The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2053-4604.htm
JEEE
9,3
238
Received 30 September 2016
Revised 26 November 2016
11 January 2017
Accepted 12 January 2017
Journal of Entrepreneurship in
Emerging Economies
Vol. 9 No. 3, 2017
pp. 238-262
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2053-4604
DOI 10.1108/JEEE-09-2016-0040
“Small town”
entrepreneurial ecosystems
Implications for developed and
emerging economies
Philip T. Roundy
Department of Marketing and Entrepreneurship,
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
Abstract
Purpose – Entrepreneurial ecosystems are receiving growing attention from scholars, practitioners and
policy-makers in both developed and developing countries. Studies of this phenomenon have focused almost
exclusively on ecosystems in large, urbanized regions and metropolitan areas, located primarily in developed
economies. However, the prevalence of small cities across the globe and the increasing acknowledgment that
entrepreneurship in small towns is a key determinant of their economic development and rejuvenation
suggests that entrepreneurial ecosystems research would benefit from a broader lens of inquiry. Thus, the
purpose of this paper is to introduce a framework for studying entrepreneurial ecosystems in small towns.
Design/methodology/approach – This conceptual paper introduces the concept of small town
entrepreneurial ecosystems (STEEs), draws from a wide-ranging set of disciplines to delineate the ways in
which small town ecosystems are similar to and different than their larger counterparts and theorizes about
several strategies STEEs use to overcome their limitations.
Findings – It is theorized that entrepreneurship in small cities is best conceptualized as the outcome of an
ecosystem, which means that although small towns may not have some of the same key components as
entrepreneurial ecosystems in large urban centers, other elements of the ecosystem may be able to bolster
these deficiencies. It also suggests that those attempting to create or develop small town ecosystems may need
to be entrepreneurial in the way they attract, view and utilize resources. Finally, it is theorized that small cities
may be able to engage in several strategies to overcome their limitations and create vibrant entrepreneurial
communities.
Originality/value – The theory developed produces implications for scholars focused on entrepreneurial
ecosystems, economic development and emerging economies and suggests practical implications for policy-
makers and development organizations seeking to improve the economic landscape of small cities.
Keywords Regional development, Urban development, Entrepreneurial ecosystem,
New venture creation, Entrepreneurial communities
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Entrepreneurship, the process of recognizing, constructing and pursuing opportunities to
create value through innovation (Churchill, 1992), is increasingly viewed as a fundamental
component of a flourishing economy (Acs et al., 2008; Wong et al., 2005). Entrepreneurial
activity improves labor market fluidity (Evans, 1989) and is associated with the creation of
employment opportunities (Fölster, 2000), the introduction of innovative products and
services that provide value to consumers (Schumpeter, 1934) and, in general, wealth
generation that can have spillover effects on sectors such as education, social services and
the arts (Mair and Marti, 2006). Cities and regions seeking to ignite economic growth or
rebound from economic and social decline are increasingly turning to entrepreneurship as a
way to encourage individual agency and creativity, decrease unemployment and crime rates “Small town”
and improve well-being (Asongu and Tchamyou, 2016; Welter et al., 2008). In such areas, entrepreneurial
entrepreneurship represents a critical alternative for members of the labor force who cannot
(or choose not to) rely on traditional employment and, thus, desire to create their own career
ecosystems
paths. In this way, entrepreneurship is potentially a source of “emancipation” for the
economically disadvantaged (Rindova et al., 2009) and represents an alternative to economic
development strategies focused on attracting large, established firms (Markey et al., 2010) or
based on traditional approaches to stimulating small to medium-sized firms (Edoho, 2016). 239
Although the creation of a new venture often begins with the intentions, entrepreneurial
alertness and creativity of a single individual, the founding of a business is a relational
activity that requires a multi-layered network – or ecosystem – of individual and
organizational actors, including mentors, funders, suppliers, support service professionals,
incubators and customers (Jack and Anderson, 2002; Kirzner, 1999; Solhi and Koshkaki,
2016). In addition to the agents in an entrepreneurial ecosystem, founding a new venture
also requires material resources, such as physical and technological infrastructure, and is
dependent on cultural forces, such as values regarding cooperation, trust, tolerance of risk
and failure (Audretsch et al., 2015b; Roundy, forthcoming; Van de Ven, 1993). The
embeddedness of entrepreneurship within a web of interconnections and interactions has
produced a growing stream of research on the formation and growth of entrepreneurial
ecosystems, the set of individuals, institutions, social structures and cultural values – and the
interactions among them – that generate entrepreneurial activity (Isenberg, 2010; Motoyama
and Watkins, 2014; Spilling, 1996; Roundy, 2016).
Most theory and findings regarding entrepreneurial ecosystems are based on studies of
established ecosystems in large urban and regional hubs, often located in developed
countries. Indeed, scholars examining entrepreneurial ecosystems have focused on either
large cities, such as Silicon Valley, CA (Bahrami and Evans, 1995) and Washington, DC
(Feldman, 2001), or on country-level ecosystems, such as Estonia and South Korea (Kshetri,
2014) and The Netherlands (Stam, 2014). In addition to the attention these larger ecosystems
have received, policy-makers (and some scholars) have begun to draw attention to
entrepreneurial ecosystems located in smaller, peripheral cities (the so-called “hinterlands”
of economic activity; Partridge et al., 2008). For example, rapidly growing entrepreneurial
ecosystems in cities such as Chattanooga, TN (Motoyama et al., 2016) and Waterloo, Ontario
(Spigel, 2017) are starting to receive attention. In some cases, these entrepreneurial
communities are the subject of study because they are located in small-to-medium sized
cities that were economic, and often manufacturing, powerhouses in previous centuries and
have since experienced economic decline, as the industries on which the cities were built
have either stagnated or relocated to other parts of the global economy. Cities facing these
conditions and other economic development challenges are attempting to reinvent
themselves by creating entrepreneurial ecosystems around advanced technologies, such as
additive manufacturing and 3D printing (Gibson et al., 2010), to respond to postindustrial
trends in the global economy (Løwendahl and Revang, 1998). These attempts at
revitalization are based on the belief that entrepreneurial ecosystems can create an
“economically viable oasis community in a desert of industrial hollowing out” (Gruidl et al.,
2015, p. 284).
Although seeking to understand the functioning of the largest and most advanced
ecosystems is a logical starting point for entrepreneurial ecosystems research, it is not
without limitations; foremost of which is that most cities attempting to create
entrepreneurial ecosystems do not have the population density, infrastructure,
entrepreneurship-specific human capital and other resources possessed by ecosystems in
JEEE large metropolitan cities. Small cities in emerging markets are likely to have especially
9,3 striking differences between their endowments of resources and those of ecosystems located
in large, established cities. For instance, as will be discussed, small cities can lack the
entrepreneurial role models, diversified economies, density of early-stage investors, support
organizations and network of talent possessed by larger cities. In addition, small cities are
structurally different than large urban areas on key organizational- and city-level
240 characteristics; for instance, small cities can have greater unemployment, lower metro-level
GDP and are populated by corporations with lower financial performance than those located
in larger cities (Frazier and Niehm, 2004; McGee and Finney, 1997; Miller et al., 2003;
Thornton, 2008). Thus, on the surface, small cities would seem like “un-munificent”
entrepreneurial environments and unfertile ground for establishing thriving entrepreneurial
ecosystems (Dubini, 1989).
However, although research is beginning to acknowledge that entrepreneurial
ecosystems can be constructed in emerging markets (Arruda et al., 2013; Estrada et al.,
2015), studies have rarely acknowledged that entrepreneurial ecosystems and the cities in
which they are located can vary in their size and development. Related to this blind spot in
the literature, urban studies scholars are beginning to concede that “contemporary urban
scholarship, in its preoccupation with the largest and most advanced world-class cities, has
largely ignored small- to medium-sized cities” (Neo and Pow, 2015, p. 555). Similarly, it has
been argued that the “neglect of smaller urban centers has profound consequences” and that
what is needed is a “nuanced comparative approach” to understanding the critical
differences between large and small cities. These statements suggest that even though
entrepreneurial ecosystems across metropolises of different sizes may share some common
characteristics and elements, significant differences can also exist. These differences
suggest that in the same way there is “growing recognition that urban policy and practice
approaches may not be well suited to the special social and economic conditions of many
rural areas” (Fortunato, 2014, p. 387) and that research has overemphasized
entrepreneurship in developed markets (Isaga et al., 2015; Ratten, 2014), it may also be the
case that policies and best practices proven to be effective in the development of
entrepreneurial ecosystems in large urban hubs are ineffective in, or even inapplicable to,
ecosystems in smaller cities. Thus, small city entrepreneurial ecosystems seem to require
specific academic and policy attention. Acknowledging that variation exists among the sizes
of entrepreneurial ecosystems and the cities in which they are located can help to isolate
important differences in the functioning of entrepreneurial ecosystems and provide a more
complete picture of the variation that can exist in such ecosystems.
Drawing on work in a wide array of disciplines, including regional studies, urban
economics and entrepreneurship, in this conceptual paper, it is argued that entrepreneurial
ecosystems in small cities will differ from ecosystems located in large urban centers along
several properties. It is argued that these differences warrant the introduction of a new
construct: the small town entrepreneurial ecosystem (hereafter “STEE”), which is defined as a
community of individuals, social structures, institutions, and cultural values, located in a city
of limited reach, scope or size, whose interactions produce entrepreneurial activity. Theory is
developed about the unique properties of STEEs and the similarities and substantive
differences between STEEs and entrepreneurial ecosystems in large cities. It is proposed
that these differences represent both advantages and disadvantages for STEEs. Finally, it is
theorized that small cities can engage in several strategies to overcome their deficiencies and
create vibrant entrepreneurial communities.
The subsequent sections are structured as follows. First, existing research on
entrepreneurial ecosystems, small cities and phenomena that are conceptually similar to
STEEs is reviewed. The focus of prior researchers on large, established ecosystems is “Small town”
highlighted and the motivation for focusing on STEEs as a unique and under-examined entrepreneurial
phenomenon is presented. Next, theory about the similarities and differences between
entrepreneurial ecosystems in large cities and STEEs, as well as the strategies small cities
ecosystems
may deploy to encourage the formation and development of STEEs, are discussed. The
paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the theorizing for scholars and
practitioners and suggestions for avenues of future research.
241
Literature review
Entrepreneurial ecosystems
Recognizing that entrepreneurship often depends on an environment that is nurturing for
emerging businesses, Bahrami and Evans (1995) introduced the term “ecosystem” to
describe the entrepreneurship community in Silicon Valley, CA. Subsequent studies of
entrepreneurial ecosystems have also emphasized the context in which entrepreneurship
takes place and the enabling (or constraining) role of an entrepreneur’s external business
environment (Stam, 2015). These studies have focused primarily on identifying the key
components of entrepreneurial ecosystems influencing the creation and success of new
ventures, such as entrepreneurship-specific human capital, a pool of investors targeted at
early-stage ventures, support organizations and cultural values that encourage
entrepreneurship (Isenberg, 2010; 2011; Neck et al., 2004).
To identify these components, scholars have focused exclusively on entrepreneurial
ecosystems that have emerged in large urban centers and almost entirely on ecosystems in
developed countries. By focusing on such cities (and countries), this research implicitly
demonstrates the importance of geography and the spatial dispersion of entrepreneurship
(Glaeser et al., 2010). Indeed, this work suggests that location matters in the creation of
ventures and entrepreneurial ecosystems (Cooper and Folta, 2000) and that geographical
regions can differ in their levels of entrepreneurship (Song and Winkler, 2014).

