(Routledge Studies in Entrepreneurship and Small Business) Morgan R. Clevenger, Michael W-P Fortunato - Entrepreneurial Communities and Ecosystems-Routledge (2022)

“Thought leaders in policy and business are turning to entrepreneurial
ecosystems to deliver sustainable prosperity in their entrepreneurial

community. This important and pathbreaking new book provides a
blueprint of what exactly constitutes an entrepreneurial ecosystem vs. an
entrepreneurial community, how they can be nurtured and developed to
ignite economic and social vitality, and how it can be sustained over time.
This book holds the key to unlocking the hidden potential of people,
business processes, and places.”
David B. Audretsch, PhD, Distinguished Professor
and Ameritech Chair of Economic Development,
Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana, USA
“Simply put, there are no timelier and important topics in the field of
entrepreneurship than the multifaceted roles played by communities of
entrepreneurs, ecosystems, as well as empowering the next generation
of entrepreneurs. Kudos to Morgan Clevenger and Michael Fortunato
for their brilliant volume illuminating the scope, activity, breadth, and
depth of both thought and practice in these critical areas. Entrepreneurial
Communities and Ecosystems: Theories in Culture, Empowerment, and
Leadership is must reading for educators, practitioners, advisors, and policy
makers.With an all-star cast of contributors, from Entrepreneurship ecology,
education (formal and informal), coalition building, omnipreneurship,
and much, much more, this volume is a must have for your business
library.”
Charles H. Matthews, PhD, Distinguished Teaching
Professor and Founder, U.C. Center for Entrepreneurship
and Carl H. Lindner College of Business University of
Cincinnati Ohio, USA
Entrepreneurial Communities
and Ecosystems
Entrepreneurial Communities and Ecosystems: Theories in Culture,

Empowerment, and Leadership examines the deep sociocultural dynamics
supporting effective and emergent entrepreneurial ecosystems and
communities for a new generation of ecosystem builders and researchers.
The book provides current theories and discussion with relevant examples
regarding culture, empowerment, and leadership in entrepreneurship to
build more entrepreneurial communities anywhere, beginning with any
set of local advantages. It clarifies the role of community in building an
entrepreneurial ecosystem and expands the theory on how entrepreneurial
communities and ecosystems differ, and how they relate. The book also
illuminates the often-avoided discussion about power, with special
attention to diversity with examples of Black, women, and LGBTQA+
entrepreneurship; provides a deep dive into the range of formal and
informal education framed as entreprenology; ties the importance of
entrepreneurship and entrepreneuring to resources available at the
community, state, and national levels; and introduces a new concept—
omnipreneurship—which puts the skills of entrepreneurship in the service
of global benefit and everyday action.
This research volume will be equally useful as an undergraduate or
graduate text on the sociology of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship as
it is a field guide for ecosystem builders, policy makers, nonprofits, and
entrepreneurship and social researchers worldwide.
Morgan R. Clevenger, EdD, MBA, is Associate Professor of Management

at Hiram College, Ohio, USA, as well as Professor of Management and
Post-doctoral Fellow in Corporate Social Responsibility and Global
Business Ethics with Monarch Business School, Zug, Switzerland.
Michael W-P Fortunato, PhD, is an internationally published scholar,

researcher, author, entrepreneur, community developer, educator, public
speaker, and innovator, and CFO and Founding Partner of Texas-based
community consulting group Creative Insight Community Development
(CICD).
Routledge Studies in Entrepreneurship and Small Business
Edited by Robert Blackburn
University of Liverpool, UK
Motivating SMEs to Cooperate and Internationalize

A Dynamic Perspective
George Tesar and Zsuzsanna Vincze
How Small to Medium Enterprises Thrive and Survive in Turbulent Times

From Deconstructing to Synthesizing Organizational Resilience
Capabilities
Yiu Hia Chu and Kosmas Smyrnios
Managing People in Small and Medium Enterprises in Turbulent

Contexts
Alexandros Psychogios and Rea Prouska
Business Transfers, Family Firms and Entrepreneurship

Edited by Bérangère Deschamps, Audrey Missonier, Catherine
Thévenard-Puthod, Paulette Robic and Dominique Barbelivien
The Persistence of Entrepreneurship Myths

Reclaiming Enterprise
Simon Bridge
Corporate Volunteering, Responsibility and Employee Entrepreneurship

Aldona Glińska-Neweś and Beata Glinka
Entrepreneurial Communities and Ecosystems

Theories in Culture, Empowerment, and Leadership
Edited by Morgan R. Clevenger and Michael W-P Fortunato
Empowering Entrepreneurial Communities and Ecosystems

Case Study Insights
Edited by Morgan R. Clevenger and Michael W-P Fortunato
For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.

com/Routledge-Studies-in-Entrepreneurship-and-Small-Business/book-
series/SE0463
and Ecosystems
Theories in Culture, Empowerment,
and Leadership
Edited by Morgan R. Clevenger

and Michael W-P Fortunato
First published 2022
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 selection and editorial matter, Morgan R. Clevenger and
Michael W-P Fortunato; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Morgan R. Clevenger and Michael W-P Fortunato to be
identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors
for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and
recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Clevenger, Morgan R., 1969– editor. | Fortunato, Michael
William-Patrick, 1978– editor.
Title: Entrepreneurial communities and ecosystems : theories in culture,
empowerment, and leadership / edited by Morgan R. Clevenger and
Michael W-P Fortunato.
Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2022. | Series: Routledge
studies in entrepreneurship and small business | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021061297 (print) | LCCN 2021061298 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780815378624 (hbk) | ISBN 9781032225852 (pbk) |
ISBN 9781351045711 (ebk)
Subjects: LCSH: Entrepreneurship—Social aspects. | Entrepreneurship—
Environmental aspects. | Leadership. | Community development.
Classification: LCC HB615 .E577853 2022 (print) |
LCC HB615 (ebook) | DDC 658.4/21—dc23/eng/20220404
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021061297
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021061298
ISBN: 978-0-815-37862-4 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-22585-2 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-351-04571-1 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781351045711
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
This book is dedicated to professional colleagues supporting entrepreneurs:
Jeff Alves Milan Kirby Chuck Pierce

Anne Batory David Kukurza Tanya Pope
Don Webster Dorothy Lane Julienne Shields
Jerry Ephault Michelle Lehman David Strukel
Lorna Galliford Chuck Matthews Sue Reilly
Lanie Jordan Shelley Morrisette Marianne Rexer
Jerome Katz Garrett Munro Rodney Ridley
as well as friends in the networks of enactus (formerly Students in Free

Enterprise or SIFE), The Family Business Alliance at Wilkes University,
the Allan P. Kirby Center for Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship, and
the SBDCs of Lackawanna and Luzerne (PA) counties. Finally, I am
thankful to my Entrepreneurship Division of Academy of Management
(AOM) and USASBE families—especially Dr. Chuck Matthews, Longe-
necker Fellow mentor.
Thank you; please keep up the important work!
~ Morgan
My dedication goes out to anyone out there—especially those working in

the least expected places—who provide vital material, networking, finan-
cial, and (perhaps most importantly) emotional support to entrepreneurs
and entrepreneurial thinkers alike. And, to those entrepreneurs who work
and act as a true community to accomplish great things, together. This
is often not a work of aggressive profit-seeking, trendsetting, or legacy
generating. My thanks go to those people who consistently and tirelessly
support new ideas, meeting critical needs, and the betterment of life irre-
spective of a venture’s fitness for the cover of Fast Company or Inc. It
is for the everyday entrepreneur and their everyday support system. It
is for the people who elevate ideas over personal wealth and fame, and
who seek to serve others even more intensely than they seek success in
business, although how can one achieve the latter without the former?
Some of them will be gazelles, sure. A great many will fail. And more still
will brush themselves off and try again. But all will share an experience so
rare and important in this world: to bring an idea that serves the public
good into self-sustenance.
And for those of you who just need a little extra prodding to take the
plunge as either an entrepreneurial leader or a feeder, I hope this book
gives you the gentle nudge into the fray that you seek.
I would like to further thank my mentors who guided me and who taught
me the importance of putting the emphasis on community in community-
based venturing, including Ted Alter, Diane McLaughlin, and Bunny Wil-
lits at Penn State University, my business partner Bruce Balfour (a savvy
entrepreneur and scholar in his own right), and of course, my grandfather
Bill Lawrence, who gave me my own kick into the world of indepen-
dent venturing. And to all my friends and family who tolerate my long
absences and late-arriving correspondence while writing, which is much
of the time these days. Your patience means the world to me, and hope-
fully the book did not turn out too badly.
~ Michael
Contents
Foreword xi
List of Contributors xvii
Acknowledgments xxvi
Preface xxvii
1 An Introduction to Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and

Entrepreneurial Communities to Empower Entrepreneurs 1
M O R G A N R . CL E VE N GE R AN D MICH AE L W- P FORT U NATO
2 Revisiting Entrepreneurial Communities, Entrepreneurial

Ecosystems, and Ecosystem Logic 25
M I C H A E L W-P FO RTUN ATO AN D MO RGA N R. C LEV ENGER
3 An Ecology of Entrepreneurship: A Review of Concepts,

Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, and Entrepreneurial
Communities from the Literature 56
M O R G A N R . CL E VE N GE R AN D CH AO MIAO
4 The Power of Entrepreneurs and Social Systems: Driving

Forces for Empowerment, Mitigating Disempowerment,
and Advancing Equity 100
M O N TR E S SA L . WA SH IN GTO N , JE N N IFE R R. MADDEN,
M O R G A N R . CL E VE N GE R, A N D CH AO MIAO
5 Entreprenology of Formal and Informal Education,

Co-Curricular and Extra-Curricular Programming,
Vocational and Technical Entrepreneuring, and Learning
From Failure to Support and Empower Entrepreneurs 143
M O R G A N R . CL E VE N GE R, MA RCUS I. CRE WS, SAR A L. C OC HR AN,
L O U I S E U N DE RDA H L , RO N AL D G. L E ACH , JEAN R . PER LMAN,
E L I Z A B E TH ISE L E , N O RRIS F. KRUE GE R JR., MAT T HEW
K N I G H T, A N D DIN A P IE P O L I UDO MSAK
x Contents
6 Avoiding Anomie: Diffusion of Support Resources for
the Empowerment of Entrepreneurs 193
M O R G A N R . CL E VE N GE R AN D GARRE TT MU NRO
7 Beyond Bureaucracies and Bourgeoisie of Regional, State,

and National Economic Development: Framework Conditions,
Policy, and the Interplay of Support Organizations 243
M O R G A N R . CL E VE N GE R, MICH AE L W- P FO RT U NATO, AND
K E N N E TH G . O KRE P KIE WITH L AURA S. E P P LER
8 Omnipreneurship 276
M O R G A N R . CL E VE N GE R AN D MICH AE L W- P FORT U NATO
9 Conclusions: Final Thoughts on Culture, Empowerment,

and Leadership to Support Entrepreneurs 288
M I C H A E L W-P FO RTUN ATO AN D MO RGA N R. C LEV ENGER
Appendix A: The Allan P. Kirby Center for Free Enterprise

and Entrepreneurship Services 297
Appendix B: U.S. Foundations Funding Entrepreneurship
Programs 299
Index 302
Foreword
Entrepreneurship is an important driving force in the U.S. economy. The

2019/2020 United States Report by researchers with the Global Entre-
preneurship Monitor indicates that “of the 202 million working age
adults in the U.S., 27% are starting a business or running a business they
own and manage,” earning income and employing others (Kelley et al.,
2020, p. 11).)These entrepreneurs are located in cities, suburbia, small
towns, and areas of varying affluence; they are diverse in gender, age,
race, and ethnicity; and they make significant economic and social contri-
butions to the vitality of communities, local and regional economies, and
a nation as a whole. We typically think of entrepreneurs as independent
operators aggressively creating and innovating new products and services
within their existing businesses and in pursuing new business opportuni-
ties and their self-interest. While this archetype of an entrepreneur may
hold true across the nation, there is much more to entrepreneurship and
entrepreneuring.
Entrepreneurs live and work in communities. Entrepreneurs and entre-
preneurial activities impact the cultural, economic, political, and social
vitality of these communities and the quality of life they offer. It is also
the case that the nature of communities and their support—or lack
thereof—for entrepreneurs (such as banking and legal services, business
climate, community cultural attributes, and overall quality of life, for
example) affects entrepreneurial possibilities and business performance.
The reality is that communities need entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs
need communities. This latter relationship—the importance of communi-
ties to entrepreneurs—is often overlooked in planning, policies, and pro-
grams supporting entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship and community, and
economic development. This book edited and written by Dr. Morgan R.
Clevenger and Dr. Michael W-P Fortunato, Entrepreneurial Communities
and Ecosystems: Theories in Culture, Empowerment, and Leadership,
fills the gap.
In retrospect, I first learned about the intersection of entrepreneuring,
entrepreneurship, and community as a young boy and teenager—even
though I was unaware of what I was learning at the time. I grew up in a
xii Foreword
small, family-owned, and managed greenhouse and floriculture business
in peri-urban Toledo, Ohio. My father, a master grower, established the
business immediately after World War II, and it provided our family’s live-
lihood until we sold it upon my father’s passing in 1975. Over the years,
I watched and helped my father and mother manage and grow the busi-
ness, and gained much day-to-day, hands-on experience with operating
the business, including weeding under flower benches, watering gerani-
ums and other flower crops, fumigating for insects and disease, shoveling
coal into the furnace to keep the heat on in the cold weather, dealing with
both happy and unhappy customers, wholesaling and retailing, and sell-
ing and delivering product. In retrospect, I absorbed many lessons from
this upbringing that have shaped the focus and trajectory of my thinking
and life’s work as an economist and community and economic develop-
ment researcher, educator, and practitioner, and currently as co-director
of Penn State’s Center for Economic and Community Development and
as co-editor of the Entrepreneurship Research Journal.
From our operation, I first learned the critical importance of leaning
into risk and uncertainty in ways to minimize the endogenous risk associ-
ated with the realities of business, keeping meticulous revenue and cost
records over time by floriculture enterprise type, technical expertise that
drives product development and production, mounting targeted product
marketing campaigns, and engaging with the community at large on local
public issues of collective consequence. With respect to meticulous cost
and revenue records, I came over time, as an economist, to see that my
father and mother were in effect building and using cross-sectional and
time-series data to inform supply and demand “curves” grounded in our
business enterprise experiences in order to guide investment and prod-
uct mix decisions going forward. They were not actually graphing those
curves or formulating and using equations, but they were intuitively using
supply and demand information inherent in cost, revenue, and marketing
records to analyze and strategize our business opportunities in the near
term and several years into the future.
As a master grower, my father was recognized by peers and customers
alike for his technical expertise as a horticulturalist resulting in the vari-
ety and consistent high quality of our floriculture products, not just for
his business and management acumen. We had three major enterprises,
poinsettias, lilies and other Easter flowers, and spring bedding plants and
perennials. I learned that managing these enterprises required constant
attention to product quality; planning, organizing, and managing of
access to short-term business operating capital and to long-term capi-
tal for greenhouse physical plant renewal and expansion; responsiveness
to evolving consumer tastes and preferences; plant production timed to
meet peak market demand; and marketing and demand-side visibility for
our floricultural products. I learned that both operational management
acuity and demand-responsive high-quality products are both necessary
Foreword xiii
for entrepreneurial and business success and that neither alone is suf-
ficient. Being an entrepreneur is simultaneously complex, strategic, hard
tactical work.
Perhaps the most important philosophically and practically valuable
lesson I learned that has shaped my perspective, research, teaching, and
professional and personal practice for 5 decades is that an entrepreneur-
ial community is integral for entrepreneurial success. Entrepreneurs oper-
ate in a multitude of community contexts: large, small, urban, suburban,
and rural. The nature of an entrepreneur’s relationships with other busi-
nesses, banks and legal entities, government agencies, and civil society
organizations in all of these locales is central to business viability and
success. Fundamentally, relationships and networks among diverse peo-
ple and within and across organizations in an entrepreneurial community
all matter. Community matters for another reason, as well. Community
is where people gather, live, work, socialize, and debate whether to act
on issues of collective concern. It is a place, beyond family, that molds us
as human beings and shapes our opportunities as we in turn shape our
communities through our own ideas, interactions, and behavior. Commu-
nities need entrepreneurs, and entrepreneurs need communities.
Entrepreneurs, entrepreneuring, and entrepreneurship opportunities
are supported and shaped by a community, and they in turn support and
shape a community. My father and mother were entrepreneurs who con-
sciously and constantly built and nurtured relationships that supported
and shaped our business in the community and region where we lived.
Banking, legal, and local government zoning relationships were critical,
and they actively engaged beyond our business contributing to numer-
ous civil society organizations because they recognized the importance of
having a quality place within which to live, work, and rear their family.
They were recognized and valued for their broader community dedica-
tion and immersion, and this recognition positioned my parents and our
business as “contributing citizens” of the community, which garnered
support for them and for our business.
I vividly remember hordes of school children and teachers wander-
ing through our greenhouse to learn about horticulture, listening to my
father talk about his love and passion for plants and the science of grow-
ing them as he meticulously watered the geranium crop. Not just any-
one could water the geraniums—no doubt something to do with product
quality. I saw my father welcoming and having time for everyone with
interest in flower growing and the business—even during our busy sea-
sons. This time investment was a way for him to contribute to the quality
of life in our community. It is also clear that my parents’ commitment
to community-building made a distinct statement about their devotion
to our community as a place to live, provided visibility for the business,
and contributed to its financial and economic viability. When we sold
the greenhouse and floriculture business to another entrepreneurial,
xiv Foreword
community-oriented grower in Toledo, the business remained an eco-
nomically viable, community-embedded, ongoing concern ever since—
even today.
Entrepreneurial Communities and Ecosystems by Clevenger and For-
tunato is about a fundamental understanding flagged in this anecdote:
the idea that entrepreneurial ecosystems, entrepreneurial communities,
and regional ecosystems are highly relational, interactive, and dynamic,
and can provide essential support for successful entrepreneurs and entre-
preneurial action. This book also posits that entrepreneurs can have a
key role in shaping those ecosystems and their communities broadly in
addition to shaping their own business or firm-level outcomes. Entrepre-
neurial communities matter for entrepreneurs in large and small commu-
nities; they matter in urban, peri-urban, and rural places. They matter for
small-town bookstores in upstate New York, as well as for well-heeled
information technology innovators in San Francisco. Community ecosys-
tems matter for development of culturally rich and diverse, economically
vital, and environmentally friendly places where people want to live and
rear their families as well as for entrepreneur-driven business develop-
ment, employment, and income growth.
I have come to know Morgan over the past 5 years; Michael and I have
known each other and worked closely together for nearly 15 years. Morgan
brings superb scholarly perspective and personal professional experience
to the study of entrepreneurial behavior and entrepreneurship, business
organizational development and change, and economic and community
development. Like me, he also grew up in family-owned businesses—
entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship—and did not have cognizant recog-
nition of this phenomenon until after completing his college education.
In addition, he is a keen observer of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial
practice at the business or firm level. He has also owned a couple of busi-
nesses and knows first-hand the struggles and passion it takes to be a suc-
cessful, effective entrepreneur. Michael is also an experienced entrepreneur
with many successful ventures as well as some not-so-successful ones to his
credit. Like Morgan, Michael is also a scholar of entrepreneurship, com-
ing from the perspectives of sociology, institutional and behavioral eco-
nomics, finance, and human cognitive science. Michael is a leading figure
internationally in the domain of rural entrepreneurship. He is well-known
globally for his creative and innovative thinking and action in bringing the
prominence and promise of entrepreneurs in rural places.
Focus on entrepreneurial communities and ecosystems has been a
growing area of interest, systematic inquiry, and practice over the past
couple of decades. The past decade has seen burgeoning, dynamic growth
in these activities. Numerous key scholars have explored the theoretical
and practice complexities of entrepreneurial communities and ecosys-
tems, and their work and contributions are detailed by Clevenger and
Fortunato in this book. Zoltan Ács, Howard Aldrich, David Audretsch,
Brad Feld, Maryann Feldman, Daniel Isenberg, Gregg Lichtenstein, Tom
Foreword xv
Lyons, Deborah Markley, among others, come to mind as pioneers in this
work. I place Clevenger and Fortunato among this cast of scholars and
pioneers – several sources that I personally find useful, representing the
work of these and other scholars. I must note that while interest in entre-
preneurial communities and ecosystems has been growing and signifi-
cant scholarly and practice contributions have emerged, community-level
ecosystems (i.e., entrepreneurial communities) analysis has not generally
received the attention it should, given its importance for entrepreneurs
and entrepreneurial success.
Reading and thinking deeply about the theoretical and practical
insights reflected in the chapters and case studies detailed in Entrepre-
neurial Communities and Ecosystems by Clevenger and Fortunato, it is
evident that the intersection and mutual interdependence of entrepre-
neurship, entrepreneurial behavior, entrepreneurial and community eco-
systems, and business success matter. Their book matters for advancing
our shared understanding of how to cultivate a more empowered and
empowering entrepreneurial world.
Theodore R. Alter, Ph.D.
Professor of Agricultural, Environmental, and Regional Economics
Co-director of the Center for Economic and Community
Development
Former Co-editor of the Entrepreneurial Research Journal
The Pennsylvania State University
Reference
Kelley, D. J., Brush, C. G., Corbett, A. C., & Majbouri, M. (2020). 2019/2020
United States report. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: National Entrepre-
neurship Assessment for the United States of America. www.babson.edu/media/
babson/assets/blank-center/GEM-2019-2020-US-Report.pdf
Recommended Reading
Ács, Z. J., Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Szerb, L. (2018). Entrepreneurship, insti-
tutional economics, and economic growth: An ecosystems perspective. Small
Business Economics, 51, 501–514.
Aldrich, H. E., & Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks.
In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship
(pp. 2–230). Ballinger Publishing.
Audretsch, D. B. (2007). The entrepreneurial society. Oxford University.
Clevenger, M. R. (2017). Perceptions of entrepreneurs and community: From his-
torical roots to a contemporary kaleidoscope. In M. W-P Fortunato & M. R.
Clevenger (Eds.), Toward entrepreneurial community development: Leaping
cultural and leadership boundaries (pp. 10–50). Routledge.
Coase, R. H., & Wang, N. (2011). The industrial structure of production: A
research agenda for innovation in an entrepreneurial economy. Entrepreneur-
ship Research Journal, 1(2), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.2202/2157–5665.1026
xvi Foreword
Feld, B. (2012). Startup communities: Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in
your community. Wiley.
Feld, B., & Hathaway, I. (2020). The startup community way: Evolving an entre-
preneurial ecosystem. Wiley.
Feldman, M. P. (2001). The entrepreneurial event revisited: Firm formation in a
regional context. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 861–891.
Feldman, M. P., Freyer, A. M., & Lanahan, L. (2012). On the measurement of
university research contributions to economic growth and innovation. In J.
E. Lane & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), Universities and colleges as economic driv-
ers: Measuring higher education’s role in economic development (pp. 97–128).
SUNY Press.
Feldman, M. P., Hadjimichael, T., Lanahan, L., & Kemeny, T. (2016). The logic of
economic development: A definition and model for investment. Environment
and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34, 5–21.
Feldman, M. P., & Zoller, T. D. (2012). Dealmakers in place: Social capital con-
nections in regional entrepreneurial economies. Regional Studies, 46(1), 23–37.
Fortunato, M. W-P (2017). Models of entrepreneurial community and ecosystem
development. In M. W-P Fortunato & M. R. Clevenger (Eds.), Toward entre-
preneurial community development: Leaping cultural and leadership boundar-
ies (pp. 51–103). Routledge.
Fortunato, M. W-P, & Alter, T. (2015). Community entrepreneurship develop-
ment: An introduction. Community Development, 46(5), 444–455. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15575330.2015.108742
Fortunato, M. W-P, & Alter, T. (Eds.). (2017). Entrepreneurship, community, and
community development. Routledge.
Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 88(6), 40–50.
Isenberg, D. J. (2011). The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new para-
digm for economy policy: Principles for cultivating entrepreneurship. Babson
Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project. Babson College.
Lichtenstein, G. A., & Lyons, T. S. (2008). Revisiting the business life-cycle: Pro-
posing an actionable model for assessing and fostering entrepreneurship. The
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 9(4), 241–250.
Lichtenstein, G. A., & Lyons, T. S. (2010). Investing in entrepreneurs: A strategic
approach for strengthening your regional and community economy. Praeger.
Lyons, T. S. (2015). Entrepreneurship and community development: What mat-
ters and why? Community Development, 46(5), 456–460.
Lyons, T. S., Alter, T., R., Audretsch, D., & Augustine, D. (2012). Entrepreneur-
ship and community: The next frontier of entrepreneurship inquiry. Entrepre-
neurship Research Journal, 2(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.2202/2157–5665
Markley, D. M., Lyons, T. S., & Macke, D. W. (2015). Creating entrepreneurial
communities, building community capacity for ecosystem development. Com-
munity Development, 46(5), 580–589.
Martinez, M. A., Yang, T., & Aldrich, H. E. (2011). Entrepreneurship as an evolu-
tionary process: Research progress and challenges. Entrepreneurship Research
Journal, 1(1), Article x. https://doi.org/10.2202/2157-5665.1009
O’Connor, A., Stam, E., Sussan, F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2018). Entrepreneurial
ecosystems: The foundations of place-based renewal. In Entrepreneurial eco-
systems (pp. 1–21). Springer.
Contributors
THEODORE R. ALTER, PhD, is a professor of agricultural, environmen-

tal, and regional economics and co-director of the Center for Economic
and Community Development in the Department of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, Sociology, and Education at Penn State University. He served
as co-editor of the Entrepreneurship Research Journal (ERJ) and as
adjunct research fellow in the Australian Center for Agriculture and
Law at the University of New England in Australia. Alter served from
2012 to 2017 as one of the lead researchers for the institutional analy-
sis and community-led action initiative of the Invasive Animal Coop-
erative Research Centre in Australia. The Victorian Rabbit Action
Network, one of the projects stemming from this initiative, received the
2019 United Nations Public Service Award in recognition for its contri-
butions to strengthening working relationships and shared responsibil-
ity among citizens and communities, industry, and government. Alter’s
research, teaching, and community engagement work focuses on com-
munity and rural development, resource and environmental economics,
community engagement in natural resource management, community
and entrepreneurship, behavioral and public sector economics, the
practice of public scholarship and civic engagement in higher educa-
tion, and the political economy of democracy. In recent years, he has
advanced his work to include the study of public and collective choice,
democracy and innovation, and how paradigms of public discourse
have shaped complex societal issues from technology and communi-
cations development to entrepreneurship and public-private partner-
ships. A central component of his work focuses on issues of democracy,
emphasizing the roles played by societal organizations such as govern-
ments, private sector businesses, non-governmental organizations, and
colleges and universities. He is driven by concern with how and for
whom democracy works and does not work.
MORGAN R. CLEVENGER, EdD, MBA, is an associate professor of
management in the Scarborough School of Business & Communica-
tion at Hiram College, OH, USA, as well as professor of management
xviii Contributors
and a post-doctoral fellow in Corporate Social Responsibility and
Global Business Ethics with Monarch Business School, Zug, Switzer-
land. Clevenger was previously a visiting professor in the Department
of Management, Marketing, and Entrepreneurship in the Grove Col-
lege of Business at Shippensburg University, PA, USA, and is erstwhile
tenured associate professor of entrepreneurship at Wilkes University,
PA, USA. Clevenger attained a bachelor of science degree in news edi-
torial journalism from the Reed College of Media (formerly named the
Perley Isaac Reed School of Journalism) and an MBA from the John
Chambers College of Business and Economics, both at West Virginia
University. Clevenger completed a doctorate in Educational Leader-
ship and Policy Analysis at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Clev-
enger researches, writes, and presents widely on issues of corporate
citizenship, philanthropy, higher education, nonprofit management,
ethics, entrepreneurship, corporate social responsibility, family busi-
ness, entrepreneurial ecosystems, entrepreneurial communities, and
culture of entrepreneurship. He is author/editor of several books and
journal articles. Clevenger also serves as an associate editor of the
Entrepreneurship Research Journal (ERJ) and editor of the Monarch
Management Review (MMR).
SARA L. COCHRAN, PhD, is a clinical assistant professor of entrepre-
neurship in the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University. She
serves as a Director-at-Large SIG Liaison on the Board of Directors of
the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship
(USASBE) and has published articles in the Journal of Small Business
Management, Annals of Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy,
and Entrepreneur & Innovation Exchange (EIX). Cochran received
the Emerging Scholar Award from the USASBE Minority and Women
Entrepreneurship Special Interest Group in 2019, was a 2019 Colum-
bia Business Times’s 20 Under 40 Honoree, received a Schulze Publica-
tion Award in 2018, and is a fellow with the Direct Selling Education
Foundation. An entrepreneur herself, Cochran founded and previously
owned an online boutique and currently operates a consulting brand.
She holds a PhD in higher education with research focused on entre-
preneurship education from the University of Missouri, as well as a
bachelor of arts in accounting and a master of arts degree in integrated
marketing communications from Drury University.
MARCUS I. CREWS, PhD, is an assistant professor of strategy and entre-
preneurship at Duquesne University. Fascinated by how entrepreneurs
and managers thought content and processes shape individual and firm
behavior and performance, his research interests lie at the intersection
of entrepreneurship and strategic management, and are complemented
by applying theories and methods from psychology and cognitive sci-
ence. His professional background is in academic technology transfer
Contributors xix
where he worked with research- and technology-intensive startups. In
addition, he has been involved with several startups as founder, co-
founder, or early employee. He earned his bachelor of arts in psychol-
ogy; MBA with specializations in entrepreneurship, marketing, and
supply chain management; and doctorate in organization manage-
ment, all from Rutgers University.
LAURA S. EPPLER, MBA, is Chief Marketing Officer for the Ben Frank-
lin Technology Partners of Northeastern Pennsylvania, a state-funded
economic development organization that invests in and supports
early-stage technology firms and innovative manufacturers. She leads
the organization’s strategic messaging and promotes client companies
to help them succeed. Prior to her 21 years with Ben Franklin, Laura
served for 12 years as Director of Community Relations and Publica-
tions at Lehigh Carbon Community College, and before that in roles
with an advertising agency and reprographics company. She was named
a Lehigh Valley Business Woman of Influence in 2018 and Delaware &
Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Volunteer of the Year in 2016, is a
graduate of Leadership Lehigh Valley and the Dale Carnegie Course,
and serves on several nonprofit boards. Laura earned her bachelor of
science in business administration from Bucknell University and her
MBA from Wilkes University. In addition to her work as a strategic
marketer, Laura is also an endorsed professional wedding officiant.
MICHAEL W-P FORTUNATO, PhD, is an internationally published
scholar, a researcher, an author, an entrepreneur, a community devel-
oper, an educator, a public speaker, and an innovator, and CFO and
Founding Partner of Texas-based community consulting group Cre-
ative Insight Community Development (CICD). Fortunato received a
PhD in Rural Sociology and a master of science in Community Eco-
nomic Development from Penn State University’s College of Agricul-
tural Sciences, Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology, and
Education in 2011. He also holds a dual bachelor’s degree in Finance/
International Business and International Studies, also from Penn State
University. He is a subject area expert in the fields of community and
economic development, community-based entrepreneurship, rural and
small urban development strategy, social science research, and com-
munity/regional leadership. From 2013 to 2017, he moved to Texas to
become an assistant professor of sociology, engaged scholar, and direc-
tor of the Center for Rural Studies at Sam Houston State University.
Since 2005, Fortunato’s research and practice have focused on develop-
ing better strategies to revitalize rural communities and economies and
declining cities and towns through more effective collaborative action,
entrepreneurship, and community engagement. He has conducted
research and outreach—and been a featured trainer/expert—in dozens
of rural communities and small towns; and at major conferences, on
xx Contributors
radio shows, guest blogs, and educational/training seminars on three
continents. He has co-authored two books on entrepreneurial commu-
nity development (with Routledge). Fortunato also serves as an associ-
ate editor of the Entrepreneurship Research Journal (ERJ).
ELIZABETH ISELE is the founder and CEO of Global Institute for
Experienced Entrepreneurship, is also co-founder and CEO, Senio-
rEntrepreneurshipWorks.org; co-founder, eProvStudio.com; founder,
SavvySeniorsWork.com; Senior Fellow in Social Innovation at Bab-
son College; Associate Fellow in Global Economics and Finance at
Chatham House: The Royal Institute of International Affairs; Fellow,
MetLife Foundation’s Journalists in Aging; and one of PBS NextAv-
enue.org’s Top 50 Influencers in Aging. She currently travels from
Australia to Chile to Dublin to Istanbul convening forums among
business, government, finance, and education thought leaders, ignit-
ing intergenerational experience to build better workplaces and new
business start-ups to create an “Experienced Economy” that will boost
local, national, and global economies. She has contributed to senior
and intergenerational entrepreneurship for the White House, Con-
gress, the European Union (EU), and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD).
MATTHEW KNIGHT, DBA, has been an online dissertation chair, men-
tor, and graduate contributing faculty for 7 years at Walden University
and, including other online universities, for over 11 years total. Knight
also works for a financial technology services company. He earned a
DBA in international business at Argosy University in Sarasota, an MBA
in management with a concentration in economics/finance at Plym-
outh (NH) State University, and a bachelor of science in mechanical
engineering at the University of New Hampshire. His dissertation is a
cross-cultural study of value dimensions in China and the United States.
Knight has presented and published papers on cross-cultural manage-
ment, employee retention, and intergenerational entrepreneurship. He is
a strong believer in social change and has worked as a Boy Scout leader
helping young men grow, a Big Brother to a Little Brother in Big Broth-
ers/Big Sisters, as a leader of a church with a proud tradition of working
for social justice, and as a volunteer at a homeless shelter.
NORRIS F. KRUEGER, JR., PhD, earned a doctorate in Strategic Man-
agement and Entrepreneurship as well as an interdisciplinary doctor-
ate in Management, Marketing, Economics, Cognitive, and Social
Psychology from Ohio State University in 1989. Krueger has con-
sulted globally on developing entrepreneurial culture and designing
entrepreneurship programs. He has served as External Fellow with
Max Planck Institute for Economics, Senior Research Fellow with
the University of Phoenix College of Doctoral Studies, and Senior
Contributors xxi
Subject Matter Expect at OECD/EU HEInnovate, and participant in
Entrepreneurship360. As a thought leader in entrepreneurial learning,
Krueger’s expertise in growing entrepreneur thinkers and entrepre-
neurial communities earned six national and two global best practice
awards. Focusing on how entrepreneurs learn, Krueger’s scholarship
is making a difference in academe, education, and entrepreneurship.
RONALD G. LEACH, PhD, MLS, completed the bachelor of arts degree
from Central Michigan University in secondary education with a his-
tory major and a library science minor. After teaching high school stu-
dents for 2 years, he changed his focus and completed an MLS degree
in Library Science from the University of Michigan and began a career
in higher education. While engaged in leadership roles, Leach com-
pleted his PhD in Higher Education Administration and Leadership
at Michigan State University. Leach has held administrative leadership
positions and faculty positions in four different universities, the latest
being at Indiana State University. Leadership positions held at Indiana
State University included Dean of Library Services, Assistant Provost
for Information Services, and he served as a professor of higher edu-
cation leadership in the Department of Educational Administration,
Leadership and Foundations within the School of Education. Leach
returned to the faculty full-time and assisted in the development of a
new PhD program in Higher Education Administration and Leader-
ship that was delivered as a hybrid distance education program to
develop scholar practitioners. He currently teaches in the University
of Phoenix’s Higher Education Administration doctoral program and
mentors students developing their dissertations. Leach has contributed
to his profession by publishing, presenting, and serving.
JENNIFER R. MADDEN, PhD, is dean and professor of management
for the School of Business at Linfield University. Madden is a strate-
gist, researcher, teacher, facilitator, and design thinker. She earned her
doctorate from the Weatherhead School of Management, a master’s
degree in nonprofit management, and undergraduate degrees in eco-
nomics and American studies, all from Case Western Reserve Univer-
sity. Madden is a nonprofit management research fellow, a Fowler
sustainability fellow, and a management design fellow. Her research is
on designing effective cross-sector partnerships then leveraging those
collaborations to build capacity for effective performance and social
innovation. She is passionate about economic development, solution
finding, bringing ideas to fruition, and training the next generation of
innovative design thinkers (and change agents) for system-level change
and positive deviance. Her book Inter-Organizational Collaboration
by Design in the Routledge Critical Studies in Public Management
Series examines how collaborations can overcome barriers to inno-
vate and rejuvenate communities outlining the factors and antecedents
xxii Contributors
that influence successful collaboration. The book proposes a theoreti-
cal perspective for collaborators to adopt the language of designers,
evidence-based tools, and strategies to enable success. The book out-
lines her journey from research to action resulting in a “Collaboration
Blueprint” that assisted community-based nonprofit organizations to
secure over $13.5 million in grant funding—with nearly $9 million
raised in a single year.
CHAO MIAO, PhD, is an associate professor of management in the
Department of Management and Marketing in the Franklin P. Perdue
School of Business at Salisbury University. He is erstwhile assistant
professor of management at Wilkes University. He received his PhD in
management from Virginia Commonwealth University. He was also
awarded the Graduate Dean’s Scholar Award from Virginia Common-
wealth University. He has taught various management classes related
to entrepreneurship, leadership, foundations of management, orga-
nizational behavior, and human resource management. His research
interests include entrepreneurship, emotion, leadership, personality,
cross-cultural management, performance, job attitudes, and meta-
analysis. He has published in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and
Practice, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Business Ventur-
ing Insights, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Research in
Personality, Journal of Small Business Management, Journal of World
Business, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Person-
ality and Individual Differences, and Small Business Economics. His
co-authored publication, titled “The Relationship Between Entrepre-
neurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Meta-analytic
Review,” in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice has won the Emer-
ald Group Publishing Citation of Excellence Award.
GARRETT MUNRO, MA, is an instructional and entrepreneurial
technologist and is Program Manager of Tech and Trek™ at Hiram
College. He teaches courses on technology literacy, technology and
culture, and design thinking. Munro is the founder of Sauna Rocket®
and has a patent on a design innovation for home saunas. He earned
a bachelor of art’s degree in communications at Lake Superior State
University and a master of art’s degree in Educational Technology at
Central Michigan University. Prior to his current post, he studied and
taught at international schools in mainland China from 2010 through
2017. He returns to China yearly to maintain friendships and business
connections, and satisfy a lifelong wanderlust.
KENNETH G. OKREPKIE, MHR, serves as the regional manager for
Ben Franklin Technology Partners, where he oversees investments in
Contributors xxiii
a portfolio of more than 40 companies in Northeastern Pennsylvania.
Each year, this group of companies will generate hundreds of millions
of dollars in revenue creating good family-sustaining jobs in the region
and for every $1 Ben Franklin invested in its companies, they return
$3.90 in tax revenue back to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Prior to Ben Franklin in 2004, he joined the Great Valley Technol-
ogy Alliance, now TecBridge, as a vice-president. He is credited with
creating the Lackawanna and Luzerne County Keystone Innovation
Zone (KIZ) Program that generates more than $2 million each year
for technology companies in the region, now totaling $26.4 million
since the inception of the program. A graduate of the University of
Scranton, Okrepkie holds an undergraduate degree in marketing and a
master’s degree in human resources. He is currently an adjunct faculty
member at the University of Scranton Kania School of Management,
teaching in the Entrepreneurship program where he has been selected
into the Sigma Nu Tau Entrepreneurship Honor Society, while also
being recognized as the 2017 Pennsylvania Technology Acceleration
Leader of the Year by Accelerate PA. In 2018, he received the CANDO
Chairman’s Award. Okrepkie provided the Johnson College 2017
Commencement Speech and received the 2013 TecBridge Bill McNally
Mentor of the Year Award. He was a Wilkes University Allan P. Kirby
Center Mentor of the Year recipient in 2016 and NEPA Business Jour-
nal “Top 20 Under 40 Business Professional” in 2008.
JEAN R. PERLMAN, DBA, JD, MBA, is a strategist, speaker, and educa-
tor with 30+ years’ experience delivering action results to executive
teams. “Transforming Complicated to Simple,” Perlman specializes in
critical thinking for mission targeting and organization productivity.
She has worked with small and large companies, where her strategies
resulted in 50% increased team productivity, multimillion-dollar mile-
stone achievement, and 100% profit-center launch success; industry
leader standing; increased markets and profits over 150%. Perlman
has taught online since 2002 including the University of Phoenix and
Walden University. Her honors include Outstanding Teacher Award,
Dissertation Chair, American Juris Prudence Award (Business Coun-
seling), and keynote speaker for chambers of commerce and the United
States Small Business Administration.
DINA PIEPOLI UDOMSAK, EdD, is an award-winning instructor, advi-
sor, mentor, and academic programming director with nearly 2 decades
of experience serving in the personal and professional leadership arena
in higher education. She is a senior regional training supervisor with
True Value Company. Udomsak engages an interdisciplinary approach
to experiential education through strategic academic programming
and effective learning facilitation in oral communication, interpersonal
conflict, communications training and development, business and
xxiv Contributors
professional communication, business correspondence and reports,
human resources management, customer service management, top-
ics in leadership, and personal and professional development courses.
Udomsak has served in several leadership positions in the local and
national community including on the executive board of the North-
eastern Association of the Society for Human Resources Management,
and active membership in the Association for Business Communica-
tion and the Eastern Communication Association. She received a bach-
elor of science in Media Communication and Technology from East
Stroudsburg University and a master of arts in Communication Arts
and Media Management from Marywood University and completed
her doctoral studies in Educational Leadership from Wilkes University.
A former technical communications trainer and instructional designer,
she has created numerous employee and proprietary software manu-
als, educational workbooks, job aides, and marketing collateral. Uti-
lizing a Rogerian approach to authentic, person-centered, appreciative
communication, Udomsak is deeply passionate in facilitating the jour-
ney of helping others to become the best version of themselves.
LOUISE UNDERDAHL, PhD, MPA, MSLS, earned a bachelor of arts in
English literature at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA),
followed by the MSLS, MPA, and PhD at the University of Southern
California. She served UCLA from 1978 to 1992, UCLA Health Risk
Management from 1992 to 2017, and University of Phoenix Online
since 2004. Underdahl is currently Lead Faculty Area Chair for the
College of Doctoral Studies Health Administration program and also
serves as dissertation chair, committee member, and active participant
in University of Phoenix Research Hub activities, such as the 2018
Knowledge Without Boundaries Research Summit. Focusing on work
attitudes, she is a research fellow for the Center for Health and Nurs-
ing Research, reviewer for the Center for Educational and Instruc-
tional Technology Research Dissertation to Publication Workshop,
volunteer research associate for the Global Institute of Experienced
Entrepreneurship, recipient of the University of Phoenix’s 2018 Fac-
ulty Excellence Award, and leads collaborative research on promoting
entrepreneurial success.
MONTRESSA L. WASHINGTON, PhD, is the director of Shenandoah
University’s Institute for Entrepreneurship and is an assistant profes-
sor of management in the Shenandoah University School of Business.
Washington worked in management consulting for 17 years, special-
izing in change management, technology adoption, and business trans-
formation before transitioning into academia. She teaches courses in
entrepreneurship and design thinking. She holds a Society for Human
Resources Management (SHRM) SCP certification and teaches courses
in human resources at the University as well as for SHRM. She enjoys
Contributors xxv
mentoring and coaching students about career choices as well as nom-
inating high-performing students to the Omicron Delta Kappa Leader-
ship Honor Society, of which she is a member. Washington’s education
credentials include a doctorate in management from Case Western
Reserve University, an MBA in international business and marketing
from Johns Hopkins University, and a bachelor’s in English from the
University of Maryland College Park. She is a member of Delta Sigma
Theta Sorority, Zonta International, and Leaderships Maryland and
Howard County.
Acknowledgments
While our names appear on the cover of this book, we personify our life’s
journeys. These journeys capsulate much love, support, discussion, life
experience, formal education, experiential and co-curricular education,
trial-and-error, and “carpe diem” attitudes with execution. It is through
family, friends, colleagues near and far, lifetime support actors, teachers
and professors, and organizational leaders who have invested in our suc-
cess and thought processes.
First, we certainly appreciate the diversity of our contributing authors
who bring a breadth of personal, academic, practical, and experiential
backgrounds. We are very thankful to Ted Alter, Sara L. Cochran, Mar-
cus I. Crews, Laura S. Eppler, Elizabeth Isele, Matthew Knight, Norris
F. Krueger, Ronald G. Leach, Jennifer R. Madden, Chao Miao, Garrett
Munro, Ken Okrepkie, Jean Pearlman, Dina Piepoli Udomsak, Lou-
ise Underdahl, and Montressa L. Washington. We are also thankful to
reviewers and copy editors who always challenge and improve writing
through thorough content verification, proofing, and revisions. Addi-
tionally, many librarians have been valuable resources, including Bethle-
hem Area Public Library (PA), Luzerne County (PA) Public Library, and
Pierce Streetsboro Library (Portage County District Library, OH) staff-
ers, and reference librarians at Hiram College, Missouri State University,
Penn State University, Shippensburg University, University of Missouri-
Columbia, and Wilkes University. We are also appreciative of graphic
design work by Chad Bonk at Storyteller Photography and copy editing
by Melissa Kougher.
Morgan R. Clevenger
Hiram College, Ohio, USA,
and Monarch Business School, Switzerland
Michael W-P Fortunato
Creative Insight Community Development (CICD)
and The Pennsylvania State University, USA
Preface
A few years after the publication of our first book, Toward Entrepre-
neurial Community Development: Leaping Cultural and Leadership
Boundaries, we were honored to have been invited to create an addi-
tional work on entrepreneurial ecosystems and empowerment. More
detail is shared about why these topics matter in the modern economy,
and in modern life more broadly. One of the most important words in the
title is empowerment. Empowerment is a complicated word in its usage.
“Empowering others” is sometimes considered for someone to succeed,
or take leadership, or to go about doing tasks the way they see fit. Many
ecosystem builders and economic development professionals would love
to “empower” more people to take the critical risk of launching a busi-
ness that transforms the local economy in positive and productive ways.
It is important to note that what is really being discussed is not “empow-
erment,” which presumes that the power is ours to give—as though here-
tofore our lack of action has somehow prevented others from taking an
entrepreneur’s leap. This situation is likely not the case. What is really at
stake is self-empowerment, or the ability of ordinary people to recognize
or to create new opportunities, marshal scarce resources, do their market
due diligence, and mitigate risks as best they can before launching a new
venture. There is great agency in entrepreneuring, which is why the field
of entrepreneurship has been so heavily dominated by theories of the firm
and entrepreneuring individuals for most of its history.
What, then, does that mean for those people and professionals who
wish to support, foster, cultivate, and enhance entrepreneurship on a
broader scale, perhaps across their entire community or region? While
the action of launching a venture must be taken on by an entrepreneur,
the field has increasingly recognized the critical role played by communi-
ties, cultures, infrastructure, policies, resources, and circumstances that
are much bigger, broader, and often more subtly expressed than launch-
ing a new firm. And increasingly, it has become clear that the context in
which an entrepreneur’s story unfolds is just as essential as the innova-
tive and market-seeking actions of the entrepreneurs themselves. Just as
superior seed corn will not grow in dry, barren, inferior soil—so can we
xxviii Preface
expect even the best entrepreneurial minds to flounder in a culture where
entrepreneurship is not supported, respected, or broadly understood?
Just like a real ecosystem, it is not the strong who survive. It is those who
are most fitted to the environment that survive. And, as any amateur
geographer could point out, a redwood forest grows better in California
than in the Sahara (although that desert has its own, well-adapted, and
truly innovative ecosystem, too).
The dynamism, co-evolution, and interplay between firm and environ-
ment are still exciting and fascinating to researchers and practitioners. As
scholars have become overly familiar with the common success stories
pouring out of Silicon Valley, Boston’s 128, Boulder, Emilia-Romagna,
and others, more nuanced and organic examples are also needed. It is our
hope that this book will inspire you to empower yourself, and to help to
empower those around you, to support entrepreneurship in new ways,
wherever you are, and whatever your local circumstances.
Morgan R. Clevenger
Associate Professor of Management
The Scarborough School of Business & Communication
Hiram College, OH, USA
and
Professor of Management & Post-Doctoral Fellow in Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) and Global Business Ethics
Monarch Business School, Zug, Switzerland

