The study adds a fresh perspective on the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept by bringing together two different perspectives on learning and entrepreneurship: one is taken from entrepreneurial learning theory and the other from the concept of learning regions found within regional economic geography literatures. We then relate this discussion to some practical or ‘real world’ efforts to develop the regional ecosystem by a university via programmes for entrepreneurial learning aimed at both entrepreneurs and small businesses and public sector actors. We see a great potential for university designed and delivered programmes to support entrepreneurial and regional learning for better social and economic outcomes for people and places. We also see the EE approach holding great promise for local economic development strategies and aim to enrich it by adding the learning dimension theoretically into the concept, but also by giving some tangible examples of how an orientation towards learning at both the regional and entrepreneurial level can enrich our efforts to support economic development.
The reason for bringing together work on individual and regional learning is that the EE concept is lacking a learning perspective to explain how entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic development happen at the regional level. We argue that we cannot understand economic growth and development within the globalised knowledge economy without giving sufficient regards to learning as a mechanism for growth, but also to the institutions, actors and processes involved therein. This is where the entrepreneurial ecosystems concept holds great promise: in its ability to conceptualise the actors and institutions at a local and regional level that drive economic development, the evolution of the system and the interrelations between the various parts.
2.1 Learning for growth: from individual to regional learning
Within the field of entrepreneurship, there has been a shift to trying to understand how entrepreneurs learn and what impacts on their learning process (Harrison and Leitch
2005; Dimov
2007; Morris et al.
2012). Involving both the acquisition and application to new situations of new knowledge, learning is seen to be especially important and one way to enhance organisational and individual entrepreneurial performance (Jones et al.
2010). Drawing on work in organisational learning (Lumpkin and Lichtenstein
2005) and the theoretical developments offered by Kolb (
1984), Mezirow (
1991) and Argyris and Schon (
1996), learning within the entrepreneurial context has shown that experiential learning is especially critical for entrepreneurs (Cope
2003; Corbett
2005; Gordon and Jack
2010). Recently, Myers (
2018) has proposed the theoretical concept of coactive vicarious learning to illustrate how experiential learning occurs via a two-way street of interactions, against the backdrop of individual, relational and structural context in organisations.
Moving up to the regional level perspective, learning is considered vital to economic growth, alongside innovation, knowledge, networks, entrepreneurs and proximities (Storper
2010). Knowledge and learning processes are seen as being geographically embedded at the regional level, and the regional embeddedness of networks means that interaction within them is subject to regional conventions, as the ‘learning region’ thesis tells us (Rutten and Boekema
2007, p. 131).
According to Lundvall (
1992), knowledge is the most strategic resource, and learning is the most important process in economic development. Geography is key because spatial proximity to knowledge can bestow competitive advantage (Audretsch and Aldridge
2009, p. 201). Emphasis is placed on tacit knowledge, which is seen as particularly location dependent, context specific and embodied in people, and so does not travel easily; it cannot be removed from its social context (Morgan
2004,
2007). The importance of tacit knowledge and know-how in the literature is part of a wider argument about the role of intangible and invisible factors in economic development (Morgan
2007, p. 105). Learning has come to be thought of as so important for the economic development of regions and cities that Malmberg (
1997) noted a ‘learning turn’. According to Hassink (
2004, p. 4): ‘The capacity of both individuals and organisations to engage successfully in learning processes is regarded as a crucial component of economic performance in the knowledge-based economy’.
Linking up these two perspectives on learning as both an individual (entrepreneurial) function and as a regional growth matter, learning is considered within and between organisations and individuals as a determinant for successful regions. The fact that learning takes place through organisations and individuals means that there is a strong interest in human capital, and the importance of individuals in the knowledge economy. Romer (
1990, p. 97–99) goes as far as to say that ‘the stock of human capital determines the rate of growth’ and ‘low levels of human capital may help to explain why growth is not observed in underdeveloped economies’. In addition to attracting talent from outside (cf. Florida
2006), regions must also cultivate their own human resources through learning processes. As the development of literature has been arguing the importance of learning in both contexts—regional and firm level—it is for this reason that we see theoretical value in introducing learning as a part of the EE concept.
