water, electricity, roads and transportation systems. The extent to which SMEs contribute to economic development will remain compromised because of dilapidated or huge absence of these utilities. In fact, Iwu (2018 p. 219) stated:

Relying on SMEs to champion socioeconomic development would be like expecting the impossible to happen unless there is an efficient and affordable transportation system, available and reliable support systems (which include human and other capital) and removal of unnecessary or excessively complicated regulations and administrative processes.

Stressing the importance of diminished red tape on the part of government was also flagged as one of the impediments to improved entrepreneurship activity, we argue that obliterating undue and excessive red tape associated with business registration, access to finance, and access to business education will go a long way in harnessing better value for the entrepreneur and the economy. This in part echoes the description of red tape by the International Labour Organisation (ILO, n.d.) as unnecessary, complicated, oppressively complex and time consuming with the potential to ruin a genuine attempt at adding value to an economy by a well thought-out business.

Figure 1.

Source: The authors (ideas collated from reviewed literature).

The conceptual model forwards an innovation and strategic entrepreneurship marketing focus that leverages social network foundation towards driving productive entrepreneurship for sustaining economic growth and reducing unemployment. The model captured in Figure 1 conceptualises a network viewpoint of entrepreneurial ecosystem that takes into consideration the social network factors that can interact within a network entity leading to innovation: behavioural, interactional, contextual and structural factors (e.g., Demirkan, 2007; McAdam et al., 2016). We argue that if all these network dimensions are effectively coordinated, it would enable entrepreneurs within the ecosystem to optimally leverage their networks and collaborate effectively to offset whatever financial, human, or infrastructural incapacities in their individual circumstances.

The above model also underlines the criticality of the government playing an active role in the plan to steer productive entrepreneurship that would embrace strategic entrepreneurship marketing and innovation approaches towards enabling market expansion and contributing to economic growth and reducing unemployment. To fulfil that facilitating role, governments must initiate entrepreneurship friendly policies and procedures that will enable entrepreneurs identify and leverage market opportunities, as well as effectively adapt to economic disruptions. Achieving such policies and procedures however requires a government that clearly recognises the importance of understanding the operational dynamics of entrepreneurs, a governmental approach that is essential in its facilitating function. Governments must recognise the critical role that education through its research tool plays in informing policy and practice. Working harmoniously with and supporting education with funding to aid research is therefore a critical step that governments must take in the drive to steer the economic development wheel through productive entrepreneurship. Effectively fulfilling the facilitating role that governments play would also enable entrepreneurs to effectively adapt to shocks and economic disruptions.

Recommendations, Limitations and Research Agenda

Recommendations

Steering wealth creation and combating poverty and unemployment are key government goals globally (Connelly, 2018). In the particular case of governments in the SSA context, the challenge of realising those goals are not only enormous but have proved for decades to be constantly on the increase (e.g., Iwu & Opute, 2019; Iwu et al., 2020), hence the theoretical modelling of this article with a central focus on SSA. ‘Innovation and entrepreneurship power economic growth’ (Florida et al., 2017, p. 87), and a stable economic growth is critical to combating poverty and unemployment. Advancing that argument, this article examined the body of knowledge towards leveraging critical cues to steer policy change for mobilising and focusing entrepreneurial activity to optimise economic contribution in the SSA context that faces persistent high scale of unemployment, skills under-utilisation and poverty (Iwu & Opute, 2019; Iwu et al., 2020).

In one of his daily Coronavirus pandemic briefings, President Trump commented thus: Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. The legitimacy of that notion has been supported in many Western countries (see Tables 1, 2 and 3). Entrepreneurship literature has however documented that although there exists a huge number of self-employed workers, that is SMEs, in the SSA setting, they rarely make meaningful economic contributions nor do they employ others (e.g., Whaples, 2013; Iwu et al., 2020). Thus, survivalist entrepreneurship seems to be prevalent (Choto et al., 2014; Iwu & Opute, 2019). In contrast to the Western context, this is typically the trend in the SSA setting (e.g., Iwu & Opute, 2019; Iwu et al., 2020). Critical factors that explain the insignificant economic growth impact, including low combating impact on unemployment, of SMEs in the SSA setting, include failure to embrace entrepreneurship marketing strategies (Opute, 2020) and failure of the government to play the facilitating role in steering economic growth impacting entrepreneurship (Opute, 2020; Iwu & Opute, 2019). In a view that lends support to the entrepreneurship marketing strategies point, Connelly (2018) forwards lack of innovativeness as a central contributing factor. Recognising the criticality of entrepreneurship marketing strategies and government facilitating role, we forward an entrepreneurial ecosystem model for steering economic growth impacting entrepreneurship in the SSA context.

To steer economic growth impacting entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs must endorse the active approach, where the entrepreneur, as noted by Marshall (1920), is innovation focused and strategically seeks new ways of creating added value through new products, processes and markets (see also, Opute, 2020). Such entrepreneurs, also called ‘ambitious entrepreneurs’, possess the capacity to impact economic growth, as they are driven by the strong desire ‘to achieve substantial firm growth, innovation and internationalisation than the “average entrepreneur”’ (Stam, 2015, p. 1759). Entrepreneurships with such drive to contribute to a sustained economic growth must embrace a strategic marketing approach that enables them to identify and explores new markets and even internationalise its focus (e.g., Opute, 2020).

A critical step towards maximising the gains of such strategic marketing approach is a pro-active and innovation focus that drives entrepreneurships to boldly invest in new opportunities and seek new ways of doing things. Entrepreneurships that are innovative position themselves to compete more effectively in their markets (e.g., Opute, 2020; Ferreira et al., 2017).

Given its instrumental economic activity relevance in most countries, the SME landscape is critical (e.g., Tewari et al., 2013; Opute, 2020). Effectively steering SMEs is essential towards optimising the job creation and shared prosperity potentials, hence the criticality for appropriate and strategic SME policy. Taking the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach, we underscore this importance.

The governments in SSA context have long been sloppy and must actively play their part in facilitating and sustaining economic growth impacting entrepreneurship activity. In the entrepreneurship discourse, entrepreneurs are desperately driven into survivalist entrepreneurship (also called ‘necessity entrepreneurship’; GEM, 2017, p. 9) as an escape route from unemployment (e.g., GEM, 2017; Iwu & Opute, 2019). Within the SSA setting, recent literature has not only reinforced the unemployment push force (e.g., Iwu & Opute, 2019; Ranyane, 2015; Iwu et al., 2020) but also echoed the pertinence for a committed and a strategically coordinated effort from governments in that setting towards steering entrepreneurial activities that significantly contribute to economic growth, creating employment and reducing unemployment (e.g., Iwu & Opute, 2019; Iwu et al., 2020). According to the latter study, waste pickers can potentially contribute actively to sustainable economic growth if governments actively play their enabling role by providing essential financial support and hands-on-deck enablement.