Founding Partner, Creative Insight Community Development (CICD)
New River, AZ; Madison, IN; State College, PA;
and Santa Rosa, CA
and
Instructor of Community and Economic Development (CEDEV)
Research Specialist at the Institutional and Behavioral
Economics Working Group (IBEWG)
The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA (USA)
1 An Introduction to
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and
Entrepreneurial Communities to
Empower Entrepreneurs
Morgan R. Clevenger
Introduction
It is obligatory in any research book to begin with the ontological task
of defining what key terms mean. Beginning with the term entrepreneur,
ideas are combined from Schumpeter (1934) regarding innovation, from
Gartner (1990) about entrepreneurship being focused on the processes
and behaviors of launching a new market offering, from Shane and Ven-
kataraman (2000) about entrepreneurship having to do with the discov-
ery and exploitation of ideas, and from Davisson (2008) regarding what
constitutes a “novel” offering: that it can be a new product, service, or
process; bundle of products and services; or price/value relation (compe-
tition based on better price, speed, or quality) (p. 17). Thus, an entrepre-
neur is considered an individual or part of a group of individuals who
creates a new “business venture” within a place to offer a new product
or service, bundle of products or services, or price/value relationship that
adds value to markets within a “community” (Fortunato, 2011, p. 17).
Clevenger (2017) noted, “simply put, an entrepreneur is someone who
takes on the risk and responsibility to own and operate a business to
potentially reap a reward” (p. 26). (cf. Shane, 2008.) Entrepreneurship,
then, is the process of creating such a new business venture, capacity, or
transformation (see Gartner, 1990).
It should be notable that Davisson’s (2008) much broader defini-
tion of novelty is something much more accessible to the general pub-
lic than high-tech, growth-oriented innovation, which is often the focus
of entrepreneurship promotion (Ács et al., 2008; Ács & Szerb, 2007).
Both authors of this chapter have conducted—and continue to conduct—
research and applied practices in a variety of community environments,
particularly in smaller cities, towns, and rural areas. When asking the
question of whether or not entrepreneurship is the unique domain of cit-
ies with world-class infrastructure, large entrepreneur support networks,
and high-tech colleges and universities, the domain of rural and non-
metropolitan entrepreneurship research, and the supporting data sim-
ply do not bear this out (Fortunato, 2014; Henderson, 2002; Wortman,
DOI: 10.4324/9781351045711-1
2 Clevenger & Fortunato
1990). Rural and suburban areas have always been home to an ecology
of small businesses, beginning with the original farming traditions of its
first settlers (Richards & Bulkley, 2007), and tend to often have higher
entrepreneurship rates than micropolitan areas (traditionally smaller,
company-oriented towns) that were home to a primary industry focused
on wage employment (Henderson, 2002). So even rural areas can be
entrepreneurial, unless of course one defines entrepreneurship as requir-
ing a high degree of innovation to be considered entrepreneurship (see
Audretsch et al., 2015; Bagozzi, 1983), in which case we can exclude the
overwhelming majority of new and small businesses from being truly
“entrepreneurial.”
If we are to support entrepreneurship development in the broadest
sense, we must choose a definition of entrepreneurship that is sufficiently
broad that it encapsulates any economic or social action that goes fur-
ther than the current situation in supporting entrepreneurs as well as
entrepreneurship as a process. If this seems like a tautology (that which
supports entrepreneurship is entrepreneurship development, in a circle
forever), we are only making the point that entrepreneurship develop-
ment is more than just supporting high-growth, high-tech businesses. It
is about taking actions to support those businesses that support high-
tech and high-growth businesses, too, and seeing a rise in the capacity
of local actors to stimulate a diverse range of novel business activities—
from genuinely new innovations, to bringing old ideas to new places and
filling important market niches (involving risk), to save time, to improve
quality, to solve problems, and to make life better. Anything that cre-
ates market value in a new way, as Davisson (2008) suggests, should
be under the broad purview of entrepreneurship development. After all,
even highly innovative businesses can benefit from something as simple
as a local supplier that saves them time, a new sales model that boosts
online sales velocity, or a hip café district that is a major selling point to
attracting top-level talent. A very simple business model can make an
important difference in a small community that previously lacked effi-
cient access to a critical product, service, or process. We can (and do) use
the “it takes a village” analogy to raising good businesses in a geographic
place, “community,” or “industry,” but entrepreneurship development is
also about building the capacity of a multitude of actors to raise their
own capabilities in and around entrepreneurship—which takes us to our
next important definition.
The term development, as defined succinctly by Wilkinson (2019), is
“a process of improving the well-being of people” (pp. 3–4). As for com-
munity development:
A broad concept of development is especially useful for defining

the special case of community development, which can be both a
means and an end of the pursuit of social well-being. To promote the
Introduction 3
development of community in a local society can be a means of pro-
moting economic development and development of services, assum-
ing that collective action influences these aspects of a local society. At
the same time, development of community can be the end by which
other development programs are justified. Economic growth, for
example, might benefit or exploit a local population; and the contri-
bution of economic growth to local social well-being can be judged
by the degree to which that growth contributes to maintenance or
development of community.
(Wilkinson, 2019, p. 4)
Wilkinson (1991) has also alluded to the idea that community devel-
opment is not only about improving the social well-being of a partic-
ular place but of raising the capacity for social action—the ability of
communities to meet their own needs or address their own issues in a
self-directed, self-organizing way. Put differently, it is the ability of a com-
munity to set aside its differences and take care of itself, much in the
fashion observed by Tocqueville in 1831, where “civil society” served as a
bridge between private action and government action, using the volunteer
spirit to self-organize and do the work of the community (Tocqueville,
1945). In this sense, we see entrepreneurship development as that which
improves the well-being of entrepreneurs and their businesses, promotes
social and economic development, and the development of services, social
networks, and support systems that improve the entrepreneurial climate
of an organization, area, territory, industry, or niche. We would add that
entrepreneurship development is best when it is self-directed and self-
actualizing, meaning that it eventually occurs “endothermically:” on its
own without large expenditures of energy and resources to keep it going.
Thus, the product of entrepreneur development is both an entrepreneur-
ial ecosystem and an entrepreneurial community.
A Rationale for Entrepreneurial Communities

and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
The contexts of entrepreneurship and community are complex and
dynamic. The field of entrepreneurship as both a field of practice of busi-
ness and a field of study has been growing (see Davisson, 2008), and
research in both areas continues to develop deeper concepts, convergence,
and the understanding of these sophisticated inner workings that involve
many other disciplines: psychology, sociology, economics, political sci-
ence, and anthropology. The rich history of the American entrepreneur
gave the United States a prominence in opportunity and the freedom to
express creativity, innovation, and choice of livelihood (Clevenger, 2017).
Entrepreneurship continues to be vital to the U.S. economy and a cen-
tral economic development strategy (Fortunato & Clevenger, 2017b;
Sexton, 1997; Shane, 2004). Entrepreneurs—whether born or made—
clearly have an important role in society (Cochran, 1949; Lichtenstein &
Lyons, 2010). However, statistics from Gallup polling (Clifton & Badal,
2014) and Shane (2008) continue to indicate negative growth as “four
hundred thousand new businesses are being born annually nationwide,
while 470,000 per year are dying” (Clifton & Badal, 2014, p. 11). Obvi-
ously, the country needs to put entrepreneurialism front and center on
the U.S. agendas in education at all levels, economics, and business (For-
tunato & Clevenger, 2017b). However, there is an inverse relationship
between high test scores and high entrepreneuring activity in any given
country (Zhao, 2012). “Educational practices and societal factors that
help students achieve academically may hamper entrepreneurial quali-
ties and reduce creativity” (Zhao, 2012, p. 58). (cf. see studies by the
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.) Thus, “commonly used measures of
educational quality [e.g., reading, math, and sciences] have negative or no
relationships with entrepreneurship” (Zhao, 2012, p. 58). In other words,
a shift away from focusing on textbook knowledge and emphasis on
hands-on, real-world efforts including experimentation and failure with
creativity, innovation, and invention have opposing results for a society
(Zhao, 2012; Zhao et al., 2019).
When building a more entrepreneuring society, entrepreneurship edu-
cation is also vital. In the United States, highly intelligent, musically
inclined, or athletically talented individuals are discovered in their youth.
Such brilliance or prodigy is difficult to hide. However, “if you have the
rare, innate ability to create a customer, to build a company—if you have
the talent for entrepreneurship—your early identification and subsequent
development is left to chance” (Florida, 2012, p. 20). Key supports can
promote being an entrepreneur as a lifestyle or career of choice. Addi-
tional programming at the K-12 levels in curriculum and after-school
programs can ingrain a vision for children to understand business and for
families and communities to support self-sufficiency, self-employment,
and entrepreneurship as culturally encouraged. Such programming can
then continue to grow at the real-world apprentice level or in higher edu-
cation. Likely individuals need a combination of formal education and
training in a field or discipline along with business knowledge to support
an entrepreneur path. Along the way, teachers and mentors, devils’ advo-
cates, role models, funding agencies, and entrepreneur sages are needed
to support their journeys. Whatever the focus, an important thrust of
entreprenology and entrepreneurship education should occur meta to
the business level of action. It should include education about form-
ing community- and ecosystem-oriented relationships that are mutually
reinforcing and supportive, and that generate a culture or “pipeline”
of entrepreneurial support over time (see Lichtenstein & Lyons, 2008,
for an example of the Entrepreneurship Development System, or EDS).
Chapter 5 takes a deep dive discussion into all of these concerns and
more.
Introduction 5
Another priority is creating a culture of acceptance, including con-
tinued tolerance and encouragement of entrepreneurs and openness
in communities to foster an entrepreneurial environment. Room to
experiment and to fail is also important. Here is where nuances can
be found between an entrepreneurial community and an entrepreneur-
ial ecosystem. An entrepreneurial ecosystem is created by and used by
entrepreneurs alone—nearly an exclusive, self-maintaining space (see
Figure 1.1) (see Bylund, 2020). Grit, self-sufficiency, and tenacity reign
Figure 1.1 Entrepreneurial Ecosystem provides a visual representation of a lean,

entrepreneurial ecosystem. Note that a money bag represents a high
percentage of personal investment.
as entrepreneurs scan and implement ideas, materials, and marketing
needed—with a focus on self, personal skills or professional education,
desire, and funding from a closed system of self, family, and minimal
friends. An entrepreneurial community is bigger and encompasses the
various entrepreneurial communities per industry, feeder systems such
as incubators and Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs), sup-
port agencies, and a wide variety of resources (e.g., funding partners,
technical expertise, business training and education, and government
resources) (see Figure 1.2). Reality television shows like Shark Tank and
other series programming are helping to create awareness and cultural
acceptability of entrepreneuring. Further, local leaders, governments at
various levels, and industries need to continue to place entrepreneurs
and entrepreneurial community development as a priority through
formal and informal organizations. Note that these are not neat and
tidy concentric circles. There are multiple entrepreneurial ecosystems
(around an industry, technology, specific innovation, or geography, for
example) and multiple strata of entrepreneurial communities, thus cre-
ating a messy, overlapping web of relationships and networks. Such
complexity involves all levels of analysis including overlap of micro,
meso-1, meso-2, macro-1, macro-2, and sometimes macro-3—and in
simultaneous intertwinings. (See Clevenger, 2017, pp. 23–35, for a dis-
cussion on these levels of analysis, and Chapter 3 in this book with
additional granularity.)
Offering a graphical representation of our conception of entrepre-
neurial communities compared with entrepreneurial ecosystems, Chap-
ter 3 will discuss ideas of content proposed by other scholars. Looking
at Figure 1.1., it is important to note that the placement of and their
relative ascendance and power in the overall model compared to Figure
1.2. Furthermore, the structure and density of networks across both sys-
tems are very different, along with the emphasis of those networks. In
entrepreneurial communities, such networks seek system stability, con-
tinuity, and egalitarian democracy. In an entrepreneurial ecosystem—of
which there are many—networks are fragmented, changing, and stra-
tegic to the point of self-serving motivations, which seek the course of
best economic advantage over time, thus a highly dynamic model. These
contrasts are important to keep in mind throughout the remainder of
the book, as elements of both systems can be seen in a variety of cir-
cumstances. Before we revisit the distinction between entrepreneurial
communities and entrepreneurial ecosystems, it is important to place
the role of “entrepreneurial action” (aka entrepreneuring) within the
broader context of capitalist organization, as the realization of healthy
economic functioning has shifted from a focus on individuals and indi-
vidual firms (both micro levels of analysis) toward communities, net-
works, clusters, and relationships over time (in meso and macro levels
of analysis).
Introduction 7
Figure 1.2 Entrepreneurial Community provides a visual representation of the wide

range of ‘feeders’ and ‘supports’ across a community contributing to
the work of entrepreneurs within an entrepreneurial community.
Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurship in the Individualistic

Context of Capitalism
In the democratic, free enterprise economic system of the United States,
business is expected to be the economic cornerstone in a capitalistic
system (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2017; Casson, 2003; Clevenger, 2014,
2019; Drucker, 1946). The American people expect corporations to
obey all laws and regulations, to protect society through safe products
and practices, to fulfill contractual obligations, and to honor promises
in guarantees. Ethically, entrepreneurs, businesses, and corporations are
expected to avoid questionable practices, respond to the spirit and letter
of the law, do no harm, and protect employees, investors, and the envi-
ronment (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2017; O’Connell, 2010; Reichart, 1999).
Businesses in the United States—no matter what the legal incorporation,
size, or identity—are created to be profitable and efficient as the eco-
nomic generators to improve the quality of life and/or standard of living
in some way (Berle & Means, 1968; Carroll, 1991; Carroll & Buchholtz,
2017; Drucker, 1946, 1984).
But what kinds of enterprises drive economic profitability, productivity,
and efficiency have not always been clear, and the entrepreneurial modal-
ity of growth and development has not always been supported. For years,
and especially in post-war America, supporting entrepreneurship was con-
sidered a “preservationist” activity, with small business activity seen largely
as an inefficient cultural legacy of pre-war America (Audretsch, 2007).
As recently as 1992, many scholars and policy makers still supported
the “managed economy” model espoused by Germany and Japan at the
time as a way to stimulate the flagging U.S. economy: through “unions,
big government programs, and corporate hierarchies” (Audretsch, 2007,
p. 191). Even Schumpeter predicted in the 1940s that the special economic
function of the entrepreneur (with a supply-side modality) would com-
pletely disappear in favor of managed bureaucracies that could produce
goods and services—even innovate—more efficiently and at scale (via a
demand-side, or gap modality) (Schumpeter, 1949).
The pendulum has swung since those times, and entrepreneurship is
now seen as the foundation of a healthy and thriving economy—the cor-
porate world’s genesis, its alpha state, its embarcadero, the wellspring from
where all productive and profitable enterprises must emerge. And embed-
ded in this wellspring are the often-brutal testing grounds that “stress the
roots” of the entrepreneur and their business model (Isenberg, 2010). This
process weeds out those business models with a poor value proposition or
market fit for the current context—regardless of demand or supply fram-
ings, and those entrepreneurs who are still perfecting their trade, or more
importantly, the meta-level skills required to become a successful entre-
preneur in any industry. So, when we talk about developing entrepreneurs
strategically, it necessarily means developing skills at multiple levels of
entrepreneurial action (i.e., industry-specific skills versus general entrepre-
neur skills), of leadership (i.e., running a firm versus knowing how to best
support entrepreneurs locally), and of environmental context (i.e., having
a great business model versus doing business in a culture that actively sup-
ports/discourages entrepreneurship as a viable economic lifestyle). These
Introduction 9
multi-level, multi-dimensional skills require models that embrace both the
development of people and the cultivation of a supportive environment. It
is not just about “supporting winners” as both Isenberg (2010) and Shane
(2009) have suggested. We believe it is about investing in people, relation-
ships, and resources over time, which is needed for any community or
ecosystem to come into existence (Lichtenstein & Lyons, 2010). Entrepre-
neurship developers are in this for the long haul, and more experienced
members see their role in mentoring, teaching, promoting, and lifting up
others who are on their way up the ladder.
From Individuals to Communities

We will often use the terms entrepreneurial community and entrepreneur-
ial ecosystem, and we will occasionally use the terms community and eco-
system interchangeably, but we want to make the point that these are not
quite the same. More will be covered on this topic in Chapter 2, but we
will briefly cover these ideas here as an overview. This important insight
is for those of us in the field of community and economic development.
Well before the development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature,
community developers and community-based practitioners have sought
to understand this idea of community as both a theoretical and pragmatic
construct. What constitutes a community? Why does it matter? Is there a
difference between a community and any other collection of people? What
are the benefits and pitfalls of community life? Beneath it, all is a sense
that we (as a community) are stronger together than we are as individu-
als. This consideration is fundamental to the field of community develop-
ment as well: what can we do together to improve local well-being that
we cannot do individually? In our previous book (see Fortunato, 2017a,
2017b), we presented a dichotomy between rural places of both high- and
low-entrepreneurship rates, noting that low-entrepreneurship communi-
ties in our study were easily denoted by a high degree of entrepreneur
individualism, a competitive mindset (with other local entrepreneurs), and
thus a resistance to collaboration. The opposite effect was present in high-
entrepreneurship communities, where entrepreneurs interacting with one
another regularly collaborated, often in ordinary social gathering places,
or by patronizing one another’s businesses. This mindset goes beyond a
focus on entrepreneurial venture teams (see Klotz et al., 2014) toward
a community-wide focus on coopetition (see Bengtsson & Johansson,
2014)—or competing together as a region, not just as a firm.
We want to be clear that the entrepreneurial communities approach
is focused on a broad plurality of stakeholders (what Feld, 2012, might
consider “leaders and feeders together”), with entrepreneurs representing
just one part of the community. A highly optimistic and deeply com-
passionate approach, this idea borrows insights from community and
economic development as a field of study. Lyons et al. (2012) proport
that community is the next frontier of entrepreneurship and provide a
rationale for community-based entrepreneuring with strong grounding
in community and economic development insights. As an outgrowth of
community and economic development, entrepreneurial communities are
very much a form of place-based development, focusing on the cultiva-
tion of community in a specific place, and especially focused on those
places that lag behind in terms of entrepreneur growth and energy (see
Flora & Flora, 1993). In such environments where entrepreneurial activ-
ity is not present or plentiful, a concerted, joint effort by local stakehold-
ers is necessary to change the narrative around entrepreneurship toward
one that is positive, that embraces novelty and risk-taking, and that pro-
vides adequate support for basic business development.
This community spirit of entrepreneurship is critically important to
understanding entrepreneurship at the level of a collective or society,
but it also paints a very rosy picture of limitless collaboration with very
little friction. Over the past several years, the term entrepreneurial eco-
system has come to replace entrepreneurial community increasingly in
the literature as an essential place-based strategy for entrepreneurship
development.
What is an ecosystem, really? There is an important conundrum that
we hope to address in this book that, we believe, truly underscores the
difference in the current ecosystem literature and that of the community-
based literature. In the ecosystem literature, there is a deliberate focus on
the goal of the ecosystem leading to the creation of productive entrepre-
neurship, which is “any entrepreneurial activity that contributes directly
or indirectly to net output of the economy or to the capacity to produce
additional output” (Baumol, 1993a, p. 30). This view is more of a “bot-
tom line” approach where success really matters—which some could say
is a weakness of the entrepreneurial communities approach, which puts
a great deal of emphasis on process, less on specific outcomes. Naturally,
if a social system is going to continue in perpetuity, it must also become
self-sustaining. To summarize, as stated in our first book:
Ecosystems differ from entrepreneurial communities. The key: eco-

systems are dynamic, generative, and inhere in the relationship
between actors and their environment. Like communities, ecosys-
tems carry with them the “system ethics,” but like entrepreneurship,
they also connote a degree of destruction and turnover to benefit the
entire system. Communities are often viewed as an “ideal state,” by
contrast that exists quite happily in perpetuity and does not focus on
system change and evolution (central to ecosystems).
(Clevenger, 2017, p. 36)
In order to achieve the kind of critical momentum necessary to remain self-

sustaining over time, it is therefore necessary for the entrepreneurs within
Introduction 11
an ecosystem to become adequately successful so as to attract and encour-
age even more momentum (Isenberg, 2010, 2011). This dynamic process
requires an investment in and focus on entrepreneurs as the focal point of
an ecosystem. Though related to entrepreneurial communities, entrepre-
neurial ecosystems are thus focused more on the entrepreneur than on the
place where the entrepreneurs do business, although the term ecosystem
is also place-based, and increasingly seen as a more realistic and entre-
preneur-focused modality of development (see O’Connor et al., 2018;
Markley et al., 2015). While equally dependent on relationships in the
same manner as entrepreneurial communities, ecosystems recognize the
reality of entrepreneur life as being cyclical, highly competitive (at least
within the broader marketplace, not necessarily with your neighbor), and
continuously changing. The idea behind any ecosystem approach is to cre-
ate a self-sustaining system where knowledge fows freely, thus maximiz-
ing entrepreneuring alertness; where those with experience, contacts, and
resources invest in and mentor those who are new and just getting started;
where the collective resources and assets of the community are adequate for
launching effective business models; and where the culture is encouraging
and supportive of new entrants and potential collaborators. It is also help-
ful to have a “buy local” culture that supports local businesses, although it
is possible for an ecosystem to be externally focused and export-oriented,
with e-commerce and global logistics playing a larger role than Main Street
(Elia et al., 2020; Mason & Brown, 2014; Isenberg, 2010).
But perhaps most important is that the ecosystem approach is highly
realistic. Apart from the “it takes a village” approach, it recognizes the
risk involved in launching a business. Businesses can fail, and rather than
being spurned or stigmatized, their efforts are rewarded and recognized,
and their talent is reabsorbed into the ecosystem as former entrepreneurs
are quickly snapped up by new venture teams due to the richness of their
applied experience (Feld, 2012). Even in the field of risk and probability,
Taleb (2012) advocated for a National Entrepreneur’s Day, celebrating
the heroic efforts of taking on risk personally that often result in the bet-
terment of society as a whole. And naturally, if every entrepreneur were a
failure, entrepreneurship would not likely be seen as desirable by anyone.
Ecosystems must also stay focused on performance, choosing metrics that
track the efficacy of group efforts across multiple dimensions (Szerb et
al., 2019). This effort is important not only within the ecosystem but for
measuring the outputs and outcomes of ecosystem development, whether
as an ecosystem participant or as an ecosystem researcher (Szerb et al.,
2019; Stam, 2018).
On Empowering Entrepreneurs
One final theme in this book is immediately apparent in the title. The
term empowerment is one that we tend to use cautiously in a community
development setting. To “empower” someone is to convey the idea that
power is somehow ours to give away. Popularized by McClelland (1961),
authority and power are one of three main categories of human motiva-
tion, with the other areas being achievement motivation and affiliation.
This power and authority motivation only elevates us, as entrepreneur-
ship developers, into a position of hierarchy or of elevated status within
our ecosystem. Naturally, to develop any community that functions
well in perpetuity requires a more organic structure with relatively even
power—over strategic directions, over critical decisions, over resource
allocations, and so on.
Power and authority are vital concepts. However, when we speak of
empowerment in this book, we are referring to the capacity for self-
empowerment: to realize and act upon one’s own power to create a new
venture, or to directly support another person in doing the same. This
concept is the human agency required to create change within the struc-
ture of a social system, which is both influenced by the system and has
the potential to influence the system in return (see Schmid, 2008). In a
properly functioning ecosystem, these pages will emphasize that entre-
preneuring arises and self-organizes in a very natural manner, with mul-
tiple actors (we could even say “leaders” and “feeders” like Feld, 2012)
taking on the incremental, step-wise work of launching businesses, then
working together to remove barriers, then launching more businesses,
then improving the business climate with new support activities or new
network connections—using momentum from early wins to generate
momentum for ongoing, collective wins that cyclically and incrementally
go beyond investment in an independent business or organization to ben-
efit the entire collective. This stance may sound a bit Pollyanna to those
accustomed to working in highly competitive environments. But, as eco-
system scholars have noted time and again (more on this in Chapters 2
and 3), it is precisely this community spirit that creates an environment
where venturing becomes easier, support becomes mutual, and even fail-
ures are rewarded and their consequences temporary. It is an idea that
takes us right back to our description of capacity as the central tenet of
development work. When we speak of empowerment, we speak directly
of the capacity of a community to self-organize with relatively little effort
to remove barriers and activate support for entrepreneurship, and for
actors of any background to launch and perpetuate ventures more easily
and effectively than in most communities. Chapter 4 illuminates a deeper
dive into power and empowerment.
Overview of Chapters
Chapter 2 Revisiting Entrepreneurial Communities, Entrepreneurial
Ecosystems, and Ecosystems Logic reviews the frameworks from the
first book Toward Entrepreneurial Community Development: Leaping
Introduction 13
Cultural and Leadership Boundaries (Fortunato & Clevenger, 2017b),
and sets up an analytic frame. These frameworks will include the four
basic approaches toward entrepreneurship development (i.e., facilitat-
ing condition, national and regional policy, entrepreneurial communities,
and entrepreneurial ecosystems) and the dozen suggested steps presented
in our first book for leaping cultural and leadership boundaries. The role
and importance of both culture and leadership in framing entrepreneurial
action will be revisited and explained. Finally, this chapter also sets up an
analytic frame through which the case studies presented and co-analyzed
in the companion work, Empowering Entrepreneurial Communities and
Ecosystems: Case Study Insights (Clevenger & Fortunato, 2022).
Chapter 3 An Ecology of Entrepreneurship: A Review of Concepts,
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, and Entrepreneurial Communities from
the Literature brings the reader up-to-date with the latest literature in
this rapidly changing field and incorporates new ideas into the analytic
frameworks being explored in the book. Some of these new progressions
include very recent articles on strategies for entrepreneurial ecosystems
and entrepreneurial communities, analyses of ecosystem-based processes,
and the key “ingredients” that should go into an entrepreneurial ecosys-
tem or entrepreneurial community. Entrepreneurs, roots of the ecosystem
concept, various ecological conceptions and systems, levels of analysis
in entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial networks and alliances, clusters and
districts, business ecosystems, economic development, and culture are all
explored in this chapter. Note that all of these systems and networks—as
true ecology—overlap (Bruns et al., 2017). Consideration of sociological
frameworks, systems theory, and community are key concepts supporting
both entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurial communities.
Chapter 4 The Power of Entrepreneurs and Social Systems: Driving
Forces for Empowerment, Mitigating Disempowerment, and Advanc-
ing Equity highlights two concepts stemming from leadership into the
entrepreneurship literature: power and empowerment. Since very little
exists in the entrepreneurship literature on these topics, literature from
community development and institutional and behavioral economics
combine to present a comprehensive theory of power and powerlessness
and relate this to the entrepreneurial ecosystem and entrepreneurial com-
munities literature. From here, a relevant discussion of pathways for the
empowerment of entrepreneurs and constituents within a local society
or peer entrepreneurial social group (e.g., cooperative, association, and
industry) ensues (Newell, 2017, 2010; Ruef, 2010). Additionally, entre-
preneurs utilize self-empowerment as well as the empowerment of others
on their team and within their entrepreneurial ecosystem of functionality.
Dynamics of power exist at all levels: policy; cultural networks; diversity,
equity, and inclusion; and leadership which become key areas that inter-
twine and effect power and empowerment. Both, a framework is pre-
sented and discussed to organize the concepts for application in various
texts, and a model proposed for application of power and empowerment
in entrepreneurial community formation or functioning. Finally, explora-
tion of advancing equity is explored with special attention to women,
BIPOC, and LGBTQIA+ audiences.
Entreprenology of Formal and Informal Education, Co-Curricular
Programming, Vocational Entrepreneuring, and Learning from Failure
to Support and Empower Entrepreneurs in Chapter 5 is an overview of
ways to help youths, young adults, and potential entrepreneurs to be bet-
ter equipped for entrepreneuring, self-sufficiency, and contributions to
society. Not only does entrepreneurship education support entrepreneur-
ial outcomes among youths and young adults, but more than one kind
of education is likely necessary to help in framing a student or budding
entrepreneur’s journey of learning, application, and both success and fail-
ure in the process. Such “entrepreneurship education” comes from both
formal and informal opportunities. Chapter 5 discusses entreprenology
in K-12, higher education, and vocational and career technical education.
Entreprenology is the study of entrepreneurs and the epistemology of
entrepreneurship. These framings help us come to know entrepreneurial
action through our own construction of reality (Fletcher, 2007). Since
entrepreneurial action relies on a mix of both codified knowledge (i.e.,
classroom-based theory in business concepts and people dynamics) and
tacit knowledge (a.k.a. hands-on and ideally applied), this chapter exam-
ines the relationship among various educational supports (both for-credit
and non-credit) as well as entrepreneurial skills, competencies, and busi-
ness performance (Honig & Martin, 2014). The chapter also connects to
the “entrepreneurship pipeline” concept developed by Lichtenstein and
Lyons (2010) in their book, Investing in Entrepreneurs, and examines
how new educational tools are being used to “prime” the pipeline even
from an early age. Finally, the chapter explores non-credit, co-curricular
and extra-curricular programming; learning from failure; and commu-
nity entrepreneurship training resources. All of these concepts are use-
ful for entrepreneurial empowerment through implementation by social,
economic, political, and academic thought leaders.
Chapter 6 Avoiding Anomie: Diffusion of Support Resources for
Empowerment of Entrepreneurs examines a wide range of local “feeder”
institutions that support entrepreneurship development and the purpo-
sive role they are currently playing. This chapter includes consideration
of various resources such as (a) colleges and universities, (b) technology,
(c) incubators and maker spaces, (d) co-working and living-learning com-
munities and work environments, (e) corporate support and university-
industry partnership programming, (f) community development groups:
workshops and the “meetup” culture, (g) charitable foundations, and
(h) localized leadership development efforts. Governments often sup-
port entrepreneurship and small businesses through funding availability,
both regionally and nationally (Landström, 2005; Malecki, 2018). For
Introduction 15
example, SBDCs are housed on college and university campuses. Addi-
tionally, implementation of jobs-to-work type programming flows from
the federal government to states to delivery partners, which are often
colleges and universities.
Behind every entrepreneurial ecosystem or entrepreneurial community
is a set of contextual framework conditions that can either enhance or
inhibit entrepreneurship (Mitra, 2019). Chapter 7 Beyond Bureaucra-
cies and Bourgeoisie of Regional, State, and National Economic Devel-
opment: Framework Conditions, Policy, and the Interplay of Support
Organizations revisits an important topic from our first book in light of
formal capacities in building effective context for entrepreneurship devel-
opment. Since the structure of social and institutional networks, culture,
policy, and broader support systems are fundamental to empowerment
of entrepreneurs, understanding these systems and human interpersonal
networks—whether formal or informal—helps to position entrepreneurs
in the best environments for success. In this chapter, different units of
analysis of the context of entrepreneurial action and how they shape out-
comes on the ground for entrepreneurs will be explored. Examining how
both formal and informal institutional factors, including policy, support
organizations, governmental agencies, and culture and norms, create a
panarchy that influences—and is influenced by—other units of economic,
social, environmental, and entrepreneurial action.
Chapter 8 Omnipreneurship. This chapter overviews the concept of
omnipreneurship in both self-empowerment of an omnipreneur with an
omni perspective and control as well as the potential for business. As
a new concept, the words omnipreneur and omnipreneurship are being
developed. These concepts and related words have purpose and are dif-
ferentiated from other terms such as nascent entrepreneur, entrepreneur,
intrapreneur, corporate entrepreneur, institutional entrepreneur, serial-
preneur, and social entrepreneur (cf. Hindle, 2010).
Chapter 9 Conclusions: Final Thoughts on Culture, Empowerment,
and Leadership to Support Entrepreneurs. This final chapter provides
thoughts to summarize the book. Entrepreneurs are generally highly
independent and strive for an autarky-like entrepreneuring journey, but
soon realize such does not happen in a vacuum, but within their networks
(aka entrepreneurial ecosystems) and more than likely in a larger realm
or series of social realms and milieux (aka entrepreneurial communities).
Summary
Taken together, it is our intent that you find this book to be both informa-
tive and inspiring, as it represents both an integrative synthesis of avail-
able current research and a call to action for entrepreneurial community
and entrepreneurial ecosystem researchers, supporters (e.g., feeders and
supports), educators, and entrepreneurs themselves. We have given our
best to assemble a book that goes well beyond a presentation of the most
exemplary entrepreneurial communities and some ecosystems, and instead
seeks to understand the complexity of entrepreneurial life and interac-
tion in ordinary communities, which nonetheless possess excellent, ambi-
tious, and community-minded entrepreneurs. The chapters that follow are
our answer to the question, “[H]ow can we best support entrepreneurs
in these environments and build better entrepreneurial communities and
entrepreneurial ecosystems anytime, anywhere, starting with anyone?” We
begin in Chapter 2 by revisiting some of the key points and models from
our first book, Toward Entrepreneurial Community Development: Leap-
ing Cultural and Leadership Boundaries (Fortunato & Clevenger, 2017b),
and setting forth some useful frameworks that will guide the exploration,
thought, and discussion in the remainder of the book.
Key Terms and Definitions

entrepreneur—“Simply put, an entrepreneur is someone who takes on
the risk and responsibility to own and operate a business to potentially
reap a reward” (Clevenger, 2017, p. 26) (see also Shane, 2008).
entrepreneurial/ism—means “having to do with the creation and
development of economic ventures” (Merriam-Webster, 2021b, para
1). Likewise, Google Dictionary’s definition is “characterized by taking
of financial risks in the hope of profit; enterprising” (Google Diction-
ary, 2021b). As noted by Matthews (2018), a key focus is value cre-
ation. It appears the word entrepreneurial has become a definitional
morass. Because the word is an adjective, it needs to modify individu-
als or groups—people—who have the capacity for creating value and
profit. It is not to be confused with creativity or approaches. Thus,
common use over the years by various individuals has distorted its true
focus and meaning. Perhaps both popularity of the term and multi-use
has its roots from Kozeracki (1998) saying: “The switch to a more
entrepreneurial way of operating—of being innovative, responsive to
the market, and of finding new ways to make money—began in the
business world and is spreading to the non-profit sector, including aca-
deme” (p. 3). Taken together, the ideas resound “value creation” and
“economic focus;” however, danger in the use of the term comes from
only focusing on “innovation” implying “creativity” alone, as that is
not the intent.
entrepreneuring—the action, implementation, or “doing” by entrepre-
neurs and execution of an idea (e.g., product, service, or process) and
harnessing for production (see Johannisson, 2011).
entrepreneurial community—“entail the for-profit sector: start-ups
(true entrepreneurs), serialpreneurs, small business owners, family busi-
nesses, [micro enterprises], small and medium enterprises (SME), [omni-
preneurs,] and corporations. Entrepreneurial communities also include
Introduction 17
a wide range of other individual and organizational actors” (Clevenger,
2017, p. 34). When using the term community, we are referring to the
collection of people—not a geographic constraint or geography. Com-
munity is defined as:
1. a unified body of individuals: such as

a. the people with common interests living in a particular area
b. a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living
together within a larger society
c. a body of persons of common and especially professional inter-
ests scattered through a larger society
d. a body of persons or nations having a common history or com-
mon social, economic, or political interests
e. a group linked by a common policy
f. an interacting population of various kinds of individuals
g. state, commonwealth
2. a social state or condition
a. joint ownership or participation
b. common character or likeness
c. social activity
3. society at large (Merriam-Webster, 2021a, para 1)
Defnitions by Google Dictionary (2021a) are:
1. a group of people living in the same place or having a particular

characteristic in common
a. a group of people living together in one place, especially one
practicing common ownership
b. a particular area or place considered together with its inhabitants
c. a body of nations or state unified by common interests
d. the people of a district or country considered collectively, espe-
cially in the context of social values and responsibilities; society
e. denoting a worker or resource designed to serve the people of a
particular area
2. a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common
attitudes, interests, and goals
a. a similarity or identity
b. joint ownership or liability
3. ecology
a. a group of interdependent organisms of different species grow-
ing or living together in a specified habitat
Figure 1.3 Community illustrates major elements often found in a community.
A community can be imagined as somewhere with various interest groups