The uniqueness of small cities

The “smallness” of a city or town[1] can be based on measures of size, such as population
density or geographic footprint, as well as on less concrete characteristics such as status,
influence in the regional or global marketplace or reach (Bell and Jayne, 2009). Total
population is the most commonly used classifier; however, there is wide variance among the
thresholds used by both governmental organizations and scholars. For instance, the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines a small city as
one with a population between 50,000 and 100,000 (Audretsch et al., 2015a). Other scholars
use smaller (e.g. 2,500-20,000; Tolbert et al., 2002) or larger (e.g. 100,000-250,000; D’Costa and
Overman, 2014) population windows. Although there is debate about the minimum number
of inhabitants necessary for an area to be considered a “small city,” rather than a rural area,
there is some consensus that the maximum numbers of inhabitants is less than 250,000.
Thus, for the purpose of the theorizing that follows, small cities are considered urban areas
with populations less than 250,000 inhabitants.
Small cities have received scant attention by scholars (Kelly et al., 2016). For instance,
Clancey (2004: page) has noted that while small cities are “sprinkled [. . .] over the globe
[they] are both under-noticed and under-theorized”. The lack of attention to small cities
represents a significant and sizable omission in scholarship because almost half the urban
inhabitants in the world live in cities of less than 100,000 (Bell and Jayne, 2009). The sparse
research attention received by small cities is also surprising given the growing belief among
JEEE policy-makers that such cities are “reinventing the economy” (Maynard, 2012) and the “new
9,3 engine of economic growth” (Kotkin, 2012).
Small cities also represent a burgeoning context for entrepreneurship. Studies have
demonstrated that firms in peripheral and remote regions can be highly innovative although
such firms may be less numerous than in larger, core cities (Dubois, 2016; Virkkala, 2007).
For example, in a study of Wollongong, in New South Wales, Australia et al. (2009) find that
242 regardless of their numerical population size or peripheral location, small cities can also be
active participants in the “creative economy” and in creativity-led urban regeneration. Thus,
it should not be assumed that entrepreneurial ecosystems arising in small cities will
necessarily be less innovative, or less effective in producing entrepreneurial activity, than
ecosystems located in large cities.

Small town entrepreneurial ecosystems

There is evidence to suggest that small cities’ influence on the economy, and their overall
health, is in part attributable to entrepreneurship’s impact on economic development
(Audretsch et al., 2015a, 2015b). For instance, in addition to creating ventures that increase
employment, entrepreneurs can also encourage others to locate in their city, which can
increase its economic possibilities, spur growth and improve overall well-being (Nel and
Stevenson, 2014). However, entrepreneurship, even in small cities, does not take place in a
vacuum; it is embedded in economic, social and cultural forces (Aldrich and Zimmer, 1986).
There is some precedent for studying communities of entrepreneurs that are outside
traditional settings for entrepreneurship. Dana (1995), for instance, found evidence of intense
entrepreneurial activity in a small sub-Arctic community. Partly building on this work,
scholars have recently begun examining entrepreneurial ecosystems located outside the
typical entrepreneurial hotbeds of large urban centers. Although scholars have begun to
study small (or, at least, smaller) city entrepreneurial ecosystems, they have not done so
explicitly; that is, the fact that the ecosystems studied are in small cities is not a central focus
of scholars (Motoyama et al., 2016). Thus, even though a growing body of research is
demonstrating that small cities differ from larger ones in several important ways, scholars
have not traced the implications of these differences for entrepreneurial ecosystems located
in small cities. Further, in prior studies, attention has not been paid to the consequences for
entrepreneurial ecosystems of missing key components or lacking specific interactions
between elements (Borissenko and Boschma, 2016; Mack and Mayer, 2016). These represent
important omissions in the literature examining entrepreneurial ecosystems because, as
theorized in the next section, differences in the characteristics of small cities produce
important implications for the establishment and functioning of STEEs.
In sum, a review of the studies related to STEEs reveals that over the past two and a half
decades, scholars have focused their attention on large established ecosystems, primarily in
developed markets, and used the study of these ecosystems to identify key components of
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Although attempting to understand the functioning of the
largest and most successful ecosystems is a starting point for entrepreneurial ecosystems
research, it is not without limitations, foremost of which is that most cities attempting to
create entrepreneurial ecosystems do not have the populations, infrastructure and other
resources equivalent to large entrepreneurial ecosystems. Indeed, as is theorized in the next
section, there are important differences between large and STEEs that are a result of and go
beyond “size”. Before theorizing about these differences, in the next section, STEEs are
contrasted with related phenomena that occupy a similar conceptual space.
Small town entrepreneurial ecosystems and related theoretical constructs “Small town”
The theoretical development of entrepreneurial ecosystems in general, and STEEs more entrepreneurial
specifically, is closely related to research efforts involving several conceptually tangential
phenomena, including regional innovation systems (RIS) (Acs et al., 2014; Autio et al., 2014),
ecosystems
industry clusters (Delgado et al., 2010; Li and Geng, 2012; Li and Mitra, 2009) and business
ecosystems (Zahra and Nambisan, 2012). STEEs are similar to these phenomena in that they
all represent forms of firm networks that have been labeled “meta-organizations” (Ahrne
and Brunsson, 2005). A taxonomy has been developed to identify variations in the design of
243
meta-organizations (Gulati et al., 2012) and can be used to clarify how STEEs differ from
other, seemingly related, phenomena.
First, based on Gulati et al. (2012) dimensions of membership boundaries and
stratification, RIS and clusters can be classified as open communities with loose
membership criteria and non-hierarchical decision-making. RIS are a broader and more
generic concept than clusters, as they often operate at the regional or national level and
reflect large-scale policy frameworks (Asheim et al., 2011). Industry clusters are
conceptually distinct from RIS because they tend to be geographically constrained, have
firmer boundaries (Pitelis, 2012) and fit within more localized and geographically
concentrated spaces (e.g. a city). Although industry clusters can be akin to a form of local
innovation system (Giuliani, 2007), they can also develop in industries that are not
technology- or innovation-focused. Moreover, industry clusters often focus on a specific type
of manufacturing or product category. Klepper (2010), for instance, examines two specific
industry clusters – semiconductors in Silicon Valley and automobiles in Detroit – to study
how spinoffs from firms in the same industry can lead to clustering.
A business ecosystem, in contrast, is the network of organizations in which a firm is
embedded, which can provide it with resources, partners and market information (Clarysse
et al., 2014). Business ecosystems are not confined to entrepreneurial firms and are,
generally, not geographically constrained. For example, a firm’s alliance partners or
suppliers need not be within the same local cluster, or even within the same country, as a
focal firm; yet such organizations are still part of the firm’s business ecosystem.
In relation to these other constructs, I treat STEEs as a specific type of cluster, following
the view that entrepreneurship can be one channel for cluster development (Delgado et al.,
2010). However, STEEs are more encompassing than industry clusters because they are not
focused on a single industry, firm-type, product or manufacturing process. Furthermore,
STEEs can be conceptualized as a unique type of aggregate, geographically bounded
(Audretsch and Belitski, forthcoming) business ecosystem that develops around new
ventures located in small cities. Thus, the concept is both informed by and unique from
related meta-organizational phenomena.

