Posted: April 13th, 2023

Summary Of Article

The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem
Fiona Sussan & Zoltan J. Acs
Accepted: 21 March 2017 / Published online: 11 May 2017
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017
Abstract A significant gap exists in the conceptualization of entrepreneurship in the digital age. This paper
introduces a conceptual framework for studying entrepreneurship in the digital age by integrating two wellestablished concepts: the digital ecosystem and the
entrepreneurial ecosystem. The integration of these
two ecosystems helps us better understand the interactions of agents and users that incorporate insights of
consumers’ individual and social behavior. The Digital
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem framework consists of four
concepts: digital infrastructure governance, digital user
citizenship, digital entrepreneurship, and digital marketplace. The paper develops propositions for each of the
four concepts and provides a theoretical framework of
multisided platforms to better understand the digital
entrepreneurial ecosystem. Finally, it outlines a new
research agenda to fill the gap in our understanding of
entrepreneurship in the digital age.
Keywords Entrepreneurship . Ecosystem .
Matchmakers. Digital infrastructure . Digital
governance . Digital citizenship . Multisided platforms.
Information technologies
JEL classification L26 . 011 . P40 . P00
1 Introduction
As the Economist magazine went to press the lead story
was about reinventing the company.1 This new company type is at the heart of a growing debate on how to
understand the digital economy. Ever since the launch of
Uber, Snapchat, and AirBnB and the earlier success of
Google, Amazon, and Facebook, a new breed of
company has emerged that uses digital technology,
entrepreneurship, and innovation to upend industries
on a global scale (Stone 2017).2 Most of these companies are matchmakers (Evans and Schmalensee 2016,
p.1).3 What these companies have in common is that
they all connect members of one group with another
group. The core competencies of these companies are
their ability to match one group of customers with
another group of customers by reducing the transaction
cost of a match (Coase 1937). These multisided platforms would not exist without the explosion of information and communication technologies (ICT). While
Small Bus Econ (2017) 49:55–73
DOI 10.1007/s11187-017-9867-5
1 Reinventing the Company. Economist Magazine, October 24, 2015. 2 This trend is reflected in the continuing decline in the cost of
computing, the rise of open-source software, the move to the Bcloud^
and the emergence of huge datacenters where companies such as
Amazon, Google, and Facebook are designing their own approaches.
3 Fifteen companies that were together worth less than $10 billion in
2000 are now among the world’s 50 top technology companies as
measured by market capitalization, with a combined who of $2.1
trillion. Had Amazon been included this number would have swollen
by another $250 billion (Moritz 2015).
F. Sussan (*)
School of Advanced Studies, University of Phoenix, Tempe, AZ
85282, USA
e-mail: fiona.sussan@phoenix.edu
Z. J. Acs
Schar School of Policy and, Government, George Mason
University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
Walmart would not be as efficient without the Internet, it
would survive, because it has a physical location. Amazon on the other hand could not function without the
Internet, since it has no physical outlet. These new
companies are startups in many ways. They are young,
only a few years old in some cases, but they ignite very
quickly (Aghion 2017; Coad et al. 2016; Stenholm et al.
2013).
The entrepreneurship literature has not examined
this type of startup (Daunfeldt and Halvarsso 2015).
The reason the entrepreneurship literature has not
studied the billion-dollar digital startup is because
entrepreneurship research is focused on selfemployment both as business ownership and as sole
trader (Parker 2002; Shane and Venkatraman 2000).
The entrepreneurship literature focuses on thousands
of small startups and often these small startups fail
due to the lack of customer base (Acs et al. 2016).
In other words, entrepreneurship has not focused on
finding customers first before they start a business.
In the digital economy, it is precisely the opposite—
we have much fewer startups, and each startup has
millions of customers.4
What about Uber drivers and AirBnB renters? Are
they digital entrepreneurs? On the one hand, they are
performing a very traditional service, driving taxis, and
providing rooms for rent, while on the other hand, they
are engaged in business using digital technologies.
However, one can argue that they are not doing anything
creative and therefore are business owners but not digital entrepreneurs. However, many of multisided platforms are populated with digital entrepreneurs that write
millions of apps that power smartphones, Facebook, and
thousands of other businesses. In fact, writing a business
App is one of the most common types of business
startup today (Haefliger et al. 2010).
In some sense, entrepreneurship research has ignored
both the role that digital technologies play in entrepreneurship and the role that users and agents play in
digital entrepreneurship. In short, a significant gap exists in our understanding of entrepreneurship in the
digital age because entrepreneurship research does not
have a consolidated way to study the impact of digitization. In other words, entrepreneurship research has yet to
contextualize within the digital economy in terms of
how institutions and agency will be changed as a result
of digitization. In fact, extant literature about digitization
and the impact of digitization from other disciplines in
business (management information systems, marketing)
are available to inform us about the impact of digitization and how it may possibly change the way we understand entrepreneurship.
The purpose of this paper is to fill the gap in our
understanding of the role of agents and users in the
digital economy. This paper uses literature surrounding
digitization—since digitization is not about one technology, we use the literature on digital ecosystems (Dini
et al. 2011; Li et al. 2012). Coincidentally, entrepreneurship also has an ecosystem literature (Acs et al. 2014a,
2017; Stam 2015). We thus integrate the two to form a
new conceptual framework—the digital entrepreneurial
ecosystem—to guide our understanding of entrepreneurship in the digital economy. The digital entrepreneurial
ecosystem is composed of Schumpeterian (1911) entrepreneurs creating digital companies and innovative
products and services for many users and agents in the
global economy.
In this new framework, we introduce four key
concepts: digital infrastructure governance, digital
user citizenship, digital entrepreneurship, and digital marketplace. By integrating the role of agents
and users in the same conceptual framework, we
are able to advance entrepreneurship thinking into
the digital economy. This paper makes four important contributions to the entrepreneurship literature.
First, it contributes to entrepreneurship by bringing
the research into the digital age specifically digital
infrastructure and their impact on entrepreneurship
in general. Second, by introducing the role of
users in digital ecosystem, this paper adds a new
dimension to entrepreneurship economics literature
(Read et al. 2009). Third, by introducing the interactions of agents and users, this paper extends
entrepreneurship research to incorporate insights of
consumers’ individual and social behavior in multisided platforms. Fourth, digital ecosystem integration broadens entrepreneurship ecosystems
research.
The next section of this paper outlines the concept of
ecosystems, digital ecosystems, and entrepreneurial
ecosystems. The third section integrates the digital and
entrepreneurial ecosystems and provides a 2 × 2 conceptual framework resulting in four concepts in four
4 The strategy literature acknowledges different forms of value logic
(Stabell and Fjeldstad 1998) that extends Porter’s value chain logic of
the firm and presents new ways of looking at firm creation approaches
and different underpinning economic logics for firm creation (knowledge and network economic principles).
56 Sussan and Acs
quadrants: digital infrastructure governance, digital user
citizenship, digital entrepreneurship, and digital marketplace. The fourth section provides a theoretical framework of multisided platforms to guide our understanding of the digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. The fifth
section outlines a research agenda for future research of
entrepreneurship in the digital age. The conclusion is in
the final section.
2 Background
In order to better understand entrepreneurship in the
digital world, we employ the concept of an ecosystem
(Mathews and Brueggemann 2015, Chapter 14). A system is a set of interacting and interdependent organizations that function together as a whole to achieve a
purpose. In general, an ecosystem is a purposeful collaborating network of dynamic interacting systems that have
an ever-changing set of dependencies within a given
context. For discussion purposes, we can think of external macroecosystems natural environments of community efforts around startup ecosystems to support development and internal or value added microecosystems
that support a firm’s platform (Moore 1993).5 Our
focus in this paper is on the former however we
discuss microecosystems too.
A biological ecosystem is defined as B…a community of living organisms in conjunction with the nonliving components of their environment, interacting as a
system. These biotic and abiotic components are
regarded as linked together through nutrient cycles and
energy flows^.
6 This definition makes it clear that an
ecosystem has living and nonliving components and a
system does not. BBiological ecosystems are thought to
be robust, scalable architectures that can automatically
solve complex dynamic problems^ (Li et al. 2012). The
modeling of the system’s properties is a complex process that involves both assumptions and the identification of the biological processes.7
The challenge in moving from the biological sciences
to the social sciences is to identify, not only what the
living and nonliving components of the ecosystem are,
but much more difficult, is how this complex
socioeconomic community functions. The first issue is
that while in the biological sciences the system is
modeled, in the social sciences it is generally just assumed. Systems constitute multiple components that
work together to produce system performance.
If one is interested in the scholarly literature on
systems as they relate to innovation and entrepreneurship, there are at least three approaches: System of
Innovation (SI) (Nelson 1994); The Competitive Advantage of Nations (Porter 1990); Systems of Entrepreneurship (Acs et al. 2014a, 2014b). The broadest
approach to economic performance at the economy
level is the concept of National Systems of Innovation
(NSI) (Edquist 1997; Lundvall 1992; Nelson 1994).