(see Figure 1.3).
Communities are also a level of human interaction defined by locally
oriented collective actions (Wilkinson, 1991). It should be noted here
that what differentiates an entrepreneurial community from an entre-
preneurial ecosystem is that communities are broader social categories
that encompass multiple ecosystems. It provides the cultural basis/context
through which ecosystems are likely to emerge—or fail to emerge. In
short, a community that is antithetical to entrepreneurial ideas (i.e., a
“company town” like the ones presented in Fortunato, 2017b, in our first
book) is unlikely to spawn any kind of viable entrepreneurial ecosystem
because it lacks the cultural context to value entrepreneurial action (lead-
ers) and support (feeders). This context likely precedes and disrupts the
emergence of entrepreneurial networks, presenting ongoing, persistent
challenges to entrepreneurial action and especially collaboration. This
concern stands in comparison to highly entrepreneurial communities,
which have a cultural orientation toward valuing and supporting entre-
preneurship and entrepreneuring. Such cultural values are often evident in
the presence of an entrepreneurial social infrastructure (ESI) that creates
a cultural basis for the emergence of entrepreneurial value and support
across the community (Flora & Flora, 1993; other studies examining the
cultural basis of entrepreneurial action at the local level include Breazeale
Introduction 19
et al., 2015; Dana, 1995; Hustedde, 2007; Julien, 2008). An illustration
could be as simple as a community whose residents and businesses buy
local, compared to one whose residents and businesses shop regularly
on Amazon.com—placing price and convenience ahead of local support,
customization, and potentially personal access to an entrepreneur. Or,
it could be more pervasive, as in communities where entrepreneuring is
simply not a valued career pathway.
The broader community members of groups, organizations, and indi-
viduals and the resources they offer would include a wide range of direct
and indirect feeders and supports, including but not limited to: (1) educa-
tion and training via formal educational programming from K-12 through
to higher education (including entrepreneurship courses, minors, majors,
master’s degrees, and PhDs) or informal educational programming (e.g.,
for youth: Junior Achievement, Kauffman Mini-Society, 4-H, Boy Scouts;
for collegiate: clubs, CEO, enactus, NACCE; for adults: entrepreneur
networks, chambers of commerce, professional associations, SBDCs); (2)
informal or formal mentoring and training programs; (3) governmen-
tal resources (e.g., local leaders, SBDCs, SCORE volunteers, economic
development resources, general community infrastructure, local culture,
and local politics); (4) funding streams (e.g., venture capitalists, angel
investors, banks, foundations, corporate partners, and public grants); (5)
support networks and facilities such as incubators, shared work spaces,
co-working spaces, accelerators; and (6) support resources (e.g., strat-
egy, marketing, website and online technologies, accounting and finance,
human resources, supply chain, and logistics). “Communities are often
viewed as “ideal state,” by contrast, that exists quite happily in perpetuity
and does not focus on system change and evolution (central to ecosys-
tems)” (Clevenger, 2017, p. 36). Yet “an entrepreneurial community is
dynamic and ever changing—a kaleidoscope of individuals, firms, com-
munities, and all their related complexities” (Clevenger, 2017, p. 37).
corporate entrepreneurship—while some label this “intrapreneurship,”
it is really the innovative internal process for a business or corporation
for value creation and economic motive, however, the risk is absorbed by
the company—not the individual employee(s) involved.
disentrepreneurship—“is when a community creates, either systemati-
cally or by accident, an environment unsuitable for the establishment or
sustainability of existing entrepreneurial activities. It may do this through
public policy initiatives that penalize or prohibit entrepreneurial activi-
ties, by promoting cultural values and norms that discourage entrepre-
neurship, or by failing to create the required legal, institutional, and
structural environment necessary for entrepreneurship to become estab-
lished” (Honig & Dana, 2008, p. 11).
entrepreneurial ecosystem—“are dynamic, generative, and inhere in the
relationship between actors and their environment. Like communities,
ecosystems carry with them “system ethics,” but like entrepreneurship,
they also connote a degree of destruction and turnover to benefit the
entire system” (Clevenger, 2017, p. 36). An entrepreneurial ecosystem is
tight and efficient to include only individuals and organizations necessary
for that entrepreneur, business, or specific area or industry actors. An
entrepreneur’s network and alliances are included. Thus, each entrepre-
neur has their own entrepreneurial ecosystem.
entreprenology—the study of entrepreneurs and the epistemology of
entrepreneurship. The concept would apply to academic programming
in support of entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship, economics, business, and
economic development (cf. Fillon, 1998).
entrepreneurship—the process of the approach in organizing and using
resources for the purpose of entrepreneuring.
intrapreneur—an individual’s creative and unique approach to any-
thing (e.g., a life, a goal, a business, etc.). It is the mindset to be creative
or unique. [For entrepreneurial action within a corporate or institutional
environment, see corporate entrepreneurship.]
intrapreneurship—the process of an individual using a creative or
unique approach to anything (e.g., a life goal, a goal, a business, etc.). It
is the mindset to be creative or unique. [For the process of entrepreneur-
ial action within a corporate or institutional environment, see corporate
entrepreneurship.]
omnipreneur—an individual’s or an organization’s presence in multi-
ple locations in multiple countries, which is often associated with global
entrepreneurship.
omnipreneurship—the process of an individual’s or an organization’s
active big picture passion and execution of business ideas and productiv-
ity in multiple locations probably in multiple countries, which is often
associated with global entrepreneurship.
serialpreneur—one who creates or is involved in business venture after
business venture after business venture (Fortunato & Clevenger, 2017a;
Clevenger, 2017).
serialpreneurship—the process of creating business venture after busi-
ness venture after business venture.
Authors’ Note
This book is intended for the United States; however, articles and
examples have been used from available materials including items from
around the globe. The focus for the current book is primarily on the
United States because of the framings of legal and accounting parameters
that are bound within one country.
Because we are focusing on entrepreneurial communities, we do not
devote undue attention to specific concepts of creativity and innovation,
leadership or management, social entrepreneurship, or funding. All of
Introduction 21
these concepts are important and are likely intertwined in organizations
and entrepreneurs for their decisions and actions.
References
Ács, Z. J., Desai, S., & Hessels, J. (2008). Entrepreneurship, economic develop-
ment, and institutions. Small Business Economics, 31(3), 219–234.
Ács, Z. J., & Szerb, L. (2007). Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and public
policy. Small Business Economics, 28(2–3), 109–122.
Audretsch, D. B., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2015). Concise guide to entrepre-
neurship, technology, and innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1983, January-February). A holistic methodology for modeling
consumer responses to innovation. Operations Research, 31(1), 128–176.
Baumol, W. J. (1993a). Entrepreneurship, management, and the structure of pay-
offs. MIT Press.
Bengtsson, M., & Johansson, M. (2014). Managing coopetition to create oppor-
tunities for small firms. International Small Business Journal, 32(4), 401–427.
Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. (1968). The modern corporation and private prop-
erty. New York: Harcourt Brace and World.
Breazeale, N., Fortunato, M. W-P, Allen IV, J. E., Hustedde, R. J., & Pushkar-
skaya, H. (2015). Constructing a multi-dimensional measure of local entrepre-
neurial culture. Community Development, 46(5), 516–540.
Bylund, P. (2020, August 14). The entrepreneurial history of the term “entrepre-
neur”. Entrepreneur.com. www.entrepreneur.com/article/353812
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the
moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4),
39–48.
Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2017). Business & society: Ethics, sustainabil-
ity, and stakeholder management (10th ed.). Thomson South-Western.
Casson, M. (2003). Entrepreneurship, business culture, and the theory of the
firm. In Z. J. Ács & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship
research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction (pp. 223–246). Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Clevenger, M. R. (2014). An organizational analysis of the inter-organizational
relationships between a public American higher education university and six
United States corporate supporters: An instrumental, ethnographic case study
using Cone’s corporate citizenship spectrum. (Electronically published disserta-
tion). University of Missouri-Columbia. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/
handle/10355/45866
Clevenger, M. R. (2019). Corporate citizenship and higher education: Behaviors,
engagement, and ethics. Palgrave-Macmillan.
Clevenger, M. R., & Fortunato, M. W-P (2022). An introduction to entrepreneur-
ial ecosystems and entrepreneurial communities to empower entrepreneurs.
In M. R. Clevenger & M. W-P Fortunato (Eds.), Empowering entrepreneurial
communities and ecosystems: Case study insights (pp. in press). Routledge.
Clifton, J., & Badal, S. B. (2014). Entrepreneurial strengthsfinder. Gallup Press.
Cochran, T. C. (1949). Role and sanction in American entrepreneurial history.
In A. H. Cole (Ed.), Change and the entrepreneur: Postulates and patterns for
entrepreneurial history (pp. 153–175). Harvard University Press.
Dana, L. P. (1995). Entrepreneurship in a remote sub-Arctic community. Entre-
preneurship Theory and Practice, 20(1), 57–72.
Davisson, P. (2008). The entrepreneurship research challenge. Edward Elgar.
Drucker, P. F. (1946). Concept of the corporation. The John Day Co.
Drucker, P. F. (1984). Doing good to do well: The new opportunities for business
enterprise. In B. Harvey, L. Liebman, & C. S. Schelling (Eds.), Public-private
partnership: New opportunities for meeting social needs (pp. 285–293). Ball-
inger Publishing Company.
Elia, G., Margherita, A., & Passiante, G. (2020). Digital entrepreneurship eco-
system: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the
entrepreneurial process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150,
Article 119791.
your city. Wiley.
Fillon, L. J. (1998). From entrepreneurship to entreprenology. Journal of Enter-
prising Culture, 6(1), 1–23.
Flora, C. B., & Flora, J. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial social infrastructure: A neces-
sary ingredient. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 529, 48–58.
Florida, R. (2012). The rise of the creative class, revisited. Basic Books.
Fortunato, M. W-P (2011). The individual-institutional-opportunity nexus:
Examining interaction, purpose, and opportunity in rural entrepreneurship
development. (Unpublished dissertation). Pennsylvania State University.
Fortunato, M. W-P (2014, December). Rural entrepreneurship matters, but
why? Texas Town & City, 1–12. www.tml.org/p/Dec%2014%20Small%20
Cities%20Corner.pdf
Fortunato, M. W-P (2017a). Models of entrepreneurial community and ecosys-
tem development. In M. W-P Fortunato & M. R. Clevenger (Eds.), Toward
entrepreneurial community development: Leaping cultural and leadership
boundaries (pp. 51–103). Routledge.
Fortunato, M. W-P (2017b). High- and low-entrepreneurial communities: A
multiple case study. In M. W-P Fortunato & M. R. Clevenger (Eds.), Toward
Fortunato, M. W-P, & Clevenger, M. R. (2017a). An introduction to entrepre-
neurial community development. In M. W-P Fortunato & M. R. Clevenger
(Eds.), Toward entrepreneurial community development: Leaping cultural and
leadership boundaries (pp. 1–9). Routledge.
Fortunato, M. W-P, & Clevenger, M. R. (2017b). Toward entrepreneurial com-
munity development: Leaping cultural and leadership boundaries. Routledge.
Gartner, W. B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepre-
neurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15–28.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). (2021). Reports. Global Entrepreneur-
ship Monitor. www.gemconsortium.org/report
Introduction 23
Google Dictionary. (2021a). Community. Google Dictionary. www.google.com/
search?q=google+dictionary&oq=google+dictionary&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j0i
433j0i131i433j0l6.2672j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#dobs=community
Google Dictionary. (2021b). Entrepreneurial. Google Dictionary. www.google.
com/search?q=google+dictionary&oq=google+dictionary&aqs=chrome..
69i57j0j0i433j0i131i433j0l6.2672j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#
dobs=entrepreneurial
Henderson, J. (2002). Building the rural economy with high-growth entrepre-
neurs. Economic Review-Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 87(3), 45–75.
Honig, B., & Dana, L. P. (2008). Communities of disentrepreneurship. Journal
of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 2(1),
5–20.
Hustedde, R. (2007). What’s culture got to do with it? Strategies for strengthen-
ing an entrepreneurial culture. In N. Walzer (Ed.), Entrepreneurship and local
economic development (pp. 39–58). Lexington Books.
ness Review, 88(6), 40–50.
Johannisson, B. (2011). Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small
Julien, P. A. (2008). A theory of local entrepreneurship in the knowledge econ-
omy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Klotz, A. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Bradley, B. H., & Busenitz, L. W. (2014). New ven-
ture teams: A review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal
of Management, 40(1), 226–255.
Kozeracki, C. (1998). Institutional entrepreneurship in higher education. Digest,
98(5), 3–4.
Lichtenstein, G. A., & Lyons, T. S. (2008). Revisiting the business life-cycle: Pro-
posing an actionable model for assessing and fostering entrepreneurship. The
Lyons, T. S., Alter, T. R., Audretsch, D., & Augustine, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship
and community: The next frontier of entrepreneurship inquiry. Entrepreneur-
ship Research Journal, 2(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.2202/2157–5665
Markley, D. M., Lyons, T. S., & Macke, D. W. (2015). Creating entrepreneurial
communities: Building community capacity for ecosystem development. Com-
munity Development, 46(5), 580–598.
Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented
entrepreneurship. Final Report to OECD, Paris, 30(1), 77–102.
Matthews, C. H. (2018). Preface: Three key challenges to advancing entrepreneur-
ship education and pedagogy. In C. H. Matthews & E. W. Liguori (Eds.), Annals
of entrepreneurship education and pedagogy (pp. xvi–xxiv). Edward Elgar.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Van Nostrand.
Merriam-Webster. (2021a). Community. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. www.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/community
Merriam-Webster. (2021b). Entrepreneurial. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. www.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entrepreneurial
O’Connell, G. E. (2010). Turning point for corporate partnerships: Don’t let seri-
ous economic crisis go to waste! The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 40,
26–30.
Reichart, J. (1999). Corporate ethics and environmental values: Issues, percep-
tions, and the logic of stakeholder action. (Unpublished dissertation). Univer-
sity of Virginia.
Richards, S. T., & Bulkley, S. (2007). Agricultural entrepreneurs: The first and the
forgotten? Research Paper #07–01. The Hudson Institute.
Schmid, A. A. (2008). Conflict and cooperation: Institutional and behavioral eco-
nomics. John Wiley & Sons.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into
profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1949). Economic theory and entrepreneurial history. In A. H.
Cole (Ed.), Change and the entrepreneur: Postulates and patterns for entrepre-
neurial history (pp. 63–84). Harvard University Press.
Sexton, D. L. (1997). Entrepreneurship research needs and issues. In D. L. Sexton &
R. W. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship 2000 (pp. 401–408). Upstart Publishing Co.
Shane, S. A. (2004). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity
nexus. Edward Elgar.
Shane, S. A. (2008). The illusions of entrepreneurship: The costly myths that
entrepreneurs, investors, and policy makers live by. Yale University Press.
Shane, S. A. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is
bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 141–149.
Shane, S. A., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a
field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Stam, E. (2018). Measuring entrepreneurial ecosystems. In A. O’Connor, E. Stam,
F. Sussan, & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Entrepreneurial ecosystems (pp. 173–197).
Springer.
Szerb, L., Lafuente, E., Horváth, K., & Páger, B. (2019). The relevance of quantity
and quality entrepreneurship for regional performance: The moderating role of
the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Regional Studies, 53(9), 1308–1320.
Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. Random House.
Tocqueville, A. (1945). Democracy in America (10th ed.). Knopf.
Wilkinson, K. P. (1991). The community in rural America. Social Ecology Press.
Wilkinson, K. P. (2019). Community development in rural America: Sociological
issues in national policy. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 3(1), 1–10.
Wortman, Jr., M. S. (1990). Rural entrepreneurship research: An integration into
the entrepreneurship field. Agribusiness, 6(4), 329–344.
Zhao, Y. (2012, September). Flunking innovation and creativity: East Asia’s highly
touted test scores in math, science, and reading are masking important failures
in developing innovators and entrepreneurs. Kappan Magazine, 94(1), 56–61.
Zhao, Y., Emler, T. E., Snethen, A., & Yin, D. (2019). An education crisis is a ter-
rible thing to waste: How radical changes can spark student excitement and
success. Teachers College Press.
2 Revisiting Entrepreneurial
Communities, Entrepreneurial
Ecosystems, and Ecosystem
Logic
and Morgan R. Clevenger
Introduction
As explained in the previous chapter, we hope that this book will offer
some practical insights about how to build an ecosystem effectually
(Miles & Morrison, 2020; Sarasvathy, 2009), utilizing the natural con-
tours of economic, social, and environmental advantage found in any
community. In so doing, we are challenging the idea that a community
must be of a particular size or level of innovative sophistication to effec-
tively stimulate and culturally reinforce entrepreneurship. For example,
Auerswald (2015) suggests that a healthy ecosystem should have one run-
away success for every 50,000 to 150,000 people. As the authors of this
chapter typically work in rural and small-town regions, even this lower
bound of 50,000 is quite large in comparison to many of the communities
where we work. Similarly, the data analysis and entrepreneurship support
firm StartupBlink rank the efficacy of entrepreneurial ecosystems across
the world, and their ranking admirably extends to second- and third-tier
cities—although these are still very much cities and not “small towns.” In
the United States, for example, the smallest ecosystem under examination
was Austin, with a metro population just above 2.2 million in 2019 (esti-
mated, U.S. Census, 2010), even though over 55% of the U.S. population
lives in metro areas, cities, towns, and regions below this size. Auerswald
(2015), Ács et al. (2015), and StartupBlink (2019) stress the importance
of a more or less complete range of social and economic infrastructure
that can support entrepreneurship development, including broadband
connectivity, transportation, and other typically urban amenities.
Furthermore, not all ecosystems of scale actually work, despite the
presence of a full range of ecosystem relationships, diversity, networks,
infrastructure, and supportive services, as one can observe in the case of
Atlanta (Breznitz & Taylor, 2014). The mere presence of certain social
structures, institutions, and phenomena—even social phenomena, such as
a tendency to invest in R&D—does not guarantee a fully functioning eco-
system in the same way that having all of the ingredients to a cake does
not guarantee a cake. A good cake is not only the result of (a) certainly
DOI: 10.4324/9781351045711-2
26 Fortunato & Clevenger
the ingredients but also (b) the recipe or process through which these
ingredients are combined, and (c) plenty of practice (ask anyone making
a cake for the first time how it turned out), and (d) perhaps even occa-
sional tweaks to the recipe to adjust for different local conditions, such as
high altitude or an oven that just does not cook things evenly. Through-
out this chapter, we are refraining from getting too abstract or academic,
because an ecosystem, while fundamentally born from complexity, does
not have to be complicated.
Ecosystem Logic
Why do we take such a counter-intuitive perspective that entrepreneur-
ship can be nurtured and eventually become self-sustaining anywhere,
even in places where entrepreneurship support systems (physical, social,
infrastructural, financial, etc.) are scarce? We take this position with some
limitations, drawing from “ecosystem logic” in a broader context. Let us
start at the most basic level: cities and towns do not spring forth into
existence for no reason. Historically, they tend to exist, thanks to some
sort of geographic advantage, a strategic military position, or the pres-
ence of a resource base (Marshall, 2015). These geographic advantages
and resource bases do not exploit themselves. At some point in history,
capital was mobilized to exploit a geographic advantage (like a strategic
position along a river, railroad, or highway) to provide a good or service
to a broader marketplace containing some level of demand uncertainty,
meaning that some capital risk was taken. Therefore, a mix of entrepre-
neurial and quasi-entrepreneurial action must have been taken at some
point in a town’s history in order to provide the economic momentum
for it to grow—its economic raison d’être, so to speak. Entrepreneurial
action refers broadly to the appearance of new firms in response to the
actualization or realization of an opportunity (see Shane, 2004; Shane &
Venkataraman, 2000), or to the effectuation of an opportunity through
the combination and capitalization of the skills and assets of an entre-
preneur (see Sarasvathy, 2009). We use quasi-entrepreneurial action here
to refer to the entrepreneurial, risk-taking, resource reallocating func-
tions of existing firms, such as a mining firm taking a substantial capital
risk to exploit a new resource in a new area under conditions of mar-
ket uncertainty. In our first book, Toward Entrepreneurial Community
Development: Leaping Cultural and Leadership Boundaries (Fortunato
& Clevenger, 2017), Chapters 7 and 8 (pp. 177–254) illustrate some of
the cultural differences in entrepreneurial attitudes between towns that
were mostly entrepreneurial (those that were economically diverse and
that generated firms from the inside) compared with those that were
quasi-entrepreneurial (those that were economically homogenous “com-
pany towns,” with few features of an entrepreneurial culture beyond the
original economic play by the dominant company).
Revisiting Entrepreneurial Communities 27
Despite their different origins, these towns grew an economic base the
same way that a forest spreads. We can think of an ecosystem in the
broader, biotic sense as a territory complete with all the possible inter-
actions between living and nonliving things in that territory, creating a
dynamic, interactional, and ever-changing system of life, death, and evo-
lution (Tansley, 1935). Let us use a real forest ecosystem as an example,
from which we can draw some interesting and illustrative parallels to
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Just as a seed makes its way to new ground,
a confluence occurs between the makeup of the seed and the conditions
of the forest. Prevailing winds (much like opportunity?) may carry a seed
to a new location, where conditions are either favorable or unfavorable
for growth—potentially even more favorable than the location where the
seed originated. If unfavorable (i.e., an undeveloped local entrepreneur-
ial ecosystem), or if the weather is unsuitable (i.e., unfavorable market
conditions), the seed will die. If something is wrong with the seed, it will
die, too—perhaps an allusion to the unprepared entrepreneur, a failure to
plan, or limited capacity to actually start the business.
But what about innovation? As we know from ecology, the speciation
process occurs when genes mutate over a period of time. Often, these
mutations are small, and they often have no effect on the individual, or
they have a destructive effect that is either “weeded out” of the gene pool
lethally as the defective genes fail to propagate,1 or the mutations are not
serious enough to meaningfully affect the individual (see the literature on
neutral mutations: Duret, 2008; Darwin, 1859; or on lethal mutations:
Gluecksohn-Waelsch, 1963). But sometimes, such genetic mutations
lead to incredible advantages that enable the species to adapt and thrive
beyond its current habitat, either becoming more dominant in the eco-
system, or more resistant to destructive forces, or able to move into new
ecosystems more effectively (Darwin, 1859). Darwin is commonly misun-
derstood: the survival of the fittest does not mean that the strong survive,
but that the most adaptable survive—those that, with the benefit of long
periods of time, exhibit beneficial mutations that ensure greater survival
amidst changing conditions. Thus, seed after seed may be brought by the
prevailing winds into a new, untested habitat and fail—but a genetically
mutated seed, a new species or subspecies with fundamentally different
characteristics, may take root and thrive (Darwin, 1859). This process
may lead to the continued propagation of similar seeds that become
dominant in that territory, in the style of a new market cluster (Feldman
et al., 2005); or they may even supersede non-mutated species in their
territory of origin, à la Schumpeterian creative destruction (Schumpeter,
1934, 1949).
A similar parallel could be drawn between the biodiversity of natural
ecosystems and the entrepreneurial diversity of entrepreneurial ecosys-
tems. This comparison is indeed one area where cities have a natural
advantage over smaller rural places (Duranton & Puga, 2000), but
diversity contributes a wealth of perspective and ideas to the ecosystem
that more monolithic ecosystems lack. Central to his book, The Medici
Effect (2004), Johansson describes how diversity—in backgrounds, in
ethnicity, in experience, in geography, in culture—is perhaps the most
important secret to enhancing innovation. In a twist on Schumpeterian
logic, innovation is not the creation of genuinely novel ideas according
to Johansson but rather the novel combination of existing ideas to create
radically new outcomes (Johansson, 2004). This process is called synthesis
(Clevenger, 2017). A good example is that of Orville and Wilbur Wright’s
legendary flyer. Two bicycle mechanics and machinists, inspired by flying
kites and their maneuverability, decide to create a flying machine, doing
what no other inventor had done by focusing on controlling rather than
propelling the aircraft (Crouch, 2003). Should we be surprised that the
first airplane was essentially a bicycle-kite? Similar observations on
the innovativeness of groups were made by Page (2008), in his book The
Difference, where diverse groups of lay people can capably out-innovate
experts based on their expansive perspective. Much of this phenomenon
is due to overcoming what behavioral economists and social scientists
like to call bounded rationality, or the necessarily limited perspective
each of us has based on our home culture, our limited influences, our
inability to process, analyze, and synthesize truly massive amounts of
information into useful knowledge and wisdom. An old parable from the
Indian Subcontinent about six blind elders experiencing an elephant for
the first time, each by grabbing a different part of the animal and describ-
ing what they felt, illustrates this concept perfectly:
One elder, grabbing the elephant’s ear, stated, “It’s a fan!”

Another, grabbing its tail, said, “No, it’s a rope!”
Another, patting its side, said, “It’s sturdy like a wall!”
Another grabbed its leg, saying, “It’s like the trunk of a tree!”
Another clutched the elephant’s trunk, saying “It’s like a great ser-
pent!” while yet another placed his hands around the elephant’s tusk,
saying, “it’s sharp like a spear!”
In one favorite telling of the story, instead of recognizing the limited per-
ception each had of the elephant, the elders began to argue about who
was right and why everyone else was wrong! When the nature of a com-
plex phenomenon is perceived in relative isolation, or among isolated
groups, it is easy to mistake the complex phenomenon for a range of
simple phenomena, with only one or a few of these simplistic stylings
holding relevance to any one particular group.
This concern brings up another excellent point about ecosystems.
Since the time of Darwin (1859), and later in sociology (i.e., the human
ecology of Park et al., 1925), competition has been a central feature of
what Darwin called the “struggle for survival.” An idea that propagated
throughout the social sciences, including the notion of “perfect competi-
tion” in economics (see Stigler, 1957), competition was considered the
single driving force behind the thriving of ecosystems, particularly domi-
nant species like humans and, within the human world, the dominance
of certain individuals, social groups, and firms. However, a closer look
at how biotic ecosystems operate paints a different picture: one where
direct competition, apart from seasonal mating behavior and occasional
predation, is an extremely energy-intensive activity that is generally kept
to a minimum if possible (Wessels, 2013). In fact, most actors within an
ecosystem seek to conserve precious energy, eschewing the “war of all
against all” and “struggle for existence” imagery of Darwin and Park,
and instead seeking symbiosis by finding and exploiting strategic niches
(Wessels, 2013). This concept has deep connection to the world of entre-
preneurial action. Imagine the creative energy and capital that would be
wasted if entrepreneurs were constantly and relentlessly locked into the
throes of competition—with an endless barrage of new startups, with
major corporate competitors, with constantly evolving business models.
In writing this chapter, a Google search turned up dozens of articles using
the keywords “ignore your competition,” and several that warn against
taking this advice too seriously. But the underlying message may be that,
apart from some general intelligence gathering, the best strategy for entre-
preneuring success is to find a good product or service niche and to serve
that market space very, very well—thus remaining out of the view of
mainstream competitors (read: apex predators?) and potentially creating
new opportunities for others in the ecosystem. The growing literature on
entrepreneurs’ coopetition, or working across a community or ecosystem
of entrepreneurs to succeed as a team, may be reflective of this emergent
“law of the conservation of ecosystem energy” (Clevenger et al., 2017;
Crick, 2018; Roig-Tierno et al., 2018; Galkina & Lundgren-Henriksson,
2017; Mione, 2009). Ecosystems, whether entrepreneurial or biotic, are
rarely wasteful, even learning from failed firms and often reabsorbing the
creative and innovative talent from failed startups into other new venture
teams (Feld, 2012). In other words, the field of entrepreneurship research
and practice has moved beyond Leviathan notions of constant struggle
toward one that embraces symbiosis and cooperation, along with some
healthy competitive behaviors that occur naturally in the business cycle.
There are some limitations to the ecosystem analogy, of course. For
one, the entrepreneur has agency, while seeds do not. The entrepreneur
also has control over their business offering and choice of model, which
is akin to a seed choosing its own genome. Winds may be a great anal-
ogy for the “winds of change” in the marketplace, but market actors
have far more agency (and far more heterogeneity) than wind speed and
direction—you likely get the drift, pun intended. Although many natural
environments can be a product of either natural effects, like a desert,
or human-made effects, like cultivation and development, which can be
perfect attractors for invasive pest species once natural predators and
other balancing species are removed (see Rust & Su, 2012). Also, the
timeline for innovation is much, much shorter than the time it takes to
mutate a new species, although according to “lean” startups (Ries, 2011)
the same trial-and-error-then-scale-up-when-it-works chain of events
works for small businesses just as well. Of greatest interest here, natural
ecosystems lack the dynamic elements of human agency, leadership, and
culture found in human ecosystems, which include the open marketplace
for products, services, models, and ideas.
But despite these limitations, the ecosystem analogy still has eerie
similarities to the mutation and propagation of new products, services,
models, and ideas on the whole. Both sides of the analogy embrace com-
plexity as fundamental. While economics finds specific insights through
the simplification of its models, ecosystem thinking embraces complexity
in its totality, and recognizes that entrepreneurs and markets exist in a
state of dynamic equilibrium that is always changing, with new balances
arising from changes in business models (Friedman, 1991; Schumpeter,
1934), or in environmental, exogenous, or spillover conditions (Ács et al.,
2009; Arend, 1999; Baumol, 1968). Ecosystem logic also recognizes that
this blend of individual and economic forces works together to create
changes in the base state of the marketplace, creating an ongoing evolu-
tion of new opportunities (Shane, 2004; Arend, 1999; Baumol, 1968).
This is unlike economic models of the past that tend to fixate on equilib-
rium states, or Marshallian models that see the entrepreneurial function
as being essentially one of reallocation rather than creative destruction
(Mitra, 2019). While useful as a cross-sectional snapshot of the market at
a period in time, too much emphasis on the status quo could easily miss
the necessarily longitudinal perspective necessary to capture creativity,
invention or innovation, and adaptation under conditions of complexity,
and its second-and-higher-order effects (Taleb, 2012; McKelvey, 2004;
Slevin & Covin, 1998). Oftentimes, the most important outcomes that
flow from a complex system are dynamic and unforeseen resulting from
multiple iterations of complex interactions that then feed back into the
system as knowledge, which drives the next wave of evolution.
Studying Entrepreneurial Community and Entrepreneurial

Ecosystem Development
To bring this all back to entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurial
communities, we continue to seek paths forward in the research that look
beyond a static focus on the “ingredient list” supporting entrepreneur-
ship. A more process-oriented approach focuses on (a) the pro-community
behaviors of entrepreneurs themselves, (b) the process of entrepreneurial
community and ecosystem development at any stage, even the incipi-
ent, (c) the motivations and successes of entrepreneurial community and
ecosystem builders, and (d) the interactions between and across actors
within the community and/or ecosystem.
Methodologically, we agree with Dana and Dana (2005) and Loucks
(1988) that entrepreneurship is culture-bound, and that the “simplest
possible unit of research for understanding entrepreneurship is not the
entrepreneur” (Dana & Dana, 2005, p. 79). This idea may appear at
first glance to stand in contrast to O’Connor et al. (2018) and Feldman
(2014), who state that entrepreneurs are not only the central focus of an
ecosystem approach but also the central participants that keep the system
running, keep it healthy, and keep it innovating.
Purposive Epistemology: That Which Benefits

Entrepreneurship Development
Underneath our thinking, there exists a basic premise, a theoretical con-
struct, that drives our research: public-oriented actions—in supporting
entrepreneurial ecosystems with the greater entrepreneurial community—
fall into one of three categories. The first category consists of those things
that support or enhance entrepreneurship. This state could be the resul-
tant force of entrepreneurs themselves, asserting themselves in a favor-
able environment and creating a critical mass of entrepreneuring that
can be identified and detected by other “would-be” entrepreneurs, who
may then detect a sufficiently opportunistic climate to make the jump
into a new business (Shane, 2004; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Pro-
ductive interactions across entrepreneurs could lead to ideas that benefit
the small business community more broadly, like festivals featuring small
businesses, co-learning opportunities for entrepreneurs (and interested
institutions), and joint marketing opportunities (Fortunato, 2017b).
This first category could also be populated by non-entrepreneurs
and even infrastructure and policy. As Feld (2012) points out, there is
an important role to be played by “feeders,” or supporting institutions
that can often serve as boosters, conveners, and champions of the entre-
preneurial ecosystem. In most successful ecosystems, “feeders” take
a back seat to “leaders” (entrepreneurs) but often play crucial roles in
ecosystem maintenance and promotion, and in providing key services
to entrepreneurs such as financing, networking, opportunity identifica-
tion, and advising. Some feeders, like governments, are responsible for
crafting policy that can either help or hinder entrepreneurs—and they
may support or fail to support investment in critical infrastructure like
broadband, air and ground transportation, and wireless technology.
Non-entrepreneurial institutions can also form a type of “economic”
infrastructure, such as banks, angel investors, and other lenders, as well
as capable tax accountants, business attorneys, and even hospitals and
schools. After all, someone has to support entrepreneurs and their fami-
lies, educating their children and aiding should they fall ill. Finally, the
most important non-entrepreneurs in any ecosystem might be workforce
talent, without which entrepreneurs may find their growth prospects to
be very dim. This is one reason why creative placemaking, thanks to the
influence of Richard Florida (2009), has become so important to eco-
nomic developers: companies tend to locate where they can get access to
the best talent and where the talent is likely to stick around for a while
(see also Solimano, 2008, for an international example).
In the second category are phenomena that may be beneficial to the
community at large, but have not been targeted or directed at the com-
munity of entrepreneurs specifically. This situation is very common in
cities and towns across the world, where one may find a wealth of local
amenities that are attractive to citizens of that place, where creative
placemaking may even abound. But, there may be very little connection
between efforts to create a vibrant and efficient civic space and a true
entrepreneurial ecosystem. The idea here is that entrepreneurs would
naturally be attracted to great places, and they certainly are, even in a
rural context (McGranahan et al., 2011). However, this situation does
not guarantee that entrepreneurs will work together in any meaningful
way. A great many “typical” towns exist that are pleasant, efficient, and
well-intentioned places to live and work but which lack any real sense of
an entrepreneurship core. A caution is to avoid elitism or gentrification;
such conditions may be a false façade. Entrepreneurship development can
be done quite effectively in such places, as they are also never without
entrepreneurs and small businesspeople. The goal is to employ strate-
gies to bring the entrepreneurial community (and its potential feeders)
together in a constructive environment to determine what can be done
to make the local small business climate more friendly, efficient, and pro-
ductive. And most importantly, it is an excellent opportunity to discuss
who will take the lead in bringing about those changes.
Finally, there are those community-wide actions that can be consid-
ered deleterious, or destructive to the entrepreneurship climate. Honig
and Dana (2008) refer to cultures that create communities of disentre-
preneurship—those that routinely stifle and suppress entrepreneuring
activity through either a culturally embedded lack of understanding of
entrepreneurship, or an aversion to entrepreneurship as an honorable
career option. For many reading these words, this may be difficult to
imagine, as we in the field of entrepreneurship tend to see the act of ven-
turing as a universal good, or even a heroic endeavor. Speaking from an
American perspective, the United States is still considered by the GEDI
to be the best national ecosystem for business support (Ács et al., 2018).
However, the social infrastructure that supports entrepreneurship—
including culture—is not uniform in the United States (Fortunato, 2011).
Especially following World War II, during the golden age of the rise of
corporations like IBM and their hierarchical culture, many communities
shied away from entrepreneurial action, instead favoring the organized,
clear hierarchies and routinization of hours and benefits of corporate
American work life; a reflection of the military-industrial culture experi-
enced by much of the workforce during World War II (Audretsch, 2007).
And, with culture serving as a major environmental feature of the ecology
supporting or suppressing entrepreneurship, cultural values can subtly
dissuade would-be entrepreneurs from launching a venture or from being
valued among their peers (Honig & Dana, 2008; Hustedde, 2007). Fortu-
nato (2011) found that, in low-entrepreneurship communities, terms like
crazy people would be used to describe entrepreneurs who were consid-
ered by some community members to be wasting their time and energy
launching a venture instead of getting a stable job to put food on the
table. Isenberg (2010) similarly stresses tackling cultural change head-on
as one of his nine prescriptions for ecosystem development.
Similarly, a lack of infrastructure or resources, such as poor access to
finance, limited local demand, isolation from social networks, and no
access to critical infrastructure like air travel or broadband connectiv-
ity can play a major role in suppressing entrepreneurship locally (Dab-
son, 2001). Just because a community contains a university, an SBDC,
a Chamber of Commerce, and other entrepreneurial support organiza-
tions, does not always translate into a high level of entrepreneurship
or the crystallization of an entrepreneurial community or ecosystem
(Fortunato, 2011). Even in larger cities, such as Atlanta, having all the
“right stuff” does not translate linearly into an effective and function-
ing ecosystem if the local culture does not support routine interaction,
an ethic of mutual support, and a sense of oneness that reinforces an
ésprit de corps stretching across the entire leader and feeder community
(Breznitz & Taylor, 2014).
From a practitioner’s perspective among those who want to build an
entrepreneurial community or ecosystem, overcoming these issues was a
major focus of our first book, and it is not always easy. Sometimes the
best path forward is to simply remove as many symptoms of disentre-
preneurship as possible, rather than trying to build anything new amidst
a climate of deep cultural resistance. Furthermore, some symptoms of
disentrepreneurship are more easily overcome than others. It is easier to
bring entrepreneurs together in a safe, uplifting environment to hold ini-
tial talks about working together as a team than it is to build an airport
with intermodal rail connections, or to get broadband to a sparsely popu-
lated area, or to convince a government to remove a licensing require-
ment that is an important source of government revenue. Recognizing
that ecosystem builders should not attempt to tackle too great a challenge
too quickly without first garnering some local support, the sequence with
which sources of disentrepreneurship are tackled is an important one.
After all, according to Feld (2012), ecosystems tend to start small and
evolve stochastically as momentum builds over time. Rome was not built
in a day, and neither is a community or ecosystem.
Table 2.1 offers some examples of beneficial versus neutral versus
deleterious effects on entrepreneurship, using a smaller town or city as
inspiration for the kinds of issues one might find given a population
of that size. This compilation is not taken from any particular town or
city but reflects many of the attitudes that we have heard throughout
our research, consulting, and travels regarding entrepreneurs and entre-
preneurship development. We imagine a smaller community precisely
because so many exist without any formal relational connections across
what could be a thriving entrepreneurial community or ecosystem. To
the community and economic developer, the goal would be to work with
key stakeholders to move these issues from the neutral column to the
beneficial column, or from the deleterious column at least to the neutral
column or better.
Upon reading Table 2.1, note that many of the examples we chose
highlight the cultural features of the community that we have been dis-
cussing in this chapter. We concur with Dana and Dana (2005) that cul-
ture has a major impact on entrepreneurs’ outcomes, because often it is
this culture that determines whether physical and social infrastructure
exists in the frst place. For example, a culture of disentrepreneurship is
unlikely to spend signifcant time and capital investing in an entrepre-
neurial ecosystem, no matter how great the potential, if most people view
entrepreneurship as wildly risky and irresponsible. Perhaps this caution
Table 2.1 Beneficial, Neutral, and Deleterious Effects From a Smaller Town
Perspective
Beneficial Effect Neutral Effect Deleterious Effect
Vibrant third places with Vibrant third places A lack of gathering

regular entrepreneur where citizens discuss places—youth hang
meetups everyday affairs out in convenience
store parking lots
An active “Buy Local” People buy locally when People prefer chain stores
campaign it is convenient or and online shopping to
competitively priced shopping locally
Routine interaction An excellent local Local university is
between entrepreneurs university is nearby fixated on placing
and the local that turns out many its graduates in
university, who hosts talented students, jobs in top cities,
“pitch days” and some of whom stay typically in corporate
entrepreneur-relevant local environments
speaker series
Local angel investors and There are several banks in Maybe a bank or two,
bankers not only come the community with fair which is where you get
out to entrepreneurial lending practices, and a checking account, car
networking events, several high net worth loan, or a mortgage,
they buy local too individuals who might and by the way, what’s
be arm twisted into an angel investor?
supporting a startup
Beneficial Effect Neutral Effect Deleterious Effect

Entrepreneurs interact Entrepreneurs know Entrepreneurs see each
strategically to plan one another from other as competitors
events that will draw their interactions in fighting for a fixed
attention to the small town, and may use market share, and will
business community as each other’s businesses not share information
a whole when convenient or use each other’s
business services
Entrepreneurs and local New business openings Fellow entrepreneurs
institutions celebrate sometimes get a do not support new
new business openings, feature in the local entrants, as they
and welcome new paper, and the local represent competition,
entrepreneurs “to the Chamber introduces and local institutions
family” themselves are too focused on
established businesses
to care much
Code enforcement Ordinances, codes, Onerous local ordinances
meets directly with and licensing and permitting
entrepreneurial teams and permitting requirements are
prior to opening to requirements are put in place by city
walk them through a about average for a council, many of
streamlined regulatory town this size whom are established
process, put in place by business owners who
a pro-entrepreneurial are not keen on new
local city council competition
Regular entrepreneurship Entrepreneurs benefit Festivals are a nuisance,
events are held outside of from existing local and entrepreneurs
a university environment festivals and tourist already have a place
where the public can gatherings, and the local to sell their products
get involved, including university occasionally and services—what
local business fairs, a invites entrepreneurs do they need the extra
live version of “Shark from town to serve as help for?
Tank,” and a local panelists for their pitch
career fair for new talent competitions
Building a vibrant Building a great Unless we are attracting
entrepreneurial downtown, creative branch plants that can
ecosystem is the placemaking, and a create 500+ jobs at a
explicit focus of livable community is time, we are wasting
economic development the explicit focus of our time and resources
efforts economic development on small efforts with
efforts uncertain outcomes
The ecosystem has a focus, Small businesses all What’s wrong with our
but everyone is openly know one another, and current set of small
welcomed regardless of sometimes “try out” businesses? They
their business type— new businesses that should be good enough
especially marginalized establish themselves in for anybody
groups the community
is with good reason, such as the closure of a major local business that
led to widespread layoffs, or the tendency of entrepreneurs to open busi-
nesses that are not a good cultural ft for the community at large. But, it is
important to note that cultures, while creating strong human tendencies
to support or reject some lifestyles, are rarely homogeneous—there are
always people in the community who are interested in entrepreneurship,
in different local offerings, in meeting the global marketplace with a new
venture from their own community.
Establishing a Meta-Framework
In our last book, Toward Entrepreneurial Community Development:
Leaping Cultural and Leadership Boundaries, we set out a framework
intended to make sense of the current thinking in entrepreneurship devel-
opment, and by the end of the book, to set forth practical strategies
for stimulating entrepreneurship at a local level. Our goal was simple:
despite a more urban focus in the entrepreneurship ecosystems litera-
ture (StartupBlink, 2019; Auerswald, 2015), there are simple steps that
can be taken in any community that can dramatically improve the entre-
preneurial climate there. Some of these steps may be sophisticated, like
Figure 2.1 A prioritization matrix sequencing simple, essential tasks before more
complex, less-essential tasks.
Source: Notes: Each dot on the matrix represents an issue or action item. In community-
based settings, action often stalls when groups or entrepreneurs take on too difficult a
challenge early in the process. Using this type of matrix ensures that early momentum can
be utilized in tackling more challenging, complex issues without group burnout.
organizing public support to allocate government dollars toward “import
substitution,” selecting local product and service providers over those
who may be able to compete on price and speed. Others may be very
simple, such as organizing a meetup among existing tech entrepreneurs
(or arts entrepreneurs, or sustainable ag entrepreneurs, etc.) and discuss-
ing issues that matter to that particular group. In any case, one could
take any idea aimed at improving the entrepreneurial climate and place
it on a two-dimensional hierarchy from simple to complex, essential to
“would be nice.”
To gain maximum momentum in the ecosystem, builders can begin in
the quadrant that is “simple and essential,” eventually working their way
down to the other three. Even very simple ideas to improve the entrepre-
neurial climate, like creating a link between a cluster of tech entrepreneurs
and a research university, or hosting meetups for minority entrepreneurs,
can make an immense difference in the business trajectory of those entre-
preneurs. Once the ecosystem begins to gain momentum, the team can
work along lines of natural advantage to take on more complex tasks—
some essential, some less so. Like starting to pedal a bicycle uphill, it
often makes the most sense to begin in a lower gear that is easier to pedal,
using momentum from those initial pushes to drive more complex efforts.
In this section, we will attempt to categorize some of these efforts in ways
that are easily identifiable, and just as easily put into action.
Isenberg’s Nine Prescriptions

In a celebrated article by Isenberg (2010), nine prescriptions are pre-
sented for building an effective entrepreneurial ecosystem in just about
any community, provided that they have the capacity to enact the nine
prescriptions. We say that Isenberg’s article is “celebrated” because eco-
system authors very commonly cite this article as fundamental in the
ecosystem literature, even if Isenberg was not the first to use the term in
an entrepreneurial capacity (it was actually Moore, 1993). But Isenberg’s
nine prescriptions touched off waves of research and thinking around
entrepreneurial ecosystems, generating so much excitement that Stam
(2015) warned about using the term too liberally before the appropri-
ate concepts, epistemology, and early results of ecosystem development
came to light. The first prescription, “stop emulating Silicon Valley,” was
immensely counter-intuitive at the time amidst the praise normally heaped
on the region as the ultimate high-growth, high-tech, high-diversity, high-
performance ecosystem in the world. But, Isenberg’s work was influential
enough to steer researchers away from replication of entrepreneurship’s
most impressive outlier region (what Isenberg calls “Valley envy,” 2010,
p. 3) and toward a focus on working with the naturally existing advan-
tages of entrepreneurs in the places where they live, work, and do busi-
ness. Given its status in the ecosystem literature, it makes sense to include
Isenberg’s (2010) nine prescriptions here as a general framework for eco-
system development:
1. Stop emulating Silicon Valley.