Theory development
In the previous section, it was argued that the literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems
suffers from one of the same shortcomings as work in urban and regional studies: an
implicit but overwhelming emphasis on large urban centers located in developed
countries. The focus on entrepreneurial ecosystems in large cities and the failure to
acknowledge that such systems can develop in cities of various sizes and in different
types of markets has obfuscated important variations that exist among entrepreneurial
ecosystems depending on their location. In this section, it is theorized that STEEs will
have similarities and differences, as well as advantages and disadvantages, relative to
entrepreneurial ecosystems in larger cities. It is also theorized that individuals in small
JEEE cities seeking to overcome the limitations of STEEs can engage in several specific
9,3 strategies.

The strengths and limitations of small town entrepreneurial ecosystems

Daniel Isenberg, in conjunction with the Babson College Entrepreneurship Ecosystems
Project (Isenberg, 2010), has identified seven broad elements that constitute entrepreneurial
244 ecosystems: human capital, markets, networks, support, culture, finance and policy. The
dimensions, also referred to as the “pillars” of entrepreneurial ecosystems, have found
empirical support in other studies (Arruda et al., 2013) and can be used as a framework to
examine and compare the components of different entrepreneurial ecosystems. Together
these elements are thought to create an environment that is conducive to startup activity
and that “turbocharge[s] venture creation and growth” (Isenberg, 2010, p. 3). Yet, while there
is evidence that these elements are sufficient to promote entrepreneurial activity, it is not
clear if these pillars are necessary for spurring entrepreneurship. Can a thriving
entrepreneurial community develop in small towns that do not possess some – or many – of
these pillars, at least as traditionally defined? Below it is theorized that even though small
urban areas often do not possess the “classic” dimensions of entrepreneurial ecosystems
located in large metropolises, they can still generate high levels of entrepreneurial activity.

Human capital
Studies of entrepreneurial ecosystems located in large urban areas find that a critical
component of a flourishing entrepreneurial ecosystem is the human capital of the
ecosystem’s participants – i.e. the stock of knowledge, skills and abilities that can be
increased through education, training and other experiences (Becker, 1962; Coff and
Kryscynski, 2011). Valuable human capital includes entrepreneurship-specific skills and
knowledge, such as experiences founding businesses, identifying and recruiting high-
performing employees and building the organizational structures, routines and systems
involved in scaling early-stage ventures (Isenberg, 2010). In addition, an entrepreneurial
ecosystem also benefits from possessing a talent pool comprising skilled workers who have
the human capital necessary to work for young ventures (Spigel, 2017), the knowledge
needed to serve as board members and advisers to startups (Isenberg, 2010) and, in general,
diversity of talent across sectors (Bahrami and Evans, 1995; Case and Harris, 2012).
A key contributor to the human capital of a city (or region) is its educational and research
institutions. Studies examining entrepreneurial ecosystems in large urban areas have found
that universities, such as MIT in Boston, MA (Roberts and Eesley, 2011), play a key role in
training new entrepreneurs and providing both the general and entrepreneurship-specific
human capital needed to work in new ventures (e.g. software development; financial literacy;
Case and Harris, 2012; Isenberg, 2011). The learning that takes place in universities also
creates knowledge spillovers (Spigel, 2017; Wennberg et al., 2011) that can influence
ecosystem participants even if they are not formally connected to a university, broaden an
ecosystem’s talent pool and increase the skill-level of its labor force. In addition to producing
graduates rich in human capital, universities also increase an ecosystem’s social capital by
serving as “catalyst[s] for informal networking among future entrepreneurs”, by
encouraging entrepreneurship and by providing environments ripe for the creation of pre-
commercialized inventions and innovations (Bahrami and Evans, 1995, p. 66; Mustafa et al.,
2016). Research universities also expose students to leading edge technologies and employ
faculty that can serve new ventures as mentors, advisors and consultants (Neck et al., 2004).
Small towns often lack the deep reservoirs of human capital contained in larger urban
areas (Bacolod et al., 2009; Scott, 2008). In particular, because of their limited populations
and peripheral position in the global economy, small towns are unlikely to have as many “Small town”
individuals with entrepreneurship-specific human capital, such as prior experience founding entrepreneurial
and growing new ventures. In addition, except for small “university towns”, which revolve
around large research universities, most small towns do not contain universities that train
ecosystems
new entrepreneurs and provide them with the specific human capital needed to found and
work in new ventures. These arguments motivate the following proposition:
P1a. The human capital of STEEs will be less robust than ecosystems in large cities. 245
Even though STEEs are unlikely to have access to comprehensive research-oriented
universities, they can often leverage the collective efforts of other types of educational
institutions that are commonly found within or in close proximity to small towns, such as
liberal arts colleges, regional branches of larger universities and community and technical
colleges. These institutions represent resource providers that are not usually primary
players in large city entrepreneurial ecosystems and thus do not generally receive extensive
attention; yet in STEEs, they represent alternative sources for providing ecosystem
participants with the general human capital, as well as the specific financial and
entrepreneurial skills (Rubin, 2001), necessary to successfully found new ventures.
In addition to identifying and utilizing novel providers of entrepreneurial human capital,
another specific strategy STEEs can use is to seek to attract human capital rather than
focusing exclusively on developing it from within the ecosystem. To do so, STEEs can
leverage small towns’ infrastructure advantages (described in greater detail in a subsequent
section), such as lower costs of living, labor costs and transportation congestion (Isserman,
2001), to attract individuals with the requisite human capital to the ecosystem. Together,
these arguments suggest:
P1b. Strategies such as leveraging nontraditional educational institutions and attracting
talent can be used to increase STEEs stock of human capital.

Robust markets
Entrepreneurial ecosystems in large metropolitan centers generally have well-developed
markets. Even if the ecosystems are located in large cities in emerging nations, they will
generally have access to markets that are more robust than in the small towns of the same
countries. A robust market consists of several dimensions. First, it contains sufficient local
customers and “lead users” of innovations who are willing to purchase, or at minimum
provide feedback on, new products and services (Bahrami and Evans, 1995; Isenberg, 2010,
2011). Such feedback is critical because it allows entrepreneurs to iterate, refine and update
their business models and products so that they more closely align with market demands
(Blank, 2013). In addition to early customers, well-developed local markets also provide
entrepreneurs with the elements of a robust business ecosystem – the set of external
stakeholders that an organization, either early- or mature-stage, needs to operate (Zahra and
Nambisan, 2012). For instance, to produce their products, most firms require an ecosystem
of suppliers (Cannon and Homburg, 2001). Early-stage ventures are often particularly in
need of suppliers who are flexible in their payment terms to accommodate the cash flow
challenges of rapidly-growing firms (Isenberg, 2010).
A high concentration of local firms is beneficial to an entrepreneurial ecosystem because
it represents a larger business ecosystem and greater (local) market potential. Highly
concentrated firms can also produce agglomeration economies (Dumais et al., 2002) and
economies of scale (Panzar and Willig, 1977) that generate positive externalities, such as
knowledge and innovation spillovers, the “cross-pollination” of ideas among firms and
JEEE industries and reductions in production costs (Audretsch and Belitski, forthcoming; Neck
9,3 et al., 2004). In addition to high concentrations of firms, the presence of large firms can play
an especially important role in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Employees of such firms often
become stifled by the bureaucracy of large organizations, which eventually leads them to
leave the firm to pursue new ventures based on their own ideas; thus, large firms can serve
as a form of informal incubator that eventually leads to the “spin off” of smaller firms (Neck
246 et al., 2004).
Finally, depending on the nature of the business, a venture may not only require access to
markets containing local suppliers, distributors and/or customers but also to geographically
distant markets of producers and customers (Knight and Cavusgil, 1996). If this is the case, it is
necessary for the venture to have unimpeded and easy access to such markets (Spigel, 2017).
Relative to large urban areas, the size, remoteness and peripheral locations of STEEs
make their markets generally not as developed for several reasons. First, small towns are
unlikely to have a high concentration of local firms, which means they are less likely to
benefit from agglomeration economies and economies of scale (Glaeser et al., 2014). While
some large firms may be present in STEEs, the density of such firms will likely be low, as
large firms tend to locate in dense urban centers to benefit from agglomeration and
infrastructure advantages (Glaeser, 2010). Second, the size and remoteness of small cities
can also lead to limitations in their transportation routes and trade channels, which may
limit STEE participants’ access to global markets of consumers, suppliers and
distributors. Third, small towns’ limited populations can also be associated with fewer
lead-users of innovation and less local demand for entrepreneurs’ products (Dabson;
Henderson, 2002, p. 54). These arguments suggest:
P2a. The markets of STEEs will be less developed than the markets in ecosystems in
large cities.
Despite their limitations, the markets of STEEs have strategic advantages that can be
leveraged. Because the density of firms is lower in small towns, as entrepreneurs grow
their ventures they may face less intense (or even no) competition from nearby rivals,
which can create a nurturing environment for early-stage ventures. Also, entrepreneurs’
cost of acquiring certain assets (e.g. office space) will be less than in large metropolitan
entrepreneurial ecosystems where greater competition for resources drives up prices.
Indeed, while entrepreneurs may not be able to experience the cost reducing effects of
agglomeration economies (Glaeser et al., 2014), lower local demand for inputs in STEEs,
such as talent (i.e. labor), real estate and housing, can act as a competitive advantage for
STEE participants. In addition, consumers in small towns often exhibit greater loyalty to
the products or services of local firms (demonstrated by the prevalence of “buy local” and
“support local business” campaigns in small towns) (Saffu and Walker, 2006), which
suggests that while local consumers in STEEs may not be as numerous, or as ahead of
the curve in their preferences, as in larger urban centers, they may exhibit stronger
demand for the products created within the ecosystem. These characteristics of STEEs
suggest the following proposition:
P2b. STEEs may pursue strategies such as leveraging the loyalty of local consumers to
overcome the limitations of their local markets.