In the literature, it has been reported that while small, medium and micro-enterprise (SMMEs) are viewed as a vital tool for securing economic stability, growth and providing employment in South Africa, achieving that impact remains a dream (Kristiansen & Booyens, 2011; Nieuwenhuizen, 2019). A plausible reason is that government regulations are exerting adverse rather than facilitating influence, as the survival and growth of the SMMEs are impeded (Nieuwenhuizen, 2019). Based on insights from Mosambik, Krause et al. (2010) reinforce that regulatory requirements are major impediments to the growth of SMMEs. They argue that the compliance cost for SMMEs is huge compared to their turnover, and the SMMEs lack the capacity to cost effectively respond to such requirements. To enable SMMEs survive and acquire the capacity to operate profitability and contribute positively to economic growth, the government in the SSA setting needs to rise to the task of playing its facilitating role. This will include ensuring policies and regulations that would enable the operating capacity of entrepreneurships. Especially for new entrants and incubator firms, policies and regulations must be strategically tailored to support and enable active and innovation-oriented entrepreneurship.

Governments in the SSA setting can also play its facilitating role by ensuring policies that secure financial support to entrepreneurships to enable them to be proactive in sensing and responding to market opportunities and leveraging entrepreneurial ecosystem opportunities. Kristiansen and Booyens (2011) note that the South African government recognises the critical role that SMMEs play in driving economic growth, creating jobs, and addressing societal imbalance. However, they also note that small businesses in South Africa are benefiting very little from the support that Government offers, a viewpoint that finds resonance almost a decade later (e.g., Iwu & Opute, 2019; Iwu et al., 2020). It is important to have this awareness of the significant role that SMMEs play in achieving the aforementioned targets, realising them however hinges strongly on a genuine and committed support effort that builds on a clear understanding of the SMMEs, their market dynamics and their entire operational ecosystem. If that is done, this will contribute immensely in the drive to steer productive entrepreneurship that contributes either directly or indirectly to the economy’s net output or boost capacity to produce additional output (Baumol, 1990) and thereby drive snowballing employment creation (Opute, 2020).

To understand clearly the operational dynamics of SMMEs and other forms of entrepreneurships towards ensuring measured policies to facilitate their productiveness and economic growth impact and ability to create jobs, governments in the SSA setting must harmonise more effectively with education and support that sector with much needed funding to enable them carry out entrepreneurship researches that will inform policy and practice. A major impediment in the SSA setting is that most of the practices are highly obsolete. Ensuring this harmonisation and leveraging the important role of expanded research, governments can ensure policies and procedures that would reduce dependence on obsolete systems and drive active entrepreneurship that would enable market expansion and economic growth.

Limitations and Research Agenda

Much of the literature on entrepreneurship has focused on developed countries (Dana, 2004; Ratten, 2014). To address this imbalance, there is need to beef up entrepreneurship literature about developing countries (e.g., Ratten, 2014; Iwu & Opute, 2019). The theorising of this article was therefore founded on knowledge contribution approach that builds on state of knowledge to inform policy and steer strategically focused and economic growth impacting entrepreneurship, as well as contributing to addressing the aforementioned theoretical imbalance from the point of entrepreneurship, and in particular entrepreneurial ecosystem. The limitation of this study must also be borne in mind from the point of the conceptual premise of entrepreneurial ecosystem in this study. Domain literature has emphasised the need to take a multi-dimensional approach to entrepreneurial ecosystem bearing in mind that multiple domains affect entrepreneurship in a region, and these interact with each other (e.g., Auerswald, 2015; Motoyama & Watkins, 2014).

While the policy and implementation objective has been achieved earlier, this current section flags knowledge development directions. To do that, we first acknowledge the limitations of this study and subsequently pinpoint associated future research directions.

Methodologically, this study was based on systematic review of literature. While a rigorous and organised approach was used in capturing relevant literature (publications and core discourse towards gaining a deep understanding of the explored topic (St. John & McNeal, 2017), we recognise a limitation of this study which relates to the fact that the conclusions in this study may not be completely reflective of the entire body of knowledge.

As documented in the literature, entrepreneurship activity in the SSA setting is relatively passive, survivalist focused, and therefore lacks the drive to contribute meaningfully to sustained economic growth, nor in combating ever increasing unemployment and poverty (e.g., Iwu & Opute, 2019; Iwu et al., 2020). The theorising of this article was therefore purposed to steer active and ambitious entrepreneurship, drawing from the entrepreneurial ecosystem foundation, to drive economic growth impacting entrepreneurship. In this strive for economic growth impacting entrepreneurship in the SSA context, we draw attention to the need to leverage research to inform policy, therefore we flag directions for research to improve knowledge and practice.

While entrepreneurial ecosystem has attracted much attention (e.g., Stam, 2015; Stam & Spigel, 2016; Mack & Mayer, 2016; McAdam et al., 2015; McAdam et al., 2014; McAdam et al., 2018), scholars underline major gaps in the understanding of several components relating to entrepreneurial ecosystem. For example, there is a poor understanding of how entrepreneurial ecosystem gets established and evolve, and by which processes it develops over time (Mack & Mayer, 2016; Stam & Spigel, 2016). Also, some scholars have argued that entrepreneurial ecosystem approaches documented in the literature are static and merely describe relations in entrepreneurial ecosystem (Mason & Brown, 2014; Mack & Mayer, 2016; Spigel, 2015). Future research could address these gaps towards ensuring effective entrepreneurial ecosystems connections to maximise economic growth contribution.

Furthermore, it has been noted that scholars have primarily produced long lists of factors that might matter in the understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystem, while not clearly explaining what causes what (Stam, 2015). Explaining the causal relationships in entrepreneurial ecosystems dynamics is a critical research space towards achieving the economic growth gains of entrepreneurial ecosystem. We therefore draw attention to the importance of illuminating the internal and external entrepreneurial ecosystem features, shedding light on the entrepreneurial forms that may endorse internal or external entrepreneurial ecosystems or both. More so, we draw attention to the advocacy for researches that draw on network literature to enhance the understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystem, both in theoretical and analytical terms (McAdam et al., 2015; McAdam et al., 2014; McAdam et al., 2018).