2. Shape the ecosystem around local conditions.
3. Engage the private sector from the start.
4. Favor the high potentials.
5. Get a big win on the board.
6. Tackle cultural change head on.
7. Stress the roots.
8. Don’t overengineer clusters; help them grow organically.
9. Reform legal, bureaucratic, and regulatory frameworks.
(pp. 3–10)
If this can be summarized, it might be something like
start small, focus on your own advantages, build naturally, do not

waste money on what other ecosystems did or what businesses are
fashionable, bring together stakeholders and learn from one another
what can make your community better—and then let it roll!”
This perspective is a holistic, multi-stakeholder, grassroots, no-holds-

barred approach to encouraging a specifc kind of social action. In the
feld of sociology, it is simply called old-fashioned community develop-
ment or building the community’s capacity to self-actualize, meet its
own needs, capitalize on opportunities, and direct itself in the face of
adversity (Wilkinson, 1991). It should therefore make sense why we, as
both researchers and practitioners, stress the connection between entre-
preneurship development and community development more broadly, as
Isenberg (2010) seems to be aware of this connection as well, even if it
goes unnamed.
Four Approaches to Entrepreneurship Development

In our first book, we identified four major approaches to entrepreneur-
ial community development (see Fortunato, 2017a). These positive and
productive efforts to improve the entrepreneurial climate, which we
refer to generally as entrepreneurship development, made distinctions
between modalities of developmental efforts based on whether they view
developmental efforts as static or dynamic, and whether or not entre-
preneurs, or other actors and factors, play the leading role in that style
of development. We recognize that these categories are flexible. Increas-
ingly, indices that measure the entrepreneurial environment contain ele-
ments from multiple approaches, and we are pleased to see that there is a
greater understanding that both favorable conditions and self-sustaining
Table 2.2 Four Approaches to Entrepreneurship Development
Primacy of Non- Primacy of

Governmental Actors Governmental Actors
and Nonprofits, and the and Nonprofits
Environment
Static Conditions Facilitating Conditions National and Regional

Policy
Dynamic Processes Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial
Ecosystems Communities
processes are necessary for ecosystem building—an idea that seemed to

be absent from the literature for years under the assumption that the
entrepreneur constitutes an individual in the style of homo œconomicus
(Gartner, 1985). As a general rule, indices capture and combine differ-
ent areas of influence on entrepreneurship, but individual components of
those indices tend to fall in one of these four modalities. Furthermore, we
do not mean to imply that policy or facilitating conditions are exclusively
static: both can change as new infrastructure, services, and opportuni-
ties become available, and as policy and funding priorities change over
time. Similarly, even dynamic processes like the human relationships that
comprise community and ecosystem dynamics can become rigid, inflex-
ible, conflictual, or insular and exclusive over time. Table 2.2 is therefore
intended to demonstrate general tendencies of the four approaches, show-
ing the dominant modality of their dynamism (static versus dynamic),
and the primacy of certain actors over others (entrepreneurs versus non-
entrepreneurs and the environment).
We will go into some brief detail about the four approaches in the fol-
lowing paragraphs.
Approach 1: Facilitating Conditions Approach

The facilitating conditions approach focuses on the conditions that best
support entrepreneurship development, incubation, expansion, and
growth. In the past, facilitating conditions approaches often focused on
the presence of physical advantages: challenges or opportunities that
could be easily remedied with additional investment, such as incubators,
well-invested research universities, a complete set of infrastructure, and
so on. However, this approach has largely expanded to incorporate other
categories of advantages and disadvantages as well. For example, Arauzo-
Carod et al. (2010) examined the economic geography of where new and
high-growth firms tend to locate, dividing them into three categories:
(a) neoclassical factors such as agglomeration economies, the quality of
human capital and transportation infrastructure; (b) institutional factors
such as taxes and regulations, and (c) behavioral factors including loca-
tional preferences of entrepreneurs (pp. 702–705). Ideas from Gnyawali
and Fogel (1994), Van de Ven (1993), and Bhidé (2000) are important
models examining the conditions that facilitate effective entrepreneur-
ship. Some newer models include the Global Entrepreneurship Index
(GEI) developed by the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Insti-
tute (GEDI) (see Ács et al., 2015), the StartupBlink Ecosystem Ranking
Report (StartupBlink, 2019), the Thumbtack United States Small Busi-
ness Friendliness survey (Thumbtack, 2019), and several others. The gen-
eral idea across all these indices is that some places have “the right stuff”
when it comes to the quality of the entrepreneurial environment. How-
ever, it should be noted that spatial determinants alone, like an ingredient
list for cake, do not come with an experienced chef attached, and they do
not always include important elements of the recipe (i.e., how to put the
ingredients together, and in what order, and how to actually cook, bake,
or assemble them).
Approach 2: National and Regional Policy Approach

The idea behind the national and regional policy approach is simple: much
like the facilitating conditions approach, these approaches are designed
to improve the conditions that support entrepreneurship and entrepre-
neurial action. However, unlike the facilitating conditions approach (which
is more infrastructural in nature), policy instruments are used to make
entrepreneurship easier, more streamlined, and more profitable. These
kinds of approaches can be actualized at the national, state, regional, or
local level. They can be via positiva in nature, meaning that the policy
provides incentives and supports to entrepreneurs to assist with incu-
bation and expansion. Or they can be via negativa in nature, removing
barriers to entrepreneurship and market entry including high business
taxes, onerous ordinances and local regulations, and prohibitive licensing
and permitting requirements (Kauffman Foundation, 2014; Broughman
et al., 2012). (For a description of the via negativa approach, see Taleb,
2012). However, in most cases that we have found, it is decidedly inter-
ventionist, opting to intervene on behalf of entrepreneurs to improve the
local environment.
Likely Mason and Brown (2014), Mazzarol (2014), and Lyons (2002)
are the best examples of national and regional policy analysis. To be suc-
cessful, authors of these approaches tended to emphasize both a “top
down” and “bottom up” approach simultaneously. While policy is gener-
ally static, Mason and Brown (2014) call for a policy approach that is
flexible and can evolve over time, although it is less clear how this would
work under conditions of changing political priorities that may have
nothing to do with entrepreneurship. Older studies of entrepreneurship
policy, particularly at the state level, have reported that these programs
are often fragmented, and commonly have disappointing results (Lich-
tenstein & Lyons, 2010; Cornwall, 1998; Aziz, 1984). However, national
and regional policy continue to be a focus within many entrepreneurial
indices, including the GEM (Bosma & Kelley, 2019), the GEDI (Ács et al.,
2018), the Thumbtack Small Business Friendliness Survey (Thumbtack,
2019), the StartupBlink Ecosystem Index (StartupBlink, 2019), and oth-
ers. Some of the themes that are explored are quite meaningful and range
from regulations around hiring and firing (Thumbtack, 2019) to lack of
corruption and strength of the judicial system (Bosma & Kelley, 2019).
We do not take the position that national and regional policy does not
matter, nor that it is totally inflexible and static in perpetuity. Rather, we
recognize policy as a contributing factor that often represents the pri-
orities of government rather than those of entrepreneurs, complete with
fluctuations according to electoral cycles (Feld, 2012; Isenberg, 2010).
Even still, Isenberg (2010) recognizes the importance of getting policies
right in his nine prescriptions for ecosystem building.
Approach 3: Entrepreneurial Communities Approach

In the entrepreneurial communities approach, we can recall the words
of entrepreneurship guru Ernesto Sirolli: “Nobody started a [successful]
company alone . . . no-one” (Sirolli, 2015, in video). A successful business
climate is a community-wide endeavor, involving not only entrepreneurs
but the local culture, the regulatory environment, supporting agencies—
even the local customer base. As a result, we can think of the entrepre-
neurial community as a giant nexus between entrepreneurs and all the
stakeholders of their environment, with entrepreneurs representing just
one part of the equation. Entrepreneurial community development is pri-
marily about building social infrastructure (Flora & Flora, 1993) and
cultivating a culture that not only supports entrepreneurship but under-
stands both the special challenges faced by entrepreneurs and the unique
benefits they bring to the community. In terms of participation, entre-
preneurs make up just one part of the entrepreneurial community, even
if they are considered to be the “focus.” More emphasis is placed on
setting the local culture and environment in such a way that it supports
and embraces entrepreneurs and the special challenges facing them as a
group (Julien, 2007). Thus, a local culture and system of advantages and
disadvantages (i.e., support systems) have primacy over entrepreneurs:
get the culture and environment right, and the entrepreneurs will appear
and thrive.
Two exemplars of an entrepreneurial communities approach are noted
in our last book: the Entrepreneurial Social Infrastructure (ESI) model
by Flora and Flora (1993) and the E2 model by Macke et al. (2014).
Both models support a broad, multi-stakeholder model aimed at building
coalitions and collaboration across the community behind the support
of entrepreneurship. Both are also highly egalitarian, and unlike entre-
preneurial ecosystems, see the potential for “feeder” organizations to be
“leaders” in their own right—perhaps even having primacy over entre-
preneurs, as local organizations can create an environment that can
attract and retain highly successful entrepreneurs. Perhaps the greatest
weakness of the entrepreneurial communities model is that, while highly
interactive and dynamic, the model does not contain a realistic “death
mechanism” the way that the entrepreneurial ecosystem does. While the
ecosystem model provides specific guidance around business failure,
resilience, and the reabsorption of talent, the entrepreneurial communi-
ties model seems resigned to the idea that “once it’s there, it’s there.” In
a way, the entrepreneurial communities model may seem more collab-
orative and less draconian than the ecosystem model, which accounts
for the fact that entrepreneur failure is inevitable. Or, does that make
the entrepreneurial communities model unrealistic? We take the position
that there are elements of the entrepreneurial communities category that
are quite useful in entrepreneurship development, especially with regard
to building effective coalitions and a supportive culture that spans orga-
nizations, although too much institutional involvement without enough
entrepreneurs at the table can quickly lead to the incentive structures of
institutions overcoming those of entrepreneurs.
Approach 4: Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Approach

The term entrepreneurial ecosystem recognizes the importance of (a)
process-oriented approach to entrepreneurship development, that rec-
ognizes (b) stakeholder participation from key necessity entrepreneur
participants from a community, and (c) assigns primacy to the group
who is the primary beneficiary, while (d) also accounting for evolution-
ary factors of change, localism, and environmental conditions while (e)
recognizing the role of business closure. The entrepreneurial ecosystem
approach, thus, effectively accounts for the complexity embodied in a
real ecosystem by accounting for cyclical behaviors of rising and falling
with opportunity cycles; growth, maturity, and death of firms; reabsorp-
tion of talent and recycling of creative energy; rivalry and competition,
but more importantly, symbiosis, collaboration, and coopetition. The
ecosystem approach is highly realistic but not as “warm and support-
ive” as the entrepreneurial communities approach. According to Isenberg
(2010), an important strategy within ecosystem development is favor-
ing the highest-potential entrepreneurs for growth (what Darwin, 1859,
might call “the fittest”) and attempting to get quick wins on the board
(i.e., early entrepreneur successes that will provide the momentum and
cues to other entrepreneurs that the water is warm, and they should
jump in the pool). The deep networking that occurs across a functioning
ecosystem is dedicated to not only learning as a group (see Feld, 2012,
for examples), but also improving entrepreneur alertness by overcoming
bounded rationality (Shane, 2004; Kirzner, 1973).
Isenberg (2010), Lichtenstein and Lyons (2010), and Feld (2012) are
examples of an entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. In all three, there is
evidence of interaction, dynamism, and embrace of change—of players,
of supporters, and of entrepreneurs. Isenberg and Feld are the most sup-
portive of favoring high-potential entrepreneurs to create the momentum
necessary to raise the profile of the entire ecosystem and probably the
entrepreneurial community. Lichtenstein and Lyons take a more develop-
mental approach, investing especially in young and inexperienced entre-
preneurs through mentorship by those entrepreneurs in the system who
“made it” and can assist younger entrepreneurs to become more experi-
enced. Most important in all of these models is not only the dynamism
of players among an ever-changing market backdrop but their focus on
the entrepreneur as the central actor, leader, and facilitator in the ecosys-
tem. Ecosystems are an approach designed for entrepreneurs, by entre-
preneurs. Institutions may play a strongly supportive role, even acting as
“transformational leaders” in some capacities within the ecosystem. But
ecosystems that are led by entrepreneurs tend to be the most successful,
the most credible, and the most adaptive (see Clevenger & Miao, 2017).
The idea that ecosystems are about economic development is an overt
statement. In a follow-up article, Isenberg (2011) makes this connection
clear and doubles down on his commitment to one of his nine prescrip-
tions: “favor the high potentials.” This proposition raises some questions
and critiques about the nature of ecosystems that, in our opinion, still
need to be resolved sociologically, in terms of their relationship to power
and ascendancy. If the entire point of a forest is to grow only redwoods
(the only species of value), what does this mean for more “average”
entrepreneurs who may have lifestyle motivations, or be involved in low-
growth industries? Is the only value of a coffee shop or café or vibrant
tavern that it provides a place for “real, growth-oriented” entrepreneurs a
place to interact? Is there no heroism, no valiant struggle, for the restau-
ranteur or café owner, even if they are elevating their craft in an artistic or
forward-thinking way? Do “ordinary” small business starts, like gas sta-
tions and dry cleaners, simply exist to support high-growth ventures? Are
they expendable, and do high-growth ventures deserve special attention
over a wider range of small business startups? Furthermore, according to
this model, should passionate institutional leaders be relegated to the role
of “feeders,” or celebrated as “leaders” in their own right? These questions
are still being answered and may be what Stam (2015) referred to tacitly
when he noted one should not get ahead of ourselves in using the ecosys-
tem concept without first understanding its parameters. We would con-
tend, this is especially true when considering the second-and-higher-order
effects of entrepreneurial ecosystems, which could reveal challenges down
the road—which is a caveat that is appropriate to all four frameworks
within entrepreneurship development. However, the novelty of the ecosys-
tem concept, as well as the emergent nature of practice around ecosystem
building, continues to be a fruitful area of research that is still yielding
new answers and insights to genuinely unknown outcome situations.
Leaping Local Entrepreneurial Boundaries

The second section of our meta-framework focuses on what to do about
building entrepreneurial communities as well as entrepreneurial ecosys-
tems. The question remains: what can actually be done to support entre-
preneurship in any community, starting at any point in the community’s
development? We attempted to steer clear of coming down too strongly on
any one entrepreneurship development approach, but building static sup-
port systems without dynamic, evolutionary, process-level, self-organizing
characteristics is a likely recipe for a failed ecosystem. We posited 12 gen-
eral suggestions in our last book for developing better entrepreneurial eco-
systems and entrepreneurial communities, whether one is an entrepreneur,
government official, or another kind of entrepreneurial feeder and sup-
porter. We briefly list our explanations here to summarize our thinking.
Use Ecosystem Logic

A successful entrepreneurial ecosystem self-organizes along the con-
tours of local advantage and is fundamentally led by entrepreneurs, for
entrepreneurs.
More “Boulder Thesis,” Less Policy

Strategically aligned and mutually adaptive relationships are superior to
policies that are rigid and designed around the priorities and incentive
structures of policy makers rather than entrepreneurs (see Feld, 2012).
Facilitating Conditions Matter2

Specific national-level conditions that create incentives and disincentives
for entrepreneurship have important outcomes, from remoteness to mar-
kets (Dabson, 2001) to shoddy infrastructure (Bel & Fageda, 2010) to
a lack of investment in entrepreneurial systems and R&D (Van de Ven,
1993), and policy factors like a fair and efficient court system, and the
presence of corruption (Bosma & Kelley, 2019).
A Stronger Role for Feeders

There are plenty of examples of ecosystems that began with an initiative
launched by a government or university, for example, ecosystems that
emerged from the University of Chicago (Miller & Ács, 2017) or Stan-
ford University (Fu & Hsia, 2014), which began with deep involvement
of entrepreneurs from the start of the program.
Generational and Transformational Leadership

Lichtenstein and Lyons (2010) argue that more seasoned and experienced
entrepreneurs should be called upon to mentor younger entrepreneurs
into maturity, which is both generational (succession across people) and
transformational (development within people), and privileges a mental-
ity of human investment over “finding the right person” to suit current
circumstances.
A Space for Culture to Emerge

Entrepreneurial culture thrives in spaces where entrepreneurs can gather
to interact with one another, and talk about issues that matter to entre-
preneurs (see Tolbert et al., 2002; Tolbert et al., 1998; Oldenberg & Bris-
sett, 1982).
Creating Alliances Broadly and Deliberately

To maximize the Medici Effect (Johansson, 2004) described earlier in
the chapter requires a diversity of perspectives to overcome bounded
rationality problems (Schmid, 2004; Gigerenzer & Selten, 2002; Conlisk,
1996) to maximize the knowledge diversity gains to innovation (Page,
2008; Johansson, 2004).
Marketing and Social Networking for Success

From a survey of 351 businesses with fewer than 500 employees, over
70% of businesses use social media to engage their customer base, with the
potential for creating relationships across geographic space (Clutch, 2018).
Manage Collaboration Among Individualists

The individual actor still matters, even in society-wide entrepreneurship
development, with more individualistic cultures showing higher levels of
entrepreneurship development (Morris et al., 1994), especially when the
overall development level of the nation is high (Pinillos & Reyes, 2011).
Measure and Maintain Accountability

A study by Catasús et al. (2007) found that “what gets mobilized gets
managed, especially if it is measured (p. 516),” an orientation that may
be enhanced through peer accountability for task accomplishment, espe-
cially among individuals with a high learning orientation (i.e., many
entrepreneurs) (Davis et al., 2007).
Celebrate the Collective

Celebrating collective achievements can raise morale and strengthen
relationships, and group solidarity (Deal & Key, 1998). Isenberg (2010)
encourages ecosystem builders to “over celebrate the successes” (p. 7) for
these same reasons.
Pass the Baton

A willingness to pass the baton to the next generation of entrepreneur
leaders is important from a knowledge diversity perspective (Page, 2008;
Johansson, 2004), as it ensures that people with different backgrounds
and perspectives bring those ideas into the leadership of the ecosystem.
Want to turbocharge that diversity? Make a commitment as a group to
support racial, ethnic, and religious minorities; gender and sexual orien-
tation diversity; educational background diversity; and a range of men-
toring and support to aid these individuals toward a leadership role.
Lewin’s Force Field Analysis

Force fields are part of an analytical and conceptual model developed by
psychologist Karl Lewin in the 1930s during a time when many social
scientists were becoming inspired by the natural sciences, and the extent
to which patterns found in nature were increasingly thought to apply to
social situations. We already discussed how Darwin’s (1859) theories led
to the sociology of Park et al. (1925). In a similar fashion, Lewin (1939,
1942, 1943, 1946), a Prussian-Jewish immigrant to the United States
who fled the growing influence of the Nazi regime across Central Europe,
found a fruitful environment for advancing his psychological work on
social change in America (Burnes & Cooke, 2013). Lewin (1943) sees
social forces as acting much in the same way that actual force manifests
in the world of mechanical physics. Much like two sumo wrestlers locked
against one another, the two will remain unmoved and locked together
(although exerting tremendous energy) until the force of the stronger
wrestler pushes the other over a “tipping point,” in which case the sta-
sis of the initial lock is broken, and a new equilibrium (representing a
change in state—one wrestler dominating the other) emerges. These force
dynamics are affected by a variety of variables that pertain to both the
individuals and the environment in the force field: what Lewin (1943)
calls the phase space, or in a social setting, the life space or psychologi-
cal environment within which all action occurs (Lewin, 1942; Deutsch,
1968). The phase space in physics includes important variables that affect
physical outcomes, such as time, pressure, temperature, humidity, and so
on (Lewin, 1943), while in the life space it can involve culture and insti-
tutional structure, as well as psychological events like thinking, acting,
dreaming, and hoping (Deutsch, 1968).
In the Lewinian sense, the same forces that keep two wrestlers locked
together had analogous twins in the social world. Lewin was fundamen-
tally interested in the idea of social change, and why people would con-
tinue to adhere to unhelpful, inefficient, and unproductive ways of acting
despite evidence that change could be beneficial (Swanson & Creed,
2014; Burnes & Cooke, 2013). Beginning with a focus on individual
behavior (much like the field of entrepreneurship), Lewin’s focus quickly
shifted toward the collective and social structures that either facilitate or
inhibit change (Burnes, 2007), as this appeared to be the level at which
behaviors persist despite their undesirability (Burnes & Cooke, 2013).
For social change to occur, the resultant forces within the phase space
must tend toward the change, overcoming any resistance that stands in
the way. This can be thought of as a sort of tipping point (see Gladwell,
2006, for modern examples), where forces resisting change are overcome
by those forces that encourage and support the change. Lewin (1943) fun-
damentally understood fields to be dynamic concepts, where the function
of interest involves human behavior, and where changes in that behavior
(expressed as a mathematical derivative) represented a resultant vector
that followed from the expression of a wide variety of personal, environ-
mental, cultural, and institutional variables that change over time. This
process is similar to physics, where resultant vectors (i.e., the movement
of a particle in a particular direction, for example) occur in the direc-
tion and velocity that the sum of forces and environmental conditions
acting on that particle will allow. Lewin’s efforts to understand change
not as a “nature versus nurture” argument as was common before the
emergence of field theory but rather as an interactional approach that
embraces complexity, multidimensionality, and framework conditions as
truly dynamic – the time function of which reveals the direction of social
and psychological forces that can be supported or resisted to achieve ben-
eficial change. This is somewhat similar to Wilkinson’s (1991) approach
to social fields, which are comprised of human relationships grounded
in a particular geographic place, are dynamic, and whose resultant out-
comes create and are created by changes in the field itself (see Lewin &
Lippitt, 1938).
There are three major conditions found within a Lewinian force field:
Facilitating: Those resource availabilities, strategic opportunities, and

facilitating affordances, both internal and external to the organiza-
tion, that when present and engaged push the organization away
from status quo and toward an alternate desired state.
Constraining: Those resource restrictions, structural and process limita-
tions, and constraining affordances, both internal and external to
the organization, that when present constrain, but do not prevent,
engagement and movement of the organization away from status
quo and toward an alternate desired state.
Blocking: Those structures, processes, habits, resistances, and disabling
affordances, both internal and external to the organization, that hold
the organization at status quo and thereby prevent its movement
toward an alternate desired state.
(Cronshaw & McCulloch, 2008, p. 92)
These conditions can be equally applied to entrepreneurial ecosystems

and entrepreneurial communities at various stages of formal and informal
development. As the ecosystem seeks to enact change at any point in its
development, that change will not occur until facilitating conditions (posi-
tive actions and opportunities) overwhelm any constraining conditions
(i.e., negative actions and resource defcits) and blocking conditions (e.g.,
structures and habits, path dependence, and policies). It becomes the job
of the ecosystem builder to encourage facilitating conditions, discourage
constraining conditions, and remove blocking conditions that encourage
the further development and evolution of the ecosystem at any point.
One of the weaknesses of field theory is that it lost favor over time
among academics as an analysis tool, largely due to Lewin’s own increas-
ing focus on the mathematical rigor of his models instead of the con-
ceptual richness they could provide (Swanson & Creed, 2014; Burnes &
Cooke, 2013) and misinterpretations followed when the practices of orga-
nizational development practitioners diverged from Lewin’s original ideas
(Cronshaw & McCulloch, 2008). While Lewin is himself considered to
be the father of the management and consulting field of organizational
development (OD) (Greiner & Cummings, 2004), many consultants have
focused on a very static or “snapshot” view of force fields, examining
facilitating, constraining, and blocking conditions at one point in time
(Cronshaw & McCulloch, 2008; Schwering, 2003). This is helpful for
understanding short-term actions to overcome immediate problems but
fails to understand the time-oriented dynamism of Lewin’s original model.
The popular application of force fields among OD practitioners is highly
prone to biases arising from the background of the implementing consul-
tants (and other actors) as well as their prompts (i.e., what they focus on),
and heuristic biases that preference simplistic and concrete findings about
situations that are fluid, dynamic, fuzzy, and emergent (Schwering, 2003).
Furthermore, a static approach to force fields does little to understand the
“field” at all; instead, focusing on immediate conditions rather than the
dynamic and structural situations that produce and replicate those condi-
tions in perpetuity (Cronshaw & McCulloch, 2008). Force field analysis
disappeared for a long time as a tool for rigorous conceptual analysis
among academics and practitioners and has only recently begun to reap-
pear as a framework for both qualitative and quantitative approaches
(Swanson & Creed, 2014; Burnes & Cooke, 2013).
Summary
This chapter presented an exploration of ecosystem logic and how it
frames our thinking about entrepreneurship development, or “that which
is beneficial to entrepreneurship” in any environment. Two of these
frameworks were detailed in our first book, Toward Entrepreneurial
Community Development: Leaping Cultural and Leadership Boundaries
(Fortunato & Clevenger, 2017). It is exciting to report that, in the time
since the publication of that book, some additional research has been
conducted on entrepreneurial ecosystems as well as published in several
additional journals and books. The next chapter examines several of these
new findings, approaches, and ideas as well as how they relate to—and
shape—the perspectives presented here, and our overall understanding of
how to build better ecosystems and entrepreneurial communities.
Notes
1. Gene mutations may be lethal in about 70% of cases (Sawyer et al., 2007) . . .
eerily close to the 10-year survival rate of small businesses (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2020).
2. Although there is disagreement over how important this is, which may vary
by nation. Klapper et al. (2006) find that regulations can have a suppressive
effect on new firm formation, and on the growth of incumbents in Europe.
Conversely, Kwapisz (2019) finds that a very small number of entrepreneurs in
the United States find regulations to be an important barrier. Regulatory bar-
riers to entry find their way into consideration in important policy documents
from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (see Bosma & Kelley, 2019) to the
Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index (GEDI) (see Ács et al., 2015,
for one recent example) to the Thumbtack Small Business Friendliness Survey
(thumbtack.com, 201920).
References
Ács, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowl-
edge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1),
15–30.
Ács, Z. J., Szerb, L., & Autio, E. (2015). The global entrepreneurship and devel-
opment index. In Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index 2014
(pp. 39–64). Springer.
Ács, Z. J., Szerb, L., Lafuente, E., & Lloyd, A. (2018). Global entrepreneurship
and development index: 2018. Springer.
Arauzo-Carod, J. M., Liviano-Solis, D., & Manjón-Antolín, M. (2010). Empiri-
cal studies in industrial location: An assessment of their methods and results.
Journal of Regional Science, 50(3), 685–711.
Arend, R. J. (1999). Emergence of entrepreneurs following exogenous technologi-
cal change. Strategic Management Journal, 20(1), 31–47.
Auerswald, P. E. (2015). Enabling entrepreneurial ecosystems: Insights from
ecology to inform effective entrepreneurship policy. Kauffman Foundation,
research series on city, metro, and regional entrepreneurship.
Aziz, S. (1984). Rural development: Some essential prerequisites. International
Labour Review, 123(3), 277–285.
Baumol, W. J. (1968). Entrepreneurship in economic theory. The American Eco-
nomic Review, 58(2), 64–71.
Bel, G., & Fageda, X. (2010). Partial privatisation in local services delivery: An
empirical analysis of the choice of mixed firms. Local Government Studies,
36(1), 129–149.
Bhidé, A. (2000). The origin and evolution of new businesses. Oxford University
Press.
Bosma, N., & Kelley, D. (2019). Global entrepreneurship monitor 2018/2019
global report. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA).
Breznitz, D., & Taylor, M. (2014). The communal roots of entrepreneurial—
technological growth—social fragmentation and stagnation: Reflection on
Atlanta’s technology cluster. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,
26(3–4), 375–396.
Broughman, B. J., Lindsey, B., Luppino, A. J., Okamoto, K. S., Suchman, M. C.,
Litan, R. E., & Ribstein, L. E. (2012). A license to grow: Ending state, local,
and some federal barriers to innovation and growth in key sectors of the U.S.
economy. SSRN Paper # 2002212. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2002212 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2002212
Burnes, B. (2007). Kurt Lewin and the Harwood studies: The foundations of OD.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 213–231.
Burnes, B., & Cooke, B. (2013). Kurt Lewin’s field theory: A review and re-evaluation.
International Journal of Management Review, 15, 408–425.
Catasús, B., Ersson, S., Gröjer, J. E., & Wallentin, F. Y. (2007). What gets mea-
sured gets . . . on indicating, mobilizing and acting. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 20(4), 505–521.
Clevenger, M. R., & Fortunato, M. W-P (2021). Empowering entrepreneurial
communities and ecosystems: Case study insights. Routledge.
Clevenger, M. R., Fortunato, M. W-P, & Houlihan, K. (2017). The value and
process of social networking for entrepreneurs. In M. W-P Fortunato & M. R.
Clevenger, M. R., & Miao, C. (2017). Transformational leadership to build an
entrepreneurial community. In M. W-P Fortunato & M. R. Clevenger (Eds.),
Toward entrepreneurial community development: Leaping cultural and leader-
ship boundaries (pp. 126–151). Routledge.
Conlisk, J. (1996). Why bounded rationality? Journal of Economic Literature,
34(2), 669–700.
Cornwall, J. R. (1998). The entrepreneur as a building block for community. Jour-
nal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 141–148.
Crick, J. M. (2018). The facets, antecedents and consequences of coopetition.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 21(2), 253–272.
Cronshaw, S. F., & McCulloch, A. N. A. (2008). Reinstating the Lewinian vision:
From force field analysis to organization field assessment. Organization Devel-
opment Journal, 26(4), 89–103.
Crouch, T. D. (2003). The bishop’s boys: A life of Wilbur and Orville Wright. WW
Norton & Company.
Dabson, B. (2001). Supporting rural entrepreneurship. Exploring Policy Options
for a New Rural America, 35–48.
Dana, L. P., & Dana, T. E. (2005). Expanding the scope of methodologies used
in entrepreneurship research. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Small Business, 2(1), 79–88.
Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species. John Murray.
Davis, W. D., Mero, N., & Goodman, J. M. (2007). The interactive effects of
goal orientation and accountability on task performance. Human Performance,
20(1), 1–21.
Deal, T. E., & Key, M. K. (1998). Corporate celebration: Play, purpose, and profit
at work. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Deutsch, M. (1968). Field theory in social psychology. The Handbook of Social
Psychology, 1, 412–487.
Duranton, G., & Puga, D. (2000). Diversity and specialisation in cities: Why,
where and when does it matter? Urban Studies, 37(3), 533–555.
Duret, L. (2008). Neutral theory: The null hypothesis of molecular evolution.
Nature Education, 1, 218.
your city. Wiley & Sons.
Feldman, M. P. (2014). The character of innovative places: Entrepreneurial strategy,
economic development, and prosperity. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 9–20.
Feldman, M. P., Francis, J., & Bercovitz, J. (2005). Creating a cluster while build-
ing a firm: Entrepreneurs and the formation of industrial clusters. Regional
Studies, 39(1), 129–141.
Flora, C. B., & Flora, J. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial social infrastructure: A neces-
sary ingredient. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 529(1), 48–58.
Florida, R. (2009). Who’s your city: How the creative economy is making where
to live the most important decision of your life. Basic Books.
Fortunato, M. W-P (2011). The individual-institutional-opportunity nexus:
Examining interaction, purpose, and opportunity in rural entrepreneurship
development (Unpublished dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University.
Fortunato, M. W-P, & Clevenger, M. R. (2017). Toward entrepreneurial commu-
nity development: Leaping cultural and leadership boundaries. New Routledge.
Friedman, D. (1991). Evolutionary games in economics. Econometrica: Journal of
the Econometric Society, 59(3), 637–666.
Fu, T., & Hsia, E. (2014). Universities and entrepreneurial ecosystems: Elements of
the Stanford-Silicon Valley success. Kauffman Fellows. www.kauffmanfellows.
org/journal_posts/universities-and-entrepreneurial-ecosystems-stanford-
silicon-valley-success.
Galkina, T., & Lundgren-Henriksson, E. L. (2017). Coopetition as an entrepre-
neurial process: Interplay of causation and effectuation. Industrial Marketing
Management, 67, 158–173.
Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon
of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696–706.
Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds.). (2002). Bounded rationality: The adaptive
toolbox. MIT Press.
Gladwell, M. (2006). The tipping point: How little things can make a big differ-
ence. Brown and Company.
Gluecksohn-Waelsch, S. (1963). Lethal genes and analysis of differentiation. Sci-
ence, 142(3597), 1269–1276.
Gnyawali, D. R., & Fogel, D. S. (1994). Environments for entrepreneurship devel-
opment: Key dimensions and research implications. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 18(4), 43–62.
Greiner, L. E., & Cummings, T. G. (2004). Wanted: OD more alive than dead! The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(4), 374–391.
Honig, B., & Dana, L. P. (2008). Communities of disentrepreneurship. Journal
of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 2(1),
5–20.
ness Review, 88(6), 40–50.
Johansson, F. (2004). The medici effect. Harvard Business Review Press.
Kauffman Foundation. (2014, December 2). Occupational licensing: A bar-
rier to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Policy Digest. https://gcase.files.
wordpress.com/2014/12/kauffman-study-licensing-01tr.pdf
Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. University of Chicago
Press.
Klapper, L., Laeven, L., & Rajan, R. (2006). Entry regulation as a barrier to entre-
preneurship. Journal of Financial Economics, 82(3), 591–629.
Kwapisz, A. (2019). Do government and legal barriers impede entrepreneurship
in the US? An exploratory study of perceived vs. actual barriers. Journal of
Business Venturing Insights, 11, e00114.
Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Concepts
and methods. American Journal of Sociology, 44(6), 868–896.
Lewin, K. (1942). Field theory and learning. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), The forty-first
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Part 2, The psy-
chology of learning (pp. 215–242). University of Chicago Press.
Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the “field at a given time”. Psychological Review,
50(3), 292–310.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social
Issues, 2(4), 34–46.
Lewin, K., & Lippitt, R. (1938). An experimental approach to the study of autoc-
racy and democracy: A preliminary note. Sociometry, 1(3/4), 292–300.
Lichtenstein, G. A., & Lyons, T. S. (2010). Investing in entrepreneurs: A stra-
tegic approach for strengthening your regional and community economy.
ABC-CLIO.
Loucks, K. (1988). Training entrepreneurs for small business creation: Lessons
from experience (Vol. 26). International Labour Organization.
Lyons, T. S. (2002). Building social capital for rural enterprise development: Three
case studies in the United States. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship,
7(2), 193–216.
Macke, D. W., Markley, D. M., & Fulwider, J. M. (2014). Energizing entrepreneur-
ial communities: A pathway to prosperity. Center for Rural Entrepreneurship.
Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics (8th ed.). Cosimo Classics.
Marshall, S. (2015). Cities design and evolution. Routledge.
entrepreneurship. OECD.
Mazzarol, T. (2014). Growing and sustaining entrepreneurial ecosystems: What
they are and the role of government policy. White Paper WP01–2014. Small
Enterprise Association of Australia and New Zealand (SEAANZ).
McGranahan, D. A., Wojan, T. R., & Lambert, D. M. (2011). The rural growth
trifecta: Outdoor amenities, creative class and entrepreneurial context. Journal
of Economic Geography, 11(3), 529–557.
McKelvey, B. (2004). Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship. Journal
of Business Venturing, 19(3), 313–341.
Miles, M. P., & Morrison, M. (2020). An effectual leadership perspective for
developing rural entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 54(4),
933–949.
Miller, D. J., & Ács, Z. J. (2017). The campus as entrepreneurial ecosystem: The
University of Chicago. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 75–95.
Mione, A. (2009). When entrepreneurship requires coopetition: The need for
standards in the creation of a market. International Journal of Entrepreneur-
ship and Small Business, 8(1), 92–109.
Mitra, J. (2019). Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional development: An
introduction. Routledge.
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard
Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.
Morris, M. H., Davis, D. L., & Allen, J. W. (1994). Fostering corporate entre-
preneurship: Cross-cultural comparisons of the importance of individualism
versus collectivism. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 65–89.
Oldenberg, R., & Brissett, D. (1982). The third place. Qualitative Sociology, 5(4),
265–284.
Page, S. E. (2008). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better
groups, firms, schools, and societies-new edition. Princeton University Press.
Park, R. E., Burgess, E. W., & McKenzie, R. D. (1925). The city. Chicago Univer-
sity Press.
Pinillos, M. J., & Reyes, L. (2011). Relationship between individualist-collectivist
culture and entrepreneurship activity: Evidence from Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor data. Small Business Economics, 37, 23–37.
Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup. Currency.
Roig-Tierno, N., Kraus, S., & Cruz, S. (2018). The relation between coopeti-
tion and innovation/entrepreneurship. Review of Management Science, 12,
379–383.
Rust, M. K., & Su, N. Y. (2012). Managing social insects of urban importance.
Annual Review of Entomology, 57, 355–375.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2009). Effectuation: Elements of entrepreneurial expertise.
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Sawyer, S. A., Parsch, J., Zhang, Z., & Hartl, D. L. (2007). Prevalence of positive
selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila. Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(16), 6504–6510.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1949). Economic theory and entrepreneurial history. In A. H.
Cole (Ed.), Change and the entrepreneur: Postulates and patterns for entrepre-
neurial history (pp. 63–84). Harvard.
Shane, S. A. (2004). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-
opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field
of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Sirolli, E. (2015). Ernesto Sirolli: Want to help someone? Shut up and listen!
[Video]. TED Conferences. www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXsLtHqfdM
Slevin, D. P., & Covin, J. G. (1998). Time, growth, complexity, and transitions:
Entrepreneurial challenges for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-
tice, 22(2), 53–68.
Solimano, A. (Ed.). (2008). The international mobility of talent: Types, causes,
and development impact. Oxford University Press.
Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic
critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.
StartupBlink. (2019). Global startup ecosystem report 2019. Startup Genome.
https://startupgenome.com/reports/global-startup-ecosystem-report-2019.
Stigler, G. J. (1957). Perfect competition, historically contemplated. Journal of
Political Economy, 65(1), 1–17.
Swanson, D. J., & Creed, A. S. (2014). Sharpening the focus of force field analysis.
Journal of Change Management, 14(1), 28–47.
Tansley, A. G. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms.
Ecology, 16(3), 284–307.
Thumbtack Small Business Friendliness Survey. (2019). www.thumbtack.com/
survey#/friendliness
Tolbert, C. M., Irwin, M. D., Lyson, T. A., & Nucci, A. R. (2002). Civic commu-
nity in small-town America: How civic welfare is influenced by local capitalism
and civic engagement. Rural Sociology, 67(1), 90–113.
Tolbert, C. M., Lyson, T. A., & Irwin, M. D. (1998). Local capitalism, civic engage-
ment, and socioeconomic well-being. Social Forces, 77(2), 401–427.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). Business employment dynamics: Estab-
lishment age and survival data. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. www.bls.gov/
bdm.bdmage.htm
U.S. Census. (2010). Explore Census data. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
Van de Ven, H. (1993). The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneur-
ship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 211–230.
Wessels, T. (2013). The myth of progress: Toward a sustainable future. University
Press of New England.
3 An Ecology of Entrepreneurship
A Review of Concepts,
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems,
and Entrepreneurial Communities
from the Literature
Morgan R. Clevenger and Chao Miao
Introduction
Covey (1993) said, “ecology is a word which basically describes the syner-
gism in nature—everything is related to everything else” (p. 283). The same
is true for business and entrepreneurship: there is synergy among various
elements including entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial ecosystems, feeder and
support systems, networks and alliances, entrepreneurial communities, and
the larger society. As noted by Steyaert and Katz (2004), “entrepreneurship
takes place in multiple sites and spaces” (p. 180). This chapter explores
these multiple elements and relation to one another, or ecology.
Who Is an Entrepreneur?
The concept of an entrepreneur conjures many definitions: innovator
(Hagen, 1962; Schumpeter, 1934), director of production and distrib-
utor of goods, services, and/or processes (Cole, 1959), coordinator of
social and economic mechanisms together along with manager of risk
(McClelland, 1963; Shapero, 1975), and owner (and sometimes man-
ager) in a business entity (Brockhaus, 1980). “Simply put, an entrepre-
neur is someone who takes on the risk and responsibility to own and
operate a business to potentially reap a reward” (Clevenger, 2017, p. 26).
Likewise, both entrepreneurship (as a process approach and planning)
and entrepreneuring (as the action) have emerged from various thought
leaders and scholars over many years (i.e., Say, 1803, 1964; Drucker,
1985; Johannisson, 2011; Stevenson & Gumpert, 1985; Gartner, 1988;
Timmons, 1997; Venkataraman, 1997; Meyer et al., 2002). To suffice,
one generally knows what an entrepreneur is and their intents (i.e., pro-
cess called entrepreneurship) and executions (i.e., actions called entrepre-
neurial actions or entrepreneuring). Creating a business or innovation of
various sorts leads to the concerns and recognition that an entrepreneur
does not—and, in fact, cannot—do the entrepreneuring alone. Five cul-
ture events or traits of entrepreneurs must occur:
DOI: 10.4324/9781351045711-3
An Ecology of Entrepreneurship 57
1. Initiative taking—an individual or group takes the initiative;
2. Bringing together resources in organizational form to accom-
plish some objective (or reorganizing the resources in an existing
organization);
3. Management of the organization by those who took the initiative;
4. Relative autonomy—relative freedom to dispose of and distribute
resources; and
5. Risk-taking—the organization’s success or failure is shared by the
initiators/managers.
(Shapero, 1984, p. 24)
Thus, the reality of entrepreneurs and entrepreneuring goes beyond