The main theoretical underpinnings are that knowledge
is a fundamental resource in the economy within
which knowledge is produced and accumulates
through an interactive and cumulative process of innovation that is embedded in a national institutional
context, and that the context therefore matters for
innovation outcomes. The term Bsystem^ connotes a
set of institutions whose interactions determine the
innovative performance of national firms. It is important to understand what the system means in the SI
literature. According to Rosenberg and Nelson (1993
p. 4–5) the system concept, B…is that of a set of
institutional actors that, together, plays the major role
in influencing innovative performance.^ In the SI literature, systems are not created. Rather, they are
inherited, evolving structures, and the key task of the
researcher is to understand this structure, so the system
can be manipulated to deliver improved performance.
The NSI concept is mostly about context, how institutions drive knowledge production and application and
how countries differ according to their B..set of
institutions…^ but totally overlooks the individual
agency (Acs et al. 2014a p. 477). In the NSI literature,
individuals are almost treated exogenously given contextual variables and settings being the focus of academic research and policy makers. In other words, SI helped
us understand where we were as nations but not how to
improve our position. It is perhaps a little surprising, if
not ironic, that although the NSI literature was heavily
influenced by the Schumpeterian tradition, the entrepreneur remained conspicuously absent in this literature
(Salter and McKelvey 2016; Winter 2016). Also see
the literature on Regional Systems of Innovation that
did include some aspects of entrepreneurship (Cooks
et al. 1997).
5 Some will call this a business ecosystem that is not bounded by
space.
6 https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ecosystem August 4, 2014. 7 http://w3.marietta.edu/~biol/102/ecosystem.html October 25, 2015
The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem 57
The second approach to systems is associated with
Michael Porter’s (1990, 1998) work on clusters and the
new economics of competition. While Porter was also
interested in Nations and Innovation like Nelson, he
took the analysis one step further. The central question
to answer according to Porter is, BWhy do firms in some
industries achieve international success and others do
not?^ In addition, to understanding the role of institutions, Porter argued that firm strategy is also an important aspect of global competitiveness. To understand the
environment Porter introduced the BDiamond^: a concept that tied together factor conditions, demand conditions, related and supplier industries and firm strategy,
structure, and rivalry. Porter argued that productivity
and competitive advantage in an economy requires specialization. In the Competitive Advantage of Nation he
Bintroduced the concept of a cluster, or group of interconnected firms, suppliers, related industries, and specialized institutions in particular fields that are present in
particular locations.^ Porter offered a sophisticated view
between agglomeration economics and competition and
strategy by focusing on clusters.
The third approach to systems is associated with Acs
et al. (2014a). There is a growing recognition in the
entrepreneurship literature that entrepreneurship theory
focused only on the entrepreneur may be too narrow.8
The concept of system of entrepreneurship is based on
three important premises that provide an appropriate
platform for analyzing entrepreneurial ecosystems.
First, entrepreneurship is fundamentally an action
undertaken and driven by agents on the basis of incentives. Second, the individual action is affected by an
institutional framework for entrepreneurship. Third,
entrepreneurship ecosystems are complex, multifaceted
structures in which many elements interact to produce
systems performance, thus, the system method needs to
allow the constituent elements to interact. The concept
has also been applied at the regional level (Szerb et al.
2014).
At this point, it is useful to discuss the services of
ecosystems or ecosystem outcomes. Whether we are
talking about biological, technical, or entrepreneurial
ecosystems, they all have outcomes, and the thread that
cuts across all three ecosystems is the quality of sustainability through problem solving. Ecosystems can flourish. Ecosystems can also be killed if you cut off the
energy and nutrients that sustain them. In the
physical world, we see this in the death of coral
reefs due to pollution, in the technical world, we
see this through regulation, and in the social
world, we see it through the death of communities
due to technological change. Silicon Valley and
venture capital epitomize an entrepreneurial ecosystem that produces both routine and highgrowth entrepreneurship. Each of these forms of
entrepreneurship is performed within an ecosystem,
and both routine and high growth therefore must
be manifestations of an entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Sustainability is therefore the key outcome of the
ecosystem process. The next section defines the
characteristics of both the Digital and Entrepreneurial ecosystems.
3 Digital ecosystems
Digital ecosystem (DE), a terminology that emerged in
the early 2000s, is defined as B…a self-organizing, scalable and sustainable system composed of heterogeneous
digital entities and their interrelations focusing on interactions among entities to increase system utility, gain
benefits, and promote information sharing, inner and
inter cooperation and system innovation^ (Li et al.
2012, p. 119). DE can be applied in business, knowledge
management, service, social networks, and education.
Digital ecosystems have become an important
research agenda for both practitioners and scholars
(Dini et al. 2011; Li et al. 2012). As the rapid advancement of digitization and the impact of digitalization9
increase, the concept of digital ecosystems has been
subject to an array of perspectives—ecological, economic, and technological—in its definition (Li et al.
2012), and attracted multi- and interdisciplinary discourses (Dini et al. 2011). Despite the diverging perspectives and the splintered foci from various definitions, the convergence or commonality of all the various
discussions on the concept point toward two foundation
pillars of DE—digital technologies and people. It is an
ecosystem in that digital technologies (e.g., mobile
search engine) can be viewed as the nonliving
8 We use the concept system of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial
ecosystem interchangeably in this paper.
9 Digitization is the technical process, whereas digitalization is a sociotechnological process of applying digitization techniques to broader
social and institutional contexts that render digital technologies infrastructure (Tilson et al. 2010 p.3)
58 Sussan and Acs
component, and the people who use these technologies
(e.g., anyone who uses Google) are the living component, and the interactions of the living and the nonliving
and the dynamic and continuous changes resulting from
the interactions of these two components form the behavior of an ecosystem. Inherent in DE, the assumptions
of such an ecosystem is user-driven, bottom-up, and
open-source oriented (Dini et al. 2011), emphasizing
the pivotal role users or people play in the ecosystem.
The advancement of digital technologies has resulted in
a more complex system—digital infrastructure (Tilson
et al. 2010). The two foundation pillars—digital infrastructure and users—are the main focus of our discussion of digital ecosystems in relation to entrepreneurship
ecosystems.
3.1 Digital infrastructure
As digital technologies increasingly become more service-focus, socially embedded, and laden with intensive
human interactions, a more open, inclusive, global, dynamic, and flexible view of digital infrastructure (DI) is
needed in order to capture the effects of digitalization
(Tilson et al. 2010). Anchored in digital technologies,
DI is a socially embedded mechanical system that includes technological and human components, network,
systems, and processes which generate feedback loops
that are self-reinforcing (Henfridsson and Bygstad
2013; Tilson et al. 2010). DI thus links systems and
networks at the global, national, regional, industry,
and/or corporate levels and is constantly changing
because of its diverse base of installed digital technologies and users who are designers or operators of these
systems (Tilson et al. 2010). In that sense, DI does not
have a single defined set of functions or strict boundaries. Rather, multiple layers of systems and processes
are at work simultaneously resulting in a decentralized,
shared, and distributed DI which is not subject to a
single centralized stakeholder’s control. In other words,
there are two views of DI, both from a complex systems
theory, and readers can select the scope for application
of the theory. DI is a system of itself (Hussain et al.
2010). From an operational perspective, specifically
information system service management, it is important
that DI be treated as such. However, as infrastructure for
a digital business model, DI should be considered as an
interconnecting element of the digital business ecosystem. Digital infrastructure is often researched within an
organizational setting or within a community of IT
professionals. The term digital infrastructure is used
interchangeably with information infrastructure, IT infrastructure, and e-infrastructure (Henfridsson and
Bygstad 2013).
DI in practice is similar to the concept of network
readiness at a country level as evidenced in the Global
Information Technology Report of the World Economic
Forum (Baller, Dutta, and Lanvin 2016). This annual
report provides a Network Readiness Index for 139
countries in relation to four areas: environment (political
and regulatory, business, and innovation), readiness
(infrastructure, affordability, and skills), usage (individual, business, and government), and impact (economic
and social). Notably, this index includes more than
infrastructure in the measurement of innovation in the
digital economy, highlighting more than infrastructure is
needed for innovation and entrepreneurship. Digital
divide is an important topic in the measurement of the
effectiveness of DI in enabling economic activities
(Hilbert 2011; Vicente and Gil-de-Bernabe 2010) but
is beyond the scope of this article.
3.1.1 Digital infrastructure and its governance
As the control of the distribution of DI is distributed
across multiple actors such as designers, developers, and
users, DI is difficult to govern (Henfridsson and Bygstad
2013). The nature of the Internet having an open access
and open standards essentially allows anyone to develop
and share applications on the Internet (Zittrain 2006). DI
is constantly evolving, and it is therefore Ba system that
is never fully complete and the public and ordinary
organizational members can be trusted to invent and
share good uses^ (Zittrain 2008, p.43). While there are
standards among its members, a static set of standards is
impossible to attain. Furthermore, the bottom-up nature
of DI, but yet the top-down reality of most organizational structure, makes the governance of DI a specific
challenge.