The entrepreneurial ecosystem literature has not sufficiently explored the institutional and political context of the interactions in entrepreneurial ecosystem: what kind of formal and informal institutions matter in entrepreneurial ecosystem, and at what spatial scales? (Spigel, 2015). Extending this research call, we call for researches that illuminate the government policies and procedures that aid entrepreneurial ecosystem effectiveness (Auerswald, 2015; Motoyama & Watkins, 2014) and economic growth contribution.

In seeking to improve knowledge in this area, it is important to bear in mind the fundamental influence of culture on entrepreneurial orientation (e.g., Hagos et al., 2019; Opute et al., 2020a). According to that foundation, whether entrepreneurs would leverage network resources, prioritised nature, and extent, would hinge on non-conventional culture artefacts. Therefore, future research should aim to illuminate the differentiators of entrepreneurs’ endorsement of networking relationship, from the point of cultural antecedents, form of networking, entrepreneurship nature, services or tangible products features and geographical setting.

Appendix

Table A1.

Journals and Publications Examined in this Study (1989–2020).

Name of Journal	Themes Explored	References
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management	Entrepreneurship environment in Africa	Sheriff et al. (2016)
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business	Finance, networking, human capital; networking, entrepreneurial ecosystem; collective entrepreneurship, networking; small and medium enterprises, inter-organisational networking, innovation	Opute et al. (2020); Vial & Richomme-Huet (2017); Simatupang et al. (2015); Ratten (2014); Kofler & Marcher (2018)
Journal of Economic Geography		Turkina et al. (2016)
Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship	Innovation; African entrepreneurship and small business research	Turkina (2018); Naudé & Havenga (2005)
Regional Studies	Regional innovation, firm innovation performance; entrepreneurial ecosystem, innovation; entrepreneurial ecosystem, innovation, horizontal networks; economic growth, entrepreneurial activity, employment growth rate	Turkina et al. (2019); Florida et al. (2017); McAdam (2016); Acs & Armington (2004)
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development	Entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial activity, cultural values, entrepreneurial cognition; entrepreneurial ecosystem, entrepreneurial activity, economic growth	Hayton & Cacciotti (2013); Content et al. (2019)
International Small Business Journal	SMEs, innovation, collaboration; economic growth; Strategic entrepreneurship, small firm growth in Africa (Ghana); small and medium enterprises, horizontal innovation networks; entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial dimensions, entrepreneurial context, ownership and governance	Wynarczyk et al. (2013); Van Stel & Carree (2004); Obeng et al. (2014); McAdam et al. (2014); Zahra et al. (2014)
Small Business Economics	Entrepreneurship, economic growth, innovation; entrepreneurship growth barriers in Africa (Ghana); entrepreneurships and challenges in developing economies; entrepreneurship and happiness; entrepreneurship opportunities, entrepreneurship and growth; entrepreneurial ecosystem, women entrepreneurship, networking; corporate entrepreneurship, innovation, global economy; SMEs, family influence, performance; knowledge frontiers, entrepreneurship research; entrepreneurial activity, regional competitiveness entrepreneurship, economic growth; entrepreneurship, institutional economics, economic growth, entrepreneurial ecosystem	Wong et al. (2005), Robson & Obeng (2008); Naudé (2010); Naudé et al. (2013); Mueller (2007); McAdam et al. (2018); Kuratko et al. (2015); Chu (2009); Belitski et al. (2021); Audretsch & Peña-Legazkue (2012); Acs (2002); Acs et al. (2018)
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice	Entrepreneurship ecosystem, innovation, regulatory processes, business success; entrepreneurship in Africa, informal economies, social ties; entrepreneurship, institutional theory; entrepreneurial ecosystem, role of institutions, regulations; entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial process, business strategy, external environment of entrepreneurship	Nambisan & Baron (2013); Khavul et al. (2009); Bruton et al. (2010); Audretsch (2018); Ucbasaran et al. (2001)
Journal of Business Research	Entrepreneurship, economic growth, innovation	Galindo & Méndez (2014)
Business Horizons	Business ecosystems, collaboration, competition, strategic thinking, dynamic interactions	Zahra & Nambisan (2012)
Journal of Business Venturing	Entrepreneurship, poverty; entrepreneurial motivations, munificent environments, government intervention; entrepreneurship, industrial infrastructure, interacting factors that facilitate or constrain entrepreneurship; entrepreneurs behaviour and social, economic and political factors	Bruton et al. (2013); Dubini (1989), Van de Ven (1993)
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development	SME finance, value construction; entrepreneurship in Africa, critical resource challenges	Van Klyton & Rutabayiro-Ngoga (2018); Atiase et al. (2018)
Journal of Family Business Strategy	Family business strategy, family influence, networking, performance; entrepreneurship, ownership structure, firm performance	Lindow et al. (2010); Arosa et al. (2010)
Urban Studies	Entrepreneurial ecosystems, evolutionary dynamics, interdependencies between entrepreneurial ecosystem components	Mack & Mayer (2016)
Journal of International Business Studies	Knowledge sourcing, connectedness, networking	Turkina & Van Assche (2018)
European Planning Studies	Entrepreneurship ecosystem, regional policy; entrepreneurial ecosystem	Sternberg (2012), Stam (2015)
Journal of Evolutional Economics	New technology, collective learning, evolutionary economics, economic geography, regional adjustment	Boschma & Lambooy (2002)
Business Strategy and the Environment	Entrepreneurial ecosystem, sustainability, entrepreneurial innovations, formal and informal networks, physical infrastructure and culture	Cohen (2006)
Journal of Operations Management	Horizontal supply chain, strategic supply networks, competition, cooperation	Wilhelm (2011)
Journal of Small Business Management	SMEs, corporate entrepreneurship, antecedents, emerging economy	Hughes & Mustafa (2016)
African Journal of Economic and Management Studies	African enterprise development, contingencies	Tvedten et al. (2014)
Thunderbird International Business Review	Internationalisation of small businesses in developing economies	Matanda (2012)
Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes	Entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial ecosystem, tourism entrepreneurship	Connelly (2018)
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research	Gender and entrepreneurship, networking; artisanal Entrepreneurship and determinants in Africa (Nigeria); migrant entrepreneurships, institutionalised barriers and performance factors	Marlow & McAdam (2013); Igwe et al. (2018); Hagos et al. (2019)
International Journal of Business and Globalisation	Entrepreneurship, innovation, competitiveness	Ferreira et al. (2017)
International Journal of Management Education	Entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurship education, competency and skills, success outcome	Iwu et al. (2019)
Academy of Management Perspectives	Institutions, entrepreneurship, economic growth	Bjørnskov & Foss (2016)
Research Policy	Entrepreneurial ecosystems, entrepreneurial innovation, innovation systems, entrepreneurial context, entrepreneurship policy	Autio et al. (2014)
Handbook for Entrepreneurship and Small Business	Entrepreneurial ecosystem	Stam & Spiegel (2017)
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development	Small and micro businesses; entrepreneurship mission and policy influence in Finland	Shibia & Barako (2017); Heinonen & Hytti (2016)
The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher	Micro businesses, government regulations and support	Kristiansen & Booyens (2011)
African Journal of Management	Women entrepreneurships in Africa	Reid et al. (2015)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences	Survivalist entrepreneurships, combating unemployment	Ranyane (2015)
Service Industries Journal	Networking, Innovative businesses	Pechlaner & Bachinger (2010)
African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure	Tourism services, networking, innovation, strategic marketing	Opute et al. (2020)
Management Research Review	Impediments of SMEs survival and growth in Africa (Nigeria)	Okpara (2011)
Journal of African Business	Small businesses, success vs. failure factors	Gyimah et al. (2019)
Development Southern Africa	Regulations and legislation in SMMEs in South Africa	Nieuwenhuizen (2019)
WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development	Survival entrepreneurship, unemployment, health implications	Iwu et al. (2020)
Journal of Reviews on Global Economics	Poverty, unemployment, survivalist entrepreneurship, Government intervention	Iwu & Opute (2019)
Problems and Perspectives in Management	Entrepreneurship in emerging economies, pre- and post-start ramification	Iwu (2017)
Journal of Urban Economics	Entrepreneurship, environmental influences, causes and consequences of entrepreneurship	Glaeser et al. (2010)
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal	New ventures, success factors, intellectual capital; knowledge spill-over, strategic entrepreneurship	Hormiga et al. (2011); Ferreira et al. (2017)
Journal of Global Entrepreneurial Research	Entrepreneurship framework in sub-Saharan Africa (South Africa, Angola, Mozambique and Madagascar), and conditions	Herrington & Coduras (2019)
Review of Economics and Statistics	Job creation, business size, business success	Haltiwanger et al. (2013)
Journal of Political Economy	Entrepreneurship, productive entrepreneurship, unproductive entrepreneurship, destructive entrepreneurship	Baumol (1990)
European Journal of Management and Business Economics	Entrepreneurship, innovation, social and cultural environment factors	García-Rodríguez et al. (2017)
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education	Entrepreneurship, unemployment, entrepreneurship education and antecedent factors in South Africa	Gamede & Uleanya (2018)
Triple Helix	Entrepreneurship ecosystem, government role	Fuerlinger et al. (2015)
Social Science	Female entrepreneurship, empowerment	Eib & Siegert (2019)
Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies	Entrepreneurship, public policy	Edoho (2016)
Global Journal of Economics and Business	Impact of small and medium scale enterprises on economic growth: Evidence from Nigeria	Jibir et al. (2018)
The Journal of Technology Transfer	Creativity, entrepreneurship, economic development	Belitski & Desai (2016)
Managerial and Decision Economics	Entrepreneurship, network, human, social and financial capital	Bastié et al. (2016)
International Journal of Manpower	Unemployment in Africa, policy	Baah-Boateng (2015)
The Journal of Modern African Studies	Political institutions, developmental governance in sub-Saharan Africa	Alence (2004)
African Development Review	Entrepreneurship and economic growth in Africa	Adusei (2016)
World Journal of entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development	Entrepreneurship, entrepreneurialism, sustainable development, sub-Saharan Africa	Ahmed & Nwankwo (2013)
Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places	Immigrant entrepreneurship, social capital, networking, trust	Turkina & Thai (2013)
British Food Journal	SMEs, performance, collective action, market structure, social cohesiveness, institutional involvement, market orientation, cooperation	Lamprinopoulou et al. (2006)
American Journal of Industrial and Business Management	Micro-small and Medium enterprises, job creation, income generation, poverty reduction, finance, support institutions, Ghana	Kusi et al. (2015)
Growth and Change	SMEs, networks, collective learning, knowledge, cooperation, innovation, political–institutional performance	Boschma & Lambooy (2002)