the classical hero’s tale (see Braun et al., 2018; Fortunato & Clevenger,
2017b; Lichtenstein & Lyons, 2010). In organizational and manage-
ment theory, scholars promoted a shifting away from the entrepre-
neur-actor hero toward more process-centric narratives to explore
institutional entrepreneurship, which opened the foodgates of entre-
preneurial agency research with exploration in multiple directions of
organizational theory, institutional theory, and systems theory (see Bat-
tilana et al., 2009; Hardy & Maguire, 2008; Jennings et al., 2015).
The concept of agency harkens any type of “making a difference” in
sociological contexts (Scott, 2001, p. 75). Entrepreneurship—and busi-
ness in general—exists to improve the “quality of life” or “standard
of living” through cost savings, technological inventions to save time,
or creation of comfort or effciencies. Suddaby et al.’s (2010) journal
article Organizations and Their Institutional Environments—Bringing
Meaning, Values, and Culture Back In reinvigorated research in entre-
preneurial agency (predominantly processes), institutions (enablers), and
entrepreneurial outcomes (effects) (Jennings et al., 2015). A framework
of topics and agent-institution relationships was birthed (see Jennings
et al., 2015, p. 369). (For a robust discussion on entrepreneur identity,
see Ruef, 2010, The Entrepreneurial Group: Social Identities, Relations,
and Collective Action; Newell, 2017, Entrepreneurial Community Suc-
cess: Psychological Characteristics, Experiences, and Identity; and Por-
car & Soriano’s, 2018, Inside the Mind of the Entrepreneur: Cognition,
Personality Traits, Intention, and Gender Behavior.) Hence, in this post-
heroic age, entrepreneuring and entrepreneurship occur in multi-level
agency via the entrepreneur, the entrepreneur’s network(s), a business
organization, business networks, enablers from feeders and support sys-
tems, industrial clusters and districts, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and
entrepreneurial communities, with espousal of a wide range of actors
and organizations—both supportive and detrimental. Note that there
are multiple ecosystems and multiple entrepreneurial communities, and
they overlap and are commensalistic.
58 Clevenger & Miao
A History of “Ecosystem”
The concept of ecosystem was considered the basic level of economics
within ancient society (Davies, 1992). In broad terms, an ecosystem is
“a network of interactions among organisms, and between organisms
and their environment” (Rodríguez-Aceves et al., 2019, p. 474). The idea
evolved rapidly, “but unsystematically” (Davies, 1992, p. 287). Cavallo
et al. (2019) said exploring
etymologically, the term ecosystem is composed of the Greek words

‘οιχος’—‘eco’, which means ‘home’—and ‘συστημα’—’system,’ which
means ‘complex,’ and so it evokes both a sense of hospitality and
acceptance and of complexity. An ecosystem is, therefore, a complex
system hosting a number of entities.
(p. 1295)
Thus, entrepreneurship can be viewed through a social lens as well as

being an economic phenomenon (Steyaert & Katz, 2004).
Boundaries: Simple Yet Complex

There are a number of important questions to consider regarding any
interaction(s) or type(s) of ecosystems. To begin, Shipilov and Gawer
(2020) consider some macro concerns: Who belongs to an ecosystem?
How do ecosystems operate? What are the conditions required for eco-
system emergence? How do ecosystems emerge? Barbosa (2015) pro-
posed questions regarding establishment and maintenance of boundaries
in the process:
Who decides upon the establishments of boundaries (for the emerging

organization, project, social movement, etc.)?
When and where does the establishment of boundaries take place?
What boundaries are established?
Why are these specific boundaries established?
How is the decision upon the establishment of boundaries structured and
implemented?
What are these specific boundaries established for (what are the intended
and unintended consequences of it)?
(p. 405)
Finally, Autio et al. (2018) also question, how do the boundaries evolve
over time?
Answering these questions and exploring possibilities is the founda-
tion for both social and economic interactions, regardless of ecological
concept level(s). Boundaries are often gray areas and may be intertwin-
ing or overlapping. Dozens of scholars have explored various facets of
boundaries, limitations, or boundary spanning. (cf. Bruns et al., 2017;
Hindle, 2010; Johannisson & Nilsson, 1989; Lowe & Feldman, 2017;
Malecki, 2017; Mars & Rios-Aguilar, 2010; Neumeyer et al., 2019; Sie-
gel et al., 2007; Yusof & Jain, 2010).
Organizational ecosystems and their business functioning theories
within have become central topics in the past 50 years (Scott & Davis,
2007). Scott and Davis (2007) noted:
As more attention was accorded to the environment, more theories

began to be formulated at the ecological level. The open systems rev-
olution in organization theory stimulated much new theorizing and
research in which organizations themselves are seen as actors in, or
components of, wider systems. In remarkably rapid succession a raft
of new theories—including contingency, transaction cost, resource
dependence, population ecology, institutional, and network—tumbled
forth during the decades of the 1970s and 1980s.
(p. 115)
Thus, we support the idea of systems thinking. We would call the envi-
ronment “facilitating conditions” concerned with increasing enabling or
driving forces and removing barriers of restraining forces (Fortunato &
Clevenger, 2017c). Barriers and restraining forces create disentrepreneur-
ship (Honig & Black, 2007). Feld and Hathaway (2020) identify four
types of systems: simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic. Each system
thus has elements and parts, purpose, and potential interdependencies.
O’Connor et al. (2018) summarized, “Systems thinking involves identify-
ing the contextual patterns of organization of the elements and the rela-
tionships among the elements found in the whole of the system in focus”
(p. 4). Thus, there are multiple systems. These systems may be of any size.
(cf. McKey, 2019; Meadows & Wright, 2008; Rutherford, 2019.) Fuent-
elsaz et al. (2018) said, “although they have common characteristics each
entrepreneurial ecosystem is different” (p. 47). An entrepreneurial eco-
system includes “a number of entrepreneurial actors, organizations and
institutions following a process in order to connect, mediate, and [self-]
govern the performance of the entrepreneurial environment” (Rodríguez-
Aceves et al., 2019, p. 474).
Seminal discussions by Boutillier et al. (2016) in Entrepreneurial Eco-
systems and O’Connor et al. (2018) in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: The
Foundations of Place-Based Renewal emphasize territorial economics.
Thankfully, O’Connor et al. delineate entrepreneurial ecosystems as tak-
ing place in an entrepreneurial community with more extensive actors—
both individuals and organizations—than just the necessary ones within a
given entrepreneurial ecosystem. However, in a 21st-century functioning,
an entrepreneurial ecosystem or entrepreneurial community may be geo-
graphically bound but would not have to be. O’Connor et al. (2018) claim
“entrepreneurial ecosystems are an inherently geographic perspective”
60 Clevenger & Miao
(p. 5). Likewise, Spigel (2020) said, “entrepreneurial ecosystems are a
geographic phenomenon rather than tied to a sector or industry” (p. 7).
But obviously e-entrepreneurship or omnipreneurship (aka global entre-
preneurship in multiple locations and even countries) would be examples
where geography just does not matter nor constrict a system. Certainly,
e-entrepreneurship (see Susson & Ács, 2017; Xie et al., 2019, for examples)
and omnipreneurship are mighty complicated because of the multiplicity of
environments, but they are not geographically bound. Therefore, entrepre-
neurial ecosystems and entrepreneurial communities can defy geographic
boundaries. Roundy et al. (2018) called these exceptions “open-but-distinct
boundaries” (p. 3). Regardless, a systems view aids in understanding the
“parts and their relationships and interactions as a complex dynamic
interconnected whole” (Daniel et al., 2018, p. 27). The idea of complex
adaptive systems best describes the concepts supporting all various ecology
concepts, including: entrepreneurial ecosystems, business clusters and dis-
tricts, and entrepreneurial communities (Dagnino et al., 2018; Gell-Mann,
1994; Holland, 1999; Lorenzen & Foss, 2003) (see Table 3.1 Ecology Con-
cepts). Shipilov and Gawer (2020) made an important point, “the fact that
components within an ecosystem may be interdependent does not mean
that they are equally essential to each other” (p. 102).
Table 3.1 Ecology Concepts
Ecology Concepts Author(s) With Scholars Listed

TowardOrganizational Ecosystems Chronologically in a Given Concept
Role Sets Merton (1957)

Organization Set Blau and Scott (1962, 2003); Evan
(1966)
Organizational Domain Levine and White (1961); Thompson
(1967, 2003)
Organizational Populations Scott and Christensen (1995)
(Aggregates of Organizations)
Interorganizational Community Hawley (1950); Warren (1967);
(Organizational Fields) DiMaggio and Powell (1983); Baum
(1996)
Clusters and Districts Marshall (1920); Becattini (1990);
Local Cluster Porter (1998a, 1998b, 2000); Pyke
Market Cluster Local and Sengenberger (1992); Castells and
Labor Division Cluster Hall (1994); van Dijk (1995, 2003);
Innovative Cluster Visser (1996); Feldman and Francis
Fully fledged Industrial District (2003); Rocha (2004); Gordan and
McCann (2005a, 2005b); Pitelis
(2012); McCann (2006); Klepper
(2010); Boari et al. (2016)
van Dijk (2003)
van Dijk (2003); Arikan and Schilling
(2011)
Ecology Concepts Author(s) With Scholars Listed

TowardOrganizational Ecosystems Chronologically in a Given Concept
Networks Granovetter (1973); Laumann et al.

(1978); Gulati (1998, 1999);
Gulati et al. (2000); Cooper (2002);
Lechner and Dowling (2003)
Entrepreneurial Infrastructure, Gartner (1985); Dubini (1989); van
Entrepreneurial Environment, or de Ven (1993); Gnyawali and Fogel
Entrepreneurial System (1994); Spilling (1996); Lichtenstein
(2011a, 2011b)
Business Ecosystem Iansiti and Levien (2004); Moore
(1993, 2006); Overholm (2015);
Adner (2017)
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Isenberg (2011); Feld (2012); Boutillier
et al. (2016); Spigel (2020)
Framework Conditions Stam (2014)
Systematic Conditions
Entrepreneurial Community Boas (1940); Johannisson and Nilsson
(1989); Lichtenstein and Lyons
(2001); Hindle (2010); Feld (2012);
Huggins and Thompson (2012);
Guercini and Ranfagni (2016);
Fortunato and Clevenger (2017a);
Dagnino and Carayannis (2018);
Feld and Hathaway (2020)
Innovation Ecosystem Cooke et al. (1997); Shavinina (2004);
Wessner (2005); Sternberg (2007);
Ylinepää (2009); Adner and Kapoor
(2010); Gawer and Cusumano (2002,
2008, 2014); Gawer and Henderson
(2007); Gawer and Philipps (2013);
Autio and Thomas (2014)
Entrepreneurial Regions, Regional Shane (2000); Fornahl (2003); Pilon
Networks, and Regional and DeBresson (2003); Goswami
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems et al. (2017)
National Entrepreneur Systems Ács et al. (2014, 2016, 2018); Stam
(2014)
Niche Ecosystems (e.g., Unicorns, Aldrich and Ruef (2018)
Gazelles, and Black Swans)
Business utilization of ecosystems concepts from biology was popular-

ized by Moore (1993, 2006) in business ecosystems, but specifcally in the
organizational ecosystem of entrepreneurship by Pennings (1982), Bah-
rami and Evans (1995), Spilling (1996), and further by McKenzie and Sud
(2009). Mars et al. (2012) drew parallels between biological ecosystems
and organizational ecosystems. Whether biological or organizational,
In a given locale there are individual organisms, groups of organ-

isms of the same species (termed populations), interactions between
62 Clevenger & Miao
pairs of species (such as predation and competition), interactions
among larger groups of species (termed communities), and interac-
tions among communities and the non-biological components of
their environments.
(p. 272)
It is important to note that “the simpler ecosystem is more resilient” (Gell-

Mann, 1994, p. 29). Multiple entrepreneurial ecosystems exist within a
greater entrepreneurial community; however, clear lines are not demar-
cated. Levels of analysis become complicated and intertwined. Freeman
and Audia (2006) eloquently explain this “mess” of interorganizational
relations, networks, alliances, and communities as webs of functional
interdependencies and highlight prior scholars’ work in their Commu-
nity Ecology and the Sociology of Organizations. Thus, entrepreneurial
ecosystems take place in communities—entrepreneurial communities.
Likely, Isenberg (2011) popularized attention to entrepreneurial ecosys-
tems, and Hindle (2010), Feld (2012), Guercini and Ranfagni (2016),
Fortunato and Clevenger (2017a), and Feld and Hathaway (2020) have
segmented “entrepreneurial community” as a concept separate from an
“entrepreneurial ecosystem.” Understanding these separate levels (i.e.,
segmentations) can help entrepreneurs, support organizations, politi-
cians, scholars, and planners to understand the differences to help priori-
tize resources, needs, and reporting frameworks.
Specifically, Feld’s work has emphasized startup communities (Feld,
2012; Feld & Hathaway, 2020). “Within a population there are processes
of metamorphosis that transform the composition of whole populations
of organizations so that they become better suited to their environments”
(Landström, 2005, p. 335).
Interorganizational Interactions
“Inter-organizational relations, as its subject name suggests, is concerned
with relationships between and among organizations” (Cropper et al.,
2008, p. 4). An interorganizational relationship “is concerned with under-
standing the character, pattern, origins, rationale, and consequences of
such relationships” (Cropper et al., p. 4). All “inter-organizational rela-
tionships are subject to inherent development dynamics” (Ebers, 1999,
p. 31). Four dynamics considered in any interorganizational relationship,
but that could be of particular interest for entrepreneurial ecosystems
and entrepreneurial communities include “the parties’ motives, . . . the
pre-conditions and contingencies of forming inter-organizational rela-
tionships, . . . the content, and . . . the outcomes” (Ebers, 1999, p. 31).
Additionally, Aldrich (1979) promoted four-dimensional considerations
of formalization, intensity, reciprocity, and standardization of reoccur-
ring behavior. Beyond these dynamics, entrepreneurs and organizations
constantly learn how to act and to react to other people and other organi-
zations (Aldrich, 1979; Ebers, 1999; Guetzkow, 1966; Meyer & Rowan,
1977; Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). The three processes for organizational
learning and respective interorganizational engagement include under-
standing, revaluation, and adjustment (Ebers, 1999; Ring & Van de Ven,
1994). Ebers (1999) indicated,
In the course of an ongoing inter-organizational relationship, the par-

ties may for instance learn more about the environmental challenges
and opportunities that affect the contents and outcomes of their rela-
tionship; they may learn more about one another, for example, about
their goals, capabilities, or trustworthiness; and they may learn how
they could perhaps better design their relationship in order to achieve
desired outcomes.
(p. 38)
These dynamics and processes push interorganizational relationships “to

evolve over time” (Ebers, p. 38). Typology of cooperative interorganiza-
tional relationships and networks includes three kinds: (1) limited coop-
eration, (2) moderate cooperation, or (3) broad cooperation (Alter &
Hage, 1993). “The growth of interorganizational collaborations is an
ongoing process. The level of cooperation within both competing and
symbiotic interorganizational networks is not only a classifying variable
but also an indicator of evolution” (Alter & Hage, 1993, p. 68). Four
normative characteristics of interorganizational networks include cog-
nitive structures, non-hierarchical, division of labor, and self-regulating
(pp. 78–79). Thus, having multiple entrepreneurial ecosystems, literally
hundreds of support organizations, and multiple entrepreneurial com-
munities (via local, regional, state, national, and/or global), managing
interorganizational boundaries is diffcult. Each entrepreneur and specifc
organization needs to internally determine what resources are needed
and from whom. When competing support options are available, choice
is exhibited and selections are made. Tough areas effecting behaviors
included conficting goals, conficting policies, or lack of knowledge or
information (aka bounded rationality). Recommendations for managing
and mitigating these interorganizational relationships for entrepreneurs
and support organizations include:
1. An understanding that not all organizations need or are good at

collaborating
2. Decentralized authority is best with separate niches for greatest
performance
3. Boundary spanning as important and utilizing a facilitator is helpful
4. Complementary competencies help co-creation
5. Parity in number of employees and organization size is helpful
64 Clevenger & Miao
6. Social bonds being important and can be cocreated in networks
simultaneously
7. Coordination as a key for managing complexity
8. The need to communicate, communicate, communicate
9. Sharing profits and praising as well as losses and criticisms
10. Coordinating councils to keep all informed and involved
11. Cross-training, giving greater appreciation of partners’ obligations
and processes
12. Having adaptive efficiency as important to plan budgets and time-
lines for implementation of programming
(adapted from Alter & Hage, 1993, pp. 287–293)
Hence, productivity is “simultaneously infuenced by their internal capa-

bilities and by their complex interactions with the rest of the ecosystem”
(Iansiti & Levien, 2004, p. 35).
Levels of Analysis in the Ecology of Entrepreneurship

Typologies help to organize levels of analysis for research. Understanding
actors, their spaces, and their networks provides illumination and dia-
logue around specific opportunities for feeders and supports, policy, and
metrics. Scholars divide entrepreneurs and their businesses; networks and
alliances; clusters and districts; entrepreneurial ecosystems; entrepreneur-
ial communities; and multiple regional, state, and national networks into
various levels of analysis (Clevenger, 2017; Goldstein, 2003; Tappi, 2003).
From our first book, we have slightly expanded on the levels of analysis to
better describe the sociological dimensions and clarity in exploring entre-
preneurial communities and entrepreneurial ecosystems (see Table 3.2). We
have divided meso into two levels and added macro level 4. Additionally,
important expansion of relevant level phrases and some functional char-
acteristics are included. The goal is trying to organize and better under-
stand the complexity in the myriad of layers (cf. Courgeau, 2003; Lazega &
Snijders, 2016). Note that unit of analysis is different than levels. Units
Table 3.2 Levels of Analysis in Entrepreneurship
Level Level of Analysis Functional Characteristics
Macro-level 4 Worldwide level: global United Nations initiatives,

macro-sociological, human regulation
global socio-cultural, context, global industrial
global society, global relations, global business
culture dynamics, global environments, global labor
political economies; global market dynamics, structures
entrepreneurial ecosystems of resources and
and communities; global constraints, globalization,
institution level omnipreneurship

Macro-level 3 Environmental level: macro- Social regulation context,
sociological, national industrial relations, national
socio-cultural, national legislation, macro-national
society, national culture, business environments,
political economy; national labor market
national regulatory dynamics, prevailing
determinants; national discourses of legitimacy,
entrepreneurial ecosystems structures of resources and
and communities; national constraints, participation
institution level nationally toward
globalization
Macro-level 2 Environmental level: macro- Social regulation context,
sociological; regional state legislations, macro-
or state socio-cultural; regional and state business
regional or state society; environments, regional
regional or state culture; and state labor market
supra-regional; political dynamics, prevailing
economy; regional or state discourses of legitimacy,
regulatory determinants; structures of resources, and
regional and state constraints via intra-state
entrepreneurial ecosystems and inter-state concerns
and communities; regional
or state-wide clusters;
inter-industry collaboration;
institution level
Macro-level 1 Community level: sociological, Objective structures
socio-cultural, sector pertaining to the
or industry, market, community organization
community as organization, and sector, industry rules
intra-industries, sector and and procedures, industry
industry entrepreneurial or sectoral patterns of
ecosystems; community legitimacy and competition,
clusters; localized entrepreneurial networks
regulatory determinants; (which may include
entrepreneurial associational, professional,
communities and organizational
linkages), informal codes
of conduct, community
and organizational history
and culture, informal rules
of legitimacy; feeders and
supports for entrepreneurial
communities
Meso-level 2 Population level: business Collective organizations
ecosystems; entrepreneurial serving a business or
ecosystem(s) entrepreneurial ecosystem
such as financial or network
resources; strategies used
to gain capital to legitimize
their presence in the field
(Continued)
66 Clevenger & Miao
Table 3.2 (Contiued)

Meso-level 1 Organization level: Individual organizations
Enterprise or firm level; (not collective) such as
entrepreneurial ecosystem educational, financial,
cultural, and network
resources; strategies used
to gain capital to legitimize
their presence in the field
Micro-level Individual level: entrepreneurs “Great person” school;
and small business owners psychological entrepreneurial
attributes, biographies, and
motivations; individual
skills; hero’s tale focus;
management function;
leadership function;
intrapreneurship;
entrepreneur health and
well-being
Note: Expanded from Clevenger (2017, Table 2.1, pp. 24–25) and amalgamated from ideas
from Aldrich and Fiol (1994), Aldrich and Wiedenmayer (1993), Bourdieu (1977, 1984a,
1984b, 1987, 1990, 1998), Carroll (1987), Cunningham and Lischeron (1991), Forson
et al. (2014), Fortunato and Clevenger (2017a), Sedkaoui (2019), Thornton (1999), Uy et al.
(2017), and Wiklund et al. (2019).
may encompass the perspective view; the unit could be an individual, an

individual business, a town or city, a university, a consortium of higher
education institutions, an incubator, or various entrepreneurial ecosys-
tems (e.g., local, regional, state, or national), an entrepreneurial commu-
nity (e.g., locally, regionally, in a state, or nationally), or collectives of any
of those (Goldstein, 2003; Miller & Ács, 2017; Tappi, 2003).
Entrepreneurial Social Groups, Networks, and Alliances

According to Landström (2005, p. 342), “Entrepreneurs are embedded
in a social context and must establish connections to resources within
their social networks”. Networks are critical to the cultivation of both
entrepreneurial communities and networks by serving as the architec-
ture over which ideas and information about opportunities are passed
from person to person or business to business (Granovetter, 1973). The
more central one is in a social network, and the more diverse the per-
spectives across these networks, the greater the access to non-redundant
information one has—the sort of “currency” of social networks that is
most beneficial to innovation and opportunity exploration (Granovet-
ter, 1973). Networks are defined by Laumann et al. (1978) as “a set
of nodes (persons, organizations) linked by a set of social relationships
(friendship, transfer of funds, overlapping membership) of a specified
type” (p. 458). Thus, networks remain separate and distinct from the
market functionality or any hierarchical relationships, which are usually
more formal in nature (Cooper, 2002). Entrepreneurial networks are
self-created and self-reliant “on reciprocity, collaboration, complemen-
tary independence, and orientation toward mutual gain” (Cooper, 2002,
p. 203). Note that—like a star in a movie—the entrepreneur is the key
ingredient in an entrepreneurial network and ecosystem, has autarky, and
is the “strategically most significant resource of the firm” (Johannisson,
1990, p. 41). And, like a star actor, the entrepreneur does not function
alone but with a cast—or network—of support (Newell, 2017). Alliances
are separate from networks. Alliances are defined as “voluntary arrange-
ments between firms involving exchange, sharing, or co-development of
products, technologies, or services” (Gulati, 1998, p. 293). Thus, alliances
are specific arrangements of an entrepreneur or entrepreneur’s businesses
with each separate and specific engagement with another entrepreneur,
or a specific feeder or support. Finally, entrepreneurial social groups—
comprised of only entrepreneurs—are a special alliance sharing similar
entrepreneurial self-identities with cogent shared group norms, values,
and drive toward goals (Haslam et al., 2000, 2003, 2005; Newell, 2017).
Entrepreneurs—and their competitors—orchestrate access to resources
as well as distribution of their products, services, and processes. Yet there
is synergy in a network through which collaboration—even coopetition—
collectively improves business outlook (Van de Ven, 1993). For example,
Aldrich and Zimmer (1986) identified four key network components: (1)
social forces with strong identity and density, (2) the importance of “bro-
kers” who facilitate interests among various participants, (3) the value of
high centrality and diversity (supporting Granovetter’s weak and strong
tie theories), and (4) appreciating the various uses of weak ties and rec-
ognition they do not all support entrepreneurs equally on the resource
journey. Thus, individual entrepreneurs and leaders serve as connectors
in a network web and help in the overall process of navigating resources,
policies, issues, and challenges (see also Aldrich & Reese, 1993; Aldrich
et al., 1987; Aldrich & Sakano, 1998; Dubini & Aldrich, 1991; Reese &
Aldrich, 1995). Daniel et al. (2018) keenly explain layers of interaction as:
(a) participating entities (individuals or businesses, and other

organizations)
(b) connect with each other or others (agencies and consumers) to
achieve
(c) mutually beneficial but not necessarily agreed goals . . . source and
share
(d) resources which transform through their
(e) dynamic processes, interactions, and activities [in various]
(f) contexts [with feedback loops]
(g) the entities can and do also influence and affect their surroundings
and contexts so that new opportunities are created
(p. 25)
68 Clevenger & Miao
As part of the history in economic geography, it is helpful to understand
various segmentations, levels, or delineations of common groupings. The
following sub-sections briefy discuss business ecosystems as well as clus-
ters and districts before digging deeper into entrepreneurial ecosystem
and entrepreneurial community constructs.
Business Ecosystems
Potentially a forerunner to entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneur-
ial communities is business ecosystems. “Business ecosystems as networks
of actors engaged in joint value creation consist of both highly interde-
pendent business actors, dependent on each other for survival, and more
detached but still critical parties such as regulators and policy makers”
(Overholm, 2015, p. 14). These ecosystems promote efficiency. “Business
ecosystems are formed by large, loosely connected networks of entities”
(Iansiti & Levien, 2004, p. 35). Interdependencies of business ecosystems
yield added value creation and/or capture (Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Jaco-
bides et al., 2018; Kapoor, 2018; Kapoor & Lee, 2013), structuring dif-
ferentiated partner roles, stimulating complementary partner investments,
reducing transaction costs, enabling flexibility with co-learning, and
capturing mechanistic value with no “free rider” issues in the nature and
architecture established by a lead firm (Adner, 2017; Williamson & De
Meyer, 2012) (see also Clarysse et al., 2014; Zahra & Nambisan, 2012).
Clusters and Districts

In 1920, Marshall (2009) was the first to recognize economic organiza-
tional clustering as evidenced by a combination of skilled, trained labor
along with resources available to support entrepreneurs. “A cluster is
defined as a physical concentration of similar or related enterprises” (van
Dijk, 2003, p. 183). Characteristics include proximity, high density of eco-
nomic activities, multiple firms in competition (Porter, 1992), inter-firm
linkages (Knorringa, 1995), inter-firm cooperation (IFC) (Pitelis, 2012)
also known as “coopetition,” a joint history with shared knowledge and
cognitive learning processes (Lorenzen & Foss, 2003; Visser, 1996), both
horizontal and vertical coordination (Lorenzen & Foss, 2003), and social
capital networks and relations between producers and traders (Kwon
et al., 2013; Sverrisson, 2000). Pitelis (2012) offered this definition:
“Clusters” are geographical agglomerations of firms in a particular,

related, and/or complementary, activities, sharing a common vision,
and exhibiting horizontal, vertical intra- and/or inter-sectoral link-
ages, embedded in a supportive socio-institutional setting, and coop-
erating and competing in national and inter-national markets.
(p. 1361)
Thus, entrepreneurial networks can mature into a cluster. Likely examples
include areas such as Silicon Valley high-tech corridor; Boulder’s amenity-
driven, small urban ecosystem; the automobile industry in Detroit; or
Hsinchu science-based cluster in Taiwan. However, these examples have
“distorted our view of entrepreneurship” because of their seemingly suc-
cinct stories resounding seemingly quick-hit success (Aldrich & Ruef,
2018, p. 461). Their formulas for success include three key observations:
“a focus on high growth and highly capitalized frms, a focus on innova-
tion and creativity, and in some variants, a focus on the recognition of
promising opportunities” (p. 461).
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
Spigel (2020) said, “given that entrepreneurial ecosystems are a pre-
paradigmatic field, there is not a single accepted definition of ecosys-
tems” (p. 2). Yet, a succinct and excellent definition is provided by Bruns
et al. (2017) “The term entrepreneurial ecosystem was coined to refer
to those elements in the entrepreneurs’ environment that help them to
succeed (or not) in their efforts to grow a new venture” (pp. 31–32).
Several other scholars and practitioners have also offered a variety of
definitions and parameters (e.g., Ács et al., 2017; Audretsch & Belitski,
2017; Stam, 2015). [Two seminal journal articles to read include a good
history by Brown and Mason (2017) in Looking Inside the Spiky Bits: A
Critical Review and Conceptualisation of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems,
and collation of various research, definitions, and concepts by Cavallo
et al. (2019) in Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research: Present Debates
and Future Directions, which was written to unpack theoretical limita-
tions, discuss core dynamics, suggest measurement approaches, and use-
fulness in policy-making.] However, likely Isenberg (2016) provides the
most comprehensive identification of entrepreneurial ecosystems through
his restatement of what an entrepreneurial ecosystem is—and is not—
in Applying the Ecosystem Metaphor to Entrepreneurship: Uses and
Abuses. “The ecosystem metaphor implies the existence of a largely self-
organizing, self-sustaining, and to some extent, self-regulating system . . .
the system is relatively independent of central control” (Isenberg, 2016,
p. 565). Further, these ecosystems are not built nor created, and there is
no governmental control. According to Isenberg (2016, p. 566, 571), an
entrepreneurial ecosystem:
• Has numerous parts

• Is physically coherent and circumscribed
• Includes parts that are not necessarily biological (e.g., infrastructure,
culture)
• Has parts that exhibit multiple and multidirectional influences on
each other
70 Clevenger & Miao
• Has organisms with different—even conflicting—drives or motiva-
tions or ways of satisfying their needs or competing with each other
for resources
• Has no one exercising control or ownership over the entire ecosystem
Also according to Isenberg (2016, pp. 568–569), an entrepreneurial eco-

system is not:
• Designed, created, established, or built

• Governed, managed, owned, nor controlled—these are inherently
contradictory to the notion of ecosystem
• Adhering to national boundaries or other administrative demarca-
tions, except perhaps very small, homogenous ones
• Focused with intention on only one or a small set of actors alone
• Implying that the entrepreneur is the central element of the entre-
preneurship ecosystem and that entrepreneurs’ perceptions are para-
mount alone
Autio et al. (2018) suggested that there are three types of entrepreneur-
ial ecosystems: stand-up, start-up, and scale-up. “Stand-up” refers to
more networking supports, such as hackathons, innovation challenges,
speed dating events, and entrepreneurship programs. “Start-up” provides
coworking spaces, accelerators, makerspaces, knowledge interns, and
access to niche funding from angel investors or crowdfunding. Finally,
“scale-up” provides greater capacity building, business investors and
sharks, venture capital, IPO, production space, patenting and licensing
guidance, and specialized human capital. Spigel and Harrison (2017) said:
Entrepreneurs are key actors in an ecosystem, with the ability to

identify challenges and help create structures to overcome common
problems. Other actors, such as existing firms, who can draw on eco-
system resources to catalyze new growth, start-up workers, mentors,
advisors, and dealmakers are also crucial constituencies.
(p. 157)
“An entrepreneurial ecosystem considers the actors and the environment

affecting the rise and diffusion of entrepreneurship at the “glocal” level
(Alvarez et al., 2018, p. 3). The “actors operate inside the boundaries of
an ecosystem affecting their ability to appropriate the return on their
investments by means of mixing competition and cooperation” (Minà
& Dagnino, 2018, p. 20). (See Figure 3.1.; note a difference in funding
representation here by institutions instead of predominantly self-funding
as illustrated in Chapter 1.) Spigel (2020) notes two key factors for an
entrepreneurial system: resources and access to those resources.
As the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystem has grown into a popular
and rising concept, to better understand its structure and its impact on the
Figure 3.1 Entrepreneurial Ecosystem provides a visual representation of a lean,

entrepreneurial ecosystem. Note that a funding agency represents
potential funding.
entrepreneurship processes, we have summarized chronologically relevant

literature to elucidate the components of entrepreneurial ecosystems—
with many really referring to entrepreneurial communities, or some parts
of either or both, while some authors offer frameworks or litmus tests of
success (i.e., metrics):
• Neck et al. (2004) avowed that entrepreneurial ecosystems can be

based on six domains: incubators, spin-offs (e.g., implicit spin-offs,
72 Clevenger & Miao
explicit spin-offs, and second and future generation spin-offs), infor-
mal networks, formal networks (e.g., university, government, pro-
fessional/support services, capital sources, talent pool, and large
corporations), physical infrastructure, and culture.
• Isenberg (2011) identified that the entrepreneurial ecosystems (which
are within entrepreneurial communities) should focus on six areas:
policy (e.g., leadership and government), finance (e.g., financial
capital), culture (e.g., success stories and societal norms; see Loun-
sbury & Glynn, 2001), supports (e.g., infrastructure, support profes-
sions, and non-government institutions), human capital (e.g., labor
and educational institutions), and markets (e.g., early customers and
networks).
• Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs (ANDE) (2013) pro-
posed that the entrepreneurial ecosystems should be composed of
eight domains: finance, support, policy, markets, human capital, infra-
structure, research & development, and culture. The key actors for the
domain of finance consist of banks, venture capital, angel investors,
foundations, microfinance institutions, public capital markets, devel-
opment finance institutions, and government. The key actors for the
domain of support are comprised of incubators, accelerators, indus-
try associations/networks, legal services, accounting services, techni-
cal experts/mentors, and credit rating agencies. The key actors for the
domain of policy consist of national government, state government,
and local government. The key actors for the domain of markets are
made up of domestic corporations, international corporations, con-
sumers, distribution networks, retail networks, and marketing net-
works. The key actors for the domain of human capital are universities,
technical training institutes, high schools, and community colleges.
The key actors for the domain of infrastructure consist of electricity
providers, transport providers, communications, and other utility pro-
viders. The key actors for the domain of research & development are
public research centers and laboratories and private research centers
and laboratories. The key actors for culture are media, government,
schools, professional associations, and social organizations.
• Stam (2014) nuanced a difference between types of support systems
including framework factors of ecosystems as formal institutional
support, culture, physical infrastructure, and market demands v.
systematic conditions for ecosystems such as networks, leadership,
finance, human capital, knowledge, and other support services.
• Meyers (2015) indicated the entrepreneurial ecosystems across five
metric groupings, which are entrepreneurial density, deals and avail-
able financing, network interconnectivity, STEM workforce, and Inc.
500/5000 companies.
• Stangler and Bell-Masterson (2015) proposed four indicators of entre-
preneurial ecosystems: density, fluidity, connectivity, and diversity.
The density can be measured via new and young firms per 1,000 peo-
ple, share of employment in new and young firms, and sector density
(especially high tech). Fluidity can be measured through population
flux, labor market reallocation, and high-growth firms. Connectivity
can be measured via program connectivity, spin-off rate, and deal-
maker networks. Diversity can be measured via multiple economic
specializations, mobility, and immigrants.
• Taich et al. (2016) expanded the framework developed by Stangler
and Bell-Masterson (2015) and proposed an enhanced framework
of entrepreneurial ecosystems that consists of three indicators: inno-
vation, centers of commerce, and small business hubs. Innovation
can be measured via patents, bachelor’s degree attainment, entrepre-
neurial finance, high-tech density, and traded industries. Centers of
commerce can be measured through high-growth firms, university
presence, business environment, and immigrants. Small business
hubs can be measured via share of employment in new and young
firms and population flux.
• Mallett et al. (2016) suggested three specific areas that include 14
indicators of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Three specific areas include
Presence, Perspective, and Policy. The area of Presence consists of
business establishment growth, business establishment per capita,
self-employment as a percentage of total employment, and informa-
tion and cultural businesses. The area of Perspective is comprised of
expected future business performance; future full-time hiring expec-
tations; overall state of business, commercial, industrial and insti-
tutional building permits; and life satisfaction. The area of Policy
includes local government tax balance, cost of local government,
local government sensitivity to local businesses, local government
regulations, and BizPal.
• Spigel (2017b) allotted that entrepreneurial ecosystems are com-
posed of ten cultural, social, and material attributes. The cultural
attribute consists of supportive culture and histories of entrepreneur-
ship. The social attribute is composed of worker talent, investment
capital, networks, and mentors and role models. Finally, the material
attribute consists of policy and governance, universities, support ser-
vices, physical infrastructure, and open markets.
• Stam (2017) proposed ten elements to entrepreneurial ecosystems,
which consist of formal institutions, entrepreneurship culture, infra-
structure, demand, networks, leadership, talent, finance, new knowl-
edge, and intermediate services. Formal institutions refer to “the
rules of the game in society” (Stam, 2017, p. 3), which is measured
by “corruption, rule of law, government effectiveness, and voice &
accountability” (Stam, 2017, p. 3). Entrepreneurship culture refers
to “the degree to which entrepreneurship is valued in society” and
reflects “how ‘common’ starting up a business is in a particular
74 Clevenger & Miao
region” (Stam, 2017, p. 3). We call this “cultural acceptability.” In
the United States—and likely other countries as well—a pendulum
swings for entrepreneurship and entrepreneuring to be cool, in fash-
ion, or acceptable as a priority, and then there are dry periods where
it is not.
• Nicotra et al. (2018) promoted that capital is the main driving force
of entrepreneurial ecosystems and the “life blood” of new firms;
hence, they approached the entrepreneurial ecosystems from the per-
spective of capital. Nicotra et al. proposed four forms of capitals:
financial capital (e.g., accessible markets and funding and finance),
institutional capital (e.g., policy, regulation, norms, and support
structure), knowledge capital (e.g., research universities, education
and training, and qualified human capital), and social capital (e.g.,
networking, social capital stricto sensu, and cultural support).
• Theodoraki et al. (2018) proposed three dimensions of entrepreneur-
ial ecosystems, which are structural dimension (ecosystem ties, eco-
system configuration, and ecosystem stability), cognitive dimension
(shared goals and language and shared narratives), and relational
dimension (trust, norms, members’ obligations, and identification).
These components of entrepreneurial ecosystems are highlighted in Table