Networks
Entrepreneurial ecosystems comprises a dense network of formal and informal
relationships among the components of an ecosystem (Isenberg, 2010). There are a
constellation of connections among both individuals (e.g. entrepreneurs, investors) and “Small town”
organizations (universities, support agencies, government, large corporations); (Neck entrepreneurial
et al., 2004). Indeed, the vibrancy of the ecosystem is a reflection of how deep and well-
connected communities of entrepreneurs are with investors, advisors and supporters that
ecosystems
“cut across sectors” (Case and Harris, 2012). Well-developed networks among the
members of an entrepreneurial ecosystem are beneficial because they aid in the free flow
of information, knowledge and skills both among ecosystem participants and from
outside the system (Spigel, 2017; Ter Wal et al., 2017). The genesis of such networks are
247
events, including meet-ups, pitch competitions, “startup weekends” and conferences, that
connect individuals interested in taking part in the startup community (Case and Harris,
2012). Beyond creating relationships among ecosystem participants, events are also
valuable because they help to generate “local buzz” – i.e. a sense of enthusiasm and
anticipation about what is happening in the ecosystem that draws attention to it (Bathelt
et al., 2004).
Because of their smaller populations, the networks that comprise STEEs will, almost by
definition, be smaller than those of entrepreneurial ecosystems in large urban hubs. Small town
networks may also be less flexible than networks in large hubs because the connections among
network members are often older, more entrenched and less fluid. This suggests the following
proposition:
P3a. The networks of STEEs will be smaller than the networks of ecosystems in large
cities.
Although the overall size of STEE networks may be small, the network density (i.e. the
sum of the number of ties (or connections) in a network divided by the number of possible
ties; Lee, 2007) may actually be higher in STEEs than in large, urban entrepreneurial
ecosystems because of the tight-knit, highly connected nature of many small towns
(Seaton, 2008). In addition, because individuals in small towns are often connected in
multiple ways (e.g. from ties formed through business, civic, religious and familial
institutions), the overall strength of the ties in a STEE network can be stronger than in
large urban ecosystems. That is, each connection will be based on a multiplex set of roles
and social relationships, a form of “relational pluralism” (Beckman et al., 2014). The
implications of STEEs comprising strong, dense networks is that information and
knowledge may be transmitted efficiently through the network, which can improve
participants’ abilities to make decisions and communicate with one another (Singh, 2005).
Thus, unlike EEs in large cities, in STEEs, the participants are more likely to be
connected through an underlying informal network, the structure of which is based on a
web of ties from non-business social relations and on which an entrepreneurial
ecosystem’s structure can develop.
The network challenges STEEs face are also lessened by technological advances, which are
eroding the premium once placed on physically nearby network connections. For instance,
internet resources make the knowledge necessary to found and grow businesses less localized.
Indeed, work on the “translocal embeddedness” of firms (i.e. the extent to which firms’
networks are geographically diverse) finds that firms are not harmed by having a wide “socio-
spatial network” (Dubois, 2016; Young, 2010), which suggests that participants in STEEs can
bolster limitations in the size of their local networks by forming connections with individuals
and firms not necessarily geographically close. These arguments suggest:
P3b. STEEs may pursue strategies such as leveraging the density and strength of
network connections to mitigate the size of their business networks.
JEEE Support
9,3 Infrastructure. Studies of entrepreneurial ecosystems in large urban areas have found
that successful ecosystems are built on a foundation of several layers of infrastructure
(Isenberg, 2010). This infrastructure is absent, or limited, in STEEs. For instance, for
entrepreneurs to engage in the activities required to create and scale new ventures,
including reaching customers, they are dependent on the physical components of a city
248 such as its transportation infrastructure, stock of affordable housing and available office
space (Neck et al., 2004). A thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem is also dependent on
sufficient technological infrastructure, such as telecommunications technologies and
high-speed internet access. In general, technology is a conduit for the flow of information
(Audretsch and Belitski, forthcoming). A city’s “cultural” infrastructure can also
influence its entrepreneurial ecosystem. For instance, green spaces, theatres, museums
and coffee shops can influence the quality of life a city can offer, which can attract and
help to retain entrepreneurs and other members of the ecosystem (Audretsch and
Belitski, forthcoming):
P4a. The infrastructure of STEEs will be less developed than the infrastructure of
ecosystems in large cities.
Although STEEs will generally lag large entrepreneurial ecosystems in their physical,
technological and cultural infrastructure, this can represent an advantage for STEEs. For
instance, although an STEE’s transportation infrastructure is unlikely to be as advanced as
that of a large city, it is also unlikely to be as congested. A study of the Atlanta, GA
(population 5.5 million) entrepreneurial ecosystem revealed that traffic acted as a major
impediment to the development of the system (Breznitz and Taylor, 2014). In general, there
is a curvilinear relationship between the congestion in an entrepreneurial ecosystem and the
ecosystem’s evolution. Some degree of congestion is necessary because it represents
potential “collisions” between ecosystem agents, which can lead to valuable exchanges of
information and the birth of new business opportunities (Katz and Wagner, 2014). However,
too much congestion results in stifling “friction” in a system that operates as an obstacle to
the system’s efficient functioning. Not only will the physical transportation congestion of
STEEs be minimal but the “mental congestion” may also be lower in STEEs compared to
ecosystems located in large cities. Indeed, an advantage of the less elaborate infrastructure
of STEEs is that there will be less of a learning curve associated with participants
developing a schema or mental model (Johnson-Laird, 1983), of the ecosystem, its elements
and relations. Thus, new participants in STEEs may find their position in the system, and
learn to navigate it, faster than in larger entrepreneurial ecosystems:
P4b. STEEs may pursue strategies such as leveraging the lack of infrastructure
congestion to overcome the limitations of their infrastructure.
Support professionals. Related to an ecosystem’s infrastructure are the ancillary
professionals and support organizations that provide the services entrepreneurs need to
found and grow their ventures. For example, new ventures in virtually every industry
require legal, accounting, banking, insurance and information technology services (Isenberg,
2011; Spigel, 2017). Ideally an ecosystem will contain professionals of these varieties that are
adept at working with entrepreneurs and willing to tailor their services, and even their
compensation structure, to suit early stage ventures (e.g. working on a contingency basis or
in exchange for equity; Isenberg, 2010). It is most effective if these services are integrated,
accessible and priced appropriately (Case and Harris, 2012). However, in the early stages of a
STEE, support organizations such as incubators or accelerators are unlikely to exist; indeed,
small towns often lack support resources because they have yet to learn the value of such “Small town”
organizations or to acquire the resources necessary for their creation: entrepreneurial
P5a. The entrepreneurship-oriented support services of STEEs will be less robust than ecosystems
the services offered in ecosystems in large cities.
Even though small towns do not, generally, have technology incubators or entrepreneurship-
oriented business accelerators, they do often possess “chamber of commerce-style 249
organizations, which represent loose collections of the firms in a city and can serve as an
initial hub of information and resources and as a network creator and curator (Dawley et al.,
2005; Urban, 2002). Moreover, although small towns may have some professional services
firms, they usually do not have a full array of such services and these services are not tailored
to the needs of early-stage ventures. For instance, accounting and law professionals are often
present in small towns but tend to be focused on working with traditional businesses rather
than early-stage ventures or entrepreneurs. STEEs can remedy this deficiency in two ways.
First, advances in communication technologies have made the physical co-location of
professional services less necessary. Second, in defining their borders broadly, for instance
by pursuing a regional rather than city-based strategy, STEEs can leverage the professional
services offered in other, nearby cities and “importing” support services:
P5b. STEEs may pursue strategies, such as adopting a regional focus, to overcome
limitations in their support services.

Culture
Societal norms. Studies of entrepreneurial ecosystems in large metropolitan areas have
found that the cultures of thriving ecosystems share several common characteristics. First,
cultures support and reward entrepreneurial activity by treating entrepreneurship as a
legitimate and worthy pursuit, elevating (or at least not degrading) the social status of
entrepreneurs and promoting risk-taking and innovation in business endeavors (Isenberg,
2011). Beyond being generally supportive of entrepreneurship, the cultures of thriving
ecosystems emphasize several key values, such as tolerance of failure, experimentation,
creativity, ambition (Isenberg, 2011) and cultural norms (or “rules”), such as “give before
taking”, “favor cooperation over competition” and “be inconclusive toward and encouraging
of new members of the ecosystem” (Feld, 2012). These values operate as “simple rules”
(Bingham and Eisenhardt, 2011), which guide ecosystem participants in their interactions
with one another.
Studies of small towns – in both developed and emerging countries – have found that
because of their dense networks of social relationships, their citizens often exhibit a
natural sense of cooperation (Tolbert et al., 2002). Moreover, many small-town
inhabitants are born and live most of their lives in the town, which gives them common
experiences and exposes them to a common set of values. There is, thus, a greater
likelihood that small town inhabitants will possess the same simple rules and that a
common cultural rule-set will guide their actions and interactions (Tolbert et al., 2002).
Furthermore, because many of the participants in a STEE have strong ties to the small
town in which the ecosystem is located, they are also more likely to exhibit a stronger
dedication to growing the ecosystem because it may be viewed as a means to produce
economic growth or revitalization in the town and, thus, to improve the “quality of place”
(Cuba and Hummon, 1993):
JEEE P6a. The strength and commonality of societal norms of STEEs are greater than those
9,3 of large city ecosystems.

