European Planning Studies

An Outcome Perspective on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Introduction

Over the past decade, interest in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (EEs) has gained momentum in the scholarly and policy debate (Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017; Brown & Mason, 2017; Cao & Shi, 2021; Malecki, 2018; Stam, 2015). As complex configurations of businesses and start-ups, investors, universities, support institutions, and public actors, EEs are widely acknowledged as key drivers of regional innovation and economic development and more cohesion in entrepreneurial communities (Stam & Van de Ven, 2021; Stam, 2015; Harima et al., 2021). They have emerged as the new ‘blockbuster concept’ in regional development practice (Qian et al.,2023; Schäfer et al., 2024). However, despite the growing body of research, the causal mechanisms through which EEs contribute to regional development remain insufficiently understood. Moreover, due to their contextuality, it is assumed that the manifestations and effects of EEs vary significantly across different geographic and institutional contexts.

From a research perspective, this gap underscores the need for a more nuanced understanding of how the interplay between structural components—such as resource availability, institutional frameworks, and social networks—translates into measurable economic outcomes. The contextual variability of EEs further complicates this inquiry; their manifestations and impacts are not uniform but are shaped by distinct geographic, cultural, and institutional factors. This heterogeneity calls for comparative analyses that account for localised dynamics while seeking generalisable insights into the functioning of EEs.

Moreover, the theoretical underpinnings of EEs require refinement to address critical questions regarding their scalability and sustainability. For instance, while EEs may catalyse innovation and entrepreneurship in certain regions, their long-term efficacy in mitigating structural inequalities or fostering inclusive growth remains uncertain. Future research must, therefore, interrogate not only the direct economic benefits of EEs but also their broader societal implications. Indeed, there is little agreement about whether and how technology-driven entrepreneurship contributes to overall regional economic or social prosperity (Lee, 2025)

In conclusion, advancing our understanding of EEs necessitates interdisciplinary approaches integrating insights from business and management, economics, sociology, geography, and policy studies. By doing so, researchers can develop robust frameworks that elucidate the complex interdependencies within EEs and their role in shaping regional development trajectories.

This Special Issue contributes to the core debates of European Planning Studies by illuminating the spatial, governance, and policy implications of EEs within regional planning, structural change, and territorial development frameworks. We particularly welcome papers that apply an outcome-oriented perspective, asking what EEs deliver to their host regions—economically, socially, and structurally. How and under what conditions can EEs facilitate inclusive and sustainable regional development?

Background and Rationale

Building on Stam’s (2015: 1765) definition, EEs can be understood as “a set of interdependent actors and factors coordinated in such a way that they enable productive entrepreneurship”. Productive entrepreneurship, in this context, involves the generation of innovative opportunities that lead to the creation of new societal values. Crucially, the presence of entrepreneurial actors alone is insufficient—their ability to collaborate, coordinate, and engage in collective learning processes drives outcomes. Following this understanding, entrepreneurial activities—including innovative start-ups, scale-ups, and intrapreneurial employees—are regarded as “intermediary outputs” (Stam, 2015). In contrast, the generation of societal value that transcends individual organisational boundaries to benefit society and the region represents the “ultimate outcome” of a well-functioning ecosystem (ibid.).

For regional development approaches, EEs resonate strongly with endogenous growth theories, emphasising internal regional resources such as human capital, social networks, institutional settings, and local innovation capacities. In contrast to exogenous growth models, the endogenous perspective suggests that regions can actively shape their development trajectories if the right structures and dynamics are in place (Isenberg, 2010; Spigel, 2017; Stam & Van de Ven, 2021).

Building on the findings of Wurth et al. (2022), who emphasise the multidimensional and evolving nature of entrepreneurial ecosystems and the importance of understanding their causal mechanisms, an explicit outcome perspective adds critical value by linking entrepreneurial activity to tangible regional development trajectories. While Wurth et al. highlight ecosystem configuration, performance, and the interplay of structural and output dimensions, an outcome-oriented lens deepens this by examining how entrepreneurship contributes to structural change, innovation diffusion, and the creation of social and economic value within specific territorial contexts. This perspective underscores the role of EEs as enablers of entrepreneurial activity and as transformative systems that co-evolve with and actively shape regional economies over time.

At the same time, EEs deeply embedded in translocal relations can yield significant benefits for their host regions. Global knowledge flows, capital mobility and translocal networks enable regional entrepreneurs, including migrant and refugee founders, to tap expertise and financing worldwide (Spinazzola et al., 2025). These linkages often translate into tangible economic gains: for example, when local entrepreneurs participate in overseas accelerators or attract foreign venture capital, they frequently spark new firm creation, innovation and job growth back home. Migrant and refugee entrepreneurs contribute unique skills and social networks that broaden participation in entrepreneurship (David & Terstriep, 2025). They can even drive institutional change (for example, through new support programs or regulatory adjustments), thereby supporting more inclusive regional development (Spinazzola et al., 2025; Harima et al., 2021).

We invite papers that also use ideas from outside the entrepreneurship and management discipline to understand ecosystems’ regional outcomes. For example, “global pipelines” (Bathelt et al., 2004) may provide a valuable lens to capture these dynamics. While such connections can enhance innovation and competitiveness, they may also lead to talent and capital outflows if they are one-directional, limiting regional value capture. Similarly, we invite authors to take up critical perspectives that call into question the ultimate efficacy or value of ecosystems within different regional contexts.

References

Alvedalen, J., & Boschma, R. (2017). A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: towards a future research agenda. European Planning Studies, 25(6), 887-903. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1299694

Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 31–56.

Brown, R., & Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 11-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9865-7

David, A., & Terstriep, J. (2025). Against all odds – migrant entrepreneurs in entrepreneurial ecosystems with constraints. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 19(2), 248-275. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-03-2024-0052

Cao, Z., & Shi, X. (2020). A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging economies. Small Business Economics, 57(1), 75-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00326-y

Harima, A., Harima, J., & Freiling, J. (2021). The injection of resources by transnational entrepreneurs: Towards a model of the early evolution of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 33(1-2), 80-107.

Isenberg, D. (2010). The Big Idea: How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 41-50.

Lee, N. (2025). Innovation for the Masses. How to Share the Benefits of High-tech Economy. Oakland: University of California Press.

Malecki, E. J. (2018). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography Compass, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12359

Qian, H., & Acs, Z. J. (2023). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Economic Development Policy. Economic Development Quarterly, 37(1), 96-102. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912424221142853

Schäfer, S., & Henn, S. (2018). The evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems and the critical role of migrants. A Phase-Model based on a Study of IT startups in the Greater Tel Aviv Area. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(2), 317-333.

Spinazzola, M., Scuotto, V., Pironti, M. et al. (2025). Connectedness of entrepreneurial ecosystems: evidence from the mobility of knowledge-intensive entrepreneurs. Small Bus Economics https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-025-01031-4

Spigel, B. (2017). The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49-72.

Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic Critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759-1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484

Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2018). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. In R. Blackburn, D. De Clercq, & J. Heinonen (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Small Business and Entrepreneurship (pp. 407-422). SAGE.

Stam, E., & van de Ven, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics, 56(2), 809-832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6

Wurth, B., Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2022). Toward an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research Program. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(3), 729-778. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258721998948