3.3. Many of the considerations, facets, or potential metric elements of
the ‘ecosystem’ discussion, however, are really identifying and labeling
entrepreneurial community level components, which are outside the
direct control of an entrepreneur. All of the ideas and various elements
are important, it is merely a matter of (1) where they sit, (2) which are
required versus optional—which varies from entrepreneur to entrepre-
neur, and (3) what components are owned by an entrepreneur versus
part of a larger domain that takes a coalition to rally, create or change,
or access.
Other Ecosystem Environments

There are several other types of ecosystem environments. While these
are not the focus of this book, we thought it would be helpful to at least
provide some awareness as well as available research or commentary. A
service ecosystem is “a relatively self-contained, self-adjusting system of
mostly loosely coupled social and economic (resource-integrating) actors
connected by shared institutional logistics and mutual value creation
through service exchange” (Lusch & Nambisan, 2015, p. 162) (see also
Vargo et al., 2015). An innovation ecosystem rallies around a type of
innovation (e.g., technology, process, app, etc.) or a new value proposi-
tion (Shipilov & Gawer, 2020) (see also Autio & Thomas, 2014; Furr &
Shipilov, 2018; Leten et al., 2013; Nambisan & Baron, 2013). Simi-
larly, knowledge ecosystems foster a way of thinking, guiding principle,
Table 3.3 A Summary of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Measurement Methods
Authors and Year Entrepreneurial Ecosystem

Measurement Indicators
Neck et al. (2004) Incubators, spin-offs, informal

networks, formal networks, physical
infrastructure, and culture
Isenberg (2011) Policy, finance, culture, supports, human
capital, and markets
ANDE (2013) Finance, support, policy, markets, human
capital, infrastructure, research &
development, and culture
Meyers (2015) Entrepreneurial density, deals and
available financing, network
interconnectivity, STEM workforce,
and Inc. 500/5000 companies.
Stangler and Bell-Masterson (2015) Density, fluidity, connectivity, and diversity
Taich et al. (2016) Innovation, centers of commerce, and
small business hubs
Mallett et al. (2016) Presence, Perspective, and Policy
Spigel (2017b) Cultural attribute, social attribute, and
material attribute
Stam (2017) Formal institutions, entrepreneurship
culture, infrastructure, demand,
networks, leadership, talent, finance,
new knowledge, and intermediate
services
Nicotra et al. (2018) Financial capital, institutional capital,
knowledge capital, and social capital
Theodoraki et al. (2018) Structural dimension, cognitive
dimension, and relational dimension
positionality, or strategy (Clarysse et al., 2014; van der Borgh et al.,

2012). There are also university-based entrepreneurial ecosystems (Gra-
ham, 2014; Miller & Ács, 2017). University entrepreneurial ecosystems
include “a number of entrepreneurial actors and organizations with-
ing the boundaries of a university that connect, mediate and govern the
performance of the entrepreneurial environment in order to support
students and the external community in order to promote their entrepre-
neurial initiatives” (Rodríguez-Aceves et al., 2019, p. 475). This concept
will be discussed further in Chapter 6. One specific interest in industry-
academia collaborations is students (e.g., interns, new hires upon gradu-
ation) with specific relations (Kumar, 2019). Chapter 6 also addresses
this area (see Clevenger & Munro, 2022, Avoiding Anomie: Diffusion
of Support Resources for the Empowerment of Entrepreneurs). Plat-
form ecosystem focuses on a single technology platform or single agenda
platform (Shipilov & Gawer, 2020). “New platforms arise that threaten
established ones, and entrenched and poorly maintained platforms age
76 Clevenger & Miao
and become irrelevant” (Iansiti & Levien, 2004, p. 152) (see also Ceccag-
noli et al., 2012; Gawer & Cusumano, 2002, 2008, 2014; Gawer & Hen-
derson, 2007; Gawer & Phillips, 2013; Wareham et al., 2014). Nascent
ecosystems address creation of an ecosystem by a nascent entrepreneur
(Hannah & Eisenhardt, 2018; Harrington, 2017). National ecosystem
examples include that of Algeria (see Sedkaoui, 2019) or The Nether-
lands (see Stam, 2014).
It is evident that the “ecosystem” concept has infiltrated recent
vernacular—not just in business or regarding entrepreneurs but in all
sorts of organizations, industries, communities, regions, and systems.
Understanding key components, boundaries, direct or indirect control or
influence, and available support resources helps to clarify and demarcate
their purpose and usefulness. For this book’s discussion, the main two
considerations are (1) understanding an entrepreneur’s ecosystem as a
sub-unit of larger entrepreneurial communities and (2) entrepreneurial
communities are their own level of analysis likely between individual
entrepreneurs’ ecosystems and regional or state ecosystems. Again, there
are multiple ecosystems and multiple communities that are overlapping
and intertwining.
Metrics
Goals and milestones help to track and monitor progress, growth, and
achievement. Different stakeholders and different entrepreneurs—in a
wide range of fields and industries—have supported different key per-
formance indicators, expectations, semantics, and measuring tools and
processes. Many of the metrics were mentioned in the bulletized sum-
mary concepts previously. Provided here are some broader, more univer-
sal concerns. Infrastructure is “a composite measure including indicators
of motorway and railway potential accessibility and the number of pas-
senger flights” (Stam, 2017, p. 3). Demand refers to “a composite con-
sisting of disposable income per capital and two measures of potential
market demand” (Stam, 2017, p. 4). Networks reflect “the connectedness
of businesses for new value creation, which is measured as the percentage
of businesses (with at least 10 employees) in a region that collaborate
for innovation” (Stam, 2017, p. 4). Leadership is measured with “the
prevalence of innovation project leaders” (Stam, 2017, p. 4). Talent is
“the prevalence of individuals with high levels of human capital,” which
is measured with “the share of the population aged 15–65 years with a
higher education degree” (Stam, 2017, p. 4). Finance refers to “the per-
centage of SMEs that applied for bank finance and received it as an indi-
cator for the finance element” (Stam, 2017, p. 4). New knowledge is “the
percentage of gross domestic product invested in R&D (by public and
private organizations)” (Stam, 2017, p. 6). Intermediate services are “the
percentage of business service firms in the business population” (Stam,
2017, p. 6). While originally aimed at higher education ecosystem met-
rics, Graham (2014) noted measures can also be related to strategy and
approach, culture, innovation, and impact.
Johannisson and Nilsson (1989) theoretically anchored entrepreneur-
ship as inextricable from its community context in the very first issue of
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. As part of the hero-centric
era, Johannisson and Nilsson (1989) began to delineate a community
entrepreneur from a business entrepreneur in stating:
Some entrepreneurs are facilitators of entrepreneurial events rather

than promoters of the individual business ventures. They create a
“context” for traditional or autonomous entrepreneurs. That is the
role that can be ascribed to the corporate leader who encourages
intrapreneurship. It is also the mission of community entrepreneurs.
Both bridge business and community values and practices, i.e., take
on the role of statesmen.
(p. 3)
The entrepreneurial environment, infrastructure, and system scholars

(e.g., Dubini,1989; Gartner, 1985; Gnyawali & Fogel, 1994; Lichtenstein,
2011a, 2011b; Spilling, 1996; van de Ven, 1993) likely were addressing a
combination of entrepreneurial ecosystem factors but signifcant entrepre-
neurial community factors that are not in the purview of entrepreneurs.
Gnyawalli and Fogel’s (1994) framework of environmental conditions
included government policies and procedures, socioeconomic conditions,
entrepreneurial and business skills, fnancial, and nonfnancial support—
all community and beyond elements. These resources are also known as
feeders and supports; more specifcally they could include—but are not
limited to—banks and venture capital availability, technical labor force,
incubator organizations, accelerators, colleges and universities, regional
loan policy, regional zoning policy, and supporting services (Bruno &
Tyebjee, 1982; Parisi et al., 2018; Spigel, 2017b, 2020). (See Figure 3.2.
This mapping includes a backdrop of entrepreneurs represented by stars
and community support organizations represented by triangles showing
the more complex nature of entrepreneurial communities compared to
the visual in Chapter 1.) In elaborating on the process, Lichtenstein and
Lyons (2001) said,
To work at the level of the entire business community requires that

we view the economy as a whole, not only as a set of distinct and
unrelated parts. There is a common belief that by helping one part
of the business community to succeed, we are helping all. . . . These
78 Clevenger & Miao
connections cannot be assumed to exist; they must be built if the
business community’s development process is to succeed.
(p. 6)
Whether intentional or incidental, several more recent scholars have

recognized and drawn attention to the importance of the “community”
environment surrounding entrepreneurship (Feld, 2012; Fortunato &
Clevenger, 2017a; Hwang & Horowitt, 2012; Isenberg, 2010; Spigel,
2020). Stam and Spigel (2018) noted, “a place’s community and cul-
ture have a signifcant impact on the entrepreneurship process” (p. 408).
(Note the concept of community is referencing people; see Key Terms and
Defnitions in Chapter 1.)
Ács et al. (2017) observed the literature for entrepreneurship research
jumps from “entrepreneurial ecosystems strategies” to “regional
development”—completely missing the sociological level of entrepre-
neurial communities. Hindle (2010) proclaimed, “the community is an
intermediate, mediating, and moderating environment” (p. 601). The rel-
evance and importance of community context have been a focus for sev-
eral ad hoc cases by ad hoc studies (see Anderson et al., 2006; Best, 2015;
Cohen, 2006; Mazzarol, 2007; Mezias & Kuperman, 2001; Smilor et al.,
1989; Peredo & Chrisman, 2006). More specific case studies in entrepre-
neurial community exploration in high- and low-entrepreneurial com-
munities were explored by Fortunato (2017a, 2017b), who found that
culture, history, and local leadership play a role in shaping local views
of entrepreneurship as honorable or dishonorable, valuable, or frivolous.
Guercini and Ranfagni (2016) promote that the “secret ingredient” to
productive entrepreneurial communities is the concept of conviviality:
“Conviviality” is the propensity for sharing and a phenomenon that

is created, sought after, or in any case emerges from the community
and contributes to strengthening the bonds withing a group, without
compromising individual freedom, but that gives rise to new pos-
sibilities deriving from the perceived closeness and greater sense of
community. . . . The term “conviviality” derives from the Latin con-
vivialitas and, in turn, the Greek koinonia. Although it denotes a
sense of community and sharing, it is in fact distinct from the concept
of community, in that it represents a means or a tool to build and
nurture a sense of belonging and reap the benefits that such belong-
ing to a community can offer.
(Guercini & Ranfagni, 2016, p. 770)
All of these frameworks and models contribute to understanding the myr-

iad of support organizations and the complexities of both entrepreneurial
ecosystems and entrepreneurial communities. Likely Dagnino and Caray-
annis (2018) provide the best defnition of an entrepreneurial community:
As such, independent and interacting factors, such as family and
social networks, educational system and research centers, innovation
hubs, financial institutions, local infrastructure, government poli-
cies and cultural and social norms may play a fundamental role in
facilitating entrepreneurial ecosystems. It is therefore not the single
element, but the interaction among all the elements comprising the
entrepreneurial ecosystem that eventually contributes to its success
or failure over time.
(p. 197)
A deep dive look at entrepreneurial community models is found in Models

of Entrepreneurial Community and Ecosystem Development (Fortunato,
2017c), as well as Chapter 2 in this book. While designed and aimed at
rural communities, a resource for entrepreneurial community assessment
is Markley et al.’s (2005) Energizing Entrepreneurs workbook. Seminal
as a resource is Lichtenstein and Lyons Lichtenstein (2010) Investing in
Entrepreneurs: A Strategic Approach for Strengthening Your Regional
and Community Economy.
Just as there are multiple entrepreneurial ecosystems, there are mul-
tiple entrepreneurial communities. Baumol (1990) indicated that entre-
preneurship varies in different areas and among societies. Regardless
of culture, entrepreneurship focuses on productive new ideas, generat-
ing new processes, and combining innovation—all supporting entrepre-
neurial ecosystems as well as entrepreneurial communities at the local,
regional, state, and national levels. As noted from our first book,
The key to remember is that development of an entrepreneurial

community—much less an entrepreneurial ecosystem—takes time
and is a process. Among various aspects of entrepreneurial action
[i.e., entrepreneuring] in process development [i.e., entrepreneurship]
are purpose, resource allocation, and exchange. The process of set-
ting goals, identifying and utilizing resources, and creating positive
exchanges takes time.
(Fortunato & Clevenger, 2017c, p. 289)
As with the messiness in entrepreneurial ecosystems, the complexity

of entrepreneurial communities is also under researched (Guercini &
Ranfagni, 2016).
Economic Development
Likely our work began when we observed that good economic develop-
ment people and boards desire—at all levels from national to state to
locals—in providing a “fertile” business or entrepreneur environment by
offering three key factors: a trained, educated, and available workforce;
80 Clevenger & Miao
Figure 3.2 Entrepreneurial Community provides a visual representation of the wide

range of ‘feeders’ and ‘supports’ across a community contributing to the
work of entrepreneurs within an entrepreneurial community. Note that
this visual also includes multiple stars representing entrepreneurs and
triangles representing various support organizations in the community.
access to financial capital; and readily available infrastructure. We believe
those are helpful resources, yet likely politics and coalitions, leadership,
and culture of an area, industry, or business environment are also highly
important to support and enable or hinder entrepreneurs, start-ups, and
businesses (Davidsson, 1995; Fortunato & Clevenger, 2015, 2017a,
2017b, 2017c Hayton et al., 2002). Stam and Spigel (2018) explain, “the
government retains an important role as a “feeder” who acts to create
a conducive economic and social environment for entrepreneurship, for
example in adjusting laws and regulations or providing training and edu-
cational opportunities” (p. 412).
Economic development folks and The World Economic Forum (Lee,
2013) probably latched on to “entrepreneurial ecosystem” and muddied
the waters quite a bit, although definitively with good intentions to foster
economic prosperity, democratic free enterprise, job creation, and allow-
ance for a culture of acceptance with entrepreneuring. However, in the
process, “feeders and supports,” governments themselves, and initiatives
with resources or policy were dragged into the mix but really exist in
the broader boundaries of entrepreneurial communities—and not within
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Stam (2015) and Spigel (2020) caution against
governments and policy makers leading entrepreneurship as an economic
development fad instead of entrepreneurs and researchers with sound
data and best practices. Spigel and Harrison (2017) said, while
ecosystems are primarily led by entrepreneurs, particularly around

the creation of networking and support organization and identifying
critical needs. [The] state can supplement this role and help provide
necessary resources. Focus on the specific difficulties and opportuni-
ties entrepreneurs and start-ups face in accessing localized resources
such as liabilities of newness and lack of internal absorptive capacity.
(p. 157)
An important understanding that helps separate entrepreneurial ecosys-

tems from entrepreneurial communities and even larger entrepreneurial
networks (e.g., regional, national, and global) is where organizational
actors—likely feeder and support organizations that enable (or restrain)
entrepreneurship—are located. For example, Feld and Hathaway (2020)
discuss government and indicate:
In spite of some successful efforts and the best of intentions, govern-

ments often lack the resources, expertise, mindset, and sense of urgency
to mobilize resources that entrepreneurs need most. The temptation to
rely on government is understandable. After all, startup communities
are a type of public good—something of value that exists to benefit
everyone. In many domains, such as military, education, health care,
and even vast swaths of innovation, the government provides public
82 Clevenger & Miao
goods as one its primary purposes. However, in the context of startup
communities [and entrepreneurial ecosystems], governments can play
only a supportive or indirect role. At the very least, entrepreneurs
should not look to the government to solve their problems.
(p. 44)
Further, Isenberg (2010) said, “unfortunately, many governments take

a misguided approach to building entrepreneurship ecosystems. They
pursue some unattainable idea of an ecosystem and look to economies
that are completely unlike theirs for best practices” (p. 3). Indeed, in the
United States, a key to economic development success is aimed at pro-
moting entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship, and entrepreneuring. Addition-
ally, entrepreneurs and their frms may help to create jobs (see Birch,
1979, 1987, 1989; Birch & Medoff’s gazelles, 1994).
Culture
Culture is academically situated in the field of anthropology but is central
to the functioning of all human systems. Hence, psychology and soci-
ology enact cultural behaviors. Davidsson (1995), Kuper (1999), Loun-
sbury and Glynn (2001), and Hayton et al. (2002) indicated that cultural
explanations provide a partial view or understanding of how and why
people think what they do, why they behave in certain ways, and circum-
stances or stimuli that can alter these patterns. Each hamlet, village, city,
town, municipality, county, borough, parish, metropolis, region, territory,
state, commonwealth, or nation has distinct culture (Breazeale & Hus-
tedde, 2017; Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Huggins & Thompson, 2014).
Cultural factors are often absent from analyses of economic change

and development, divorcing the nature of social places from the eco-
nomic spaces within which they are situated. However, the cultural
community traits of places may influence the prevailing entrepre-
neurial culture of these places in the form, for example, of entrepre-
neurial capacity.
(Huggins & Thompson, 2012, p. 1)
Thus, culture is a major influence on entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs,

and entrepreneuring (Breazeale & Hustedde, 2017; Malecki, 2011; Spi-
gel, 2017a). Likewise, the concepts undergirding culture—specifically
with influence on entrepreneuring—include other ideas such as context
(Baker & Welter, 2018; Welter, 2011), embeddedness (Granovetter, 1985;
Nijkamp, 2003; Steyaert & Katz, 2004; Tolbert et al., 1998), and attitude
(Lee & Peterson, 2000). Strong social cohesion, support of education, and
emphasis of work aid in a cohesive culture that promotes confidence in
individuals—entrepreneurs—and thus a positive entrepreneurial culture
Table 3.4 Culture Components Impacting Entrepreneurship
Components That Are Visible Author(s)

(Chronologically in a given concept)
Histories (local traditions, founders, Boas (1940); Pilon and DeBresson

heritage) (2003)
Confined repertoire of heuristics
Artifacts Kuper (1999); Morgan (2006)
Education Huggins and Thompson (2012)
Best-practices (e.g., templates, Clark (1987, 1995)
protocols)
Rules, protocols, and observed facts Bijker et al. (1987)
Cultural goods Bourdieu (1984a); Huggins and
Thompson (2012)
Theories in use Argyris and Schön (1978)
Sharing of experiences (facilitating Pilon and DeBresson (2003)
functions, routines, celebrations)
Diversity, collective action, and equity Hofstede (1980, 1991); Huggins and
Thompson (2012)
Components That Are Invisible or Indirect

Espoused values Schein (1992); Pilon and DeBresson
(2003)
Cultural predispositions Clark (1987)
Cultural skills Bijker et al. (1987)
Cultural qualifications Bourdieu (1984a)
Cultural values Bart (1967)
Tacit knowledge Polanyi (1967)
Influence of outside stimuli Pilon and DeBresson (2003)
(Huggins & Thompson, 2012). Table 3.4 provides a brief listing of cul-
ture components impacting entrepreneurship. (For a robust discussion
regarding culture and entrepreneurs, see Breazeale & Hustedde, 2017.)
Summary
This discussion has focused on current research relevant to thinking
about entrepreneurial ecosystems as well as delineating them as lean and
self-serving units of productivity and separate from an entrepreneurial
community. However, there are antecedents—ingredients or supplies—of
entrepreneurial ecosystems (Foss & Lyngsie, 2016; Holland, 1999). Key
ideas from all of the scholars brought forward are helpful in organizing
elements, research terrain, and integrative concepts from scholars and
practitioners. Thus, “organizational ecosystems are nested structures”
(Mars et al., 2012, p. 275). Ecological systems—including each entre-
preneurial ecosystem and each entrepreneurial community—evolve over
time, and incur “mutual adjustments” (Gell-Mann, 1994, p. 246).
Numerous scholars have questioned the typological, atheoretical, under-
developed analytical framework(s), and confusing nature of entrepreneurial
84 Clevenger & Miao
ecosystems and indirectly entrepreneurial communities (e.g., Alvedalen &
Boschma, 2017; Audretsch et al., 2021; Autio et al., 2018; Busenitz
et al., 2003; Kimjeon & Davidsson, 2021; Roundy et al., 2018; Spigel &
Harrison, 2017); the depth of complexity and adaptive system natures
(Roundy et al., 2018); as well as the misuse or confusion of the tight
nature of entrepreneurial ecosystems in contrast to other systems such as
entrepreneurial communities, thus including comparative and multi-scalar
perspectives (e.g., Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017; Isenberg, 2016); lacking
much empirical evidence (Spigel & Harrison, 2017); and lacking rigorous
social science research thus needing additional consideration of non-linear
methodologies (Fortunato & Clevenger, 2017c; Malecki, 2017; Stam &
Spigel, 2018). Stam and van de Ven (2021) summarized:
While appealing, the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept is problem-

atic, and the rush to employ it has run ahead of answering several
fundamental conceptual, theoretical, and empirical questions. The
phenomenon at first appears rather tautological: entrepreneurial eco-
systems are systems that produce successful entrepreneurship, and
where there is a lot of successful entrepreneurship, there is appar-
ently a good entrepreneurial ecosystem. Such tautological reasoning
ultimately offers little insight for research or public policy. Secondly,
the approach as yet provides only laundry lists of relevant factors
without clear reasoning of their cause and effect, nor how they are
tied to specific place-based histories. While these factors provide
some focus, they offer no consistent explanation of their independent
effects on entrepreneurship—and ultimately, on aggregate welfare.
(p. 810)
Yet the concept of entrepreneurial community is valuable. Hindle (2010)