Success stories
Like other market actors, entrepreneurs learn vicariously by observing the behaviors,
actions and outcomes of other entrepreneurs (Rae, 2004). The “success stories” (and failure
250 narratives) of ventures in an ecosystem can contribute to such learning by allowing
entrepreneurs to learn from the experiences of entrepreneurs who are concurrently or were
previously in the system (Nelles, Bramwell, and Wolfe, 2005; Feld, 2012; Spigel, 2017). In
addition to representing a source of learning, success stories and other narratives (e.g.
historical accounts of the ecosystem’s development) can also play a critical role in the
formation and evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems by helping to transmit culture,
construct the ecosystem’s identity, legitimate the system and garner attention to it; all of
which help participants make sense of the ecosystem and their place in it (Roundy, 2016).
Stories and, particularly success stories such as high profile acquisitions of ventures in the
ecosystem and high-value initial public offerings, can help establish an entrepreneurial
ecosystem, attract new participants and build its reputation as a thriving center of
entrepreneurship (Isenberg, 2011).
Small towns are unlikely to have access to the extensive repertoire of entrepreneurial
success stories available to large cities. Thus, developing success stories that feature the
entrepreneurial community will be particularly important for STEEs because they help
establish the legitimacy of the ecosystem to both internal participants and external
evaluators. Stories of entrepreneurs’ successes, such as rapidly scaling a venture or a high-
profile acquisition, can help put the town and its entrepreneurial ecosystem “on the map”.
To increase the likelihood of successful outcomes, which can then be featured in success
stories, and help create an overall narrative (and identity) for the ecosystem, STEEs may
initially focus on a particular industry niche, such as additive manufacturing or business-to-
business software, that can become the ecosystem’s “core competency” and what it is known
for in the national and global marketplace. As an STEE grows, it can branch into other
industries:
P6b. The success stories communicated within and about STEEs can influence their
establishment and growth.

Finance
To found and grow their ventures, entrepreneurs often require capital beyond what they
currently control; indeed, an entrepreneur is often defined as one who pursues opportunities
without regard to the resources initially possessed (Gumpert and Stevenson, 1985).
Entrepreneurs can seek investment at all stages in the life-cycles of their ventures from the
development stage (when they may rely on friends, family, or other seed investors), to the
rapid growth stage (when angel investors and venture capital become funding options), to
the maturity stage when entrepreneurs can pursue traditional sources of debt and equity
financing. Large entrepreneurial ecosystems contain a dense community of investors at all
levels of venture financing – from micro-loans to mezzanine financing – and focused on all
sectors (Case and Harris, 2012; Isenberg, 2011; Spigel, 2017). Beyond providing financial
capital, investors can also represent access to critical knowledge, customers and mentorship
(Isenberg, 2010).
 Ensuring its participants have adequate local financing is, arguably, the most “Small town”
challenging entrepreneurial ecosystem pillar for STEEs for several reasons. First, entrepreneurial
professional investors, and particularly venture capitalists, tend to locate in a handful of
large metropolitan regions. Their location decisions are based on where the home offices of
ecosystems
most venture funds are located and where the number of potential investment deals (i.e. the
deal flow) is greatest. Indeed, one study found that nearly 70 per cent of the venture
investments in the USA were made in only four regions (the Bay Area, Southern California,
New England and New York; Angel Capital Education Foundation, 2009).
251
In small towns, deal flow is lower and follow-on venture capital generally not as available
within the STEE, which can force companies to consider moving to locations with dense
networks of VCs. The lack of other human capital in the system, such as experienced startup
mentors and programs that prepare entrepreneurs to seek investment, means that
entrepreneurs may also struggle to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to attract
professional equity investment (Hudson, 2005):
P7a. The stock of financial resources of STEEs will be lower than what is available in
large city ecosystems.
STEEs can overcome their financing deficiencies, in part, by developing investors within the
ecosystem, such as networks of angel investors that share an affinity for the small town and/
or desire to support local ventures. Producing these types of investment groups may not
require attracting investors from outside the ecosystem but instead may involve educating
investors about the possibilities and benefits of local investing (Tasch, 2010). For instance, a
growing number of “impact investors” (Bugg-Levine and Emerson, 2011) seek to invest in
ventures located in developing and emerging markets because of their dual-aim to generate
both financial and social-welfare returns on investment. STEEs can seek to encourage the
development of these pools of capital:
P7b. STEEs may pursue strategies such as cultivating investors with a local-focus to
overcome their financing limitations.

Public policy
Leadership. Entrepreneurial ecosystems do not typically possess a single identifiable leader
(e.g. Feld, 2012; Roundy et al., 2016); in fact, if any single organization is too heavy-handed in
its attempts to control the system, it can constrain its development. However, a degree of
leadership, typically from a collection of entrepreneurs and support organizations (e.g.
incubators, accelerators) can be critical in advocating for resources and building the
networks necessary to give structure to the ecosystem. As Case and Harris (2012) explain,
this group can be diverse, but it generally shares a common commitment to the region
becoming a thriving place to start and grow companies.
Strong leadership is also required in STEEs; however, the emphasis of the leadership is
likely to be different than in larger ecosystems, at least initially. Promoting entrepreneurship
may not be on a small town’s radar; thus, leaders with legitimacy in the community who can
act as “local champions” (Nel and Binns, 2002) may be necessary to prioritize
entrepreneurship in the minds of a small town’s citizens and government. Leaders can also
educate community members about the benefits of promoting entrepreneurial ecosystems as
a form of economic development and as a strategy that differs from but can be
complementary to attracting large companies – a traditional focus of small town economic
development:
JEEE P8a. The emphasis of STEE leadership will differ from that of entrepreneurial
9,3 ecosystems in large cities.
Government. Beyond the grassroots leadership provided by entrepreneurs and support
organizations, entrepreneurial ecosystems can also benefit from the support of local
government through policies that emphasize economic development and support
entrepreneurship (Case and Harris, 2012; Spigel, 2017). Government leaders act as strong
252 advocates of entrepreneurship, create effective institutions that promote the creation of new
ventures (e.g. opportunities for public/private partnerships) and enact “venture-friendly”
legislation (e.g. tax benefits, the enforcement of property rights and contracts; Isenberg,
2010; 2011). Governments can also contribute positively to the startup community by
reducing “red tape” associated with, for instance, applications for business permits and
licenses (Neck et al., 2004) and by limiting bureaucracy and unnecessary regulations that
increase the time it takes to establish a new venture or act as barriers to firm creation
(Audretsch and Belitski, forthcoming; McMullen et al., 2008).
As in entrepreneurial ecosystems in large cities, STEEs will benefit when governance
focuses on creating an environment supportive of entrepreneurship. One important
difference between entrepreneurial ecosystems in large metropolitan areas and STEEs is
that the local governments of the latter are likely to be more resource constrained than their
larger counterparts. This suggests that grassroots (i.e. “bottom-up”) organization and
development of the ecosystem may be necessary.
Although the size of small town government may make them resource constrained, such
constraints can also represent advantages. Smaller governments will have more flexible
decision-making and be able to more easily shift resource away from unproductive projects
and programs. Such governments will also produce less bureaucratic red tape through
which entrepreneurs must navigate to create new companies. In sum, the policy components
of entrepreneurial ecosystems, including their leadership and governance, are under their
control and, although different than entrepreneurial ecosystems in large cities, do not
necessarily represent disadvantages:
P8b. The local governments of STEE will differ from those of ecosystems in large cities;
however, STEEs may pursue strategies such as leveraging their flexibility and
encouraging grass roots organizations to overcome governance limitations.

Discussion
Although “mega cities” (i.e. cities with greater than 10 million inhabitants) are becoming
increasingly common, and particularly in developing countries (Madlener and Sunak, 2011),
a large portion of the world’s population lives in small cities of less than 250,000 residents
(Montgomery, 2008). Considering entrepreneurship in small cities as the outcome of an
ecosystem is critical because it means that while small towns may not have some
components of the ecosystems of large urban centers (e.g. venture capital), as an ecosystem,
they may rely on other components and engage in strategies that allow them to bolster their
deficiencies. It also suggests that those attempting to create or develop such systems may
need to be entrepreneurial in the way they formulate strategies to attract the resources they
need.
However, despite growing interest in entrepreneurial ecosystems, scholars have paid
little attention to their existence in small urban areas. To address this omission in prior
research, the concept of an STEE was introduced and the unique strengths and weaknesses
of such ecosystems were examined. It was proposed that STEEs would differ from
ecosystems located in larger cities along several key pillars identified by prior research; “Small town”
some of these differences represent limitations, whereas others represent advantages. entrepreneurial
Strategies STEEs can utilize to mitigate their disadvantages were also proposed. The
theorizing produces implications for entrepreneurial ecosystems theory, for practitioners
ecosystems
and for future research on entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Implications for entrepreneurial ecosystems theory