2.2 Entrepreneurial ecosystems and learning therein
The EE concept has emerged as a result of combining two terms—entrepreneurial and ecosystem. The term ‘entrepreneurial’ refers to entrepreneurship, activities of creating new goods and services (Shane and Venkataraman
2000). According to early studies on EE, the concept focuses on innovative and growth-oriented entrepreneurship whilst it deliberately excludes traditional measures of entrepreneurship such as ‘self-employment’ and ‘small business’ (Stam
2015). The second component, ‘ecosystem’, is defined as a union of localised cultural outlook, networks, investment capital, universities and active economic policy to create a supportive environment for innovation-based ventures (Spigel
2016). We adopt the ‘entrepreneurial ecosystem’ (EE) concept, as reviewed by Spigel (
2017) and Malecki (
2018): ‘combinations of social, political, economic, and cultural elements within a region that support the development and growth of innovative start-ups and encourage nascent entrepreneurs’ (Spigel
2017, p. 50).
Whilst the EE concept has much in common with other established concepts such as cluster, industrial districts and innovation systems, it also has a strong focus on the external business environment and focuses on entrepreneurs as central players in creating and sustaining the system (Stam
2015). The World Economic Forum (WEF
2013) suggests eight attributes that are critical in the development of a successful ecosystem. These pillars include accessible markets, human capital, funding and finance, support system, government and regulatory framework, education and training, major universities and cultural support. In summary, these attributes show a shift from traditional economic thinking about firms and markets to a new approach around people, networks and institutions. Emerging work in the EE domain takes a dynamic and process-based view on the entrepreneurial system, for example that by Spigel and Harrison (
2018). Dynamic questions are asked such as how do we create a new ecosystem and what sustains them or what causes their decline (Stam
2014). Perspectives from evolutionary economic geography are integrated into the EE concept (Mack and Mayer
2015), examining how ecosystems evolve at the regional level (Malecki
2018).
In this study, we argue that an entrepreneurial ecosystem, when functioning well, is an interdependent set of actors that is governed in such a way that it enables high-growth entrepreneurial activities. As we illustrated above with the concept of learning, the entrepreneurial ecosystem can be conceptualised (as our interpretation of Stam
2014) as being composed of both regional attributes and individual/organisational/firm attributes. Whilst the regional attributes include physical conditions that enable or constrain human interaction in general and entrepreneurial action in particular, it also includes intangible and cultural elements. The organisational attributes include resources, finance, management and leadership, networks, intermediaries, support services and a pool of talent. The organisational attributes interact with each other and are constrained or enabled by the regional attributes. Finally, learning allows the combination of both regional and organisational characteristics to flourish and results in strong entrepreneurial activities. Learning from and between regional actors (for example, government, market) and organisational actors (for example start-ups, SMEs, industries) develops synergy and is critical for the development of EE. It is well established that entrepreneurs and the businesses they create are critical to regional and national economies of most developed countries (Jones et al.
2010). Perceived as ‘tiny acorns from which large oak trees can grow’ (Thorpe et al.
2009, p. 201), there is a perspective that generating and supporting entrepreneurs and the organisations they create is something to be encouraged and revered. In response, governments especially within the developed world have sought to develop schemes and policies that encourage entrepreneurial activity (Audretsch and Link
2012); however, there have been suggestions that policy has proved ineffective to date (Arshed et al.
2014; Acs et al.
2016). A sub-stream of enterprise policy has been to encourage interaction and engagement between HEIs and entrepreneurs (Johnston et al.
2008; Zhang and Hamilton
2010), but again questions have been raised about the efficacy of driving regional economic development via the university sphere (Pugh
2017).
Within the UK, this strategy has been especially supported by government as it is seen as a way to develop higher level skills and support entrepreneurs (Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration
2003; HMS Treasury
2006; DIUS
2009). Nevertheless, policies and business support approaches have been criticised primarily for being top down, product oriented and misaligned with what entrepreneurs and their organisations actually need (Ram and Trehan
2009). One response has been for HEIs involved in the provision of entrepreneurship education to move away from traditional ways of delivering education towards designing more innovative mechanisms through a focus on critical aspects such as entrepreneurial learning (Zhang and Hamilton
2010). However, the EE literature has not fully considered universities in terms of learning in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, although it states that universities are a key node in the system to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship (Miller and Acs
2017). This is the broader policy and theoretical backdrop against which we situate our paper, which now focuses in on the efforts of a particular HEI to provide support for regional development and entrepreneurship activity via a series of programmes and actions.