said an entrepreneurial community is “an intermediate environment con-
taining factors both conducive and hostile to any proposed entrepreneur-
ial process” (p. 599). The contexts of entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship,
and both entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurial communities are
complex as well as dynamic. The feld of entrepreneurship as both a feld
of practice of business and a feld of study has been growing, and research
in both areas continues to develop deeper concepts, convergence—but also
divergence as discussion provided here, and the understanding of these
sophisticated inner workings that involve many other disciplines: psychol-
ogy, sociology, economics, political science, and anthropology (Davidsson,
2015; Shane, 2012; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).
References
Ács, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Licht, G. (2016). National systems
of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 46(4), 527–535.
Ács, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneur-
ship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3),
476–494.
Ács, Z. J., Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Szerb, L. (2018). Entrepreneurship, insti-
tutional economics, and economic growth: An ecosystems perspective. Small
Ács, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B., & O’Connor, A. (2017). The lineages of
entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10.
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy.
Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How
the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new
technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306–333.
Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Prentice-Hall.
Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of
industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.
Aldrich, H. E., & Reese, P. R. (1993). Does networking pay off? A panel study of
entrepreneurs in the research triangle. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,
325–339.
Aldrich, H. E., Rosen, B., & Woodward, W. (1987). The impact of social net-
works on business foundings and profit: A longitudinal study. Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, 154–168.
Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2018). Unicorns, gazelles, and other distractions on
the way to understanding real entrepreneurship in the United States. Academy
of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 458–472.
Aldrich, H. E., & Sakano, T. (1998). Unbroken ties: Comparing personal business
networks cross-nationally. In W. M. Fruin (Ed.), Networks, markets and the
Pacific Rim (pp. 32–52). Oxford University Press.
Aldrich, H. E., & Wiedenmayer, G. (1993). From traits to rates: An ecological
perspective on organizational foundings. In J. A. Katz & R. H. Brockhaus
(Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth (Vol. 1,
pp. 145–195). JAI Press.
Aldrich, H. E., & Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social network
ties. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneur-
ship (pp. 3–23). Ballinger.
Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together. SAGE.
Alvarez, S., Carayannis, E. G., Dagnino, G. B., & Faraci, R. (2018). Introduction:
Entrepreneurial ecosystems and the diffusion of startups. In E. G. Carayannis,
G. B. Dagnino, S. Alvarez, & R. Faraci, (Eds.), Entrepreneurial ecosystems and
diffusion of startups (pp. 1–10). Edward Elgar.
Alvedalen, J., & Boschma, R. (2017). A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosys-
tems research: Towards a future research agenda. European Planning Studies,
25(6), 887–903.
Anderson, R., Honig, B., & M. Peredo. (2006). Communities in the new econ-
omy: Where social entrepreneurship and indigenous entrepreneurship meet. In
C. Steyaert & D. Hjorth (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as social change (pp. 56–78).
Edward Elgar.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (Eds.). (1978). Organization learning: A theory of
action perspective. Addison-Wesley.
86 Clevenger & Miao
Arikan, A. T., & Schilling, M. A. (2011). Structure and governance in industrial
districts: Implications for competitive advantage. Journal of Management Stud-
ies, 48(4), 772–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00951.x
Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs (ANDE). (2013). Entrepreneurial
ecosystem diagnostic toolkit. Aspen Institute.
Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities:
Establishing the framework conditions. The Journal of Technology Transfer,
42(5), 1030–1051.
Audretsch, D. B., Mason, C., Miles, M. P., & O’Connor, A. (2021). Time and the
dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship & Regional Devel-
opment: An International Journal, 33(1–2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/089
85626.2020.1734257
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D. W., & Wright, M. (2018). Digital affor-
dances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Stra-
tegic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12, 72–95.
Autio, E., & Thomas, L. D. W. (2014). Innovation ecosystems: Implications for
innovation management. In M. Dodgson, D. M. Gann, & N. Phillips (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of innovation management (pp. 204–223). Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. (1995). Flexible re-cycling and high-technology entre-
preneurship. California Management Review, 37(1), 62–89.
Baker, T., & Welter, F. (2018). Contextual entrepreneurship: An interdisciplin-
ary perspective. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 14(4), 357–426.
https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000078
Barbosa, S. D. (2015). Revisiting entrepreneurship research from a decision mak-
ing perspective. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research on entrepreneurship:
What we know and what we need to know (pp. 389–426). Edward Elgar.
Bart, F. (1967). On the study of social change. American Anthropology, 69, 661–668.
Battilana, J., & D’Aunno, T. (2009). Institutional work and the paradox of
embedded agency. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional
work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 31–58).
Cambridge University Press.
Baum, J. A. (1996). Organizational ecology. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord
(Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 77–114). Sage.
Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destruc-
tive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921.
Becattini, G. (1990). The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic
notion. In F. Pyke, G. Becattini, & W. Sengenberger (Eds.), Industrial districts
and inter-firm cooperation in Italy (pp. 37–51). International Institute for
Labour Studies.
Best, M. H. (2015). Greater Boston’s industrial ecosystem: A manufactory of sec-
tors. Technovation, 39–40, 4–13.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pince, T. (Eds.). (1987). The social construction of
technological systems. The MIT Press.
Birch, D. L. (1979). The job generation process. MIT Program on Neighborhood
and Regional Change. MIT.
Birch, D. L. (1987). Job creation in America. Free Press.
Birch, D. L. (1989). Who creates jobs? Public Interest, 65, 3–14.
Birch, D. L., & Medoff, J. (1994). Gazelles. In L. C. Solmon & A. R. Levenson
(Eds.), Labor markets, employment policy, and job creation. Westview Press.
Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach.
Chandler Publications.
Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (2003). Formal organizations: A comparative approach.
Stanford University Press.
Boari, C., Elfring, T., & Molina-Morales, F. X. (2016). Entrepreneurship and
firm-cluster interactions: New insights. In C. Boari, T. Elfring, & F. X. Molina-
Morales (Eds.), Entrepreneurship clusters and dynamics (pp. 1–15). Routledge.
Boas, F. (Ed.). (1940). Race, language, and culture. Free Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984a). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste.
Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (Ed.). (1984b). Questions de sociologie. Edition de Minuit.
Bourdieu, P. (1987). What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical
existence of groups. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 31, 1–18.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Polity Press.
Boutillier, S., Carré, D., & Levratto, N. (2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. Wiley.
Braun, T., Ferreira, A. I., Schmidt, T., & Sydow, J. (2018). Another post-heroic
view on entrepreneurship: The role of employees in networking the start-
up process. British Journal of Management, 29(4), 652–669. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-8551.12256
Breazeale, N. D., & R. J. Hustedde. (2017). Understanding the impact of culture
in entrepreneurship. In M. W-P Fortunato & M. R. Clevenger (Eds.), Toward
Brockhaus, R. H. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of
Management Journal, 23, 509–520.
Brown, R., & Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: A critical review
and conceptualization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Econom-
ics, 49, 11–30.
Bruno, A. V., & Tyebjee, T. T. (1982). The environment for entrepreneurship. In
C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneur-
ship (pp. 288–307). Prentice-Hall.
Bruns, K., Bosma, N., Sanders, M., & Schramm, M. (2017). Searching for the
existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: A regional cross-section growth
regression approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 31–54.
Busenitz, L. W., West, III, G. P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G. N., &
Zacharakis, A. (2003). Entrepreneurship research in emergences: Past trends
and future directions. Journal of Management, 29(3), 285–308.
Carroll, G. R. (1987). Publish and perish: The organizational ecology of newspa-
per industries. JAI Press.
Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994). Tecnopoles of the world: Making of a 21st cen-
tury industrial complexes. Routledge.
Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., & Balocco, R. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem
research: Present debates and future directions. International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, 15(4), 1291–1321.
88 Clevenger & Miao
Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. J. (2012). Cocreation of value
in a platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise software. MIS Quarterly, 36(1),
263–290.
Clark, P. A. (1987). Anglo-American innovation. Studies in Organization 9. De
Gruyter.
Clark, P. A. (1995). Appropriating American and Japanese templates of adminis-
trative innovations. Conference Proceedings of AMOT.
Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., & Mahajan, A. (2014). Creating value in
ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems.
Research Policy, 43, 1164–1176.
Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strat-
egy and the Environment, 15, 1–14.
Cole, A. (1959). Business enterprise in its social settings. Harvard University.
Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems:
Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4–5), 475–491.
Cooper, A. C. (2002). Networks, alliances, and entrepreneurship. In M. A. Hitt,
R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship:
Creating a new mindset (pp. 203–222). Blackwell.
Courgeau, D. (2003). Methodology and epistemology of multilevel analysis:
Approaches from different social sciences. Springer.
Covey, S. R. (1993). The 7 habits of highly effective people (Revised and updated):
Power lessons in personal change. Simon & Schuster.
Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C., & Ring, P. S. (Eds.). (2008). The Oxford
handbook of inter-organizational relations. Oxford University Press.
Cunningham, J. B., & Lischeron, J. (1991). Defining entrepreneurship. Journal of
Small Business Management, 29(1), 45–61.
Dagnino, G. B., & Carayannis, E. G. (2018). Looking beyond the current status
of the conversation on entrepreneurial ecosystems and the diffusion of start-
ups: Where do we go from here? In E. G. Carayannis, G. B. Dagnino, S. Alva-
rez, & R. Faraci (Eds.), Entrepreneurial ecosystems and diffusion of startups
(pp. 194–198). Edward Elgar.
Daniel, L., Medlin, C. J., O’Connor, A., Statsenko, L., Vnuk, R., & Hancock, G.
(2018). Deconstructing the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept. In A. O’Connor,
E. Stam, F. Sussan, & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Place-
based transformations and transitions (pp. 23–44). Springer.
Davidsson, P. (1995). Culture, structure and regional levels of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 7(1), 41–62.
Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship
nexus: A re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 674–695.
Davies, J. K. (1992). Society and economy. In D. M. Lewis, J. Boardman, J. K.
Davies, & M. Ostwald (Eds.), The Cambridge ancient history (Vol. 5, 2nd ed.,
pp. 287–305). Cambridge University Press.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional iso-
morphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Socio-
logical Review, 48, 147–160.
Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Harper & Row.
Dubini, P. (1989). The influence of motivations and environment on business
start-ups: Some hints for public policies. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(1),
11–26.
Dubini, P., & Aldrich, H. (1991). Personal and extended networks are central to
the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 305–313.
Ebers, M. (1999). The dynamics of inter-organizational relationships. Sociology
of Organizations, 16, 31–56.
Evan, W. M. (1966). The organization set: Toward a theory of interorganiza-
tional relations. In J. D. Thompson (Ed.), Approaches to organizational design
(pp. 173–188). University of Pittsburgh Press.
Feldman, M. P., & Francis, J. L. (2003). Fortune favours the prepared region: The
case of entrepreneurship and the capital region biotechnology cluster. Euro-
pean Planning Studies, 11(7), 765–788.
Fornahl, D. (2003). Entrepreneurial activities in a regional context. In D. Fornahl
& T. Brenner (Eds.), Cooperation, networks, and institutions in regional inno-
vation systems (pp. 38–57). Edward Elgar.
Forson, C., Ozbilgin, M., Ozturk, M. B., & Tatli, A. (2014). Multi-level approaches
to entrepreneurship and small business research: Transcending dichotomies
with Bourdieu. In E. Chell & M. Karatas-Özkan (Eds.), Handbook of research
on small business and entrepreneurship (pp. 54–69). Edward Elgar.
Fortunato, M. W-P (2017a). Analysis of the case study data: Considerations for
studying or launching an entrepreneurial community or ecosystem. In M. W-P
Fortunato & M. R. Clevenger (Eds.), Toward entrepreneurial community devel-
opment: Leaping cultural and leadership boundaries (pp. 236–253). Routledge.
Fortunato, M. W-P (2017c). Models of entrepreneurial community and ecosys-
Fortunato, M. W-P, & Clevenger, M. R. (2015, January 15–22). Developing
baseline measures for the study of entrepreneurial community leadership and
culture. United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship
(USASBE) Conference Proceedings. Annual Conference.
Fortunato, M. W-P, & Clevenger, M. R. (Eds.). (2017a). Toward entrepreneurial
community development: Leaping cultural and leadership boundaries. Routledge.
Fortunato, M. W-P, & Clevenger, M. R. (2017b). An introduction to entrepre-
neurial community development. In M. W-P Fortunato & M. R. Clevenger
Fortunato, M. W-P, & Clevenger, M. R. (2017c). Leaping cultural and leadership
boundaries: Catalyzing entrepreneurial communities. In M. W-P Fortunato &
90 Clevenger & Miao
M. R. Clevenger (Eds.), Toward entrepreneurial community development:
Leaping cultural and leadership boundaries (pp. 282–293). Routledge.
Foss, N. J., & Lyngsie, J. (2016). The more, the merrier? Women in top-management
teams and entrepreneurship in established firms. Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 28(3), 487–505.
Freeman, J. H., & Audia, P. G. (2006). Community ecology and the sociology of
organizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 145–169.
Fuentelsaz, L., Maicas, J. P., & Mata, P. (2018). Institutional dynamism in entre-
preneurial ecosystems. In A. O’Connor, E. Stam, F. Sussan, & D. B. Audretsch
(Eds.), Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Place-based transformations and transi-
tions (pp. 45–66). Springer.
Furr, N., & Shipilov, A. (2018). Building the right ecosystem for innovation. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 59(4), 59–64.
Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon
of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696–706.
Gartner, W. B. (1988). “Who is an entrepreneur?” Is the wrong question. Ameri-
can Journal of Small Business, Spring, 11–32.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2002). Platform leadership: How Intel, Micro-
soft, and Cisco drive industry innovation. Harvard Business School Press.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2008). How companies become platform lead-
ers. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 28–35.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem inno-
vation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417–433.
Gawer, A., & Henderson, R. (2007). Platform owner entry and innovation in
complementary markets: Evidence from Intel. Journal of Economics & Man-
agement Strategy, 16(1), 1–34.
Gawer, A., & Phillips, N. (2013). Institutional work as logics shift: The case
of Intel’s transformation to platform leader. Organization Studies, 34(8),
1035–1071.
Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The quark and the jaguar: Adventures in the simple and
the complex. W. H. Freemand & Co.
Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel modelling of educational data. In D. Courgeau
(Ed.), Methodology and epistemology of multilevel analysis (pp. 25–42). Klu-
wer Academic Publishers.
Gordan, I. R., & McCann, P. (2005a). Innovation, agglomeration, and regional
development. Journal of Economic Geography, 5(5), 523–543.
Gordan, I. R., & McCann, P. (2005b). Clusters, innovation, and regional devel-
opment: An analysis of current theories and evidence. In C. Karlsson, B.
Johansson, & R. R. Stough (Eds.), Industrial clusters and inter-firm networks
Goswami, K., Mitchell, J. R., & Bhagavatula, S. (2017). Accelerator expertise:
Understanding the intermediary role of accelerators in the development of
the Bangalore entrepreneurial ecosystem. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,
12(1), 117–150.
Graham, R. (2014). Creating university-based entrepreneurial ecosystems: Evi-
dence from emerging world leaders. MIT.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Psy-
chology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and the economic structure: The
problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
Guercini, S., & Ranfagni, S. (2016). Conviviality behavior in entrepreneurial com-
munities and business networks. Journal of Business Research, 69, 770–776.
Guetzkow, H. (1966). Relations among organizations. In R. V. Bowers (Ed.),
Studies on behavior in organizations: A research symposium (pp. 13–44). Uni-
versity of Georgia.
Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19,
293–317.
Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network
resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management
Journal, 20(5), 397–420.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 21(special issue), 203–215.
Hagen, E. (1962). On the theory of social change: How economic growth begins.
Dorsey.
Hannah, D. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2018). How firms navigate cooperation
and competition in nascent ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12),
3163–3192.
Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2008). Institutional entrepreneurship. In R. Green-
wood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of orga-
nizational institutionalism (pp. 198–217). Sage.
Harrington, K. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystem momentum and maturity: The
important role of entrepreneur development organizations and their activities. Ewing
Marion Kauffman Foundation. www.kauffman.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/
Entrepreneurial_Ecosystem_Momentum_and_Maturity_2017.pdf
Haslam, S. A., O’Brien, A., Jetten, J., Vormedal, K., & Penna, S. (2005). Taking
the strain: Social identity, social support, and the experience of stress. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 355–370.
Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. C. (2000). Social identity, self-categorization,
and work motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and
sustainable organisational outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 49, 319–339.
Haslam, S. A., van Knippensberg, D., Platow, M. J., & Ellemers, N. (Eds.). (2003).
Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice. Psychol-
ogy Press.
Hawley, A. (1950). Human ecology. Ronald Press.
Hayton, J. C., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). National culture and entre-
preneurship: A review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 26(4), 33–52.
Hindle, K. (2010). How community context affects entrepreneurial processes: A
diagnostic framework. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(7–8),
599–647.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-
related values. Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.
McGraw-Hill.
92 Clevenger & Miao
Holland, J. H. (1999). Emergence: From chaos to order. Perseus Books.
Honig, B., & Black, E. L. (2007). The industrial revolution and beyond: Two hun-
dred years of entrepreneurship and “dis-entrepreneurship” in a small Scottish
town. Journal of Management History, 13(3), 269–289.
Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2012). Entrepreneurship and community culture:
A place-based study of their interdependency. Entrepreneurship Research Jour-
nal, 2(1), 1–35.
Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2014). Culture, entrepreneurship, and uneven
development: A spatial analysis. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,
26(9–10), 726–752.
Hwang, V. W., & Horowitt, G. (2012). The rainforest: The secret to building the
next Silicon Valley. Regenwald.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: What the new dynam-
ics of business ecosystem mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability.
Harvard Business School Press.
Isenberg, D. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 88(6), 41–50.
Isenberg, D. (2011). The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm
for economic policy: Principles for cultivating entrepreneurship. Presentation at
The Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project. www.innovationamerica.us/
images/stories/2011/The-entrepreneurship-ecosystem-strategy-for-economic-
growth-policy-20110620183915.pdf
Isenberg, D. J. (2016). Applying the ecosystem metaphor to entrepreneurship:
Uses and abuses. The Antitrust Bulletin, 61(4), 564–573.
Jacobides, M., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosys-
tems. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 2255–2276.
Jennings, P. D., Lounsbury, M., & Sharifian, M. (2015). Entrepreneurial agency
and institutions. In T. Baker & F. Welter (Eds.), The Routledge companion to
entrepreneurship (pp. 358–375). Routledge.
Johannisson, B. (1990). Economics of overview-guiding the external growth of
small firms. International Small Business Journal, 9(1), 32–44.
Johannisson, B. (2011). Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small
Johannisson, B., & Nilsson, A. (1989). Community entrepreneurs: Networking
for local development. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 1(1),
3–19.
Kapoor, R. (2018). Ecosystems: Broadening the locus of value creation. Journal of
Organization Design, 7(1), 1–16.
Kapoor, R., & Lee, J. M. (2013). Coordinating and competing in ecosystems:
How organizational forms shape new technology investments. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 34(3), 274–296.
Kimjeon, J., & Davidsson, P. (2021). External enablers of entrepreneurship: A
review and agenda for accumulation of strategically actionable knowledge.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 00(0), 1–45.
Klepper, S. (2010). The origin and growth of industry clusters: The making of
Silicon Valley and Detroit. Journal of Urban Economics, 67, 15–32.
Knorringa, P. (1995). Economics of collaboration in producer-trader relations:
Transaction regimes between market and hierarch in the Agra Footwear Clus-
ter. Free University Press.
Kumar, R. S. (2019). Industry-academia collaboration in business schools. In
S. R. Nair & J. M. Saiz-Alvarez (Eds.), Ethics, entrepreneurship, and gover-
nance in higher education (pp. 519–537). IGI Global.
Kuper, A. (1999). Culture: The anthropologists’ account. Harvard University
Press.
Kwon, S. W., Heflin, C., & Ruef, M. (2013). Community social capital and entre-
preneurship. American Sociological Review, 78(6), 980–1008.
Landström, H. (2005). Pioneers in entrepreneurship and small business research.
Springer.
Laumann, E. O., Galaskiewicz, J., & Marsden, P. V. (1978). Community structure
as interorganizational linkages. Annual Review of Sociology, 4, 455–484.
Lazega, E., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2016). Multilevel network analysis for the social
sciences: Theory, methods, and applications. Springer.
Lechner, C., & Dowling, M. (2003). Firm networks: External relationships as
sources for the growth and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms. Entrepre-
neurship & Regional Development, 15, 1–26.
Lee, D. (Ed.). (2013). Entrepreneurial ecosystems around the globe and com-
pany growth dynamics. World Economic Forum. www.weforum.org/reports/
entrepreneurial-ecosystems-around-globe-and-company-growth-dynamics
Lee, S. M., & Peterson, S. (2000). Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and global
competitiveness. Journal of World Business, 35, 401–416.
Leten, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Roijakkers, N., Clerix, A., & Van Helleputte, J.
(2013). IP models to orchestrate innovation systems: IMEC, a public research
institute in nano-electronics. California Management Review, 55(4), 51–64.
Levine, S., & White, P. E. (1961). Exchange as a conceptual framework for the
study of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly,
5, 583–601.
Lichtenstein, B. B. (2011a). Complexity science contributions to the field of entre-
preneurship. In P. Allen, S. Maguire, & B. McKelvey (Eds.), The Sage handbook
of complexity and management (pp. 471–493). Sage.
Lichtenstein, B. B. (2011b). Levels and degrees of emergence: Toward a matrix of
complexity in entrepreneurship. International Journal of Complexity in Lead-
ership and Management, 1(3), 252–274.
Lichtenstein, G. A., & Lyons, T. S. (2001). The entrepreneurial development
system: Transforming business talent and community economies. Economic
Development Quarterly, 15(1), 3–20.
Lorenzen, M., & Foss, N. J. (2003). Cognitive coordination, institutions, and
clusters: An exploratory discussion. In D. Fornahl & T. Brenner (Eds.), Cooper-
ation, networks, and institutions in regional innovation systems (pp. 82–104).
Edward Elgar.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legiti-
macy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7),
545–564.
Lowe, N. J., & Feldman, M. P. (2017). Institutional life within an entrepreneurial
region. Geography Compass, 11, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12306
Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: A service-dominant logic
perspective. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 39(1), 155–175.
94 Clevenger & Miao
Malecki, E. J. (2011). Connecting local entrepreneurial ecosystems to global inno-
vation networks: Open innovation, double networks, and knowledge integra-
tion. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management,
14(1), 36–59. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2011.040821
Malecki, E. J. (2017). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geogra-
phy Compass, 12, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12359
Mallett, T., Bourgeois, A., & Gaudreault, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial communi-
ties: Canada’s top places to start and grow businesses in 2016. Canadian Fed-
eration of Independent Business.
Markley, D., Macke, D., & Luther, V. B. (2005). Energizing entrepreneurs: Charting
a course for rural communities. Heartland Center for Leadership Development.
Mars, M. M., Bronstein, J. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2012). The value of a metaphor:
Organizations and ecosystems. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 271–280.
Mars, M. M., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2010). Academic entrepreneurship (re)defined:
Significance and implications for the scholarship of higher education. Higher
Education, 59(4), 441–460.
Mazzarol, T. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: Stimulating entrepre-
neurship in regional communities. In L.-P. Dana & R. B. Anderson (Eds.), Inter-
national handbook of research on indigenous entrepreneurship (pp. 494–507).
Edward Elgar.
McCann, P. (2006). Regional development: Clusters and districts. In M. Casson,
B. Yeung, A. Basu, & N. Wadeson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of entrepre-
neurship (pp. 651–670). Oxford University Press.
McClelland, D. C. (1963). The achieving society. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.
McKenzie, B. M., & Sud, M. (2009). Prolegomena to a new ecological perspec-
tive in entrepreneurship. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 15(1), 43–60.
McKey, Z. (2019). Think in systems: The art of strategic planning, effective prob-
lem solving, and lasting results. Independently published.
Meadows, D. H., & Wright, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea
Green Publishing.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure (2nd ed.). Free Press.
Meyer, G. D., Neck, H. M., & Meeks, M. D. (2002). The entrepreneurship-
strategic management interface. In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L.
Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 19–44).
Blackwell.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal struc-
ture as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Meyers, M. (2015). Making (and measuring) an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Eco-
nomic Development Journal, 14, 28–36.
Mezias, S. J., & Kuperman, J. C. (2001). The community dynamics of entrepre-
neurship: The birth of the American film industry, 1895–1929. Journal of Busi-
ness Venturing, 16(3), 209–233.
University of Chicago. Small Business Economics, 49, 75–95.
Minà, A., & Dagnino, G. B. (2018). Mapping entrepreneurial ecosystems inquiry:
A content analysis of the analysis of the literature and its implications. In
E. G. Carayannis, G. B. Dagnino, S. Alvarez, & R. Faraci (Eds.), Entrepreneur-
ial ecosystems and diffusion of startups (pp. 11–34). Edward Elgar.
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard
Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.
Moore, J. F. (2006). Business ecosystems and the view from the firm. The Anti-
trust Bulletin, 51(1), 31–75.
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Sage.
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2013). Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosys-
tems: Entrepreneurs’ self-regulatory processes and their implications for new
venture success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1071–1097.
Neck, H. M., Meyer, G. D., Cohen, B., & Corbett, A. C. (2004). An entrepreneur-
ial system view of new venture creation. Journal of Small Business Manage-
ment, 42, 190–208.
Neumeyer, X., Santos, S. C., & Morris, M. H. (2019). Who is left out: Exploring
social boundaries in entrepreneurial ecosystems. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 44, 462–484.
Newell, E. E. (2017). Entrepreneurial community success: Psychological charac-
teristics, experiences, and identity. In M. W-P Fortunato & M. R. Clevenger
Nicotra, M., Romano, M., Del Giudice, M., & Schillaci, C. E. (2018). The causal
relation between entrepreneurial ecosystem and productive entrepreneurship:
A measurement framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 640–673.
Nijkamp, P. (2003). Entrepreneurship in a modern network economy. Regional
Studies, 37(4), 395–405.
ecosystems: The foundations of place-based renewal. In A. O’Connor, E. Stam,
F. Sussan, & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Place-Based
transformations and transitions (pp. 1–22). Springer.
Overholm, H. (2015). Collectively created opportunities in emerging ecosystems:
The case of solar service ventures. Technovation, 39–40(May–June), 14–25.
Parisi, E., Miglietta, A., & Peirone, D. (2018). Business incubators and entrepreneurial
networks: A methodology for assessing incubator effectiveness and performance.
In E. G. Carayannis, G. B. Dagnino, S. Alvarez, & R. Faraci, (Eds.), Entrepreneurial
ecosystems and diffusion of startups (pp. 139–167). Edward Elgar.
Pennings, J. M. (1982). The urban quality of life and entrepreneurship. Academy
of Management Journal, 25(1), 63–79.
Peredo, A. M., & Chrisman, J. J. (2006). Toward a theory of community-based
enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 309–328.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A
resource dependence perspective. Stanford University Press.
Pilon, S., & DeBresson, C. (2003). Local culture and regional innovation net-
works: Some propositions. In D. Fornahl & T. Brenner (Eds.), Cooperation,
networks, and institutions in regional innovation systems (pp. 15–37). Edward
Elgar.
Pitelis, C. (2012). Clusters, entrepreneurial ecosystem co-creation, and appro-
priability: A conceptual framework. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(6),
1359–1388.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Anchor.
Porcar, A. T., & Soriano, D. R. (Eds.). (2018). Inside the mind of the entrepreneur:
Cognition, personality traits, intention, and gender behavior. Springer.
96 Clevenger & Miao
Porter, M. E. (1992). The competitive advantage of nations. Macmillan.
Porter, M. E. (1998a, November–December). Clusters and the new economies of
competition. Harvard Business Review, 77–90.
Porter, M. E. (1998b). The Adam Smith address: Location, clusters, and the “new”
microeconomics of competition. Business Economics, 3(1), 7–13.
Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local
clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15–34.
Pyke, F., & Sengenberger, W. (1992). Industrial districts and local economic
regeneration. IILS.
Reese, P. R., & Aldrich, H. E. (1995). Entrepreneurship networks and business
performance: A panel study of small and medium-sized firms in the research
triangle. In S. Birley & I. C. MacMillan (Eds.), International entrepreneurship
(pp. 124–144). Routledge.
Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative inter-
organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90–118.
Rocha, H. O. (2004). Entrepreneurship and development: The role of clusters.
Small Business Economics, 23, 363–400.
Rodríguez-Aceves, L., Mojarro-Durán, B., & Muñíz-Ávila, E. (2019). University-
based entrepreneurial ecosystems: Evidence from technology transfer policies
and infrastructure. In S. R. Nair & J. M. Saiz-Alvarez (Eds.), Ethics, entrepre-
neurship, and governance in higher education (pp. 455–475). IGI Global.
Roundy, P. T., Bradshaw, M., & Brockman, B. K. (2018). The emergence of entre-
preneurial ecosystems: A complex adaptive systems approach. Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 86, 1–10.
Ruef, M. (2010). The entrepreneurial group: Social identities, relations, and col-
lective action. The Kauffman Foundation Series on Innovation and Entrepre-
neurship. Princeton University Press.
Rutherford, A. (2019). Learn to think in systems: Use system archetypes to
understand, manage, and fix complex problems and make smarter decisions.
Dorottya Zita Varga Publisher.
Say, J.-B. (1803, 1964). Traité d’économie politique. Kelley.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Sage.
Scott, W. R., & Christensen, S. (1995). Crafting a wider lens. In W. R. Scott &
S. Christensen (Eds.), The institutional construction of organizations: Interna-
tional and comparative studies (pp. 302–313). SAGE.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, nat-
ural, and open systems perspectives. Pearson Education, Inc.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Sedkaoui, S. (2019). An empirical analysis of the Algerian entrepreneurship eco-
system: Entrepreneurship ecosystem in Algeria. In S. R. Nair & J. M. Saiz-
Alvarez (Eds.), Ethics, entrepreneurship, and governance in higher education
(pp. 467–497). IGI Global.
Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportu-
nities. Organization Science, 11, 448–469.
Shane, S. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Delivering on the
promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management
Review, 37(1), 10–20.
Shapero, A. (1975). The displaced uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychology
Today, 9, 83–88.
Shapero, A. (1984). The entrepreneurial event. In C. A. Kent (Ed.), The environ-
ment for entrepreneurship (pp. 21–40). Lexington Books, DC Heath and Co.
Shavinina, L. V. (2004). The international handbook on innovation. Pergamon.
Shipilov, A., & Gawer, A. (2020). Integrating research on interorganizational net-
works and ecosystems. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 92–121.
Siegel, D. S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2007). The rise of entrepreneurial activity
at universities: Organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corpo-
rate Change, 16(4), 489–504.
Smilor, R. W., Gibson, D. V., & Kozmetsky, G. (1989). Creating the technopolis:
High-technology development in Austin, Texas. Journal of Business Venturing,
4(1), 49–67.
Spigel, B. (2017a). Bourdieu, culture, and the economic geography of practice:
Entrepreneurial mentorship in Ottawa and Waterloo, Canada. Journal of Eco-
nomic Geography, 17(2), 287–310.
Spigel, B. (2017b). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41, 49–72.
Spigel, B. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Theory, practice, and futures.
Edward Elgar.
Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2017). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial
ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12, 151–168.
Spilling, O. R. (1996). The entrepreneurial system: On entrepreneurship in the
context of a mega-event. Journal of Business Research, 36, 91–103.
Stam, E. (2014). The Dutch entrepreneurial ecosystem. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2473475
Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2018). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. In R. Blackburn, D.
de Clercq, & H. Heinonen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of small business and
entrepreneurship (pp. 407–422). Sage.
Stam, E., & van de Ven, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small
Stam, F. C. (2017). Measuring entrepreneurial ecosystems. Discussion Paper
Series 17–11, Utrecht School of Economics.
Stangler, D., & Bell-Masterson, J. (2015). Measuring an entrepreneurial eco-
system. Kauffman Foundation Research Series on City, Metro, and Regional
Entrepreneurship.
Sternberg, R. (2007). Entrepreneurship, proximity and regional innovation sys-
tems. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 98(5), 652–666.
Stevenson, H. H., & Gumpert, D. (1985). The heart of entrepreneurship. Harvard
Business Review, March-April, 85(2), 85–94.
Steyaert, C., & Katz, J. (2004). Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in
society: Geographical, discursive, and social dimensions. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 16, 179–196.
Suddaby, R., Elsbach, K. D., Greenwood, R., Meyer, J. W., & Zilber, T. B. (2010).
Organizations and their institutional environments—bringing meaning, values,
98 Clevenger & Miao
and culture back in: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of
Management Journal, 53(6), 1234–1240.
Sussan, F., & Ács, Z. J. (2017). The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Busi-
ness Economics, 49, 55–73.
Sverrisson, A. (2000). Economic cultures and industrial development in the south.
In S. Sverrisson & M. P. van Dijk (Eds.), Local economies in turmoil: The
effects of deregulation and globalization (pp. 167–181). MacMillan.
Taich, C., Piazza, M., Carter, K., & Wilcox, A. (2016). Measuring entrepreneurial
ecosystems. Urban Publications.
Tappi, D. (2003). On the unit of analysis in the study of networks. In D. Fornahl
& T. Brenner (Eds.), Cooperation, networks, and institutions in regional inno-
vation systems (pp. 149–171). Edward Elgar.
Theodoraki, C., Messeghem, K., & Rice, M. P. (2018). A social capital approach
to the development of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: An explorative
study. Small Business Economics, 51, 153–170.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of admin-
istrative theory. McGraw-Hill.
Thompson, J. D. (2003). Organizations in action: Social science bases of admin-
istrative theory. Transaction Publishers.
Thornton, P. H. (1999). The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of
Sociology, 25, 19–46.
Timmons, J. A. (1997). New venture creation. Irwin.
Tolbert, C. M., Lyson, T. A., & Irwin, M. D. (1998). Local capitalism, civic engage-
ment, and socioeconomic well-being. Social Focus, 77(2), 401–428.
Uy, M. A., Sun, S., & Foo, M. D. (2017). Affect spin, entrepreneurs’ well-being,
and venture goal progress: The moderating role of goal orientation. Journal of
Business Venturing, 32(4), 443–460.
van der Borgh, M., Cloodt, M., & Romme, A. G. L. (2012). Value creation by
knowledge-based ecosystems: Evidence from a field study. R&D Management,
42(2), 150–169.
van de Ven, H. (1993). The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneur-
ship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 211–230.
van Dijk, M. P. (1995). Flexible specialization, the new competition, and indus-
trial districts. Small Business Economics, 7, 15–18.
van Dijk, M. P. (2003). Is Nanjing’s concentration of IT companies an innovative
cluster? In D. Fornahl & T. Brenner (Eds.), Cooperation, networks, and institu-
tions in regional innovation systems (pp. 173–193). Edward Elgar.
Vargo, S. L., Wieland, H., & Akaka, M. A. (2015). Innovation through institu-
tionalization: A service ecosystems perspective. Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment, 44, 63–72.
Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research
in J. A. Katz (Ed.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth
(Vol. 3, pp. 119–138). JAI Press.
Visser, E. J. (1996). Local sources of competitiveness: Spatial clustering and organ-
isational dynamics of small-scale clothing in Lima, Peru. Thesis Publishers.
Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Giner, J. L. C. (2014). Technology ecosystem gover-
nance. Organization Science, 25(4), 1195–1215.
Warren, R. L. (1967). The interorganizational field as a focus for investigation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 396–419.
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship: Conceptual challenges and
ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184.
Wessner, C. W. (2005). Entrepreneurship and the innovation ecosystem policy
lessons from the United States. In D. Audretsch, H. Grimm, & C. W. Wessner
(Eds.), Local heroes in the global village: Globalization and the new entrepre-
neurship policies (pp. 67–89). Springer.
Wiklund, J., Nikolaev, B., Shir, N., Foo, M. D., & Bradley, S. (2019). Entrepre-
neurship and well-being: Past, present, and future. Journal of Business Ventur-
ing, 34(4), 579–588.
Williamson, P. J., & De Meyer, A. (2012). Ecosystem advantage: The power of
partners. California Management Review, 55(1), 24–46.
Xie, X., Xie, X., & Martinex-Climent, C. (2019). Identifying the factors deter-
mining the entrepreneurial ecosystem of internet cultural industries in emerg-
ing economies. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15,
503–522.
Ylinepää, H. (2009). Entrepreneurship and innovation systems: Towards a
development of the ERIS/IRIS concept. European Planning Studies, 17(8),
1153–1170.
Yusof, M., & Jain, K. K. (2010). Categories of university-level entrepreneurship:
A literature survey. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
6, 81–96.
Zahra, S. A., & Nambisan, S. (2012). Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in
business ecosystems. Business Horizons, 55, 219–229.
4 The Power of Entrepreneurs
and Social Systems
Driving Forces for Empowerment,
Mitigating Disempowerment, and
Advancing Equity
Montressa L. Washington,
Jennifer R. Madden,
Morgan R. Clevenger, and Chao Miao
Introduction
Parsons (2013) defined social systems in terms of individuals, groups, or
organizations with shared cultural norms and meanings, as well as inter-
connections not only between internal components but also between the
system and its environment. A key element of a social system is power
(Parsons, 1963). Pfeffer (1992) defined power as “the potential ability to
influence behavior, to change the course of events, to overcome resistance,
and to get people to do things they would not otherwise do” (p. 45) thus
“as a potential force” (p. 33). Power can create an imbalance or create a
driving force for productivity and goal attainment.
Theoretical pluralism across literature streams is the starting point
for gaining insight into power and empowerment as it relates to entre-
preneuring. These concepts are especially important as both power and
empowerment can contribute positively to entrepreneuring such as the
ability to act independently, to navigate uncertainty, and to be innovative
(Henao-Zapata & Peiró, 2018). In examining the role of an entrepre-
neur in research and in practice, entrepreneurs are known for their tenac-
ity and willingness to solve problems that no one else is capable of or
eager to solve. Such tenacity can be viewed as productive goal setting and
attainment. The impetus for many business endeavors has been a result
of solving a problem affecting communities and other groups of people
needing relief from some type of challenge and the execution or doing.
Interestingly, systems supporting entrepreneurs across the private, non-
profit, and government sectors. Further, because entrepreneurship and
entrepreneuring are such key driving forces in the U.S. economy (see Fore-
word), an outline of a power and empowerment conceptual framework
is presented to facilitate understanding of categories for entrepreneurs
to consider for implementation and systems building. In the sections to
DOI: 10.4324/9781351045711-4
The Power of Entrepreneurs and Social Systems 101
follow, key theories (i.e., resource dependency and exchange theory),
community development, and institutional and behavioral economics lit-
erature as well as several power-related concepts are expounded.
To illustrate the systems supporting entrepreneurs, consider the appli-
cation of three-failures theory. Three-failures theory suggests the private,
nonprofit, and government sectors respond to gaps or “failures” in the
market to deliver the appropriate quantity or quality of goods or ser-
vices or to make those goods or services available to the appropriate
constituencies (Steinberg, 2006). The three-failures theory outlines under-
provision, over-exclusion, or contract failure as the typical shortcomings
in classical economics (Weisbrod, 1977).
Research by Peredo (2015) confirms that nonprofit organizations
can support entrepreneurship, especially transitional entrepreneurs in
economically distressed communities (e.g., Baltimore, MD, and Cleve-
land, OH, profiled in this chapter) to address a gap or failure in the
market. (See discussion in Chapter 6 and a list of nonprofit foundations
supporting entrepreneurship programming in Appendix B.) Alterna-
tive theoretical perspectives for describing entrepreneurial action (a.k.a.
entrepreneuring)—such as effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001) and entre-
preneurial bricolage (Baker & Nelson, 2005), which are two concepts
supporting the ability to leverage available resources to create possibili-
ties and perform necessary tasks—suggest that under certain conditions,
entrepreneurs take different routes to identify and exploit opportunities.
A summary of additional empowerment-related concepts may shed light.
Additionally, governments at various levels (local, regional, state,
and national) foster economic development for employment and fiscal
money-making whether entrepreneurs, trade and industry, commer-
cial, or corporate. Governments are also concerned with other sectors
including education (some government and public, and others private
and nonprofit) and nonprofits. While governments in the United States
are created by and for the people, policies, laws, precedence, and history
compound potential use of embedded power, control mechanisms, and
perpetuate the status quo that may result in conflicting goals and objec-
tives of a 21st-century functionality.
The chapter presents several theories and literature streams across four
categories: the power of entrepreneurs, empowerment, mitigating disem-
powerment, and advancing equity. The power of entrepreneurs includes
self-empowerment, intrapreneurship, leadership, organizational concerns,
team empowerment, negotiations, and empowerment often perceived
as unspoken delegated authority. Power brings other dynamics with
concerns of policy implication and cultural networks. Empowerment
includes influencing others, understanding disempowerment and pow-
erlessness, and when empowerment works (Al-Dajani & Marlow, 2013;
Pfeffer, 1992a, 1992b; Rowlands, 1995). Mitigating disempowerment is
a conscientious effort to maintain a positive, empowering environment.
102 Washington et al.
Getting out of balance can be seen through resource dependence and
dependency issues. Resource dependency deals with environmental issues
and contingencies. Sometimes imbalance comes from the liability of being
a new entrepreneur or new business. Depending on the field, there may
not be established credibility, which is necessary for operating. Finally,
advancing equity discusses diversity, equity, and inclusion, particularly
considering women, BIPOC, and LGBTQIA+. To demonstrate various
points throughout this chapter, Lived Experiences vignettes are provided
that feature entrepreneurs and advocates for entrepreneur success (i.e.,
representatives from supporting organizations) sharing their experiences
(Bertagnoli, 2000; Madden & Washington, 2021). [Note in Volume II
Empowering Entrepreneurial Communities and Ecosystems: Case Study
Insights (Clevenger & Fortunato, 2022) that the case study in Chapter
8 explores Indigenous heritage and decolonization in support of Native
Americans in the Red Lake Nation and White Earth Nation, and Chap-
ters 3, 4, 6, and 9 also discuss Indigenous people. Chapters 3, 5, 6, and 8
mention Blacks and transition from U.S. slavery with the Underground
Railroad, post-Civil War freedoms, segregation, and disenfranchisement.]
The Power of Entrepreneurs

McClelland (1963) explored achievement, affiliation, and power as key
components for entrepreneur drive and success. Further, entrepreneurship
is a key component to economic development. French and Raven (1968)
illuminated the origin and impact of social influence and social power.
They identified the five basic types of power as reward, coercive, legiti-
mate, referent, and expert. These ideas grew into three areas of concern:
formal authority (i.e., the recognized right to make a decision) control-
ling resources (via legitimate, reward, and coercive powers), persona and
personality (i.e., referent and persuasive powers), and knowledge (i.e.,
expert, information, and connectional powers) (French & Raven, 1968;
Yukl & Falbe, 1990, 1991, 1992). Foucault (1980) said “power is exer-
cised by virtue of things being known and people being seen” (p. 154).
Ogbor (2000) summarized, “in essence, the ‘how’ of power—those prac-
tices, techniques and procedures that constitute the mechanisms of power
over individuals—becomes an essential aspect of study in order to demys-
tify the self-evident truth inherent to power structures” (p. 608).
Thus, power may be unilaterally situated, accrued to those with finan-
cial resources, correlated to assets, or discursively claimed (Hardy &
Phillips, 1999). The concept of power is at the root of empowerment
(Özaralli, 2003). There is a long tradition of research on power, empow-
erment, and powerlessness. To help in framing a definition for power,
Dahl (1957) provided a definition of power, “A has power over B to the
extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise
do” (pp. 202–203). The shadow side of power is power imbalance, or
disempowerment (Berti & Simpson, 2021). A power imbalance can result
in dominance, misuse of leverage, patronization, or imposed strategy or
style (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Berger et al., 2006).
Self-Empowerment
Although challenging to find a specific definition of the term self-
empowerment, it is a concept rooted in an individual’s perceptions of
control of his or her life and an ability to navigate trials in their life with
a positive attitude. Self-empowerment is situated in one’s belief in oneself
and their ability to maintain a mindset that supports moving through
adversity. Terms like intrapreneurship, self-efficacy, grit, and entrepre-
neurial mindset are manifestations of self-empowerment (see McGee et
al., 2009; Newell, 2017; Ruef, 2010).
Intrapreneurship
Intrapreneurship, which is the ability to be innovative with a creative
mindset (Carsrud & Johnson, 1989; Clevenger, 2017; Kuratko, 2016).
Bandura (1997), defines self-efficacy as the state in which a person is
confident in their abilities to carry out the desired behavior for actions
needed to solve a problem. The power of self-efficacy in persistence and
success in entrepreneurs is a foundational principle to building a path to
a successful and thriving business. Duckworth et al. (2007) introduced
the construct of grit, defined as trait-level perseverance and passion for
long-term goals, and showed that grit predicted achievement in challeng-
ing domains over and beyond measures of talent (see also Chen et al.,
1998; Ozer & Bandura, 1990; Zhao et al., 2005).
Leadership
Classical leadership is framed by Burns (2010). A leader has passion and a
direction, and by definition, has to have followers (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014).
A key includes taking responsibility and setting a proper tone and culture
(Allevato, 2020). Successful entrepreneurs focus on being themselves and
fulfilling their passion and ideas through authentic leadership (Gardner
et al., 2011). Authentic leadership provides congruence and integrity for
building a brand; providing a quality product, service, or processes; instill-
ing trust and loyalty from both employees and customers; and establish-
ing positive power. Transformational leadership is also a key focus in
entrepreneuring (Avolio et al., 2004; Clevenger & Miao, 2017; Fuller
et al., 1999; Haataja & Neergaard, 2017; Vera, 2014). Transformational
leadership provides for positive ingenuity and work productivity. Pfef-
fer (1992a, 1992b, 2010a, 2010b) explained that power is a resource
and is used by leaders and managers—and entrepreneurs—toward
organizational (i.e., business) goals. An important role for leaders in
establishing and maintaining power is not allowing bias (Johnson, 2020).
Unconscious bias is detrimental and promotes stereotypes and potential
inequality. Thus, there are high stakes for leaders and entrepreneurs to
develop and maintain positive power structures and utilization.
Finally, servant leadership (Greenleaf & Spears, 2002) is conceivably a
leadership style central to the success of entrepreneurs and entrepreneur-
ship. Perhaps linked inextricably, servant leadership, much like entrepre-
neurship, begins with a notion that one is called to serve others, whether it
is with and through their venture, or for and because of their constituents
and communities. The entrepreneurial servant leader demonstrates the
essential traits of holistic entrepreneurs who wish to see those entrusted
to their care to become more autonomous, and more likely themselves to
become invested in their growth, and betterment of self and communities.
Organizational Concerns: Power Within Organizations

Organizations of any size have social structures whether simplistic or
complex (Pfeffer, 1992a, 1992b; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977). Power comes
with authority, responsibility, and ownership. Formal authority creates
power, while the use of power creates trust (or the lack thereof) and rep-
utation, and is a key importance for performance. Power types within
an organization include coercive (pressure from superior or coworkers),
reward (allocation of resources), legitimate (role and responsibility),
expert (education, credentials, and training), and referent (recommended
by known sources) (Heath & Isbell, 2017). Yukl and Tracey (1992) and
Yukl and Falbe (1990, 1991) highlighted that power is equated with
influence. Such influence is used politically through coalitions or pres-
sures used to convince peers, subordinates, and stakeholders in matters
dealing with an organization or business (Dannreuther & Perren, 2015).
Tactics of influence include rational persuasion, inspirational appeal,
consultation, integration, exchange of information, personal preferences
and related appeals, coalitions, legitimizing perspectives, and sometimes
pressure (Yukl & Tracey, 1992). Power is retained in a position or del-
egated to others for making decisions. Acting on behalf of an organi-
zation’s goals and priorities becomes agency. In entrepreneurship, often
an entrepreneur and an organization are viewed as one-in-the-same. In
larger organizations, people collectively set goals and priorities and del-
egate agency by role (Sadeh & Zilber, 2019; Samman & Santos, 2009).
Team Empowerment
Teams often interact and support entrepreneurs. Teams may take on
responsibility for creativity, innovation, operations, sales, etc. Thus, teams
can have a high-stakes responsibility. Team development and dynamics
play a key role in entrepreneuring where power may also reside (Özaralli,
2003; Seibert et al., 2011; Thomas & Tymon, 1994).
Negotiations and Power

Negotiation entails goals, resource acquisition, and implementation of
resources toward goal attainment. Power is a main dynamic in negotia-
tions and is shaped by mutual influence and separated powers (Rubin &
Brown, 1975; Wolfe & McGinn, 2005). Likely Dr. Charles L. Karrass
popularized the tactics of Effective Negotiating® through paid seminars
and implementation of ideas in his books (Karrass, 1974, 1993, 2013).
Whether relating to owners, employees, vendors and suppliers, custom-
ers, competition, or government regulation, successful entrepreneurs
must negotiate to achieve a win-win outcome or BATNA (the best alter-
native to a negotiated agreement). These negotiations may also sit within
power and social structures involving culture, laws, policies from various
stakeholders such as industry, or production and customers. Negotia-
tions inherently have an “asymmetry in dependence between the parties”
(Wolfe & McGinn, 2005, p. 3).
Policy
Policy is derived from agreed-upon social and cultural norms, protocols,
rules, and behaviors. Such behaviors may be initiated from unwritten
methods, rules, and constitute legitimacy for intents and behaviors and
endorsed by leaders, entrepreneurs, and organizations. Policy becomes a
type of power and is embedded in organizations, governments, industries,
and businesses. Policies also often become laws at different governmental
levels. Thus, policy can be a place where power resides.
Cultural Networks
Networks are a key environment for entrepreneurs. Thus, networks can
also be a place where power resides. Behaviors and actors stemming
from networks maintain, promote, and co-own power (Neal, 2014).
Network power typically aims to be a setting for equal distribution of
resources and co-shared strategies and maintenance—particularly in
community-oriented environments. Power and empowerment are rela-
tional configurations.
Entrepreneurs Empowering Others

The nature of entrepreneurship involves identifying, coordinating, and
managing resources, which include human capital. Entrepreneurs empower
others including their teams by providing employment opportunities,
career advancement, and outlets to express creativity. Empowerment is
rooted in power (Rowlands, 1995). Empowerment is a shared construct
across multiple disciplines (e.g., community development, economics,
education, leadership, psychology, and social movements). Empowerment
is a psychological motivation that includes competence, self-efficacy, self-
determination, and impact (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2005; Fuller et al.,
1999; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Menon (1995)
outlined three power dimensions of empowerment: perceived control,
perceived competence, and meaningfulness. Page and Czuba (1999, p. 3)
defined empowerment as
a multi-dimensional social process that helps people gain control

over their own lives . . . a process that fosters power (that is, the
capacity to implement) in people, for use in their own lives, their
communities, and in their society, by acting on issues that they define
as important.
The authors suggest that empowerment is multi-dimensional, that it is

socially constructed, and it is a process (Boudrias et al., 2014; Perkins &
Zimmerman, 1995).
Dynamics of Power
There are four traps that can hinder strong culture: “the trap of control,
the trap of similarity, the trap of preservation, and the trap of individ-
ual identity, that act as barriers in the formation of innovative cultures”
(Bayraktar, 2016, p. 79). These traps stem from power, which is deeply
rooted in self-reflection, identity, culture, and goals. Unchecked, power
can become a control mechanism. Although from a responsibility per-
spective, power is an ultimate control for setting and accomplishing goals.
Principles of Empowerment
Empowerment is a shared construct across multiple disciplines (e.g., com-
munity development, economics, education, leadership, psychology, and
social movements). Empowerment includes meaning, competence, self-
determination, and impact (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Menon (1995)
outlined three power dimensions of empowerment: perceived control,
perceived competence, and meaningfulness. Page and Czuba (1999, p. 3)
defined empowerment as
a multi-dimensional social process that helps people gain control

over their own lives . . . a process that fosters power (i.e., the capacity
to implement) in people, for use in their own lives, their communities,
and in their society, by acting on issues that they define as important.
Empowerment is multi-dimensional, that it is socially constructed, and it
is a process.
Influencing Others
Organizations, leaders, managers, and entrepreneurs have power over
employees and customers. Their agendas frame business and entrepre-
neuring itself. Embedded power is part of the culture and empowerment
climate (Seibert et al., 2004). Ideal empowerment creates autonomy and
power centrality for employees or customers with the responsibility
and accountability for production and success. Empowered work-units
included individual and team psychological ownership and decision-mak-
ing authority. These concepts can support positive personal reflection and
job satisfaction. These concerns support a positive climate for produc-
tion. Conversely, the power and empowerment of the consumer are all the
more apparent in the social influencer climate of the 21st century. With
immediate access and self-publishing rights through various social media
(i.e., relevant as of this writing includes Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and
Yelp), thus, consumers have been empowered with the ability to positively
impact the consumer experience and/or negatively impact the entrepre-
neurial landscape of small business ventures based on personal experience.
Disempowerment
Disempowerment is defined as being denied choice (Kabeer, 1999). Dis-
empowerment is the opposite of empowerment and thus erodes owner-
ship, often creating imbalance stemming from resource dependence and
creation of powerlessness. This imbalance may also create inequality or
struggle for resources, including personal satisfaction and job produc-
tivity. Situations, resource availability, and people create disempower-
ment. Disempowerment impacts decision-making, opportunity analysis,
and well-being (Mosedale, 2005). Disempowerment can be embedded in
national cultures based on role assignment, power structure, and limiting
of decision making and choice. Extended disempowerment leads to pow-
erlessness. Powerlessness “is defined as a lack of autonomy and participa-
tion” (Ashforth, 1989, p. 207).
Powerlessness
To understand powerlessness, autonomy is a first concern. Autonomy
contributes to high-quality work and increased participation with decision-
making (Barling et al., 2003). It is a key job characteristic (Rousseau,
1977) linked to performance and work satisfaction (Sutton & Rousseau,
1979) positively affecting decision-making and is associated with higher
intrinsic motivation and greater interest (Deci & Ryan, 1987). The lack of
autonomy and participation defines powerlessness, and the three stages
of powerlessness are reactance (i.e., an attempt to gain control), helpless-
ness (i.e., attempts for control are futile and therefore abandoned), and
work alienation (i.e., loss of desire and cognitive sense of separation;
Ashforth, 1989). Powerlessness can be seen as a state of being in the dis-
empowerment process. Often nascent, microenterprises and small busi-
nesses face challenges including powerlessness and resource dependency.
In the following section, we examine those liabilities.
Power and Empowerment: A Conceptual Framework

Despite some of the difficulty in presenting a standard definition, power
and empowerment are desirable positioning that can facilitate thriving for
entrepreneurs (Goldsmith, 2010; Ortiz-Walters et al., 2015; Lyons, 2015).
A conceptual framework for entrepreneurs, with thriving in the cross-
hairs, is presented (see Figure 4.1). This framework is inspired by Concept
Chart and Organizer (Carr, 2005). Design is a comprehensive approach
to solution finding (Madden, 2017). Building upon a radar design tool
(Luma Institute, 2012), an entrepreneur can organize items within one
of the six (6) categories, then prioritize based upon how important or
relevant an entrepreneur considers the idea to be (where ideas in the first
concentric circle, “1” are of primary importance; the second concentric
circle, “2” are of secondary importance; and the third concentric circle,
“3” equals tertiary importance). Items assigned to the center circle (which
is small by design) are most significant. The format assists entrepreneurs
to distinguish among primary, secondary, and tertiary importance.
The six (6) categories include Social Structure (SS), Community (C),
Ways of Knowing (W), Technology (T), Storytelling (S), and Impact (I).
Social structure (SS) is defined as “the distribution of a population among
social positions,” (Blau, 1977, p. 26). From the work of Goode (1957)
community is defined (C) based upon eight (8) characteristics:
(1) Its members are bound by a sense of identity.

(2) Once in it, few leave, so that it is a terminal or continuing status for
the most part.
(3) Its members share values in common.
(4) Its role definitions vis-a-vis both members and non-members are
agreed upon and are the same for all members.
(5) Within the areas of communal action there is a common language,
which is understood only partially by outsiders.
(6) The Community has power over its members.
(7) Its limits are reasonably clear, though they are not physical and geo-
graphical, but social.
(8) Though it does not produce the next generation biologically, it does
so socially through its control over the selection of professional
Figure 4.1 Framework
trainees, and through its training processes it sends these recruits
through an adult socialization process.
(p. 194)
To defne ways of knowing (W), we build on the theory categorizing

four interdependent ways of knowing: experiential, presentational, prop-
ositional, and practical (Heron & Reason, 1997). Digital technology
(T) is having a signifcant impact on entrepreneurship (Ghosh, 2021),
a phenomenon Nambisan et al. (2017) termed digital entrepreneurship.
For this conceptual framework technology includes emergent technol-
ogy ranging from cloud-based video conferencing and digital collabora-
tion workspace (Washington & Madden, 2020) applications to artifcial
intelligence and its subfeld of machine learning (Chalmers et al., 2021;
Obschonka & Audretsch, 2020). Storytelling (S) is an important strategy
for communication and is “described as an old skill in a new context”
(Dakoumi & Abdelwahed, 2014: 176; Snowden, 1999). Adding impact
(I) to the framework shifts the focus from outcomes and embeds resil-
iency into the work (Madden, 2017), and resilience is a fundamental
characteristic of systems (Fath et al., 2015; Scott & Davis, 2007).
Together, these six (6) categories create the Power & Empowerment
Framework for Entrepreneurs to contribute to the entrepreneurship eco-
system. This is key, given the extant research on entrepreneurship has
focused on individuals or firms (Shane, 2003; Shane & Venkataraman,
2000; Cavallo et al., 2019), and the need for skills to manage complex-
ity and build systems. The conceptual framework strives to serve as a
resilient ecosystem managed by entrepreneurs who ask the categorical
prompts (illustrated in Table 4.1):
(SS) Social Structure. As an entrepreneur, who are you to others?