Source: The authors.

Note: In addition to the journals listed in this Table, World Bank, GEM and OECD Reports, among others, were explored in the literature review.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Abdullah Promise Opute

References

Acs

(2002). Innovation and the growth of cities . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Acs

, & Armington

(2004). Employment growth and entrepreneurial activity in cities. Regional Studies , 38(8), 911–927.

Acs

Z. J.

, Audretsch

D. B.

, Braunerhjelm

, & Carlsson

(2012). Growth and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics , 39, 289–300.

Acs

Z. J.

, Estrin

, Mickiewicz

, & Szerb

(2018). Entrepreneurship, institutional economics, and economic growth: An ecosystem perspective. Small Business Economics , 51(2), 501–514.

Acs

Z. J.

, & Naudé

W.A.

(2013). Entrepreneurship, stages of development, and industrialization. In Szirmai

A. W. A.

, Naudé

, & Alcorta

(Eds.), Pathways to industrialization in the 21st century . Oxford University Press.

Adusei

(2016). Does entrepreneurship promote economic growth in Africa? African Development Review , 28(2), 201–214.

Ahmad

, & Seymour

R. G.

(2008). Defining entrepreneurial activity: Definitions and supporting frameworks for data collection [OECD Statistics Working Papers No. 2008/01]. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1787/243164686763

Ahmed

, & Nwankwo

(2013). Entrepreneurship development in Africa: An overview. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development , 9(2/3), 82–86.

Alence

(2004). Political institutions and developmental governance in sub-Saharan Africa. The Journal of Modern African Studies , 42(2), 163–187.

10.

Almodovar-Gonzalez

, Sanchez-Escobedo

M. C.

, & Fernandez-Portillo

(2019). Linking demographics, entrepreneurial activity, and economic growth. Revista ESPACIOS , 40, 28.

11.

Arosa

, Iturralde

, & Maseda

(2010). Ownership structure and firm performance in non-listed firms: Evidence from Spain. Journal of Family Business Strategy , 1(2), 88–96.

12.

Atiase

V. Y.

, Mahmood

, Wang

, & Botchie

(2018). Developing entrepreneurship in Africa: Investigating critical resource challenges. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , 25(4), 644–666.

13.

Audretsch

D. B.

, & Peña-Legazkue

(2012). Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: An introduction to the special issue. Small Business Economics , 39(3), 531–537.

14.

