Entrepreneurial ecosystems in Poland: panacea, paper tiger or Pandora’s box?
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-04-2019-0036 |
| Pages | 319-338 |
| Published date | 02 September 2019 |
| Date | 02 September 2019 |
| Author | Chay Brooks,Tim Vorley,Cristian Gherhes |
| Subject Matter | Strategy |
Entrepreneurial ecosystems in
Poland: panacea, paper tiger or
Pandora’s box?
Chay Brooks, Tim Vorley and Cristian Gherhes
Management School,
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the role of public policy in the formation of
entrepreneurial ecosystems in Poland.
Design/methodology/approach –The paper assumes a qualitative approach to researching and analysing
how public policy enables and constrains the formation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The authors
conducted a series of focus groups with regional and national policy makers, enterprises and intermediaries in
three Polish voivodeships (regions) –Malopolska, Mazowieckie and Pomorskie.
Findings –The paper finds that applying the entrepreneurial ecosystems approach is a challenging prospect
for public policy characterised by a theory-practice gap. Despite the attraction of entrepreneurial ecosystems
as a heuristic to foster entrepreneurial activity, the cases highlight the complexity of implementing the
framework conditions in practice. As the Polish case demonstrates, there are aspects of entrepreneurial
ecosystems that are beyond the immediate scope of public policy.
Research limitations/implications –Theresultschallengetheviewthatthe ent repreneurial ecosystems
framework represents a readily implementable public policy solution to stimulate entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial growth. Insights are drawn from three regions, although by their nature these are predominantly
city centric, highlighting the bounded geography of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Originality/value –This paper poses new questions regarding the capacity of public policy to establish and
extend entrepreneurial ecosystems. While public policy can shape the framework and system conditions, the
paper argues that these interventions are often based on superficial or incomplete interpretations of the
entrepreneurial ecosystems literature and tend to ignore or underestimate informal institutions that can
undermine these efforts. As such, by viewing the ecosystems approach as a panacea for growth policy makers
risk opening Pandora’s box.
Keywords Entrepreneurial ecosystem, Theory-practice gap, Entrepreneurship, Public policy,
Regional policy, Poland
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Entrepreneurial ecosystems have become popular over the past decade. The term has
gained visibility in academic and policy debates, and is now well established within the
entrepreneurship vernacular, especially in relation to regional economic development and
entrepreneurship-led growth (Mason and Brown, 2014; Stam, 2015; Spigel, 2017; Audretsch
et al., 2018; O’Connor et al., 2018; Schäfer and Henn, 2018). The entrepreneurial ecosystem
concept has captivated the attention of policy makers due to their relatively recent
association with the evolution of high growth firms and employment creation (Mason and
Brown, 2014). The broad and systemic nature of the ecosystem approach also holds appeal
as it is not reliant on picking winners or sectoral favouritism. In fact, most interpretations
argue for a more politically neutral strategy of encouraging diversity in firm size, sectors
and policy interventions to the extent that entrepreneurial ecosystems are typically
geographically bounded. The empirical focus of recent research has tended to be
sub-regional (Audretsch and Belitski, 2017; Spigel, 2017; Schäfer and Henn, 2018), often
centring on cities as the scale at which entrepreneurial ecosystems are operationalised. As
such, this approach has been seen as a tool to mitigate inter-regional disparities and as
prescriptions for lagging regions.
Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Public Policy
Vol. 8 No. 3, 2019
pp. 319-338
© Emerald PublishingLimited
2045-2101
DOI 10.1108/JEPP-04-2019-0036
Received 25 April 2019
Accepted 28 April 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2045-2101.htm
319
Entrepreneurial
ecosystems in
Poland
Despite the prevalence of entrepreneurial ecosystems in the literature and its increasing
application in policy circles, the concept remains comparatively poorly defined
(Alvedalen and Boschma, 2017; Audretsch et al., 2018). While there is no consensus as to
what constitutes an entrepreneurial ecosystem, Spigel (2017) refers to a collection of cultural,
social and material elements that support entrepreneurial growth. The recent emergence of
entrepreneurial ecosystems as part of regional economic development strategy has
led to questions around the extent that public policy is able to meaningfully support
their development. This paper focuses on challenges in the application of the entrepreneurial
ecosystems approaches in three Polish voivodeships (regions) of Małopolska,
Mazowieckie, Pomorskie, and the core cities of Kraków, Warsaw and the Tri-City of
Gdańsk-Gdynia and Sopot.
The case of Poland represents how the entrepreneurial ecosystems approach is being
used as a hook for broader projects related to smart specialisation and regional
diversification that give it important access to EU funding and address complex social and
economic issues around outward migration other countries and inward low-skilled migrants
from neighbouring nations. These three cities, situated in the north, capital and south of the
country (and three of the largest regional economies in the country) provides an insight
into how the search for entrepreneurship-led growth is being adopted and the challenges
which are faced by this approach. Given the political impetus in Poland to deliver
entrepreneurship-led growth, the main objective of this paper is to examine the implications
and efficacy of policy-led entrepreneurial ecosystems in delivering regional economic
development strategies. It argues that Polish attempts to foster entrepreneurial ecosystems
have enjoyed some notable but qualified successes. While policy has resulted in an increase
of entrepreneurial activity it has not been as successful in anchoring a robust and
productive entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The ecosystems framework remains “fuzzy”as an academic concept and requires further
development, yet it has been readily embraced by policy makers to support entrepreneurial-
led growth. This paper explores the challenges associated with pursuing ecosystem-led
approaches to foster entrepreneurship, examining the application of the entrepreneurial
ecosystems approach in three Polish regions. The paper explains the prevaili ng
theory-practice gap as a result of the theory of ecosystems being somewhat different
from the realities of ecosystems in practice. As opposed to entrepreneurial ecosystem being
a“panacea”for growth, the reality is more akin to a “paper tiger”where the ecosystem is
weak and ineffective and ultimately leads to a situation that is tantamount to opening
Pandora’s box as opposed to a strategic policy approach. By demonstrating the importance
of informal institutions in shaping entrepreneurial ecosystems, in particular the
relationships between different stakeholders, the paper contributes to the somewhat
neglected institutional dimension of entrepreneurial ecosystems as well as developing new
insights in a Polish context.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: the second section briefly
reviews the literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems and explores some key conceptual
gaps and their implications for public policy. The third section outlines the empirical
context and research design. The fourth section presents the study’s findings discussed in
three sub-sections. The first focuses on the degree to which entrepreneurial ecosystems
have been perceived as a broad solution for multiple growth-related policy issues
(the panacea). The second presents the successes and shortcomings of the application of
entrepreneurial ecosystems approaches in the three regions (the paper tiger).
The final discussion section explores the consequences of promoting a public
policy-led approach (opening Pandora’s box). The fifth section then concludes,
reflecting on and making recommendations about the role of public policy in promoting
entrepreneurial-led growth.
320
JEPP
8,3
To continue reading
Request your trial