3.1.2 Digital infrastructure, innovation,
and entrepreneurship
As DI is an open system, it allows participants to contribute freely with little boundaries. DI thus becomes an
enabler for innovation for individual entrepreneurs as
long as they are following standard interfaces (Hanseth
and Lyytinen 2010; Zittrain 2006). Because of
flexibility and feedback loop capabilities of DI, Internet
The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem 59
entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley display new forms of
learning by creating paths of innovation, and new innovation path creation leads to new services and products
that reinforce DI as a basis for innovative activity
(Henfridsson and Bygstad 2013).
4 Users
The second foundation pillar of digital ecosystems is
users. Users, previously viewed as technologists who
directly interact with digital technologies, have morphed
to mean anyone who has access to digital technologies
(mobile phone) because of ubiquitous computing and
the increased ease of use of devices (IOT like fitness
wristband). As a result, user-centered innovation proliferates as more users develop new products and services
for themselves and other users (Von Hippel 2006). As an
open-source based architecture, the Internet was
designed to allow users’ participation, and the sociotechnological consequence of digitalization allowing
everyone to participate in the Web resulted in a
volunteering culture. This pro-social behavior is
unique in that users are providing free labor in time
and effort (writing codes, writing a movie review,
rating a restaurant) for their fellow users and organizations (Terranova 2000).
Researchers who focus on customers have for quite
some time viewed users as co-creators in the product
development process, in the service-dominant marketing process (Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008), service
ecosystems (Lusch and Nambisan 2015), and the entrepreneurial marketing context (Read et al. 2009). Users
are labeled citizen-consumers (Webster and Lusch
2013). Users co-create with fellow consumers and firms
further add value to the larger social context (Chandler
and Vargo 2011; Von Hippel 2006; Webster and Lusch
2013). Essentially, ecosystem value co-creation is possible because of the forces of (1) the generative nature of
digital ecosystems, and (2) the service-dominant logic
explaining how users can maximize value extracted in
user-producer dyads (Autio and Thomas 2016) being at
work simultaneously. Furthermore, many of these users
turned consumers participate in co-creating new products (e.g., LEGO) with organizations and companies,
again collecting no wages, resulting in a class of
prosumers who are motivated by a combination of cognitive and affective reasons for utilitarian or hedonic
purposes, resulting in adding value to firms that become
part of firms’ intellectual capital (Sussan 2012).10
4.1 User entrepreneurs
Some of these users in the process of intense interactions
with their community accidentally develop new
products or services and become user- or accidentalentrepreneurs (Shah and Tripsas 2007). It is welldocumented that the online community is a breeding
ground for entrepreneurial actions as users are motivated
by the attention they receive from the community to
develop new products for fellow users (Autio et al.
2013). In the user-turned entrepreneur cases, they often
develop an idea as a user and tap the knowledge and
creativity of the community before commercialization
(Hussain et al. 2010; Shah and Tripsas 2007). Yahoo is
an example.
4.2 Users and business models
The philosophical foundation of users’ willingness to
share, contribute, volunteer time, and effort in online
communities becomes the major game changing
element in business models in the digitalization process
(Cusumano and Goeldi 2013). In examining the literature, three types of user-intensive business models
emerge that revolutionize transaction cost-based business models. First, some multisided platforms businesses rely entirely on user-generated content from the
masses voluntarily (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, and
Tripadvisor.com). In this model, the core competency
of the business is relative to the data the business is able
to collect from users, and thus, the revenue of the
business is derived from advertising but not selling
anything to a customer. In this model, if all the users
decide not to volunteer content to the business, there is
no business. Second, businesses that rely on users
participating in the sharing economy by sharing their
own unused tangible asset (Richter et al. 2015) like
AirBnB. In this model, the core competency of the
business is a multisided platform, and the revenue of
the business stems from receiving a percentage of the
sharing service. Third, businesses that rely on users’
10 At the end of 2016, Facebook had 1.9 billion active users. Snapchat
that went public in 2017 had 158 million users, who spent an average
of 30 min each day on the site, with an average of 18 visits per day,
creating $2.5 billon of them are under 25 years of age. Snap IPO tests
unsocial network, The Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2017 p. A8.
60 Sussan and Acs
network externalities with a combination of paid and
unpaid users to generate a large enough customer
installed base for a paid distributed product or service
(e.g., eHarmony.com). The core competency of this type
of business remains at the product itself (e.g., in
eHarmony.com an algorithm of matching profiles).
5 Entrepreneurial ecosystems
Ever since the time of Schumpeter, the concepts of
entrepreneurship and innovation have been intertwined
with economic development. The entrepreneurial ecosystem is also a new way to contextualize the increasingly complex and interdependent social systems being
created.11 Following Acs et al. (2014b p.:479), we define entrepreneurial ecosystems at the socioeconomic
level having properties of self-organization, scalability,
and sustainability, composed of sub-systems and systems, as B…dynamic institutionally embedded interaction between entrepreneurial attitudes, abilities and aspirations, by individuals, which drives the allocation of
resources through the creation and operation of new
ventures.^ Entrepreneurial Ecosystems are complex socioeconomic structures that are brought to life by
individual-level-action (Spigel 2015). This action is embedded in multipolar interactions between individual and
institutional stakeholders. Much of the knowledge relevant for entrepreneurial action is embedded in ecosystem
structures and requires individual-level-action to extract it
(Autio and Levie 2015).
Their approach builds on the idea by which individual and institutional factors are combined (Henrekson
and Sanandjai 2011). In their empirical specification,
they combine biotic (agents) data with abiotic
(institutional) components to formulate a system that
links institutions and agents through an EE where each
biotic and abiotic component is reinforced by the other
at the country level. The system includes the stock of
institutions and the stock of entrepreneurship organized
into sub-systems and systems including a theory as to
how they interact through the flows of knowledge
(energy) and venture capital (nutrient). The nutrient of
the economic ecosystem depends on knowledge, both
the stock of knowledge and the flow of new knowledge
as outlined in new growth theory (Romer 1990).
However, as we have argued, turning knowledge into
technology and technology into consumer goods is not
automatic (Arrow 1962), and agency is needed to complete the production function and to fill in missing
markets. The two foundational pillars—institutions and
agents—are the main focus of our discussion of entrepreneurial ecosystems in relation to digital ecosystems.
5.1 Institutions
The first fundamental pillar of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems is institutions—the rules of the game. Of particular
importance to entrepreneurship are the economic institutions in society such as the structure of property rights
and the presence of effective market frameworks (North
1990). Economic institutions are important because they
influence the structure of economic incentives. Without
property rights, individuals will not have the incentive to
invest in physical or human capital or adopt more efficient technologies (Acemoglu and Johnson 2005). Economic institutions are also important because they help
to allocate resources to their most efficient uses; they
determine who gets profits, revenues, and residual rights
of control. When markets were highly restricted and
institutions sent the wrong signals, there is little substitution between labor and capital, and technological
change is minimal (Weitzman 1970).
Baumol (1990) proposed that countries’ institutions
create incentives and that the entrepreneurial talent is
allocated to activities Bwith the highest private return,
which need not have the highest social returns^ (p. 506).
Therefore, it is not possible to make inferences about
externalities or overall social welfare effects based on
generic measures of entrepreneurship. Universal
welfare-enhancing outcomes do not automatically follow from entrepreneurial activity; indeed, such activities
can generate questionable or undesirable effects. Entrepreneurial talent can be allocated among a range of
choices with varying effects from wealth creation
to destruction of economic welfare. If the same actor
can become engaged in such alternative activities,
then the mechanism through which talent is allocated has important implications for economic outcomes, and the quality of this mechanism is the
key criterion in evaluating a given set of institutions
with respect to growth. We follow many others, for
example Hayek (1945) and Ofer (1987), in proposing that the answer rests upon the institutional
11 Acs et al. 2014a; Autio et al. 2012, 2015; Stam 2015; Stam and
Spigel 2015.
The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem 61
system and the incentives that it creates for agents
(Estrin et al. 2013).
5.2 Agents
The second pillar of entrepreneurial ecosystems is
agency. A modern synthesis defines the entrepreneur
as someone who specializes in taking judgmental
decisions about the coordination of scarce resources
(Casson 1982). The term Bsomeone^ is defined as
the individual, and the term Bjudgmental decisions^
are decisions for which no obvious correct procedure exists. Judgment is not the routine application
of a standard rule. We may distinguish two types of
entrepreneurial activity: at one pole, there is routine
entrepreneurship, which is really a type of management, and for the rest of the spectrum, we have
Schumpeterian or high-growth entrepreneurship. By
routine entrepreneurship, we mean the activities involved in coordinating and executing a wellestablished ongoing concern in which the parts of
the production function in use are well-known and
that operates in well-established and clearly defined
way. This includes what most people in entrepreneurship research study—self-employment, small
business, and new or young firms. It is the next
restaurant, new garage or hair dresser. It is certainly
the case that replicative entrepreneurs can be of
great social significance.
By high-impact entrepreneurship, we mean the activities necessary to create an innovative high-growth venture where not all the markets are well-established or
clearly defined and in which the relative parts of the
production function are not completely known. Innovative entrepreneurs ensure that utilization of invention
contributes to increased productivity and facilitates and
contributes to economic growth. The gap filling and
input completing capacities are the unique characteristics of the entrepreneur. High-impact entrepreneurship is
not a precise term, and by it, we imply no aspect of size
of the new venture. However, it does involve an act of
creativity whether it is about creating a Unicorn or an
app that fits on a Unicorn’s platform (Leibenstein 1968).