Audretsch

D. B.

, Belitski

, & Desai

(2018). National business regulations and city entrepreneurship in Europe: A multilevel nested analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 4, 6

15.

Auerswald

P. P.

(2015). Enabling entrepreneurial ecosystems . Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

16.

Autio

, Kenney

, Mustar

, Siegel

, & Wright

(2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy , 43(7), 1097–1108.

17.

Azudin

, & Mansor

(2018). Management accounting practices of SMEs: The impact of organizational DNA, business potential and operational technology. Asia Pacific Management Review , 23(3), 222–226.

18.

Baah-Boateng

(2015). Unemployment in Africa. Unemployment in Africa: How appropriate is the global definition and measurement for policy purpose. International Journal of Manpower , 36(5), 650–667.

19.

Bastié

, Cussy

, & Le Nadant

A. L.

(2016). Network or independent business? entrepreneurs’ human, social and financial capital as determinants of mode of entry. Managerial and Decision Economics , 37(3), 167–181.

20.

Baumol

W. J.

(1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy , 98(5), 893–921.

21.

Belitski

, Caiazza

, & Lehmann

(2021). Knowledge frontiers and boundaries in entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics , 56, 521–531.

22.

Belitski

, & Desai

(2016). Creativity, entrepreneurship and economic development: City-level evidence on creativity spillover of entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer , 41(6), 1354–1376.

23.

Bernard

A. B.

, Bradford

, & Schott

P. K.

(2009). Importers, exporters and multinationals: A portrait of firms in the U.S. that trade goods. In Dunne

, Bradford

, & Roberts

M. J.

(Eds.), Producer dynamics: New evidence from microdata (pp. 513–556). National Bureau of Economic Research.

24.

Bjørnskov

, & Foss

N. J.

(2016). Institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: What do we know and what do we still need to know? Academy of Management Perspectives , 30(3), 292–315.

25.

Boschma

R. A.

, & Lambooy

J. G.

(2002). Knowledge, market structure, and economic coordination: Dynamics of industrial districts. Growth and Change , 33(3), 291–311.

26.

Bosma

, Hill

, Ionescu-Somers

, Kelley

, Levie

, Tarnawa

, & Association.

and the Global Entrepreneurship Research

(2020). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2019/20 global report . Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, London Business School.

27.

Bosma

, & Levie

(2010). Global entrepreneurship monitor 2009 . Executive Report, Babson Park, MA, USA: Babson College, Santiago, Chile: Universidad del Desarrollo, Reykjavík, Iceland: Háskólinn Reykjavík University, London, UK: Global Entrepreneurship Research Association.

28.

Bourdieu

(2005). The social structures of the economy . Polity.

29.

Brush

, de Bruin

, Welter

, & Allen

(2010). Gender embeddedness of women entrepreneurs: An empirical test of the 5 “M” Framework . Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 30(8).

30.

Bruton

G. D.

, Ahlstrom

, & Li

H. L.

(2010). Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: Where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 34(3), 421–440.

31.

Bruton

G. D.

, Ketchen

D. J.

, & Ireland

R. D.

(2013). Entrepreneurship as a solution to poverty. Journal of Business Venturing , 28(6), 683–689.

32.

Chigwenya

, & Mudzengerere

F. H.

(2013). The small and medium enterprises policy in Zimbabwe: A narrative of strides taken to mainstream the informal sector activities in urban local authorities in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance , 4(4), 1–18.

33.

Choto

, Tengeh

R. K.

, & Iwu

C. G.

(2014). Daring to survive or to grow? The growth aspirations and challenges of survivalist entrepreneurs in South Africa. Environmental Economics , 5(4), 93–101.

34.

Chu

(2009). The influence of family ownership on SME performance: Evidence from public firms in Taiwan. Small Business Economics , 33(3), 353–373.

35.

Cochrane

A. L.

(1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: Random reflections on health services . Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.

36.

Cohen

(2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy and the Environment , 15(1), 1–14.

37.

Colombo

M. G.

, De Massis

, Piva

, Rossi-Lamastra

, & Wright

(2014). Sales and employment changes in entrepreneurial ventures with family ownership: Empirical evidence from high-tech industries. Journal of Small Business Management , 52(2), 226–245.

38.

Connelly

(2018). How can the entrepreneurship ecosystem in Guyana impact the tourism industry by 2025? Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes , 10(5), 569–580.

39.

Content

, Bosma

, Jordaan

, & Sanders

(2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems, entrepreneurial activity and economic growth: New evidence from European regions Entrepreneurship and Regional Development , 31(1–2), 12–21.

40.

Criscuolo

, & Timmis

(2018). GVC centrality and productivity: Are hubs key to firm performance? [OECD Productivity Working paper, No. 14]. OECD Publishing.

41.

Cronin

, Ryan

, & Coughlan

(2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing , 17(1), 38–43.

42.

Dana

(2004). Handbook of research on international entrepreneurship . Edward Elgar.

43.

Demirkan

(2007). Essays on the evolution of networks in the US biotechnology industry [Unpublished PhD thesis]. University of Texas at Dallas.

44.

Dubini

(1989). The influence of motivations and environment on business start-ups: Some hints for public policies. Journal of Business Venturing , 4(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(89)90031-1

45.

Edoho

F. M.

(2016). Entrepreneurship paradigm in the new millennium: A critique of public policy in entrepreneurship. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies , 8(2), 279–294.

46.

Eib

, & Siegert

(2019). Is female entrepreneurship only empowering for single women? Evidence From France and Germany, Social Science , 8(4), 128–129.

47.

Ferreira

, Ratten

, & Dana

(2017). Knowledge spillover-based strategic entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , 13(1), 161–167.

48.

Ferreira

J. J.

, Fernandes

C. I.

, Raposo

M. L.

, Thurik

, & Faria

J. R.

(2016). Entrepreneur location decisions across industries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , 12(4), 985–1006.

49.

Ferreira

J. J.

, Fernandes

C. I.

, & Ratten

(2017). Entrepreneurship, innovation and competitiveness: What is the connection? International Journal of Business and Globalisation , 18(1), 73–95.

50.

Florida

, Adler

, & Mellander

(2017). The city as innovation machine. Regional Studies , 51(1), 86–96.

51.

Frimpong

C. Y.

(2013). SMEs as an engine of social and economic development in Africa . Modern Ghana. https://www.modernghana.com/news/478225/1/smes-as-an-engine-of-social-and-economic-developme.html

52.

Fuerlinger

, Fandl

, & Funke

(2015). The role of the state in the entrepreneurship ecosystem: Insights from Germany Triple Helix , 3, 20–35.

53.