Researchers acknowledge that not all entrepreneurial ecosystems are homogeneous
253
(Feldman, 2001) and caution that practitioners and scholars should avoid “universalist”
approaches (e.g. attempting to recreate Silicon Valley in every ecosystem). Despite these
warnings, studies of entrepreneurial ecosystems have generally only examined one size of
ecosystem, located in one size of urban area – large. However, theorizing about the impact of
size on an entrepreneurial ecosystem and the city in which it is located reveals several
insights that can inform research on entrepreneurial ecosystems.
First, scholars have acknowledged that an entrepreneurial ecosystem is a network;
however, there has been very little systematic analysis of the network properties, such as
density and strength of ties (Granovetter, 1983), of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Stangler and
Bell-Masterson, 2015 for an exception). As the discussion of STEE networks illustrates,
characteristics of an entrepreneurial ecosystem’s network, such as its density and strength
of ties, can have critical implications for the functioning and strategies of an ecosystem.
Second, studies have described that entrepreneurial ecosystems, like organizations,
evolve according to a life-cycle (Mack and Mayer, 2016), yet the vast majority of studies
have examined ecosystems in the mature phase of development and located in mature
economies. Prior scholarship has, thus, left unexamined the early phases of entrepreneurial
ecosystems. Because of their resource constraints many STEEs, as well as the economies in
which they are embedded, are in the “birth” (or early-maturation) phase of development.
They, therefore, represent a context in which scholars analyzing the lifecycles of
entrepreneurial ecosystems can study them in their formative stages – rather than engaging
in post hoc theorizing about how entrepreneurial ecosystems form and develop by studying
ecosystems that have not been in the birth phase for decades. Large time lags between the
creation and early stages of an entrepreneurial ecosystem and when it is studied obscure the
cause-and-effect mechanisms involved in the system’s creation and growth. Thus, a STEE
may represent a sort of “Petri dish”, in which scholars can observe and tease apart early-
stage mechanisms in their most unencumbered forms[2].

Implications for practice

In examining the differences between entrepreneurial ecosystems located in large urban
areas and STEEs, three general strategies emerged by which STEEs can potentially
overcome size, resource and location limitations. First, STEEs can focus on both the general
characteristics that make them different than larger ecosystems – e.g. less congestion, lower
labor and housing costs – and their place-specific assets (Mason and Brown, 2014). These
factors can be leveraged as resources that can be used to attract talent to the STEE.
Second, STEEs can define their borders broadly and not base their boundaries on the
strict geographic borders of the cities in which they are located. Doing so can allow an STEE
to expand its reach and have access to resources not within the physical boundaries of its
city. By defining its borders broadly (e.g. as a one-hour’s drive in any direction from the
ecosystem’s epicenter) and by connecting to nearby towns to create a resource network, the
STEE can incorporate support services, investors and other resources from neighboring
cities and towns.
JEEE Third, a STEE’s most unique asset and one that separates it from larger ecosystems is
9,3 the social network on which it is built. As argued, STEE social networks are denser and
comprised of stronger connections than the networks of larger ecosystems, which has
implications for the speed with which information and resources flow through the system,
the strength of common values and how participants interact with one another. Individuals
attempting to found and grow STEEs should consider ways in which a small town’s social
254 network can be leveraged.
In addition to these general strategies, the theory developed suggests several specific
implications for policy-makers and practitioners. First, as has been argued, small towns may
be at a disadvantage relative to larger cities in terms of their physical resources and assets,
which suggests they should turn their attention to fostering intangible resources, which may
not require significant investments of financial resources. For instance, developing a clear
and persuasive narrative that communicates how an ecosystem’s past relates to its future
trajectory can help to attract the attention of participants and outside talent, spark interest
in the ecosystem, build momentum and establish the ecosystem’s identity (Roundy, 2016).
The development of coherent narratives to describe and promote an entrepreneurial
ecosystem represents one way to build the culture of a system. Meetings, events and projects
that bring ecosystem participants together should be encouraged because such activities can
build culture (including the values and simple rules that guide ecosystem participants),
establish cohesion among ecosystem participants, provide them the opportunity to learn
how to work together and allow them to experience “small wins” which can be built upon.
Such activities can also be used to promote the key values of an entrepreneurial ecosystem,
such as innovativeness, risk-taking, acceptance of failure and cooperation. In addition to
these specific values, small towns may need to promote the general idea that
entrepreneurship is a viable career path and can be a means of building community and
even rejuvenating a small town’s economy. In doing so, ecosystem participants may
consider working with organizations, such as civic and religious institutions, that are not
strictly affiliated with the entrepreneurial ecosystems but that may share a common interest
in building community and improving the quality of the city.
Ultimately, small towns attempting to spur entrepreneurial activity should recognize
that entrepreneurship is the result of an ecosystem of relationships, agents, values and
institutions. Investing resources in any one of these components, while neglecting the rest, is
unlikely to be successful.

Directions for future research

The concept of STEE is introduced to understand how such ecosystems differ from their
larger counterparts. By creating this concept, it was not, however, the intention of the
paper’s theorizing to suggest that all small city entrepreneurial ecosystems are the same.
Future research could go beyond the simple distinction between small- and large-sized
entrepreneurial ecosystems to develop a more granular examination of how entrepreneurial
ecosystems can differ. For instance, current theories “ignore the role of geography in
affecting the social, economic and institutional contexts of the place” (Lo and Teixeira, 2015),
which suggests that important differences may exist between small-town entrepreneurial
ecosystems based on their geography. For example, a fine-grained analysis of the
differences between STEEs across countries is needed. Important insights might also be
generated by asking, “Why is the city in which a STEE is located small?” Is it shrinking as a
result of industry changes (e.g. declines in manufacturing industries in “Rust Belt” regions)
or is it small as a result of its location (e.g. rural isolation)? Answering such questions may
increase our understanding of the concept of STEEs.
 The theory developed contrasts how STEEs may differ from entrepreneurial ecosystems “Small town”
in large urban areas by comparing differences in the two types of ecosystems along seven entrepreneurial
“pillars” of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Isenberg, 2010; 2011). However, the importance of
these particular components of entrepreneurial ecosystems was arrived at through studies
ecosystems
of large ecosystems. It may be the case that while these elements are critical for the
functioning of large ecosystems, they operate differently in STEEs; indeed, some of the
theory developed in this paper would suggest that this is the case. Thus, future research is
needed to explore if there are a unique set of pillars associated with STEEs. 255
Finally, the most obvious direction for future research is to empirically test the
proposed theory. Testing the propositions could be accomplished through the collection of
both quantitative and qualitative data. A variance-focused quantitative study focused on a
sample comprised of large- and small-town entrepreneurial ecosystems could be conducted
to empirically verify the propositions dealing with differences in levels of resources
between sizes of entrepreneurial ecosystems. However, qualitative data, generated by
interviews and ethnographic observation, is also well-suited for examining propositions
related to the strategies that STEEs use to overcome their limitations. Qualitative data
may be preferred for exploring process-oriented aspects of the phenomenon, such as
sifting through the complex ways that STEEs are constructed, evolve and respond to
changes (Graebner et al., 2012).

Concluding remarks
Many small cities, and particularly those in emerging markets and in post-industrial regions
of the developed world, have high levels of unemployment, crime and other problems
associated with stagnant or insufficient economic development (Bowns, 2013; Knapp, 1995).
In recent decades, these towns have struggled to find an antidote to their economic problems
and to identify strategies that are more effective than traditional methods of economic
development. Promoting entrepreneurship is increasingly seen as a potent policy. In
developing policies, urban theorists caution that “one size does not fit all” (Thrift, 2000)
because all cities are not homogenized entities (Bell and Jayne, 2009). Prior scholars,
however, have treated entrepreneurial ecosystems as if they, and the cities in which they are
situated, are all approximately the same size. Recognizing the impact size can have on
ecosystem functioning can help scholars and policy-makers understand the important
heterogeneity that exists among entrepreneurial ecosystems and the urban centers in which
they are located.

Notes
1. The terms “small city” and “small town” are used interchangeably.
2. It should be noted that this suggestion implicitly assumes that STEEs and large city
entrepreneurial ecosystems develop along a similar trajectory; researchers may find, however,
that is not the case, which would also represent an interesting insight and additional reason for
studying STEEs as a unique phenomenon.