6 Conceptual framework
The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem (DEE) integrates two existing ecosystem literatures: the
entrepreneurial ecosystem with its focus on agency
and the role of institutions and the digital ecosystem
with its focus on digital infrastructure and users.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between the EE
and the DE and the DEE a subset of the two larger
and more complex systems. Both of these complex
ecosystems cover much more ground than is needed
for the DEE. For example, the entrepreneurial ecosystem includes both Schumpetrian (1934) and
Kirznarian (Kirzner 1973) entrepreneurs, radical
and incremental innovation as well as digital and
nondigital technologies.
Similarly, the digital ecosystem includes many
technologies that power the digital infrastructure of
our conceptual model: more powerful chips; the
Internet; the World Wide Web; broadband communications; programming languages; and operating
systems, the cloud. The nature of the Internet
having an open access and open standards essentially allows anyone to develop and share applications on the Internet. DI is constantly evolving,
and it is therefore a system that is never fully
complete. The system also includes many different
types of users and co-creators of the system, as
well as issues of governance. The technology itself
comes from the research carried out by corporations, universities, and governments.
The intersection that we are interested in is the
space where agents and users interact on multisided
platforms created by Schumpeterian entrepreneurs
using a broad array of digital and other technologies.
Therefore, 0 < x < 1, where x is the DEE. The size
of DEE depends on, and is dependent on, the adoption, absorption, and diffusion of digital technologies. Digital technologies have diffused faster than
electricity, telephones, and mobile phones.
Smartphones have reached a 40% diffusion rate in
only 10 years, while it took electricity almost
Fig. 1 The integration of two ecosystems
62 Sussan and Acs
40 years to reach a 10% diffusion rate.12 Digital technology diffusion has been growing rapidly over the
years and is expected to continue to expand from around
8% of GDP in 2015 to around 25% by 2030.13 This
space is occupied by many of the Unicorns that are
matchmaker firms using digital technologies. The core
competencies of these companies are their ability to
match one group of customers with another group of
customers by reducing the transactions cost of a match.
Figure 2 develops a universal conceptual framework
and identifies the role of the living and nonliving components of an entrepreneurial ecosystem in the digital
economy. The following 2 × 2 diagram depicts the two
dominant components—digital ecosystems and entrepreneurial ecosystems. The four quadrants of the framework from bottom left to right are digital infrastructure
governance (DIG), digital user citizenship (DUC), digital
entrepreneurship (DE), and digital marketplace (DM).
We define DEE as follows: the DEE is the matching of
digital customers (users and agents) on platforms in
digital space through the creative use of digital ecosystem
governance and business ecosystem management to
create matchmaker value and social utility by reducing
transactions cost.
Four qualifications follow our definition: first, there
are two routes for entrepreneurs who have ICT skills to
be digital entrepreneurs: to work within the existing
digital infrastructure or create a new digital infrastructure by developing new platforms or systems. The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem approach view agents
who are innovative (Acs and Audretsch 1988) and
who are creative (Florida 2004) that optimize the
utilization and reconfiguration of digital infrastructure
in the form of new systems, new platforms, and new
networks as exogenous to the model. These
Schumpeterian entrepreneurs create the multisided
platforms that users and agents populate. However, as
Kirzner (1973, p. 81, emphasis original) points out, B…
the function of the entrepreneur consists not ofshifting the
curves of costs or of revenues which face him, but of
noticing that they have in fact shifted.^ Therefore, our
focus is on Kirznarian entrepreneurs and not
Schumpeterian entrepreneurs. Second, the digital marketplace includes all aspects of user and agent outcomes:
social network-based businesses, e-commerce, e-health,
e-education, and e-government. Third, the existence of
agents (entrepreneurs) and users (people using the
Internet) creates a dynamic whereby companies need to
develop business models that integrates millions of
customers. It is only through this integration that digital
business comes to life. The integration of users who do
not buy anything but provide data to companies that in
turn sell advertising space (Facebook) is one aspect of this
interaction that exists in the digital marketplace. Fourth,
the outcome of the digital entrepreneurial ecosystem is a
sustainable ecosystem.
The four quadrants in Fig. 2 are interrelated in order
for DEE to function and sustain. By sustainability, we
mean an ecosystem continuously allowing the birth of
new digital entrepreneurs to disrupt existing digital entrepreneurs. One route to sustainability is by making
sure successful digital entrepreneurs are not to monopolize the digital marketplace (Read 2016). Because of
the nature of the governance of digital infrastructure is
open to all participants (Zittrain 2006, 2008), we argue
that it is easier for digital entrepreneurs to participate in
and possibly change the rule of the game than entrepreneurs who operate in a nondigital environment, and
thus, DEE sustainability is highly likely to be possible.
New digital entrepreneurs’ participation in digital infrastructure governance happens simultaneously as they
leverage digital technologies and infrastructure to create
new businesses. Often digital entrepreneurship runs
ahead of governance (e.g., Fintech), and digital entrepreneurs influence the process of the formation of new
regulations. Regulations are almost always behind
digital entrepreneurial activities (Read 2016). Another
route for DEE sustainability is the increasing savviness
12 https://www.hausmanmarketingletter.com/innovation-adoptiondiffusion-age-social-media/
13 European Commission (2017).
Fig. 2 Conceptual framework of the digital entrepreneurship
ecosystem
The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem 63
of digital users worldwide who continuously become
disruptive digital entrepreneurs. We will go into more
details of the relationships of each quadrant and how
they lead toward sustainable DEE.
6.1 Digital infrastructure governance
The first quadrant DIG addresses the coordination
and governance needed in order to establish a set
of shared technological standards that are related
to entrepreneurial activities. In other words, the
legitimization of digital infrastructure as viewed
from the perspective of the entrepreneurial ecosystems. There are two routes to legitimacy in the
entrepreneurial ecosystems: follow the established
rules or create new rules via the manipulation of
meanings, instrumentality, and regulation (Autio
and Thomas 2016). Extending this, we suggest
legitimacy in DEE also functions similarly. As
many digital entrepreneurs and their business
models are ahead of the regulators (e.g., sharing
economy-based AirBnB, Lending Club), they are
essentially forcing the creation of new rules (Read
2016). However, regulations are tricky as too
many will stiffen innovation, particularly in
Fintech in the UK (Binham 2016) and in the
USA (Dexheimer and Hamilton 2016). We suggest
that at the beginning of disruptive activities, DIG
is likely the most open, transparent, and informal
in its process toward legitimacy supporting sustainable DEE; however, when the disruptive activities
reach a certain momentum, the legitimacy process
will become less open, less transparent, and more
formal, leading to the relationship between DIG
and DEE as one that exhibits an inverted Ushape eventually with too much standardization
and legitimization that will negatively impact sustainable DEE. More formally, we propose:
Proposition 1 As digital infrastructure is decentralized
and open and its governance tends to be subject to
bottom-up discourse in the shaping of standards
and legitimization, DIG has a positive impact on
a sustainable DEE. However, the bottom-up standardization and legitimization in DIG will reach a
tipping point being effectively and positively able
to impact a sustainable DEE. As a result, the
relationship between DIG and DEE is one of an
inverted U-shape curve.
6.2 Digital user citizenship
The second quadrant DUC represents the combination of users and institutions within the context of
both ecosystems. As institution represents Bthe rules
of the game^, both formal and informal, this quadrant therefore addresses the explicit legitimization
and implicit social norms that enable users to participate in digital society, simultaneously the participation is congruent to and supportive of entrepreneurial activities. In other words, it is the legal and
social contract users formally and informally agree
to in their participation in the digital environment
that is related to the entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Digital citizenship is a familiar terminology that
simply means the ability to participate in society
online (Mossberger et al. 2007). Online participation
consists of many activities ranging from writing a
movie review (Sussan et al. 2006) to becoming an
activist. No matter what the activities, users (without
nation-state restraint) have to have ICT know-how
and be relatively skilled in their competent and
standard use of digital technologies in order to participate and engage in acceptable conduct or etiquette consistent with the notion of digital citizenship (de Moraes and de Andrade 2015). Apart from
skillset, as digital citizens continuously contribute
content online, leaving digital footprint resulting in
a permanent record in bytes, the issue of intellectual
property, privacy, and surveillance become increasingly important (Rice and Sussan 2016) and particularly relevant to entrepreneurial activities.
There are three direct impact of DUC to a sustainable DEE. First, as user-turned digital entrepreneurs are proliferating, the higher the skillsets and
contribution of digital users, the larger the pool of
potential new digital entrepreneurs who are the main
actors of a sustainable DEE. The second direct impact of DUC to a sustainable DEE is the more
educated and the more participatory of digital users,
the larger the customer base for digital entrepreneurs
to be able to fill their platforms which is a key
component in a DEE. Third and perhaps the most
important is the more DUC involvement, the more
likelihood users will be able to co-create with fellow
users, vendors, and the like to add value to the chain
of activities in DEE. DUC thus has a linear relationship with the sustainability of DEE. More formally,
we propose the following:
64 Sussan and Acs
Proposition 2a As users engage in discourse with other
users online in a wide range of activities, a highly
voluntary participatory and empowered DUC will lead
to more user-turned digital entrepreneurs, larger customer-base, and more value co-creation which in turn will
positively impact a sustainable DEE.