Galindo

M. Á.

, & Méndez

M. T.

(2014). Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and innovation: Are feedback at work? Journal of Business Research , 67, 825–829.

54.

Gamede

B. T.

, & Uleanya

(2018). Entrepreneurship: Solution to unemployment and development in rural communities Journal of Entrepreneurship Education , 21(3). https://www.abacademies.org/articles/Entrepreneurship-solution-to-unemployment-and-development-in-rural-communities-11528-2651-21-3-157.pdf

55.

García-Rodríguez

F. J.

, Gil-Soto

, Ruiz-Rosa

, & Gutiérrez-Taño

(2017). Entrepreneurial potential in less innovative regions: The impact of social and cultural environment. European Journal of Management and Business Economics , 26(2), 163–179.

56.

Glaeser

E. L.

, Rosenthal

S. S.

, & Strange

W. C.

(2010). Urban economics and entrepreneurship. Journal of Urban Economics , 67(1), 1–14.

57.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). (2017) Global report 2016/17 .

58.

Gries

, & Naudé

(2010). Entrepreneurship and structural economic transformation. Small Business Economics , 34(1), 13–29.

59.

Gyimah

, Appiah

K. O.

, & Lussier

R. N.

(2019). Success versus failure prediction model for small businesses in Ghana Journal of African Business , 6, 1–20.

60.

Hagos

, Izak

, & Scott

J. M.

(2019). Objective institutionalised barriers and subjective performance factors of new migrant entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research , 25(5), 842–858.

61.

Haltiwanger

, Jarmin

R. S.

, & Javier

(2009). Jobs created from business start-ups in the United States . Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

62.

Haltiwanger

, Jarmin

R. S.

, & Miranda

(2013). Who creates jobs? Small versus large versus young. Review of Economics and Statistics , 95(2), 347–361.

63.

Hayton

J. C.

, & Cacciotti

(2013). Is there an entrepreneurial culture? A review of empirical research Entrepreneurship & Regional Development , 25(9–10), 708–731.

64.

Hechavarria

, Bullough

, Brush

, & Edelman

(2019). High-growth women’s entrepreneurship: Fueling social and economic development. Journal of Small Business Management , 57(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12503

65.

Heinonen

, & Hytti

(2016). Entrepreneurship mission and content in Finnish policy programmes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , 23(1), 149–162.

66.

Henrekson

, & Sanandaji

(2014). Small business activity does not measure entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111(5), 1760–1765.

67.

Herrington

, & Coduras

(2019). The national entrepreneurship framework conditions in sub-Saharan Africa: A comparative study of GEM data/National expert surveys for South Africa, Angola, Mozambique and Madagascar. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research , 9(1), 1–24.

68.

Hormiga

, Batista-Canino

R. M.

, & Sánchez-Medina

(2011). The role of intellectual capital in the success of new ventures. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , 7(1), 71–92.

69.

Hughes

, & Mustafa

(2016). Antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship in SMEs: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Small Business Management , 55(1), 115–140.

70.

Igwe

P. A.

, Madichie

N. O.

, & Newbery

(2018). Determinants of livelihood choices and artisanal entrepreneurship in Nigeria. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research , 25(4), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2018-0102

71.

International Labour Organization (ILO). (n.d.). Assessing red tape. improving the enabling environment for sustainable enterprises . http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_emp/—emp_ent/—ifp_seed/documents/publication/wcms_511317.pdf

72.

Irene

B. N.

, Opute

A. P.

, & Ibidunni

A. S.

(2020). Competency-based entrepreneurship education: Analysis of the disruptive innovation theory in African HEIs. International Journal of Business and Globalisation . https://pureportal.coventry.ac.uk/en/publications/competency-based-entrepreneurship-education-analysis-of-the-disru

73.

Iwu

C. G.

(2017). Sustaining small businesses in emerging economies: An examination of the pre and post startup ramifications. Problems and Perspectives in Management , 15(1), 227–236.

74.

Iwu

C. G.

(2018). The sustainability of small or medium enterprises growth in emerging markets. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Business and Management Dynamics (ICBMD; pp. 213-221).

75.

Iwu

C. G.

, & Opute

A. P.

(2019). Eradicating poverty and unemployment: Narratives of survivalist entrepreneurs Journal of Reviews on Global Economics , 8, 1438–1451. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-7092.2019.08.127

76.

Iwu

C. G.

, Opute

A. P.

, Eze

I. F.

, Dongo

U. G.

, & Dongo

O. W.

(2020). Scavenging for survival and its health implications. the nexus between unemployment and ill-health. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development , 17(1), 1–18.

77.

Iwu

C. G.

, Opute

A. P.

, Nchu

, Eresia-Eke

, Tengeh

R. K.

, Jaiyeoba

, & Aliyu

O. A.

(2019). Entrepreneurship education, curriculum and lecturer - competency as antecedents of student entrepreneurial intention International Journal of Management Education , 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.03.007

78.

Jibir

, Ahmed

, & Bello

(2018). Impact of small and medium scale enterprises on economic growth: Evidence from Nigeria. Global Journal of Economics and Business , 4(2), 236–244.

79.

Khavul

, Bruton

G. D.

, & Wood

(2009). Informal family business in Africa. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice , 33(6), 1219–1238.

80.

Kofler

, & Marcher

(2018). Inter-organizational networks of small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) in the field of innovation: A case study of south Tyrol. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship , 30(1), 9–25.

81.

Krause

, Ackermann

, Gayoso

, Hirtbach

, Koppa

, & Brêtas

Siciliano L.

(2010). Formalization and business development in Mozambique: How important are regulations? Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik , 53, 1–31.

82.

Kristiansen

, & Booyens

(2011). Langa micro business owners experience of government regulations and support. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher , 23(1), 4–21.

83.

Kuratko

D. F.

, Hornsby

J. S.

, & Hayton

(2015). Corporate entrepreneurship: The innovative challenge for a new global economic reality. Small Business Economics , 45(2), 245–253.

84.

Kusi

, Opata

C. N.

, & Narh

T. W. J.

(2015). Exploring the factors that hinder the growth and survival of small businesses in Ghana (a case study of small businesses within Kumasi metropolitan area) American Journal of Industrial and Business Management , 5(11), 705.

85.

Lamprinopoulou

, Tregear

, & Ness

(2006). Agrifood SMEs in Greece: The role of collective action. British Food Journal , 108(8), 663–676.

86.

Lindow

C. M.

, Stubner

, & Wulf

(2010). Strategic fit within family firms: The role of family influence and the effect on performance. Journal of Family Business Strategy , 1(13), 167–178.

