Paper short abstract:

I propose a methodological concept of enacted measures of entrepreneurial ecosystems, and examine it empirically in Tokyo and Bangalore. I explain variation in the substance and sequence of enacted measures by identifying underlying interaction of old economy factors and transnational connectedness.

Paper long abstract:

To contribute to the understating of how local entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) can be compared and measured in a way that pays attention to context and time, this paper uses a bottom-up approach anchored in organisation theory (institutional work, practice) to propose a concept of enacted measures. This is a methodological contribution, which allows to find out what elements of local EEs their stakeholders care about in a given phase of EE development, and can also be used to compare across locations in a more contextualised way.

This paper examines enacted measures in a longitudinal perspective, through a qualitative inductive study in two relatively advanced but contextually different EEs - Tokyo in Japan and Bangalore in India. The data is based on approximately 11 months of fieldwork research that generated a matched sample of over 80 semi-structured interviews with various types of EE stakeholders (entrepreneurs, investors, other startup supporters), supplemented by participant observation of events and spaces, and by archival sources. The dataset is constructed in a way that allows the capturing of changes over time by incorporating EE stakeholders who were active in various stages of EEs' evolution, spanning approximately past 30 years.

The findings indicate that while broad types of enacted measures related to elements of EE institutional infrastructure are similar, many specific instances vary (in both substance and sequence) due to differences in underlying substitutable interaction of old economy factors and transnational connectedness of the locations. Moreover, the study reveals that evaluations of enacted measures are not always positive but can also be disputed. This happens not only due to different agendas among EE stakeholders but also when the actions relate to elements of EE institutional infrastructure perceived as either not developed enough and not building on proven or potential strengths of the local EEs, or too developed already.

Overall, the insights of this paper can be conceptualised as a bottom-up framework for comparing sub-national EEs over time, the Varieties of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, which is anchored in organisation theory but sensitised by insights from comparative frameworks like Varieties of Capitalism. Implications for research and for policy are proposed.