The relationship of DUC and DEE however is moderated by DIG. For instance, how willingly users participate (i.e., in the form of value co-creation or user-turned
entrepreneur) in activities in the DEE is subject to the
governance of digital infrastructure. A society that has
overpowering and hierarchical institutions will unlikely
welcome users to participate in its process of new regulations formation regarding the digital economy, as a
result, DIG in such a society will likely decrease DUC’s
positive impact on sustainable DEE. On the contrary, a
society with an open institution will more likely encourage users’ participation and users’ feedback in new
regulations formation regarding the digital economy,
as a result, DIG in such a society will likely augment
DUC’s positive impact on a sustainable DEE. We
propose:
Proposition 2b The more (less) open the DIG, the more
(less) engagement in DUC leading to a more (less)
sustainable DEE.
6.3 Digital marketplace
The third quadrant DM represents the combination of
users and agents within the context of both ecosystems.
Viewing agents who are both opportunistic and have the
capability for conscious foresight (Williamson 2000),
this quadrant addresses value creation in the form of a
new product or service or new knowledge that are the
result of entrepreneurial activities and users participation. Value created and captured in DM includes entrepreneurial activities which take place in for-profit, nonprofit, and government settings, and the results of these
entrepreneurial activities are embraced by users. As
such, e-government, e-transport, e-education, e-commerce, and e-social networking-based businesses—
Facebook, Uber, Yelp, eHarmony, Wikipedia, and
others—are value addressed in this quadrant.
DM is the key to a sustainable DEE. Continuous
value co-creation between entrepreneur agents and users
in DM is one main route to a sustainable DEE. As users
continuously generate content and provide free labor,
time, and effort to interact with and stay engaged with
other for-profit, nonprofit, and government user entities,
their pro-social behavior and efforts will directly and
indirectly enable entrepreneurial activities. In such a
situation, entrepreneurs will optimize opportunity recognition and exploit opportunities stemming from users’
participation, and at the same time, users embrace such
opportunity exploitation that will allow for entrepreneurial activities. We propose:
Proposition 3a A DM that relies more on value cocreation between users and agents will have a more
positive impact on a sustainable DEE.
Value co-creation that takes place in a DM leading to
a sustainable DEE hinges on a highly skilled and participatory user population. For a digital marketplace,
customer base is fluid and needs to be evolved to keep
up with the fast-paced new digital offers. Evolvement of
user base can be attained through the addition of new
users, highly adaptive users, and increasing involvement
of existing users. In essence, DUC moderates DM relationship with DEE. More formally, we propose.
Proposition 3b As value co-creation in DM relies on
users’ ability to participate, DUC thus moderates DM
positive impact on sustainable DEE.
The relationship between DM and DUC is two-way
interactive. While DUC increases value co-creation in
DM, DM also influences DUC. How a DM is being set
up impacts users’ ability to co-create. Many egovernment platforms are mere top-down information
rich websites with limited feedback mechanism. Even if
a digital user citizen wishes to add value, they cannot.
These e-government DM seeks efficiency in answering
citizens’ problems but not to extract potential value
users create. Contrarily, Facebook’s business model relies almost entirely on users providing content, and it
provides a mechanism to encourage users create value.
We thus propose the following relationship between
DUC and DM:
Proposition 3c There is a two-way interaction between
DUC and DM with the more engagement and participation in DUC, the more vibrant the DM and vice versa.
As evidenced in the cases of Yahoo and Google,
accumulated disruptive new digital businesses within
an industry call for the drafting of new regulations
(Read 2016). We suggest that as the stronger the emergence of a DM in an industry, the more likely it will
have influence on DIG. This leads to:
The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem 65
Proposition 3d The more important the DM, the more
influence it will have on DIG.
6.4 Digital entrepreneurship
The last quadrant DE is the combination of digital
infrastructure and entrepreneurial agents within the context of both ecosystems. First, digital entrepreneurship
in this quadrant includes any agent that is engaged in
any sort of venture be it commercial, social, government, or corporate that uses digital technologies. In
other words, the focus is on digital venturing across all
social, economic, and political activities. However, we
view digital entrepreneurs here as Kirznarian entrepreneurship that operate within the confines of existing
platforms. In other words, they are performing activities
that need digital engagement but may not in themselves
be digital, for example, an Uber taxi driver. The agent
leverages digital technology and seeks and acts on these
opportunities within the marketplace in effect increasing
efficiency by moving the economy closer to the technological frontier.
Based on the examples of Yahoo and Google, Read
(2016) proposed that entrepreneurial actions simultaneously create and destroy noncompetitive monopolistic situation over time, as did Yahoo dominated the
market in 2000 and then Google in 2009 emerged in
the near monopolistic position. Such fast displacement
of market dominance is unique in the digital economy as
digital infrastructure is generative. Extending this line of
argument coupled with an entrepreneur-centrality view
(i.e., a network of entrepreneurs are the ones who leverage infrastructure and propose value to customers), we
suggest that in the digital economy, DE continues with
agents’ ambitious attitude toward engaging in risktaking activities to innovate or utilize existing technologies and digital infrastructure and propose value to
digital users. The impact of DE on a sustainable DEE
is based on the mechanism of the continuous flow of
new DE enabled by the notion that entrepreneurial activities simultaneous creates and destroys noncompetitive monopolistic situation. Therefore, we propose:
Proposition 4a The more DE, the more sustainable the
DEE.
However, we know that not all DE become viable
business models. Examples of earlier dot com failures
are plenty (e.g., Peapods). The idea of Byou build them,
they would come^ turned out to be Byou build them, but
they won’t come^. The web 2.0 and social web elicited
the importance of the accumulation of user base for DE.
This leads to our argument that for DE to positively
impact sustainable DEE, active users’ participation or
DUC is vital. In fact, DUC is possibly a mediator from
the path from DE to DEE. We propose the following:
Proposition 4b For DE to be able to continuously contribute to a sustainable DEE, the presence of an active
and participatory DUC is necessary.
DE also needs the support of an open DIG to allow
entrepreneurs to translate their ideas into action. An
open, transparent, and entrepreneur-friendly institutional environment will encourage new entrepreneurs to
enter the market. This leads to our proposed relationship
between DE and DIG:
Proposition 4c The more open DIG, the more DE.
7 Matchmakers
In the digital marketplace, we find e-government, etransport, e-education, e-commerce, and e-social networking-based businesses. However, not all of these
entities in the digital marketplace have the same business model. In fact, some of it is just securing services
via the Internet and not in person, like renewing your
driver’s license online. We motivated this paper with a
discussion of the growth of a new type of company, the
Unicorn, which is disrupting existing businesses while
creating billions of dollars in wealth. These multisided
platforms are companies that operate in virtual space to
help two or more different groups find each other and
interact (Evans and Schmalensee 2016). They rely on
digital technology and match users and agents. While
we hinted at the importance of value creation by digital
business, we never laid out the process of how this new
business type operates in the digital entrepreneurial
ecosystem. To that task we now turn.
7.1 Multisided platforms
The platform age is upon us because of the development of
powerful information and communication technologies
that have lowered the cost and increased the reach of
connecting platform sides (Acs et al. 2002). According to
Evans and Schmalensee (2016), six new and rapidly improving technologies have driven matchmaker innovation
66 Sussan and Acs
by reducing the cost, increasing the speed, and expanding
the scope of connections between platform sides. Six
technologies help power the digital infrastructure in our
conceptual model: more powerful chips; the Internet; the
World Wide Web; broadband communications; programming languages; and operating systems, the cloud. Combined with the institutional structure that sets the rules for
digital usage gives us digital infrastructure governance.14
A well-functioning digital infrastructure makes it possible
for digital business to attract users and agents to multisided
platforms.
These businesses (Open Table, Facebook, Visa,
Uber, and AirB&B) among others are matchmakers. A
matchmaker business helps two or more different kinds
of customers find each other and engage in mutual
beneficial interactions: a dating service, a restaurant
and dinners, taxis and riders, friends and friends, renters,
and apartments (Armstrong 2006; Evans and
Schmalensee 2016; Katz and Shapiro 1985). Matchmaker businesses are as old as human kind. What is
new is digital technology that lowers the transactions
cost of Bmaking a match^ from some large number to
fractions of a penny. In transactions, cost economics
firms exist to reduce transaction costs by internalizing
the activities in an organization. In multisided markets,
the transaction costs are reduced without taking the
activities into the firm. Uber drivers and Uber riders
carry out their activities in the market facilitated by a
multisided platform (Coase 1937). In 2004, JeanCharles Rochet and Jean Tirole published a paper,
BPlatform Competition in Two-sided Markets,^ that
built a model of platform competition. It unveiled the
determinants of price allocation and end user surplus for
different governance structures. Economists call these
businesses multisided platforms, because some of them
actually facilitate interactions between more than two or
more types of consumers.