87.

Mack

, & Mayer

(2016). The evolutionary dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Urban Studies , 53(10), 2118–2133.

88.

Marlow

, & McAdam

(2013). Gender and entrepreneurship: Advancing debate and challenging myths; exploring the mystery of the under-performing female entrepreneur. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research , 19(1), 114–124.

89.

Marlow

, & McAdam

(2015). Incubation or induction? Gendered identity work in the context of technology business incubation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 39(4), 791–816.

90.

Marshall

(1920). Principles of economics (8th ed.). Macmillan.

91.

Mason

, & Brown

(2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship. Final Report to OECD, Paris , 30(1), 77–102.

92.

Matanda

(2012). Internationalization of established small manufacturers in a developing economy: A case study of Kenyan SMEs. Thunderbird International Business Review , 54(4), 509–519.

93.

McAdam

, Harrison

R. T.

, & Leitch

C. M.

(2018). Stories from the field: Women’s networking as gender capital in entrepreneurial ecosystems Small Business Economics , 53, 459–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-9995-6

94.

McAdam

, McAdam

, Dunn

, & McCall

(2014). Development of small and medium-sized enterprise horizontal innovation networks: UK agri-food sector study International Small Business Journal , 32, 830–853.

95.

McAdam

, McAdam

, Dunn

, & McCall

(2016). Regional horizontal networks within the SME agri-food sector: An innovation and social network perspective. Regional Studies , 50(8), 1316–1329.

96.

Mitchell

J. C.

(Ed.). (1969). Social networks in urban situations: Analyses of personal relationships in Central African towns . Manchester University Press.

97.

Minniti

, Arenius

, & Langowitz

(2005). GEM 2004 report on women and entrepreneurship . In Hay

(Ed.), Global entrepreneurship monitor . Babson College and London Business School.

98.

Morck

, & Yeung

(2003). Agency problems in large family business groups. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 27(4), 367–382.

99.

Motoyama

, & Watkins

K. K.

(2014) Examining the connections within the start-up ecosystem: A study of St. Louis . Kauffman Foundation.

100.

Mueller

(2007). Exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities: The impact of entrepreneurship on growth Small Business Economics , 28, 355–362.

101.

Nambisan

, & Baron

R. A.

(2013). Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: Entrepreneurs’ self–regulatory processes and their implications for new venture success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 37(5), 1071–1097.

102.

Naude

(2010). Entrepreneurship, developing countries, and development economics: New approaches and insights Small Business Economics , 34, 1–12.

103.

Naude

(2017). Entrepreneurship, education and the fourth industrial revolution in Africa [Discussion paper series, IZA DP No. 10855]. IZA Institute of Labor Economics.

104.

Naude

W. A.

, & Havenga

J. J. D.

(2005). An overview of African entrepreneurship and small business research. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship , 18(1), 101–120.

105.

Naude

W. A.

, Amorós

, & Cristi

(2013). Surfeiting the appetite may sicken: Entrepreneurship and happiness. Small Business Economics , 4(3), 1–18

106.

Nieuwenhuizen

(2019). The effect of regulations and legislation on small, micro and medium enterprises in South Africa. Development Southern Africa , 36(5), 666–677.

107.

Obeng

, Robson

, & Haugh

(2014). Strategic entrepreneurship and small firm growth in Ghana. International Small Business Journal , 32(5), 501–524.

108.

OECD. (2017). Key issues for digital transformation in the g20 [Report prepared for a joint G20 German residency/OECD conference].

109.

OECD. (2019a) OECD SME and entrepreneurship outlook 2019 .

110.

OECD. (2019b) Annual report on the European SMEs 2018/19, research and development and innovation by SMEs .

111.

Okpara

J. O.

(2011). Factors constraining the growth and survival of SMEs in Nigeria Management Research Review , 34, 156–171.

112.

Opute

A. P.

(2020). Small and medium enterprises marketing: Innovation and sustainable economic growth perspective. In Nwankwo

, & Gbadamosi

(Eds.), Entrepreneurship marketing: Principles and practice of SME Marketing. Routledge Publishers.

113.

Opute

A. P.

, Madichie

N. O.

, Hagos

S. B.

, & Ojra

(2020a). Entrepreneurship behaviour of African minorities in the UK: Demystifying cultural influence. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business . https://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/forthcoming.php?jcode=ijesb

114.

Opute

A. P.

, Irene

B. N.

, & Iwu

C. G.

(2020b). Tourism service and digital technologies: A value creation perspective. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure , 9(2), 1–18.

115.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods . SAGE Publications.

116.

Pechlaner

, & Bachinger

(2010). Knowledge networks of innovative businesses: An explorative study in the region of Ingolstadt. Service Industries Journal , 30(10), 1737–1756.

117.

Petlina

(2015). a V. KORÁB. Family Business in the Czech Republic: Actual situation. Trendy Ekonomiky a Managementu , 9(23).

118.

Ramadani

, & Hoy

(2015). Context and uniqueness of family businesses. In Family businesses in transition economies (pp. 9–37). Springer, Cham.

119.

Ramadani

, Ratten

, & Palalić

(2018). Special Issue on Family Entrepreneurship in Transition and Emerging Economies. International Journal of Transitions and Innovation Systems , 6(2), 103–107.

120.

Ranyane

K. A.

(2015). Survivalist entrepreneurship: An income generating alternative for the unemployed populace. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences , 6(4), 301–306.

121.

Ratten

(2014). Future research directions for collective entrepreneurship in developing countries: A small and medium-sized enterprise perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business , 22(2), 266–274.

122.

Ratten

(2015). Athletes as entrepreneurs: The role of social capital and leadership ability. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business , 25(4), 442–455.

123.

Ratten

, & Jones

(2018). Bringing Africa into entrepreneurship research. In P. Dana

, V

Ratten

, & Honyenuga

B. Q.

(Eds.), African entrepreneurship . Palgrave Macmillan.

124.

Reid

, Roumpi

, & O’Leary-Kelly

A. M.

(2015). Spirited women: The role of spirituality in the lives of female entrepreneurs in Ghana. African Journal of Management , 1(3), 264–283.

125.

Rhodes

(2019) Business statistics, house of commons [Briefing Paper No. 06152]. House of Commons Library, London.

126.

Robson

P. J.

, & Obeng

B. A.

(2008). The barriers to growth in Ghana. Small Business Economics , 30(4), 385–403.

127.

Schumpeter

J. A.

(1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle . Harvard University Press.

128.

Scott

(1988). Social network analysis. Sociology , 22(1), 109–127.