References
Acs, Z.J., Desai, S. and Hessels, J. (2008), “Entrepreneurship, economic development and institutions”,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 219-234.
Acs, Z.J., Autio, E. and Szerb, L. (2014), “National systems of entrepreneurship: measurement issues and
policy implications”, Research Policy, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 476-494.
JEEE Ahrne, G. and Brunsson, N. (2005), “Organizations and meta-organizations”, Scandinavian Journal of
Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 429-449.
9,3
Aldrich, H. and Zimmer, C. (1986), “Entrepreneurship through social networks”, in Sexton, D. and
Smilor, R. (Eds), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, pp. 3-23.
Angel Capital Education Foundation (2009), “Important things for entrepreneurs to know about angel
investors”, available at: www.angelcapitalassociation.org/data/Documents/Press%20Center/
What%20Ents%20Should%20Know%20About%20Angels%202009.pdf
256
Arruda, C., Nogueira, V.S. and Costa, V. (2013), “The Brazilian entrepreneurial ecosystem of startups:
an analysis of entrepreneurship determinants in Brazil as seen from the OECD pillars”, Journal
of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 17-57.
Asheim, B.T., Smith, H.L. and Oughton, C. (2011), “Regional innovation systems: theory, empirics and
policy”, Regional Studies, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 875-891.
Asongu, S.A. and Tchamyou, V.S. (2016), “The impact of entrepreneurship on knowledge economy in
africa”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 101-131.
Audretsch, D.B. and Belitski, M., “Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: establishing the framework
conditions”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, forthcoming, doi: 10.1007/s10961-016-9473-8.
Audretsch, D.B., Belitski, M. and Desai, S. (2015a), “Entrepreneurship and economic development in
cities”, The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 33-60.
Audretsch, D.B., Heger, D. and Veith, T. (2015b), “Infrastructure and entrepreneurship”, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 219-230.
Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D. and Wright, M. (2014), “Entrepreneurial innovation: the
importance of context”, Research Policy, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 1097-1108.
Bacolod, M., Blum, B.S. and Strange, W.C. (2009), “Skills in the city”, Journal of Urban Economics,
Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 136-153.
Bahrami, H. and Evans, S. (1995), “Flexible re-cycling and high-technology entrepreneurship”,
California Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 62-89.
Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. (2004), “Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global
pipelines and the process of knowledge creation”, Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 31-56.
Becker, G.S. (1962), “Investment in human capital: a theoretical analysis”, The Journal of Political
Economy, Vol. 70 No. 5, pp. 9-49.
Beckman, C.M., Schoonhoven, C.B., Rottner, R.M. and Kim, S.J. (2014), “Relational pluralism in de novo
organizations: boards of directors as bridges or barriers to diverse alliance portfolios?”, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 460-483.
Bell, D. and Jayne, M. (2009), “Small cities? towards a research agenda”, International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 683-699.
Bingham, C.B. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (2011), “Rational heuristics: the ‘simple rules’ that strategists learn
from process experience”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 32 No 13, pp. 1437-1464.
Blank, S. (2013), “Why the lean start-up changes everything”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 91 No. 5,
pp. 63-72.
Borissenko, Y. and Boschma, R. (2016), “A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems: towards a
future research agenda”, Papers in Evolutionary Geography, Urban & Regional Research Center,
Ultrecht University, pp. 1-21.
Bowns, C. (2013), “Shrinkage happens. . . in small towns too!: responding to de-population and loss of
place in Susquehanna river towns”, Urban Design International, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 61-77.
Breznitz, D. and Taylor, M. (2014), “The communal roots of entrepreneurial–technological growth–
social fragmentation and stagnation: reflection on Atlanta’s technology cluster”,
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 26 Nos 3/4, pp. 375-396.
Bugg-Levine, A. and Emerson, J. (2011), “Impact investing: transforming how we make money while “Small town”
making a difference”, Innovations, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 9-18.
entrepreneurial
Cannon, J.P. and Homburg, C. (2001), “Buyer-supplier relationships and customer firm costs”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 29-43.
ecosystems
Case, S. and Harris, D. (2012), The Startup Uprising: Eighteen Months of the Startup America
Parternship, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, pp. 1-49.
Churchill, N.C. (1992), “Research issues in entrepreneurship”, in Sexton, D.L. and Kasandra, J.D. (Eds), 257
The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship, PWS-Kent, Boston, MA, pp. 579-596.
Clancey, G. (2004), “Local memory and worldly narrative: the remote city in America and Japan”, Urban
Studies, Vol. 41 No. 12, pp. 2335-2355.
Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J. and Mahajan, A. (2014), “Creating value in ecosystems: crossing the
chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems”, Research Policy, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 1164-1176.
Coff, R. and Kryscynski, D. (2011), “Drilling for micro-foundations of human capital–based competitive
advantages”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1429-1443.
Cooper, A.C. and Folta, T. (2000), “Entrepreneurship and high-technology clusters”, in Sexton D.L.
and Landström, H. (Eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Blackwell, Oxford,
pp. 348-367.
Cuba, L. and Hummon, D.M. (1993), “A place to call home: identification with dwelling, community, and
region”, The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 111-131.
Dana, L.P. (1995), “Entrepreneurship in a remote sub-Arctic community”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 57-72.
Dawley, D.D., Stephens, R.D. and Stephens, D.B. (2005), “Dimensionality of organizational commitment
in volunteer workers: chamber of commerce board members and role fulfillment”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 511-525.
D’Costa, S. and Overman, H.G. (2014), “The urban wage growth premium: sorting or learning?”,
Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 48, pp. 168-179.
Delgado, M., Porter, M.E. and Stern, S. (2010), “Clusters and entrepreneurship”, Journal of Economic
Geography, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 495-518.
Dubini, P. (1989), “The influence of motivations and environment on business start-ups: some hints for
public policies”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 11-26.
Dubois, A. (2016), “Transnationalising entrepreneurship in a peripheral region–the translocal
embeddedness paradigm”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Dumais, G., Ellison, G. and Glaeser, E.L. (2002), “Geographic concentration as a dynamic process”,
Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 193-204.
Edoho, F.M. (2016), “Entrepreneurship paradigm in the new millennium: a critique of public
policy on entrepreneurship”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 279-294.
Estrada, T., Sandu, P., Zrncic, D. and McNulty, K. (2015), “Entrepreneurship in Costa Rica: a SWOT
analysis from an entrepreneurial ecosystem perspective”, Business Journal for Entrepreneurs,
Vol. 2, pp. 131-145.
Evans, M.D.R. (1989), “Immigrant entrepreneurship: effects of ethnic market size and isolated labor
pool”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 950-962.
Feld, B. (2012), Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Your City, John Wiley
and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Feldman, M.P. (2001), “The entrepreneurial event revisited: firm formation in a regional context”,
Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 861-891.
Fölster, S. (2000), “Do entrepreneurs create jobs?”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 137-148.
JEEE Fortunato, M.W.P. (2014), “Supporting rural entrepreneurship: a review of conceptual developments
from research to practice”, Community Development, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 387-408.
9,3
Frazier, B.J. and Niehm, L.S. (2004), “Exploring business information networks of small retailers in
rural communities”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 23-42.
Gibson, I., Rosen, D.W. and Stucker, B. (2010), Additive Manufacturing Technologies, Springer,
New York, NY, Vol. 238.
258 Giuliani, E. (2007), “The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: evidence from the wine
industry”, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 139-168.
Glaeser, E.L. (2010), Agglomeration Economics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Glaeser, E.L., Ponzetto, G.A. and Tobio, K. (2014), “Cities, skills and regional change”, Regional Studies,
Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 7-43.
Glaeser, E.L., Rosenthal, S.S. and Strange, W.C. (2010), “Urban economics and entrepreneurship”,
Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Graebner, M.E., Martin, J.A. and Roundy, P.T. (2012), “Qualitative data: cooking without a recipe”,
Strategic Organization, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 276-284.
Granovetter, M. (1983), “The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited”, Sociological
Theory, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 201-233.
Gruidl, J., Stout, B. and Markley, D. (2015), “Entrepreneurship as a community development
strategy”, in Phillips, R. and Pittman, R.H. (Eds), Introduction to Community Development,
Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 278-295.
Gulati, R., Puranam, P. and Tushman, M. (2012), “Meta-organization design: rethinking design in
interorganizational and community contexts”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 6,
pp. 571-586.
Gumpert, D.E. and Stevenson, H.H. (1985), “The heart of entrepreneurship”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 85-94.
Hudson, E. (2005), “A review of research into venture capitalists’ decision making: implications
for entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and researchers”, Journal of Economic and Social
Policy, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Isaga, N., Masurel, E. and Van Montfort, K. (2015), “Owner-manager motives and the growth of SMEs
in developing countries: evidence from the furniture industry in tanzania”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 190-211.
Isenberg, D.J. (2010), “How to start an entrepreneurial revolution”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 88
No. 6, pp. 40-50.
Isenberg, D.J. (2011), The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Strategy as a New Paradigm for Economic
Policy: Principles for Cultivating Entrepreneurship, Institute of International European Affairs,
Dublin.
Isserman, A.M. (2001), “Competitive advantages of rural America in the next century”, International
Regional Science Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 38-58.
Jack, S.L. and Anderson, A.R. (2002), “The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process”,
Journal of business Venturing, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 467-487.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983), Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and
Consciousness (No 6.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Katz, B. and Wagner, J. (2014), “The rise of innovation districts: a new geography of innovation in
America”, Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings.
Kelly, J., Ruther, M., Ehresman, S. and Nickerson, B. (2016), “Placemaking as an economic development
strategy for small and midsized cities”, Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 435-462.
Kirzner, I.M. (1999), “Creativity and/or alertness: a reconsideration of the Schumpeterian entrepreneur”,
The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 5-17.
Klepper, S. (2010), “The origin and growth of industry clusters: the making of silicon valley and “Small town”
Detroit”, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 15-32.
entrepreneurial
Kotkin, J. (2012), “Small cities are becoming the new engine of economic growth”, Forbes, May 8, 2012.
ecosystems