Let us assume a simple model with sides A and B,
where side A is the product supplier and side B is the end
user. Let us also assume three business models, a single
product platform, a reseller, and a multisided platform. A
single product platform business starts with a product
platform, buy inputs of various sorts from suppliers,
transforming them into finished products for customers
(Rong and Shi 2015). A product platform sells essential
inputs to side A. Then side A sells the final product to
side B. A reseller buys goods from side A and sells them
to side B. An ordinary business main focus in attracting
customers on side B and selling to them on profitable
terms, however, they never connect side A with side B.
Multisided platforms, in contrast, need to attract two or
more types of customers’ side A and side B (agents and
users, users and users, and agents and agents) by enabling
them to directly interact or transact with each other on
attractive terms. Matchmakers are called multisided platforms because they usually operate a physical or virtual
place that helps the different sides A and side B get
together.15 The multisided platform is affiliated with both
sides A and B, and sides A and B are connected by the
multisided platform. An important feature of most multisided platforms is that the value to customers on one side
of a platform typically increases with the number of
participating customers on the other side. This is known
as the presence of indirect network effects.16
For a business to create a multisided platform, it needs
to sign up millions of customers. Platform owners or
sponsors in these industries must address the celebrated
Bchicken-and-egg problem^ and be careful to Bget both
sides on board (Caillaud and Jullien 2003).^ A pioneering
platform is a multisided platform that is the first, or one of
the first, to identify a friction and create a matchmaker to
attempt to solve that friction. The pioneering platform
usually is the first to solve the pricing, chicken-and-egg,
necessary to ignite a platform. How do you price in a twosided market? Matchmakers face many more complex
pricing problems than traditional businesses, because they
must balance the interests of all sides in order to get all
sides on board the platform and keep them on board and to
get members of each group to interact with members of the
other group (Evans and Schmalensee 2016, p. 32).
Once economist recognized multisided platforms,
they started to look at how they priced. In fact, many
of them charged the participants on one side of the
platform prices that do not cover costs, charge nothing,
or provide rewards for using the products. For example,
video game console users pay marginal cost or less for
consoles; credit card users do not pay for transactions
and sometimes get rewards; search engines do not
charge for searches; in nightclubs, women sometimes
get in for free or get below-cost drinks.17
14 https://chillingcompetition.com/2016/08/29/competition-andregulation-in-digital-markets/
15 https://hbr.org/2016/05/what-platforms-do-differently-thantraditional-businesses
16 http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/strategic-decisions-formultisided-platforms/
17 https://hbr.org/2013/01/three-elements-of-a-successful-platform
The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem 67
7.2 Platform performance
A matchmaker business is one of the toughest business
challenges, and almost everyone who tries to build one
fails. In June 2007, Apple decided to manage its ecosystem to improve platform performance. Apple announced that it would allow the development of apps
for the iPhone by third parties. The company released its
software development kit in March 2008 and lunched its
App Store in July 2008. Developers could only get their
apps to users through Apple’s App Store, and Apple got
to decide whether to make an app available. It developed
strict standards and processes for testing and reviewing
apps. A year after its launch, iPhone was a two-sided
platform connecting smartphone users and digital entrepreneurs in the digital marketplace (Ibid, p. 117). A
similar process was followed by Google for Android
phones. It turned out that third-party apps were important for getting users interested in both new
smartphones: Android and Apple. The use of the
smartphone installed base exploded after 2008, and by
2015, it had over three million users and thousands of
apps. Americans spend 71% of their time with apps
when using their smartphones (Ibid, p. 117). In 2015,
Apple has the highest market cap of any in the world, at
$665 billion, and Google the second highest at $527
billion.18
Both Apple and Google had to manage their ecosystem to succeed. They created foundational platforms
that are a multisided platform that provides core services
to other multisided platforms and is therefore a
Bplatform of platforms^ (Ibid, 208). IOS, Windows,
and Blackberry did not do a good job of managing their
ecosystems, and they never took off. From Apple’s
perspective, the ecosystem was the businesses, institutions, and other environmental factors that affected the
value, positively or negatively, that a platform can
generate for the participants of the platform. This is the
internal or value added view of the ecosystem, and it is
not bounded by time or space (Moore 1993). The
entrepreneurial ecosystem is an external macroecosystem
of community efforts around startup ecosystems to support development (Mathews and Brueggemann 2015). In
both cases, the goal is performance. In the business
ecosystem, the goal of the ecosystem is to increase the
value of the platform. In the digital entrepreneurial ecosystem, the goal of the ecosystem is to improve the
performance of the economy (Stam 2015). How
to manage the digital entrepreneurial ecosystem to
improve economic performance for a region is an
active research area for firms, individuals, and
regions (Terjesen et al. 2017).
7.3 Platform competition
From both positive and normative viewpoints, twosided markets differ from the textbook treatment of
multi product oligopoly or monopoly. The interaction
between the two sides gives rise to strong complementarities, but the corresponding externalities are not
internalized by end users, unlike in the multiproduct
literature (Rochet and Tirole 2004). BThe notion of
competition changes dramatically with platforms. Today, Ford doesn’t simply have to worry about competing
with Apple or Google, it has to also figure out how to
participate in Apple’s ecosystem in some way so as not
to be left behind like Nokia and Blackberry. Strategic
considerations on recognizing competition and their key
source of competitive advantage aren’t straightforward
anymore. We’ve seen this with how Android has had to
repeatedly stave off competition from members of its
own ecosystem, like Samsung and Amazon.^.
19
8 Research agenda
The conceptual framework for a digital entrepreneurial
ecosystem—digital infrastructure governance, digital
user citizenship, digital marketplace, and digital entrepreneurship—results in a set of propositions. These
propositions provide guidance for a rich research agenda. First, entrepreneurship research in the digital economy needs to be expanded to include literature from other
disciplines such as economics, political science, marketing, and information systems. Referencing political science literature provides the knowledge necessary to
understand the nuances of digital infrastructure governance and digital user citizenship and their importance
in the digital entrepreneurial ecosystems. Extant literature in digital marketing and online consumer behavior
provide entrepreneurship researchers with new lenses
for investigating the inner workings of consumer psychology and social psychology (consumer-to-consumer
interactions as intellectual capital for a firm, see Sussan
18 According to Bloomberg as of November 20, 2015. 19 http://platformed.info/the-future-of-competition/
68 Sussan and Acs
2012) that motivate consumers. As a result, value created by interactions between consumers and agents allow
digital entrepreneurs to capture such value in the digital
marketplace. Research from management information
systems literature illuminates the background necessary
to understand how a system of digital technologies and
infrastructure can serve as the germinating bed for
digital entrepreneurs.
Second, entrepreneurship research should focus more
on the digital economy toward understanding high impact, high potential, and high-growth business that is
scalable and creates value using digital technologies.
Many of these firms are matchmakers. Research from
economics on multisided platforms should be studied
and see how entrepreneurship fits into this new organization structure.
Third, while digital technologies are global, the
creation of digital companies remains local. Therefore,
the research agenda for understanding the digital
entrepreneurial ecosystem should continue to investigate clusters, regional, as well as country comparisons.
The impact of culture, legal systems, and economic
development on digital infrastructure governance, digital user citizenship, digital entrepreneurship, and digital
marketplace are particularly important areas that need
investigation.
Fourth, while an ecosystem, entrepreneurial, or otherwise is a robust, self-organizing, and scalable architecture that can automatically solve complex dynamic
problems, then what constitutes ecosystem management? What actors should be allowed to intervene?
Should intervention take place at the system and/or
subsystem level? A managerial approach to understanding the digital entrepreneurial ecosystem is an area that
needs urgent attention.
Fifth, given that the digital marketplace has tilted in
favor of empowered consumers (Rippé et al. 2015),
digital entrepreneurial research needs to investigate the
inner workings of the users’ decision-making process,
from both internal and external influences, in order to
understand how entrepreneurial agents can spot such
opportunities and extract and capture value from users.
Understanding consumers’ psychology and social psychology are thus important in digital economy. This
importance aligns with prior call for more social
psychology-based research in entrepreneurship (Shaver
2003).
Finally, given that the concept of digital entrepreneurship ecosystems introduced here is a multifaceted
phenomenon that spans interdisciplinary knowledge, a
range of research methods will be suitable to address
this phenomenon. Empirical work that describes the
interactions of the quadrants in the framework is particularly important. A more detailed list of research agenda
is depicted in Table 1.
9 Conclusion
This article addresses the lack of digital economy specific research in the entrepreneurship literature. In filling
such a gap, we propose a digital entrepreneurship ecosystem framework by way of integrating knowledge
from management information systems and marketing.
In this 2 × 2 framework, we derived propositions and
related research agenda to guide future research in this
important topic.