129.

Sergi

B. S.

, Popkova

E. G.

, Bogoviz

A. V.

, & Ragulina

J. V.

(2019). Entrepreneurship and economic growth: The experience of developed and developing countries. In Sergi

B. S.

, & Scanlon

C. C.

(Ed.), Entrepreneurship and development in the 21st century: Lab for entrepreneurship and development (pp. 3–32). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-233-720191002

130.

Sheriff

, Muffatto

, & Cooper

(2016). Measuring entrepreneurship environments in Africa: Challenges in using international reports. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management , 20(20), 20–44.

131.

Shibia

A. G.

, & Barako

D. G.

(2017). Determinants of micro and small enterprises growth in Kenya. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , 24(1), 105–118.

132.

Silverman

(2016). Introducing qualitative research. Qualitative Research , 3, 14.

133.

Simatupang

, Schwab

, & Lantu

D. C.

(2015). Building sustainable entrepreneurship ecosystems. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business , 26(4), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3161598

134.

Snyder

(2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines Journal of Business Research , 104, 333–339.

135.

Publishing Social Enterprise UK. (2015) Leading the world in social enterprises .

136.

Solow

R. M.

(1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 70(1), 65–94.

137.

Spigel

(2015). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 41(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167

138.

Spigel

, & Harrison

(2017). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystem. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal , 12(1), 151–168.

139.

John

K. St.

, & McNeal

K. S.

(2017). The strength of evidence pyramid: One approach for characterizing the strength of evidence of geoscience education research (GER) community claims. Journal of Geoscience Education , 65(4), 363–372.

140.

Shaw

(2006). Small firm networking: An insight into contents and motivating factors. International Small Business Journal , 24(1), 5–29.

141.

Stam

F. C.

, & Spigel

(2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. USE Discussion Paper Series , 16(13).

142.

Stam

(2018). Measuring entrepreneurial ecosystems. In O’Connor

, Stam

, Sussan

, & Audretsch

D. B.

(Eds.), Entrepreneurial ecosystems (pp. 173–197). Springer International Publishing.

143.

Stam

, & Spigel

(2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. In Blackburn

, De Clercq

, Heinonen

, & Wang

(Eds.), Handbook for entrepreneurship and small business . SAGE Publications.

144.

Stam

, Bosma

, Van Witteloostuijn

, de Jong

, Bogaert

, Edwards

, & Jaspers

(2012). Ambitious entrepreneurship. A review of the academic literature and new directions for public policy . Advisory Council for Science and Technology Policy.

145.

Stam

, Hartog

, van Stel

, & Thurik

(2011). Ambitious entrepreneurship, high-growth firms and macroeconomic growth. In Minniti

(Ed.), The dynamics of entrepreneurship: Evidence from global entrepreneurship monitor data (pp. 231–250). Oxford University Press.

146.

Stoica

, Roman

, & Rusu

V. D.

(2020). The nexus between entrepreneurship and economic growth: A comparative analysis on groups of countries. Sustainability , 12(3), 1186.

147.

Strauss

, & Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

148.

Tewari

P. S.

, Skilling

, Kumar

, & Wu

(2013). Competitive small and medium enterprises: A diagnostic to help design smart SME policy . The World Bank.

149.

The World Bank. (2020). International labour organization estimate for youth unemployment . https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.1524.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true

150.

Thomas

D. R.

(2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation , 27(2), 237–246.

151.

Turkina

(2018). The importance of networking to entrepreneurship: Montreal’s artificial intelligence cluster and its born-global firm element AI. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship , 30(1), 1–8.

152.

Turkina

, & Van Assche

(2018). Global connectedness and local innovation in industrial clusters Journal of International Business Studies , 49, 706–728.

153.

Turkina

, Oreshkin

, & Kali

(2019). Regional innovation clusters and firm innovation performance: An interactionist approach. Regional Studies , 53(8), 1193–1206.

154.

Turkina

, Van Assche

, & Kali

(2016). Structure and evolution of global cluster networks: Evidence from the aerospace industry. Journal of Economic Geography , 16(6), 1211–1234.

155.

Turkina

, & Thai

M. T. T.

(2013). Social capital, networks, trust and immigrant entrepreneurship: A cross-country analysis. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy , 7(2), 108–124.

156.

Tvedten

, Hansen

M. W.

, & Jeppesen

(2014). Understanding the rise of African business: In search of business perspective on African enterprise development. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies , 5(3), 249–268.

157.

Ucbasaran

, Westhead

, & Wright

(2001). The focus of entrepreneurial research: Contextual and process issues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 25(4), 57–80.

158.

Van de Ven

(1993). The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing , 8(3), 211–230.

159.

Van Klyton

, & Rutabayiro-Ngoga

(2018). SME finance and the construction of value in Rwanda. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , 25(4), 628–643.

160.

Van Stel

, & Carree

(2004). Business ownership and sectoral growth: An empirical analysis of 21 OECD countries International Small Business Journal , 22, 389–419.

161.

Vial

, & Richomme-Huet

(2017). Women entrepreneurs in France. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business , 30(1), 80–109.

162.

Ward

J. L.

, & Aronoff

C. E.

(1991). Choosing among siblings. Nation’s Business , 79(10), 37–38.

163.

Welsh

D. H.

, Memili

, Kaciak

, & Ochi

(2014). Japanese women entrepreneurs: Implications for family firms. Journal of Small Business Management , 52(2), 286–305.

164.

Whaples

(2013). Economic history and entrepreneurship. In Robert Whaples

R. E. P.

(Ed.), Handbook of modern economic history (pp. 71–81.) Routledge.

165.

Wilhelm

M. M.

(2011). Managing coopetition through horizontal supply chain relations: Linking dyadic and network levels of analysis Journal of Operations Management , 29(7–8), 663–676.

166.

Wong

P. K.

, Ho

Y. P.

, & Autio

(2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data Small Business Economics , 24, 335–350.

167.

Wynarczyk

, Piperopoulos

, & McAdam

(2013). Open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises: An overview. International Small Business Journal , 31(3), 240–255.

168.

Zachary

(2020) What is the future of poverty in Africa ? Institute for Security Studies. https://issafrica.org/iss-today/what-is-the-future-of-poverty-in-africa

169.

Zahra

S. A.

, & Nambisan

(2012). Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business ecosystems. Business Horizons , 55(3), 219–229.

170.

Zahra

S. A.

, Wright

, & Abdelgawad

S. G.

(2014). Contextualization and the advancement of entrepreneurship research. International Small Business Journal , 32(5), 479–500.