Knapp, T. (1995), “Rust in the wheatbelt: the social impacts of industrial decline in a rural Kansas
community”, Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 47-66.
Knight, G.A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (1996), “The born global firm: a challenge to traditional
internationalization theory”, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 11-26.
259
Kshetri, N. (2014), “Developing successful entrepreneurial ecosystems: lessons from a comparison ”, of
an Asian tiger and a Baltic tiger”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 330-356.
Lee, G.K. (2007), “The significance of network resources in the race to enter emerging product markets:
the convergence of telephony communications and computer networking, 1989-2001”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 17-37.
Li, J. and Geng, S. (2012), “Industrial clusters, shared resources, and firm performance’,
entrepreneurship and regional development”, Vol. 24 Nos 5/6, pp. 357-382.
Li, J. and Mitra, J. (2009), “Regional cluster formation: a case study of the software cluster in
Birmingham, UK” in Manimala, M., Mitra, J. and Singh, V. (Eds), Enterprise Support Systems:
An International Perspective, Sage, New Delhi, pp. 65-88.
Lo, L. and Teixeira, C. (2015), “Immigrants doing business in a mid-sized Canadian city: challenges,
opportunities, and local strategies in Kelowna, British Columbia”, Growth and Change, Vol. 46
No. 4, pp. 631-653.
Løwendahl, B. and Revang, Ø. (1998), “Challenges to existing strategy theory in a postindustrial
society”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 755-773.
McGee, J.E. and Finney, B.J. (1997), “Competing against retailing giants: a look at the importance
of distinctive marketing competencies”, Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 59-71.
McMullen, J.S., Bagby, D. and Palich, L.E. (2008), “Economic freedom and the motivation to engage in
entrepreneurial action”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 875-895.
Mack, E. and Mayer, H. (2016), “The evolutionary dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems”, Urban
Studies, Vol. 53 No. 10, pp. 2118-2133.
Madlener, R. and Sunak, Y. (2011), “Impacts of urbanization on urban structures and energy demand:
what can we learn for urban energy planning and urbanization management?”, Sustainable
Cities and Society, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 45-53.
Mason, C. and Brown, R. (2014), “Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship”,
Final Report to OECD Paris.
Maynard, M. (2012), “Small cities’ big role in reinventing the economy”, Forbes, July 18, 2012.
Mair, J. and Marti, I. (2006), “Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and
delight”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 36-44.
Markey, S., Connelly, S. and Roseland, M. (2010), “Back of the envelope’: pragmatic planning for
sustainable rural community development”, Planning, Practice & Research, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 1-23.
Miller, N.J., Besser, T.L., Gaskill, L.R. and Sapp, S.G. (2003), “Community and managerial predictors of
performance in small rural US retail and service firms”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 215-230.
Montgomery, M.R. (2008), “The urban transformation of the developing world”, Science, Vol. 319
No. 5864, pp. 761-764.
Motoyama, Y., Fetsch, E., Jackson, C. and Wiens, J. (2016), “Little town, layered ecosystem: a case study
of Chattanooga”, Kauffman Foundation Research Series on City, Metro, and Regional
Entrepreneurship.
JEEE Motoyama, Y. and Watkins, K.K. (2014), “Examining the connections within the startup ecosystem: a
case study of St. Louis”, Kauffman Foundation Research Series on City, Metro, and Regional
9,3 Entrepreneurship.
Mustafa, M.J., Hernandez, E., Mahon, C. and Chee, L.K. (2016), “Entrepreneurial intentions of university
students in an emerging economy: the influence of university support and proactive personality
on students’ entrepreneurial intention”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 162-179.
260 Neck, H.M., Meyer, G.D., Cohen, B. and Corbett, A.C. (2004), “An entrepreneurial system view of new
venture creation”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 190-208.
Nel, E. and Binns, T. (2002), “Place marketing, tourism promotion, and community based local
economic development in post-Apartheid South Africa: the case of still bay – the ‘bay of sleeping
beauty’”, Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 184-208.
Nel, E. and Stevenson, T. (2014), “The catalysts of small town economic development in a free market
economy: a case study of New Zealand”, Local Economy, Vol. 29 Nos 4/5, pp. 486-502.
Nelles, J., Bramwell, A. and Wolfe, D.A. (2005), “History, culture and path dependency: origins of the
Waterloo ICT cluster”, in Wolfe, D.A. and Lucas, M. (Eds), Global Networks and Local Linkages:
The Paradox of Cluster Development in an Open Economy, McGill-Queen’s University Press,
Montreal, pp. 227-252.
Neo, H. and Pow, C.P. (2015), “The weight of small cities: development and the rural–urban nexus in
Jinghong, Southwest China”, The Professional Geographer, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 555-563.
Panzar, J.C. and Willig, R.D. (1977), “Economies of scale in multi-output production”, The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-493.
Partridge, M.D., Rickman, D.S., Ali, K. and Olfert, M.R. (2008), “Lost in space: population growth
in the American hinterlands and small cities”, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 8 No. 6,
pp. 727-757.
Pitelis, C. (2012), “Clusters, entrepreneurial ecosystem co-creation, and appropriability: a conceptual
framework”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1359-1388.
Rae, D. (2004), “Practical theories from entrepreneurs’ stories: discursive approaches to
entrepreneurial learning”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 195-202.
Ratten, V. (2014), “Encouraging collaborative entrepreneurship in developing countries: the current
challenges and a research agenda”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 6
No. 3, pp. 298-308.
Rindova, V., Barry, D. and Ketchen, D.J. (2009), “Entrepreneuring as emancipation”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 477-491.
Roberts, E.B. and Eesley, C.E. (2011), “Entrepreneurial impact: the role of MIT-an updated report”,
Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, Vol. 7 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-149.
Roundy, P.T. (2016), “Startup community narratives: the discursive construction of entrepreneurial
ecosystems”, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 232-248.
Roundy, P.T., “Hybrid organizations and the logics of entrepreneurial ecosystems”, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, forthcoming.
Roundy, P., Bradshaw, M. and Brockman, B. (2016), “Venturing towards the edge of chaos: a complex
adaptive systems approach to entrepreneurial ecosystems”, United States Association for Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, Conference Proceedings (p. F1), United States Association for
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Rubin, S. (2001), “Rural colleges as catalysts for community change: the RCCI experience”, Rural
America, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 12-19.
Saffu, K. and Walker, J. (2006), “The country-of-origin effect and consumer attitudes to “buy local”
campaign: the Ghanaian case”, Journal of African Business, Vol. 7 Nos 1/2, pp. 183-199.
Schumpeter, J. (1934), Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Harper and Row, New York, NY. “Small town”
Scott, A.J. (2008), “Human capital resources and requirements across the metropolitan hierarchy of the entrepreneurial
USA”, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 207-226.
ecosystems
Seaton, E.E. (2008), “Common knowledge: reflections on narratives in community”, Qualitative
Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 293-305.
Singh, J. (2005), “Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns”,
Management Science, Vol. 51 No. 55, pp. 756-770.
261
Solhi, S. and Koshkaki, E.R. (2016), “The antecedents of entrepreneurial innovative behavior in
developing countries, a networked grounded theory approach (case study Iran)”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 225-262.
Song, L. and Winkler, C. (2014), “China’s trans-regional entrepreneurship: a panel data analysis of 31
provinces”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 202-222.
Spigel, B. (2017), “The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems”, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 49-72.
Spilling, O.R. (1996), “The entrepreneurial system: on entrepreneurship in the context of a mega event”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 91-103.
Stam, E. (2014), “The Dutch entrepreneurial ecosystem”, Working Paper, Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2473475 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2473475 (accessed 29
July 2014).
Stam, E. (2015), “Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique”, European
Planning Studies, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 1759-1769.
Stangler, D. and Bell-Masterson, J. (2015), Measuring an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem, Ewing Marion
Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City.
Tasch, W. (2010), Inquiries into the Nature of slow Money: Investing as if Food, Farms, and Fertility
Mattered, Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT.
Ter Wal, A.L., Alexy, O., Block, J. and Sandner, P.G. (2017), “The best of both worlds: the benefits of
open-specialized and closed-diverse syndication networks for new ventures’ success”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 393-432.
Thornton, A. (2008), “Beyond the metropolis: small town case studies of urban and peri-urban
agriculture in South Africa”, Urban Forum, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 243-262.
Thrift, N. (2000), “Not a straight line but a curve, or cities are not mirrors of modernity”, in Bell, D. and
Haddour, A. (Eds), City Visions, Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Tolbert, C.M., Irwin, M.D., Lyson, T.A. and Nucci, A.R. (2002), “Civic community in small-town
America: how civic welfare is influenced by local capitalism and civic engagement”, Rural
Sociology, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 90-113.
Urban, F. (2002), “Small town, big website?: cities and their representation on the internet”, Cities,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 49-59.
Van de Ven, H. (1993), “The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 211-230.
Virkkala, S. (2007), “Innovation and networking in peripheral areas – a case study of emergence
and change in rural manufacturing”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 511-529.
Welter, F., Trettin, L. and Neumann, U. (2008), “Fostering entrepreneurship in distressed urban
neighbourhoods”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 109-128.
Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J. and Wright, M. (2011), “The effectiveness of university knowledge
spillovers: performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs”,
Research Policy, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 1128-1143.
JEEE Wong, P.K., Ho, Y.P. and Autio, E. (2005), “Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth:
evidence from GEM data”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 335-350.
9,3
Young, N. (2010), “Globalization from the edge: a framework for understanding how small and
medium-sized firms in the periphery ‘go global”, Environment and Planning, Vol. 42 No. 4,
pp. 838-855.
Zahra, S.A. and Nambisan, S. (2012), “Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business
262 ecosystems”, Business Horizons, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 219-229.

Further reading
Acs, Z. and Armington, C. (2003), “Endogenous growth and entrepreneurial activity in cities”, Working
Paper, Center for Economic Studies, Washington, DC, 03 March.
Bhardwaj, B.R. (2014), “Impact of education and training on performance of women
entrepreneurs: a study in an emerging market context”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in
Emerging Economies, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Sommers, P. (1998), “Rural networks in the United States: lessons from three experiments”, Economic
Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 54-67.
Waitt, G. and Gibson, C. (2009), “Creative small cities: rethinking the creative economy in place”, Urban
Studies, Vol. 46 Nos 5/6, pp. 1223-1246.

Corresponding author
Philip T. Roundy can be contacted at: philip-roundy@utc.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.