This article thus adds value to entrepreneurship research in (1) situating entrepreneurship research within
digital economy, (2) promoting the use of other business
sub-disciplines within entrepreneurial research, (3)
broadening entrepreneurial ecosystem research to another more established ecosystem research—digital ecosystem, (4) elevating digital entrepreneurs as the center
of the digital economy, and (5) integrating a consumerand user-centric approach and extending the dyads of
institution-agency into a triangle of institution-agencyconsumer (user) in entrepreneurial ecosystem. Our new
conceptual framework of digital entrepreneurship ecosystem sheds new light on policy issues in terms of the
complexity of digital infrastructure governance and its
relationship with digital entrepreneurs, digital users, and
digital marketplace. A socially embedded open digital
governance structure raises many new questions relative
to the balance of power among many stakeholders (e.g.,
users, entrepreneurs, industry incumbents, and regulators) whose motivation to participate in the
ecosystem differs drastically. The digital user citizenship concept within the digital entrepreneurship
ecosystem is also an important one to stimulate
policy makers in education to re-think what digital
skillsets need to be promoted in order to link skills
to entrepreneurship in the digital economy.
The many research agendas suggested here also reflect that while this article has proposed a novel and
important concept, it is not without limitations. As we
conceptualize digital entrepreneurship, we had not considered the characteristics of the agents as compared to
The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem 69
Table 1 Research agenda for digital entrepreneurship ecosystems
Quadrants Description Propositions Research agenda (some examples)
Digital
infrastructure
governance
The coordination and governance needed in order
to establish a set of shared technological
standards that are related to entrepreneurial
activities.
1 As digital infrastructure is decentralized and open and
its governance tends to be subject to bottom-up discourse in the shaping of standards and legitimizaiton,
DIG has a positive impact on a sustainable DEE.
However, the bottom-up standardization and legitimization in DIG will reach a tipping point being effectively and positively able to to impact a sustainable
DEE. As a result, the relationship between DIG and
DEE is one of an inverted U-shaped curve.
•A typology of digital infrastructure governance based on
formal vs. informal process and open vs. closed process
within the context of digital entrepreneurship
ecosystem.
•Identify barriers digital entrepreneurs face in influencing
the process of digital infrastructure governance
•Empirical evidence of digital entrepreneurial activities
that manipulate or disrupt the process of digital
infrastructure governance?
•Conceptualize the balance of power among various
actors (digital entrepreneurs, incumbent industry
leaders, government organization, trade organizations,
and users) in digital infrastructure governance
formation
•The role of digital entrepreneurs in matters such as digital
privacy and digital security.
Digital user
citizenship
The legal and social contract users formally and
informally agree to in their participation in
digital environment that is related to the
entrepreneurial ecosystems.
2a As users engage in discourse with other users online in
a wide range of activities, a highly voluntary
participatory and empowered DUC will lead to more
user-turned digital entrepreneurs, larger customerbased, and more value co-creation which in turn will
positively impact a sustainable DEE.
2b The more (less) open the DIG, the more (less) engagement in DUC leading to a more (less) sustainable
DEE.
•Define a spectrum of voluntarism and the various
dimensions of self-governed (e.g., etiquette), selfmonitored (e.g., digital privacy), and self-controlled
behavior among digital user citizens and their roles in
the digital entrepreneurial ecosystem.
•Empirical evidence of digital user citizen engagement
and their impact on digital infrastructure governance,
e.g., users influence in the formation of digital privacy
law, digital security, and industry standards.
•A typology of digital user citizens participation in the
digital marketplace.
Digital
marketplace
Value creation in the form of a new product or
service or new knowledge that are the results of
entrepreneurial activities and users
participation.
3a A DM that relies more on value co-creation between
users and agents will have a more positive impact on a
sustainable DEE.
3b As value co-creation in DM relies on users’ ability to
participate, DUC thus moderates DM positive impact
on sustainable DEE.
3c There is a two-way interaction between DUC and DM
with the more engagement and participation in DUC
the more vibrand the DM and vice versa.
3d The more important the DM, the more influence it will
have on DIG.
•Conceptualize the alignment necessary for digital user
citizenship and digital entrepreneurship to an optimal
digital marketplace
•A typology of the scenarios of balance and imbalance of
power of digital user citizenship and digital
entrepreneurship and the result of such digital
marketplace
•Empirical evidence of the relationship between vibrant
digital marketplace and digital entrepreneurship
•Longitudinal case study of iterative interactions between
digital marketplace and digital entrepreneurship
resulting in sustainable digital entrepreneurial
ecosystem
70 Sussan and Acs
those who are not in the digital environment. Further
research that examines their difference in risk-taking,
opportunistic, and other psychological attitudes and
behavior from agents who are not from the digital environment is encouraged. When we introduce digital user
citizenship, we have not addressed or discussed the indepth digital skills that are necessary to prepare for
different types of digital marketplaces. A more detailed
investigation of various levels of users’ digital skills and
their relationship to various types of markets will be an
important area of research to inform how digital entrepreneurs can leverage these users’ skills to develop a
successful business model.
DE, digital ecosystem; DE, digital entrepreneurship;
DEE, digital entrepreneurial ecosystem; DI, digital infrastructure; DIG, digital infrastructure governance;
DM, digital marketplace; DUC, digital user citizenship;
EE, entrepreneurial ecosystem; ICT, information and
communication technologies; IT, information technology; NSI, National Systems of Innovation.
Acknowledgements This paper draws on several research
projects over the years that the authors have been involved in.
We wish to thank Erkko Autio, Laszlo Szerb, Erik Stam, and
Johnathan Levie who have contributed to previous projects on
the topic of entrepreneurship ecosystems and two anonymous
referees for their helpful comments. All errors remain ours.
References
Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2005). Unbundling institutions.
Journal of PoliticalEconomy, 113(5), 949–995.
Acs, Z. J., Astebro, T., Audretsch, D., & Robinson, D. T. (2016).
Public policy to promote entrepreneurship: a call to arms.
Small Business Economics, 47(1), 35–52.
Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in large and
small firms: An empirical analysis. American Economic
Review, 78, 678–690.
Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014a). National systems of
entrepreneurship: measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(1), 476–494.
Acs, Z. J., de Groot., & Nijkamp, P. (2002). The emergence
of the knowledge economy: a regional perspective.
Spring, 2002.
Acs, Z. J., Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Szerb, L. (2017).
Institutions, entrepreneurship and growth: the role of national
entrepreneurial ecosystems, SSRN, https://papers.Ssrn.
Com/sol3/papers2.Cfm?abstract_id=2912453 January 2017.
Acs, Z. J., Szerb L., & Autio, E. (2014b). Global entrepreneruship
index, The GEDI Institute, Amazon, LLC.
Aghion, P. (2017). Entrepreneurship and growth: lessons from an
Table 1
intellectual journey. Small Business Economics, 48(1), 9–24.
(continued)
Quadrants Description Propositions Research agenda (some examples)
•Empirical evidence of digital marketplace (e.g., Google
and Facebook) influencing digital infrastructure
governance (e.g., digital privacy and net neutrality)
and/or digital user citizenship (e.g., digital skills).
Digital
entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurial activities that optimize the
utilization and reconfiguration of digital
infrastructure in the form of new systems, new
platforms, and new networks.
4a The more DE, the more sustainable the DEE.
4b For DE to be able to continuously contribute to a
sustainable DEE, the presence of an active and
participatory DUC is necessary.
4c The more open DIG, the more DE.
•Empirical evidence of digital entrepreneurs who freely
interact with digital infrastructure and the results of
such interactions
•Conceptual and empirical model of the moderation and
interaction effect of digital governance and digital user
citizenship on the path from digital entrepreneurship to
digital marketplace.
The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem 71
Armstrong, M. (2006). Competition in two-sided markets. RAND
Journal of Economics, 37(3), 668–691.
Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of
resources for invention. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and
direction of inventive activity (pp. 609–626). Princeton
University Press: Princeton.
Autio, E., Cleevely, M., Hart, M., Levie, J., Acs, S. J., & Szerb, L.
(2012). Entrerpeneurial profile of the UK in the light of the
global entrepreneurship and developmetnt index. London:
Imperial College Business School.
Autio, E., Dahlander, L., & Frederiksen, L. (2013). Information
exposure, opportunity evaluation, and entrepreneurial action:
an investigation of an online user community. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(5), 1348–1371.
Autio, E., Kenny, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M.
(2015). Entrepreneurial innovation: the imortance of context.
Research Policy, 43, 1097–1108.
Autio, E., & Levie. (2015). Management of entrepreneurial ecosystems. London: Imperial College Business School.
Autio, E., & Thomas, L. (2016). Tilting the playing field: Towards
an endogenous strategic action theory of ecosystem creation.
Forthcoming in. In S. Nambisan (Ed.), Open Innovation,
Innovation Ecosystems, and Entrepreneurship:
Multidisciplinary Perspectives. New Jersey: World
Scientific Publishing.
Baller, S., Dutta, S., & Lanvin, B. (Eds.). (2016). The global
information technology report 2016: innovating in the digital
economy. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Baumol, W. (1990). Entrepreneurship, Productive, Unproductive
and Destructive, Journal of Political Economy.
Binham, C. (2016). UK regulators are the most fintech friendly.
Financial times. Accessed December 30, 2016 https://www.
ft.com/content/ff5b0be4-7381-11e6-bf48-b372cdb1043a
Caillaud, B., & Jullian, B. (2003). Chick and egg: competing
matchmakers. RAND Journal of Economics, 34(2), 309–328.
Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: an economic theory.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Contextualization and
value-in-context: how context frames exchange. Marketing
Theory, 11(1), 35–49.
Coad, A., Frankish, J. S., Roberts, R. G., & Storey, D. J. (2016).
Predicting new venture survival and growth: does the fog lift?
Small Business Economics, 47(1), 217–243.
Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, new series,
4(16), 386–405.
Cooks, P., Urangs, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional
innovation systems: institutional and organizational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4–5), 475–491.
Cusumano, M. A., & Goeldi, A. (2013). New businesses and new
business models. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 239–261). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Daunfeldt, A. O., & Halvarsso, D. (2015). Are high-growth firms
one-hit wonders: evidence from Sweden. Small Business
Economics, 44, 361–383.
de Moraes, J. A., & de Andrade, E. B. (2015). Who are the citizens
of the digital citizenship? International Review of
Information Ethics, 23, 11.
Dexheimer, E., & Hamilton, J. (2016) The US will regulate some
Fintech companies like traditional lenders. Bllomberg.
Accessed 12.30.2016 https://www.bloomberg.
com/news/articles/2016-12-02/fintech-firms-get-chance-tobe-regulated-like-wall-street-banks
Dini, P., Iqani, M., & Mansell, R. (2011). The (im) possibility of
interdisciplinary lessons from constructing a theoretical
framework for digital ecosystems. Culture, theory and critique, 52(1), 3–27.
Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation: technologies, institutions, and organizations. Psychology Press.
Estrin, S., Korosteleva, J., & Mickiewicz, T. (2013). Which institutions encourage entrepreneurial growth aspirations?
Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 564–580.
European Commission, Enterprise and industry directorate-general, Bstrategic policy forum on digital entrepreneurship^,
Brussels, 2017.
Evans, D. S., & Schmalensee, R. (2016). Matchmakers: the new
economics of multisided platforms. Boston: Harvard
Business Review Press.
Florida, R. (2004). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic
Books.
Haefliger, S., Jäger, P., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Under the radar:
industry entry by user entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 39(9),
1198–1213.
Hanseth, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Design theory for dynamic
complexity in information infrastructures: the case of building internet. Journal of Information Technology, 25(1), 1–19.
Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The
American Economic Review, 519–530.
Henfridsson, O., & Bygstad, B. (2013). The generative mechanisms of digital infrastructure evolution. MIS Quarterly,
37(3), 907–931.
Henrekson, M., & Sanandjai, T. (2011). The interaction of entrepreneurship and institutions. Journal of Institutional
Economics, 7(1), 47–75.
Hilbert, M. (2011). The end justifies the definition: the manifold
outlooks on the digital divide and their practical usefulness
for policy-making. Telecommunications Policy, 35, 715–736.
Hussain, A., Wang, H., & Nobakhti, A. (2010). Editorial: advances
in complex control systems theory and applications. IET
Control Theory & Applications, 4(2), 173–175.
Katz, M., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities.
Competition and Compatibility, American Economic
Review, 75, 424–440.
Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition & entrepreneurship. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Leibenstein, H. (1968). Entrepreneurship and development.
American Economic Review, 58, 72–83.
Li, W., Badr, Y., & Biennier, F. (2012). Digital ecosystems: challenges and prospects. In proceedings of the international
conference on management of Emergent Digital
EcoSystems (pp. 117–122). ACM.
Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National systems of innovation: an analytical framework. London: Pinter.
Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: a service-dominant logic perspective. Mis Quarterly, 39(1), 155–
175.
Mathews, C., & Brueggemann, R. (2015). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Routledge.
Moore, J. F., (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition, Harvard Business Review, 71 30, 76.
Moritz, 2015 The fall and rise of technology juggernauts, financial
times. Accessed online June 1, 2016 http://www.ft.
72 Sussan and Acs
com/cms/s/0/6b859714-99ba-11e5-9228-87e603d47bdc.
html#axzz4CiJeVWJm
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2007). The
internet, society, and participation. Boston: MIT Press.
Nelson, R. R. (1994). National innovation systems: a comparative
analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic
performance. Cambridge University Press.
Ofer, G. (1987). Soviet economic growth: 1928-1985. Journal of
Economic Literature, 25(4), 1767–1833.
Parker, S. (2002). The economics of self-employment. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New
York: Free Press.
Porter, M. (1998) Clusters and the new economics of competition.
Harvard Business Review 76(6), 77–90.
Read, S. (2016). Organic or deliberate: a comment on BApplying
the ecosystem metaphor to entrepreneurship: uses and
abuses^. The Antitrust Bulletin, 61(4), 574–579.
Read, S., Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S. D., Song, M., & Wiltbank, R.
(2009). Marketing under uncertainty: the logic of an effectual
approach. Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 1–18.
Rice, J. C., & Sussan, F. (2016). Digital privacy: a conceptual
framework for business. Journal of Payments Strategy &
Systems, 10(3), 260–266.
Richter, C., Kraus, S., & Syrjä, P. (2015). The share economy as a
precursor for digital entrepreneurship business models.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business, 25(1), 18–35.
Rippé, C. B., Weisfeld-Spolter, S., Yurova, Y., & Sussan, F.
(2015). Is there a global multichannel consumer?
International Marketing Review, 32(3/4), 329–349.
Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2004). Defining two-sided markets.
Toulouse, France: mimeo, IDEI.
Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal
of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S71–S102.
Rong, K., & Shi, Y. (2015). Business ecosystems, New York Sage
Publishing.
Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. (1993). Technical innovation and
national systems. in R.R. Nelson, National Innovation
Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford, pp 3-22
Salter, A. J., & McKelvey, M. (2016). Evolutionary Analysis of
Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Sidney G. Winter—recipient of the 2015 Global award for entrepreneurship research.
Small Business Economics, 47(1), 1–14.
Schumpeter, J. [1934 (1911)]. The theory of economic development, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Spigel, B. (2015). The relational organization of entrepreneurial
ecosystem. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, in press.
Shah, S. K., & Tripsas, M. (2007). The accidental entrepreneur:
the emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 123–140.
Shane, S., & Venkatraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management
Review, 25, 217–226.
Shaver, K. (2003). The social psychology of entrepreneurial behavior. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of
entrepreneurship research: an interdisciplinary survey and
introduction (pp. 331–358). Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Stabell, C. B., & Fjeldstad, Ø. D. (1998). Configuring value for
competitive advantage: on chains, shops, and networks.
Strategic Management Journal, 413–437.
Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a
sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies. 1–11.
Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Chapter for the SAGE Handbook for Entrepreneurship and
Small Business.
Stenholm, P., Acs, Z. J., & Wuebker, R. (2013). Exploring country
level institutional arrangements on the rate and type of entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1),
176–193.
Stone, B. (2017). The upstarts: how Uber, Airbnb, and the killer
Companies of the New Silicon Valley are changing the world.
Boston: Little Brown.
Sussan, F. (2012). Consumer interaction as intellectual capital.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 13(1), 81–105.
Sussan, F., Gould, S., & Weisfeld-Spolter, S. (2006). Location,
location, location: the relative roles of virtual location, online
word-of-mouth (eWOM) and advertising in the new-product
adoption process. NA-Advances in Consumer Research,
Volume 33.
Szerb, L., Acs, Z. J. Ortega-Argilés, R., & Komlosi, E. (2014). The
entrepreneurial ecosystem: the regional entrepreneurship and
development index (May 30, 2015). Available at SSRN:
http://Ssrn.Com/Abstract=2642514 or http://dx.doi.
org/10.2139/ssrn.2642514
Terjesen, S., Acs, Z J., Audretsch, D. B., Hechavarria, D., Stam,
E., & White, R. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: the
search for performance, Small Business Economics, this
issue.
Terranova, T. (2000). Free labor: Producing culture for the digital
economy. Social text, 18(2), 33–58.
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & Sørensen, C. (2010). Research
commentary-digital infrastructures: the missing IS research
agenda. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 748–759.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant
logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic:
continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.
Vicente, M. R., & Gil-de-Bernabé, F. (2010). Assessing the broadband gap: from the penetration divide to the quality divide.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 816–822.
Von Hippel, E. (2006). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Webster Jr., F. E., & Lusch, R. F. (2013). Elevating marketing:
marketing is dead! Long live marketing! Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 389–399.
Weitzman, M. L. (1970). Soviet postwar economic growth and
capital-labor substitution. The American Economic Review,
60(4), 676–692.
Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: taking
stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3),
595–613.
Winter, S. G. (2016). 6 in BThe Economics that Might Have
Been^. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 15–34.
Zittrain, J. L. (2006). The generative internet. Harvard Law
Review, 2006, 1974–2040.
Zittrain, J. (2008). The future of the internet—and how to stop it.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem 73
Small Business Economics is a copyright of Springer, 2017. All Rights Reserved.

Check Price Discount

Study Notes, Research Topics & Assignment Examples: Discussion Healthy Eating Approach Essay »MKT00720 – Marketing Assignment 2: Report