(C) Community.As an entrepreneur, who are you to other entrepreneurs?
(W) Ways of Knowing. As an entrepreneur, what systems do you use?
(T) Technology. As an entrepreneur, what technology do you use?
(S) Storytelling. As an entrepreneur, how do you preserve memory and
movement?
(I) Impact. As an entrepreneur, what is your impact?
The framework also proposes suggestions to assist the entrepreneur with

ideas to prioritize.
Mitigating Disempowerment
We begin with a brief discussion of resource dependency theory and
exchange theory summarizing the basic argument of resource depen-
dence and end with the related concept of powerlessness. We then directly
address a critical area of disempowerment often associated with a nascent
Table 4.1 Power & Empowerment Conceptual Framework
Category As an Usefulness
Entrepreneur . . .
Social Structure (SS) who are you to others? Role Models

(Blau, 1977) Community Stewards
Beacon of the
Community
Opportunity Maker
Solution Finder
Innovator/Leader
Follower
Community (C) who are you to other Supporter
(Goode, 1957) entrepreneurs? Confidant
Mentor
Champion
Collaborator
Way finder
Entrepreneurial
Community Member
Ways of Knowing (W) what systems do you use? Grit
(Heron & Reason, 1997) Hustle
Social Networks
Family Networks
Community Networks
Entrepreneur Support
Systems
Education, Training, &
Workshops
Technologies (T) what technologies do you Accounting Software
(Ghosh et al., 2021; use? Project Management
Nambisan et al., Tools
2017; Washington & Collaboration Tools
Madden, 2020; Database
Chalmers et al., 2021) Website & Online
Presence
Digital Technologies
Artificial Intelligence
Emerging Technologies
Storytelling (S) how do you preserve Social Media Presence
(Dakoumi & memory and Marketing & Public
Abdelwahed, 2014: movement? Relations
176; Snowden, 1999) Community Engagement
Public Forums
Narratives
Impact (I) what is your impact? Community Give-Back
(Madden, 2017) Purpose-Driven
L3C
B-Corp
Renewal
Rejuvenation
Philanthropy
or microenterprise outlining the liabilities of newness and smallness,
building from the literature for mitigants or antidotes. We then provide
two (2) propositions and a diagram to illustrate the approach.
Resource Dependence Theory

Resource dependency theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), exchange the-
ory (Levine & White, 1961), and mixed motives through both resource-
dependency and exchange tendencies shed light on concerns of power
(Schmidt & Kochan, 1977). Fraught with external pressure, and a lack
of resources (i.e., resource power), resource dependency theory is asym-
metrical and involves conflict and bargaining (March & Simon, 1958) to
reduce any significant gaps. In essence, the resource dependency theory
is motivated by external pressure (or lack of power), and the exchange
theory is motivated by potential benefit or gain (or power imbalance).
Interestingly, the absence of a single theoretical perspective provides mul-
tiple understandings of power or empowerment.
Resource dependence theory portrays organizations as an open
system relying on contingencies in the external environment (Hill-
man et al., 2009; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Organizations depend
on resources to grow and sustain; yet, organizations usually do not
possess essential resources because these critical resources are usually
owned by other organizations; thus, organizations must obtain neces-
sary resources from other organizations in the external environment
and organizational performance is inevitably contingent on their ability
to get external resources (Jones & Jayawarna, 2010; Miao et al., 2017;
Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). The central concept in resource dependence
is power—the control over critical resources (Hillman et al., 2009).
Organizations always try to mitigate others’ power over them; there-
fore, organizations are motivated to enhance their power over others
(Hillman et al., 2009). Pfeffer (1987) summarized the basic argument
of resource dependence as:
(1) the fundamental units for understanding intercorporate relations and

society are organizations; ours is a society of organizations;
(2) these organizations are not autonomous, but rather are constrained
by a network of interdependencies with other organizations;
(3) interdependence, when coupled with uncertainty about what the
actions will be of those with which the organization is interdepen-
dent, leads to a situation in which survival and continued success are
uncertain; and, therefore,
(4) organizations take actions to manage external interdependencies,
although such actions are inevitably never completely successful and
produce new patterns of dependence and interdependence. Further-
more, (5) these patterns of dependence produce interorganizational
as well as intraorganizational power, where such power has some
effect on organizational behavior.
(pp. 26–27)
Liability of Newness and Smallness

Liability of newness happens when new entrepreneurial start-ups do not
have developed systems that allow them to compete with larger firms and
liability of smallness occurs because small entrepreneurial firms are vul-
nerable to environmental forces due to cash restrictions, limited product
lines, and limited debt capacity (Rutherford & Buller, 2007). Since many
entrepreneurial firms lack a track record and are relatively inexperienced,
they are challenged by these liabilities and are viewed as lacking legiti-
macy in the eyes of stakeholders (Jones & Jayawarna, 2010; Miao et al.,
2017; Rutherford et al., 2009).
These liabilities also increase financiers’ reluctance to grant funding that
is required for survival and growth for entrepreneurial firms because entre-
preneurial ventures are “opaque” with respect to information due to lack
of track record and publicly available information so it is tough for finan-
ciers or other stakeholders to assess the quality of a given venture (Ruther-
ford et al., 2009). The information asymmetry between new ventures and
financiers further exacerbates the problem because entrepreneurs typically
understand more about their business than do investors and other external
stakeholders; hence, based on transaction cost economics theory (William-
son, 1981), financiers typically circumvent granting funding to small and
new businesses because the information asymmetry increases the costs of
performing financial transactions owing to the rise in the cost of monitor-
ing and organizing exchanges to curtail this asymmetry (Winborg & Land-
ström, 2001). This situation partly explained why about 75% of emerging
firms utilize a financial bootstrapping approach (i.e., creative methods of
acquiring resources without borrowing money and/or raising financing
from traditional sources) rather than use external debt or equity financing
in funding their firms’ operations (Miao et al., 2017).
Entrepreneurial Community: An Antidote to Liability of

Newness and Smallness and Insights From Resource Dependence
Resource dependence literature suggested that the resource dependence
role is critical for entrepreneurial firms due to the resource scarcity issues
faced by entrepreneurial firms (Daily et al., 2002). According to the
aforementioned discussion, entrepreneurial ventures are plagued by lia-
bility of newness and smallness so they are less likely to obtain necessary
resources from investors due to a lack of track record along with other
challenges. In line with resource dependence, one method that entrepre-
neurs may use to survive and grow is to acquire resources from other
organizations in the external environment (e.g., via joint ventures or alli-
ances). Small and new ventures are typically motivated to do so in order
to absorb constraints (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005). Nevertheless, if a
resource-constrained venture acquires resources from a powerful organi-
zation, then this means a powerful organization would have to give up its
power and desirable exchange conditions because constraint absorption
provides the less powerful party the authority to exercise control over
the resources (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005). In a power imbalance condi-
tion where there is a difference in the power of each actor over the other
(Drees & Heugens, 2013), the power-advantaged organizations (e.g.,
large corporations) may be less willing to form a dependence relationship
with power-disadvantaged organizations (e.g., entrepreneurial ventures)
and they are more likely to resist the power-disadvantaged organizations’
attempts to absorb constraints because power-advantaged organizations
do not have any incentives to facilitate power-disadvantaged organiza-
tions’ attempts to absorb constraints (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005; Hill-
man et al., 2009). We provide the following proposition:
Proposition 1: Entrepreneurs are motivated to form resource-dependence

relationships with power-advantaged firms to deal with liability of
newness and smallness; however, power-advantaged firms may be
reluctant to do so as they do not want to relinquish their control
over resources and share with entrepreneurial firms under the power
imbalance condition.
Because of a lack of resources and inability to form resource-dependent

relationships with power-advantaged resource-wealthy large organiza-
tions, entrepreneurs are motivated to explore other alternative effective
methods to tackle liability of newness and smallness. One possible solution
is for them to form entrepreneurial communities (see Fortunato, 2017, for
an expository about the formation of four types of entrepreneurial com-
munities; or these concepts are also briefy revisited in Chapter 2 of this
book). Within a given entrepreneurial community, entrepreneurial compa-
nies which struggle with liability of newness and smallness are connected
with each other around a shared set of resources (e.g., technologies, knowl-
edge, and/or skills) and they work cooperatively and competitively around
a common set of goals and objectives to initiate new products and services
and to survive and grow (Nambisan & Baron, 2013). The dependencies
among entrepreneurial companies (or the absence of power imbalance)
within a given entrepreneurial community allow them to share resources
and coevolve to mitigate liability of newness and smallness (Nambisan &
Baron, 2013). Such efforts and motivation to form an entrepreneurial
community will be enhanced by mutual dependence among entrepre-
neurial companies. Mutual dependence refers to the existence of bilat-
eral dependencies among entrepreneurial companies (Drees & Heugens,
2013). Mutual dependence creates a condition where there are incentives
for entrepreneurial companies to not only exchange resources with each
other but also help each other absorb constraints successfully to address
their challenges caused by liability of newness and smallness because
under such conditions the resources they exchange are vital to their sur-
vival and growth and they have few alternatives for resource procurement
(Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005). We provide the following proposition.
Proposition 2: Entrepreneurs are motivated to form an entrepreneurial

cluster with other firms and their entrepreneurial ecosystems in order
to mitigate liability of newness and smallness and such a formation
of entrepreneurial community is facilitated by mutual dependence.
Figure 4.2 is provided to illustrate the process of formation of the entre-

preneurial community from the perspectives of resource dependence.
Advancing Equity
The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolished slavery and
involuntary servitude. Further, the 14th Amendment provided citizen-
ship to all people born in the United States and created “equal protec-
tion under the law” in 1868—eight generations ago—after the U.S. Civil
War and end of slavery in the United States in order to create equality
for Blacks, Native Americans, offspring of other enslaved people, and
immigrants. August 26, 2020, commemorated the 100th anniversary
of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote in the United
States, which is five generations ago. Yet it was not until the 1970s that
“women’s empowerment” was leveraged and became a national agenda
item for social justice (Mosedale, 2005, p. 247). It was the 1940s when
homosexual rights began (White, 2009). And on June 26, 2015, the U.S.
Supreme Court struck down all bans on same-sex marriage, thus legal-
izing gay marriage and supporting a heavy start to LGBTQIA+ equality
in the United States—merely 6 years ago.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supposed to eliminate segregation of
Blacks and Whites in the United States and outlaw discrimination based
on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin—more than three gen-
erations ago. However, without monitoring mechanisms and ongoing
evaluation of progress, the promise of equality was unrealized. Various
milestones anchor efforts to advance equity, though. For example, 10 years
later in August 1974 at the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA),
the General Electric Foundation hosted a conference and issued proceed-
ings titled Changing Business-Society Interrelationships addressing key
issues and a status of business responsibilities (Steiner, 1975a). Steiner
(1975b) summarized the national business agenda as an outcome of the
conference for engagement in society—with higher promoting civil rights
Entrepreneurial Community Formation
Entrepreneurs’ Motivation
to Form Resource Entrepreneurs’ Motivation
Liability of
Dependence Relationships to Form Entrepreneurial
Newness and
with Power-Advantaged Community
Smallness
Firms
Facilitated by
Constrained by
Mutual
Power Imbalance
Dependence
Figure 4.2 Entrepreneurial Community: Insights from Resource and Power Perspectives
and equal opportunity being fourth on the agenda behind businesses’ key
societal role of economic growth and efficiency, education (second), and
support for employment and training (third). Other items included provid-
ing urban renewal and development (fifth), pollution abatement (sixth),
conservation and recreation (seventh), advancing culture and the arts
(eighth), improving and expanding medical care (ninth), and government
support (tenth) (Steiner, 1975b). Thus, diversity, equality, and inclusion
have been agenda items in the United States and business. Though prog-
ress has been slower for some groups than others, each in their own rights
continues to struggle with achieving the fullness of human rights, dignity,
equality, access to resources, and full societal recognition. There are many
such groups; this Chapter discusses women, Blacks, and LGBTQIA+. Such
liberation has unfolded for Blacks during 150+ years, women 100 years,
and LGBTQIA+ for 6 years, and there is still much work to do.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

Any discussion of power and empowerment in an entrepreneurial com-
munity embedded within social structures of society at the local, regional,
state, national, and international levels must include a focus on diversity,
equity, and inclusion. Entrepreneurship has had a wide array of busi-
nesses in world history with individuals and various cultures, yet there
seems to always be room for more (see Fortunato & Clevenger, 2022).
Ogbor (2000) said:
It is shown that the concept of entrepreneurship is discriminatory,

gender-biased, ethnocentrically determined and ideologically con-
trolled, sustaining not only prevailing societal biases, but serving as a
tapestry for unexamined and contradictory assumptions and knowl-
edge about the reality of entrepreneurs.
(p. 605)
Johnson (2020) promoted that a sense of belonging and value for

uniqueness combine to help feeling included: “valued and accepted for
who you are” (p. 14). Cook and Emerson (1978) noted the importance
of equity in networks and exchange, such as business. Kabanoff (1991)
indicated that equity is a key factor for justice in organizations and
Meindl (1989) included equality as a main distributive component. As
such, distributive justice is now a 50-year-old concept (Adams, 1965;
Homans, 1961; Kabanoff, 1990). Application of distributive justice cre-
ates a more diversity-oriented and cohesive organization or business
environment (Kabanoff, 1991). Mills (1958) indicated that entrepre-
neurs and consumers shape the free enterprise democracy in the United
States.
Equity and Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship and small business ownership have long been seen as
a source of employment opportunities and a stability for community
development. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) in a
21-year period from 1992 to 2013, small businesses accounted for 63.3%
of new jobs in the United States; small companies were responsible for
97.6% of exported goods in 2015, and small business employment con-
stituted about 45% of total private employment. Although the numbers
Lived Experiences: Equity Regarding Cultural Networks

Mr. Jamye Wooten
Founder of CLLCTIVLY
(https://cllctivly.org/) and https://cllctivly.org/Black-futures-micro-
grant/
Baltimore, Maryland
I am founder of CLLCTIVLY where our mission is to be a resource

for those who seek to find, fund, and partner with Black social
change organizations in greater Baltimore. We know that out of the
$60 billion in philanthropic dollars, Black-led organizations only
receive 2%. Our goal is to crowd fund, partner with foundations
and organizations that individual donors, raise awareness and sup-
port for Black-led organizations.
So I launched CLLCTIVLY in 2019 to be a resource for those
that seek to find, fund, and partner with Black social change organi-
zations. My origin story is in 2015, the murder of Freddie Gray and
the Baltimore uprising. You know, I was one of the co-founders of
Baltimore United for Change, and that was a coalition of grassroots
organizations, activists, pastors that came together in response. And
during that time I created a skills bank and the skills bank was
sort of an onramp for folks who weren’t necessarily on the ground.
But looking for ways to plug in, we had over 260 individuals and
organizations join the skills bank. But what I heard from founda-
tions sort of almost like this last summer with the pandemic and
the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and an influx of
a sort of foundations responding, the same thing was happening
during the uprising. And I had foundation leaders say, we don’t
know who’s on the ground. So we launched CLLCTIVLY in 2019,
but our first phase was our asset map directory, where you can
search over a hundred Black led organizations based on their area
of focus and neighborhood in Baltimore. We wanted to alleviate
that excuse from the foundation community, where they can now
find the organizations, but also for us so that we could do our own
due diligence. Right? Often we may see a problem in a community
and start an organization and not necessarily know that there’s 10
mentoring programs and there’s folks who are doing similar work
in your community. So I always say fragmentation leads to duplica-
tion and duplication leads to waste of resources, time, talent, and
treasure. So we wanted to end some of that duplication, maybe
foster greater collaboration amongst Black-led organizations.
And most recently not really thought about this when I launched
CLLCTIVLY but thinking a lot lately about my dad who grew up
in Baltimore, um, had to drop out of eighth grade cause he had
to go to work. He was the oldest son. He had to go to work. He
went on to open five Dry Cleaners and several nightclubs in Balti-
more. My sister is a lawyer. Went to George Washington law school,
opened two pizza delivery stores in Baltimore. But my dad died at
56 and I lost my sister at 53. So I think about this access to capital
and the grind. We’re resilient, we’re fighting. We get sort of cham-
pioned for our resiliency and sort of carrying that weight. But you
know, I think about the culture of health and the toll that it took on
my family, and want to make sure that Black entrepreneurs have the
access to capital to thrive and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
CLLCTIVLY. In 2015 after the death of Freddie Gray, a coalition
of grassroots activists and concerned citizens came together to form
Baltimore United for Change. In the days following the Uprising we
launched a skills bank to create an “on ramp” for concerned commu-
nity members that wanted to serve. Over 260 individuals and organiza-
tions answered the call. Community organizations often work in silos,
these silos lead to fragmentation, fragmentation leads to duplication,
and duplication leads to wasted resources—time, talent and treasure.
CLLCTIVLY launched in 2019 with a first phase project,
(CLLCTIV ASSETS) an online asset map/directory of organizations
in Greater Baltimore listed by neighborhood and area of concen-
tration. CLLCTIVLY is a place-based social change organization
centering Black Genius, Narrative Power, Social Networks, and
Resource Mobilization. The BLACK FUTURES MICRO-GRANT
is a no-strings-attached micro-grant for changemakers serving
Greater Baltimore. CLLCTIVLY’s mission is to end the fragmen-
tation and duplication of programs, to learn from and about each
other, and to be a resource for the Greater Baltimore community
that seeks to find, fund and partner with Black social change orga-
nizations. CLLCTIVLY is dedicated to creating an ecosystem to
foster collaboration, increase social impact and amplify the voices
of Black-led organizations in Greater Baltimore.
(Madden & Washington, 2021, slide #3)
support the importance of entrepreneuring and small business ownership,
the road to a thriving business is not an equal journey for everyone.
Gorman (2017) outlined the three critical barriers for small and micro-
businesses: a lack of business literacy, the lack of awareness of services
available to underrepresented business owners, and the lack of access
to affordable capital. For example, often low-income individuals start
small businesses in fields that are labor intensive and require little busi-
ness savvy, including house painters, landscapers, or home repair services.
These small businesses could be very successful with some business lit-
eracy. Unfortunately, these microbusinesses are rarely able to maximize
their potential because of the lack of knowing how to invest in a basic
business structure. Specifically, as a result, the business owner fails to cre-
ate a legal business entity or maintain a business bank account; file taxes
as an individual, rather than as a business; face barriers in becoming
bonded or licensed to acquire commercial contracts; and as a result, the
business languishes in a perpetual cycle of struggling from one job to the
next with little to no growth. Additionally, underserved small and micro
businesses often make decisions in the business-ideation stage that are
likely to keep their business small (Baboolall et al., 2020).
Entrepreneurs from various backgrounds have a history of helping
other entrepreneurs launch, grow, and sustain their businesses. Entrepre-
neurs are often viewed as leaders, role models, and innovation shepherds
in a community. Many look to them for guidance and direction.
One example is Birthing Beautiful Communities (BBC), a 501c3 non-
profit organization, consists of a village of micro-entrepreneurs serving
as perinatal support workers (birth workers or doulas), who primarily
provide social support to pregnant women at the highest risk of infant
mortality during their perinatal period. BBC doulas relate to the client
from a community and cultural standpoint. They offer extended support-
ive services beyond that of an ordinary doula often becoming a sister,
friend, mentor, and neighbor. Unlike a midwife, these are non-medical
persons. Since its founding, Birthing Beautiful Communities has trained
26 perinatal support workers and served over 407 women in total. Of
those who completed all required interventions, an incredible 93% had
full-term pregnancies and a 99.8% infant survival rate. The birth out-
comes being achieved by this outlier organization are incredible. The
doulas have been recruited from the neighborhood, trained, paid, and are
having a significant impact. BBC is working to change policy in Ohio to
allow Medicaid coverage for Doula services because in Cleveland, Ohio
(and Cuyahoga County), Black infants die at an astonishing rate. Infant
mortality rates are calculated as the number of deaths of live-born babies
before age 1 per 1,000 live births. In the City of Cleveland, disparities
between White and Black populations are notable. For example, when
compared to a White baby, a Black baby is nearly three times as likely
to die before reaching their first birthday. Also, alarming is Black women
at every socioeconomic level have higher rates of infant mortality than
White women who have not finished high school. The City of Cleveland
has been noted to have one of the worst infant mortality rates in the
United States with some areas of Cleveland consistently unfavorable and
Lived Experiences: Equity Regarding Policy

www.birthingbeautiful.org/
Ms. Jazmin Long, President & CEO of Birthing Beautiful Communities
Ms. Marlene Morris, Doula
Cleveland, OH
Birthing Beautiful Communities was founded to overcome the

Black infant mortality rate that we have in Northeast Ohio. We
knew that by providing Black moms with other women who look
like them, who had similar experiences, who could help talk them
through the microaggressions of the day to day, that we could help
alleviate some of those stressors. So toxic stress is the number one
thing that leads to extreme prematurity, which leads to infant mor-
tality. We wanted to fill that gap.
It’s important right now for me to interject a data point: Infant
mortality rate for White babies in Cuyahoga County is 2.5 and for
Black babies is 15.6. That means for every White baby that died six
Black babies die. You can have a master’s degree, a PhD, your birth
outcomes are not tied to your education level. It is clearly tied to race.
I was unaware of how high the infant mortality rate is in the
Black community. And once I learned what it was like, I was stuck
like, oh no, this cannot be happening in my community. And so I
went, I did all the training and I actually exceeded training because
I needed to know how and why this was happening so that I could
fix the problem. And so I’ve even, you know, gone to Africa, to work
with people there as well. I’m trying to find a way to help the Black
people here as well. But I’ve had several encounters where racism
is so overt in our healthcare systems with women literally catching
it. I just had a phone call yesterday with a woman who said that
her child had passed away. And she was like, I have to have a Black
team of women around me to support me. I get so many of those
calls, where either their baby had died or they know someone who’s
babies have died, or they’ve just had a horrible experience working
with non-Black medical staff members. And they are terrified. Liter-
ally women are relieved after delivering their child, that the baby is
alive and that they are.
comparable to developing countries. Since the late 1960s, there have been
three major efforts to reduce infant mortality. Although some programs
showed improvements, there has been limited progress in either reducing
the overall rates or decreasing long-standing racial disparities, until now.
Women Entrepreneurs
Historically almost globally, women entrepreneurs have been predomi-
nantly seen as secondary to men (Ahl, 2004, 2006). Much research has
documented (see The Diana Project™) that women face a wide range
of obstacles (Affholder & Box, 2004; Braidford et al., 2013; Cabrera &
Mauricio, 2017). Many obstacles have been cultural or institutional
in nature while others are often contextual and societal structure and
power, which accounts for much of the cross-national variation in female
entrepreneurship (Betters-Reed et al., 2007; Brush et al., 2009; Muntean,
2013). Women in general view the world differently than men and build
their networks, processes, and metrics of success differently as well (Han-
son & Blake, 2009; Ozkazanc-Pan & Muntean, 2021). For example, men
primarily aim for financial success and often growth, whereas women
consider financial success as merely one of a multitude of reasons to be
an entrepreneur (Manolova et al., 2012), and women often view entre-
preneuring success in regard to flexibility for a quality of life in a com-
munity and recognizes place-based needs other than employment and
income (Beers, 2011; Hanson, 2009; Jennings & Brush, 2013). Thus,
female entrepreneurs frequently emphasize a community-minded logic,
adding to the cohesiveness of their ecosystem—as well as the entrepre-
neurial community—rather than only the market logic that guides new
firms (Roundy, 2017).
Mosedale (2005) indicated that “many existing value systems are
highly paternalistic,” and thus “treat women unequal” (p. 246). In general
terms, Kabeer (1999) and Ozkazanc-Pan and Muntean (2021) noted that
inequality arises from scarcity of resources, thus creating hierarchies and
unequal treatment or access. For example, the high rates of entrepreneur-
ship by Black women may reflect economic necessity rather than opportu-
nity, given 64% of Black women spend less than 40 hours a week on their
businesses, suggesting that the business may be one of several sources of
income or that they are unable to focus on entrepreneuring (Baboolall et
al., 2020). Al-Dajani and Marlow (2013, 2015) noted that empowerment
has been an important research frame in social and economic develop-
ment, but not within an entrepreneurship context. Thus, both a White
focus and a male focus have dominated both research and resources.
Additionally, women-owned businesses are often micro- or home-based,
so sometimes overlooked as not visually present in malls, downtown loca-
tions, or shopping plazas.
Lived Experiences: Equity Regarding Access

Ms. Taueret Thomas
Chef and Owner of Khepera’s Kitchen
Baltimore, Maryland
I am chef and owner of Khepera’s Kitchen. Khepera’s Kitchen is

an elite chef service, where we personalize our services for indi-
viduals and organizations who want excellence in their food and
culinary needs. I’ve been in business for almost six years. I consider
myself to be a culinary Maven, because I have done almost every-
thing in this business. I am a former, culinary college administrator
and educator of about 20 years. As an owner of a restaurant that
provides a high-end dining experience for those seeking an excep-
tional culinary experience in a local dining establishment. I saw a
need in the community to provide high quality food options in a
city full of food desserts. I resigned from my secure, corporate posi-
tion to pursue my passion of preparing fine meals for people who
want and deserve food that is not only nourishing and delicious but
life-sustaining.
There are huge inequities around food for Black and Brown peo-
ple in our country, specifically in Baltimore and other urban areas.
My origin story came about as a necessity. I found out that I am
considered transitional entrepreneur. I decided in 2015 to leave my
position as culinary director for, a culinary college in Maryland.
I was the first and the youngest Black woman to head a culinary
college in the state. I have always wanted to change the narratives
of Black food entrepreneurs in terms of the quality of food that’s
provided, the service that is given. I guess for me the community
activism that I have to deal with, you know, social policy issues fuel
my actions. In 2016, I was able to self-fund my dream of owning
my own food production facility. I am located in the Waverly com-
munity of Baltimore, in this heart of the city. My background is in
fine dining. I wanted to provide fine dining cuisine in a communal
atmosphere, small settings, so that people could sit and talk and
really bring back that old feeling of sitting around the table and
eating a meal and having conversations that matter.
We know that there are inequities. Black businesses have been
funded disproportionately. I want those bankers, those funding
sources to just come clean and be honest and say what they want
from us. I might sound a little agitated, because I’m thinking about
prior to COVID. I’ve been in business. I doubled my revenue each
year that I’ve been in business. I was contacted by my banker and
was told about a program that would be ideal for my business
because it is for capital equipment. I start the process and then I
find myself in the middle of the process asking myself why they
want to give me an exorbitantly high interest rate but yet you tell
me my credit is good. You see my revenue in your bank, not only
my business side, but my personal as well, come clean and tell me
what you want. Come clean with black businesses! We are here and
we have demonstrated over and over again that we’re viable that,
we and we pay our bills. We can be funded appropriately, access is
absolutely needed and required for Black businesses.
Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC)

There is a rich history of entrepreneurship among Black, Indigenous, peo-
ple of color (BIPOC) resulting in thriving enterprises ranging from “Black
Wall Street” in Tulsa, Oklahoma (Messer et al., 2018), the Shaw/U Street
in Washington, DC (Wagner, 2019), to the Hutterites entrepreneurial soci-
ety (Nordstrom et al., 2020). Despite the strong start, today many BIPOC
owned businesses lag behind the average U.S. firm in terms of size and
revenue. For example, Black people represent only 4.3% of the nation’s
22.2 million business owners (Perry et al., 2020). In 2018, Hispanic-owned
businesses were 5.8% of all businesses (331,625). There are an estimated
24,433 American Indian and Alaska Native-owned businesses, and 6,653
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses (U.S. Cen-
sus, 2021). Ownership rates trail those of non-under-represented groups,
and the failure rate is high. For example, there are fewer Black business
owners, and revenues are smaller. In fact, according to the Small Business
Administration (SBA), 99.9% of minority-owned businesses with employ-
ees are small businesses (Esposito, 2019). Despite BIPOC business owners
having the vision, passion, and desire for economic independence (Gorman,
2017), BIPOC businesses closed at twice the national average during recent
years, and with historic and ongoing disinvestment in Black and Brown
neighborhoods (Lung-Amam, 2021) and significant inequities in entre-
preneurship, empowerment, mitigating disempowerment, and advancing
equity are critical.
According to the U.S. Census, there are more than two million Black-
owned businesses in the United States, with about 124,000 “employer
firms” that are firms with employees in addition to the proprietor(s) (U.S.
Census, 2020). The case for advancing equity is significant:
Black business owners are wealthier than their peers who do not own
businesses, and business ownership creates new wealth faster compared
to wage employment. At the same time, small businesses tend to hire
from the community, creating jobs for neighborhood residents. There-
fore, opportunities for Black entrepreneurs to succeed are critical for
economic empowerment in Black communities, where currently there is
virtually zero liquid wealth, coupled with higher than average rates of
unemployment (Gorman, 2017). Gorman (2017) further outlined:
The median net worth for Black business owners is 12 times higher
than Black non-business owners. Further, it is not because they
started out wealthier. The analysis also considered people who had
never been self-employed and compared wealth levels in the future
between those who started a business and those who did not. The
business owners grew their wealth more and grew it faster. Starting
a sustainable and healthy business is a viable and critical pathway to
breaking the cycle of low wealth.
(p. 4)
Hence, equity matters.

Drawing upon the narratives of five entrepreneurs insight is provided
on the barriers and pathways to power and empowerment, and how
entrepreneurs look to, rely upon, and collaborate with nonprofit orga-
nizations to advance their entrepreneurial endeavors. This approach is a
significantly different perspective when compared to entrepreneurs from
well-resourced communities who look to friends, family, angel investors,
and venture capitalists for mentorship and investment. Further, these fea-
tured entrepreneurs are interested in double bottom-line impact, whereby
their ventures also address social needs or an absence of essential ser-
vices needed in economically distressed communities. There is a strong
entrepreneurial spirit among Black, Indigenous, people of color (BIPOC)
from various backgrounds. Some organizations highlighted are founded
by Black entrepreneurs and serve equally diverse community members:
BIPOC, women, and individuals in economically distressed communi-
ties. Entrepreneurship and entrepreneuring can aid to alleviate poverty
or economically distressed communities. Conscientious efforts typically
happen at an entrepreneurial community level (Charles & Grusky, 2004;
Martin & Zedillo, 2004; Peredo, 2015). This view has “entrepreneur-
ship and its resulting enterprise as an instrument of poverty alleviation”
(Peredo, 2015, p. 263) (cf. Narayan-Parker, 2002, 2005). Four distin-
guishing characteristics include:
1. They are endogenous grassroots activities and organizations that

may in some way be identified with placed-based, geographically
defined communities.
2. Communities, in this account, are not merely the environment in
which a form of entrepreneurship takes place; they are its primary
agents.
3. They exhibit a collective form of entrepreneurship that results from
the inter-relationships among individuals, families, and communities.
4. The enterprises they develop and operate are aimed at profit as a
means to social, ecological, cultural, and political ends for the com-
munity and its members.
BIPOC businesses are often concentrated in economically underserved

communities and neighborhoods. Underserved small- and micro-businesses
often lack access to networks and relationships needed for growth. For
BIPOC entrepreneurs, the challenge is even greater when it comes to
awareness of available services, many of which are geared specifcally to
alleviate their unique business challenges. While this population possesses
an entrepreneurial spirit and values hard work, it also has an ingrained
intimidation and/or mistrust of regulatory and fnancial organizations.
Because they have been and continue to be, BIPOC entrepreneurs often
labor under the truths and assumptions that they are excluded from any
services that may be available to small businesses and frequently create
businesses that operate outside the scope of the legitimate business com-
munity. This is not due to the fact that they are engaged in illicit activities,
rather they simply fail, for example, to register their business, and there-
fore operate in the “shadow economy,” which not only limits their ability
to grow and thrive but also deprives the real economy of tax dollars and
potential employers.
Among BIPOC small and micro businesses, there is often also a cultural
challenge around business development because of the lack of access to
affordable capital. BIPOC and women business owners are unable to
access the same financial resources that White, male business owners
obtain regularly (Goldschein, 2021).
The 3.56 million jobs that Black businesses supply equate to about
a fifth of the employed Black workforce. However, that number could
be much higher if effective support enabled Black businesses to increase
their revenues so that they could hire and grow. If Black-owned busi-
nesses could reach employment parity with all firms, they would cre-
ate nearly 600,000 new jobs (Gorman, 2017). Assuming these businesses
hired mostly Black employees, these new jobs could reduce the rate of
unemployment in the Black community to around 5%.
According to the Minority Business Development Agency (2021), more
than 80% of minority-owned businesses have been sole proprietorships for
the past 2 decades, helping current and future businesses to transition to
higher-performing sectors could greatly increase productivity and growth,
but would require greater access to capital and training. Gorman (2017)
outlines the six (6) main segments of Black-owned firms: (1) “Care & Com-
fort” is 35% (e.g., beauty salons, barber shops, childcare services, home
health care assistance); (2) “GroundWorks” is 15% (e.g., janitorial services,
landscaping); (3) “Workflow” is 10% (e.g., tax preparation, insurance agen-
cies, accounting services); (4) “Stepping Out” is 10% (e.g., retail trade, food
establishments, hotels, and wholesale businesses); (5) “Logistics & Transit”
is 7% (e.g., school and employee bus transport, taxi service, and local freight
trucking); (6) “Creative Expression” is 5% (e.g., arts, entertainment, and
play) (see Table 4.1); and summarizes the significant barriers that Black-
owned businesses face (see Table 4.2).
LGBTQIA+
From gay fashion icons (including Christian Dior, Cristobal Balenciaga,
Gianni Versace, Yves Saint Laurent, Giorgio Armani, Halston, Calvin
Klein, Jean Paul Gaultier, Alexander Queen, and Jil Sander) (Chetty, 2019)
to the Stonewall Riots, the LGBTQIA+ imprint on entrepreneuring and
society in the United States has escalated the past century. From famous
travel and tourism destinations like Martha’s Vineyard and Provincetown
to Harvey Milk and support of San Francisco businesses—capitalism has
been an important facet in support of equality. “What built the LGBT
identity was not critical theory or a revolutionary vanguard, but boot-
strap entrepreneurship, mass marketing, and free enterprise” (Jeffery,
2019, p. 55). However, this journey has not been easy. Homosexual rights
Table 4.2 Concentration of Black-Owned Businesses
Segment & Percent Business Focus
Care & Comfort Beauty Salons & Barber Shops

35% of Black-Owned Firms Childcare Services
Female-dominated and mostly lower- Home Health Care Assistance
revenue producing
Groundworks Janitorial Services
15% of Black-Owned Firms Landscaping Services
Male-dominated (84%) with a Real Estate
citywide reach Construction
Workflow Tax Preparation
10% of Black-Owned Firms Insurance Agencies
Slightly male skewed (57%) with a Accounting Services
regional, national, and global reach
Stepping Out Retail Trade
10% of Black-Owned Firms Food Establishments
Slightly female skewed (60%) with a Hotels
local and citywide reach Wholesale Businesses
Logistics & Transit School and Employee Bus Transport
7% of Black-Owned Firms Taxi Service
Especially concentrated by foreign- Local Freight Trucking
born Black entrepreneurs
Creative Expression The Arts
5% of Black-Owned Firms Entertainment
Slightly male-skewed (55%) with a Play
regional, national, and global reach
(based on Gorman, 2017, pp. 17–22)
Table 4.3 Challenges to Black-Owned Businesses
Challenge
Household incomes are lower

Black business owners have more family obligations making claims to
household income
Demand for credit is higher
Application rates for funding do not reflect the higher expressed demand
More than half report having insufficient collateral/assets to qualify for a loan
Banks are rarely a source of credit for Black businesses
If Black business owners are approved for credit, it is for lower amounts than
their White peers
More Black business owners get less than they asked for
Approval rates for minority firms are less than half the rate of White firms
Approval rates are low, even for credit products designed specifically to serve
small business owners
Black business owners more often receive no credit
Black business owners find it harder to raise capital
based on Gorman, 2017, pp. 24–25)
began in Los Angeles, California, in the 1940s (White, 2009). Gay com-
mercial culture increased in the 1940s and 1950s when Bob Mizer, an
apprentice at a Los Angeles photography studio took pictures of body-
builders and sold them to fitness magazines, later starting his own in
1951, Physique Pictorial (Johnson, 2021). Original efforts likely fell into
the category of illicit or dark entrepreneurship (Smith & McElwee, 2015)
as being gay was taboo and considered a mental illness until 1975 when
it was de-stigmatized and re-labeled as the concept of sexual orientation
(American Psychological Association, 2008). Entrepreneur conglomerate
expansion soon followed with gay magazines, bookstores, theaters, bars,
fitness centers, restaurants, and catering services, hair salons and barber
shops, and flower and card shops. “While homophobia is reported in both
employment and business ownership it is indirect and implicit rather than
direct discrimination or harassment and is not cited as an entrepreneurial
motivator” (Galloway, 2012, p. 890) (cf. Duberman, 1994; Kepner, 1988,
1989; Licata, 1978, 1981; Timmons, 1990).
Varnell (2001) said:
Within any sizable gay enclave there are not only gay-owned bars,
but gay restaurants, catering services, bookstores, health clubs, bed
and bath shops, hair salons and barber shops, print shops, tanning
salons, flower shops, card shops, clothing stores, leather goods stores,
photographers, computer service providers, and a host of others-
including gay newspapers.
(para 5)
Gay-owned frms often concentrate in the service and hospitality indus-
try and cater to diverse markets (Galloway, 2012; Guaracino & Salvato,
2017; Wilson, 1997). In 2000, the Small Business Administration (SBA)
made “efforts to connect with gay- and lesbian-owned businesses . . . to
increase the number of SBA-guaranteed loans to gay and lesbian busi-
nesses, as well as more aggressively market information on the SBA’s
consulting services and workshops” (Bertagnoli, 2000, paras 2 and 4).
Lived Experiences: Equity Regarding Funding

Mr. Billy Blake
Founding Member of Black Men Ventures
College Park, Maryland
I’m a founding member of Black Men Ventures. At, Black Men Ven-
tures, our mission is to create access to capital for Black men found-
ers. We’re focusing on both professional and financial capital . . .
There’s a lot of data to show that there’s limited resources for Black
men founded enterprises, especially startups. We also provide train-
ing education on pitching businesses, establishing a good business
foundation, and marketing.
Alfred Duncan called on a few of us, we are all friends. We knew
one another. We’re successful in our own different areas. And we
came together to really think about what we can do? What can we do
to make an impact? What can we do to sustainably impact our Black
communities? And we thought entrepreneurship, we need access to
capital. We can get capital into communities and help the communi-
ties to help to raise the capital. We can make a difference and the
difference could be sustained. So, five members came together, five
brothers came together, we formed Black Men Ventures. We’ve grown
beyond that at this point, but our business model is we have one
major program and one major product. We do pitch competitions,
and our pitch competitions are like shark tank meets, crowdfunding
mixed with American idol, where we have a process where Black
male entrepreneurs apply to be in our program. We train them in an
extensive program on how to pitch their business, pitch themselves,
to prepare to have conversations beyond just the pitch competition
because we believe pitching and knowing how to present yourself
goes beyond the pitch competition. These are life skills that individu-
als can take with them. Not only do we teach them how to pitch, but
we also teach how to market, market, your business, market yourself,
and build a business foundation.
Regarding entrepreneurial communities—and supporting communities
at large, Varnell (2001) said:
Gay businesses help root and develop the gay community. Just as
gays often are urban pioneers, moving into decaying neighborhoods
to help spark their revival, so too gay entrepreneurs, early to notice
that migration, may be among the first to move in and begin provid-
ing products for those new residents. They help bolster the economic
base of the community, filling empty storefronts, encouraging other
businesses to move into the area and augmenting the tax base which
provides influence with city officials. Gay business owners improve
the social environment of the gay enclave by pressing for street safety,
demanding adequate police protection, promoting neighborhood
cleanup, demanding improved public services or securing private
alternatives. This in turn lures more gay residents, further developing
the neighborhood.
(paras 7–9)
The SBA has also been partnering “with gay and lesbian chambers of
commerce in New York, Los Angeles, and Denver” and “Chicago” to
promote equal access to resources (Bertagnoli, 2000, paras 5 & 22).
In general as an under-represented group, LGBTQIA+ in business and
entrepreneurship is highly understudied (Galloway, 2007; Ogbor, 2000;
Schindehutte et al., 2005; Varnell, 2001; Zuniga, 2021), although some help-
ful resources exist (see Howell, 2002; Levin, 1998). Badgett (2020) indicated
LGBTQIA+ equality continues as a persistent and pertinent issue and eco-
nomic contributor. Issues of discriminatory laws and policies, employer abuse
and discrimination, harassment and bullying, violence and hate crimes, and

Mr. Joseph Sprague
Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce
Chicago, Illinois
In the past, gay partners have had a difficult time getting loans
from traditional sources such as banks. When my partner wanted
financing for his business, I accompanied him to the bank to act
as co-signer, but the bank wouldn’t accept the arrangement. They
wanted to know why I would (co-sign). That wouldn’t happen to a
married couple.
(Bertagnoli, 2000, paras 10–12)

Dr. Michael Ciszek
Optometrist and Co-Owner of Visionary Eye Care Professionals,
P.C.
Andersonville of Chicago, Illinois
I’ve experienced not discrimination but unease, and that makes

me feel uncomfortable. Our business is half gay-owned and half
women-owned. We weren’t sure what a government agency’s reac-
tion would be. [The Small Business Administration helped.]
(Bertagnoli, 2000, paras 13–16)
health stigma are complex issues intertwined in LGBTQIA+ with impact on

entrepreneurs and the business sector in general.
As Ogbor (2000) admonished: “it could be said that the ideology-
critique of the discourse on entrepreneurship [regarding diversity and
LGBTQIA+] has remained one of the last taboos in management and
organization discourses, waiting to be de-mystified” (p. 610).
Barriers
The barriers to equitable participation in entrepreneuring for underrepre-
sented groups are multifaceted. These groups, including women, BIPOC,
and LGBTQIA+, disparities around health inequities, limited access to
capital, and under-resourced social networks for launching and sustain-
ing a viable business are a challenge.
Economic crises magnify the disparities encountered by BIPOC entre-
preneurs. The SBA instituted several programs, such as the Payroll Pro-
tection Program (PPP) to provide financial assistance to entrepreneurs
that suffered hardships and were negatively impacted by the pandemic.
BIPOC entrepreneurs, in particular, have been disproportionately denied
and/or missed access to PPP loans for various reasons including lack of
formal banking relationships with large financial institutions, inability to
provide the required financial documentation, and exclusionary require-
ments for meeting the conditions for loan considerations. In a study con-
ducted by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC)
using mystery shoppers, on lending discrimination during the pandemic
of 2020 for Black and Hispanic women-owned businesses (Lederer &
Oros, 2020), findings included:
• Black female and Hispanic male testers received significantly less infor-
mation about PPP loan products than their White male counterparts.
• Black female testers were provided less information about loan prod-
ucts and discouraged more compared to White female and Hispanic
female testers.
• Under the fair lending review, we observed a difference in treatment
of Hispanic females and Black females through overt statements,
information asymmetry, and discouragement to continue pursuing a
banking relationship.
Although discouraging, these fndings are examples of common inequi-

ties that contribute to the lower than average success rates of BIPOC
entrepreneurs. Eradicating the inequities that exist in power dynam-
ics, policy, often discriminatory practices in banking, and cultural net-
works is the answer to creating a better environment for women, BIPOC,
and LGBTQIA+ entrepreneurs to fourish and sustain themselves in an
increasing competitive business market.
Summary
Stemming from leadership into the entrepreneurship literature, both
power and empowerment are influential concepts. Ideas provided are
rooted in community development, institutional, and behavioral eco-
nomics literature. Entrepreneurial communities have various pathways
for the empowerment of entrepreneurs and support for their busi-
nesses within a local society or peer entrepreneurial social group. Self-
empowerment and team empowerment are also important foundations
to support success. However, there are both positives and negatives with
empowerment, such as disempowerment or imbalance as a concern.
Dynamics of power exist at all levels, including policy; cultural net-
works; diversity, equity, and inclusion; and leadership which become key
areas that intertwine and effect power and empowerment. A framework
was presented and discussed to organize the concepts for application
in various texts, and a model was proposed for application of power
and empowerment in entrepreneurial community formation or function-
ing. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are crucial, and efforts for increased
access of resources and education for women, Blacks, Indigenous, Asian-
Americans, Hispanics and Latinx, LGBTQIA+, the disabled, veterans,
and other under-represented populations have become agenda items in
entrepreneurial communities. Overall, however, more research is needed.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in experimental psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic Press.
Affholder, J., & Box, T. M. (2004). Struggles of female entrepreneurs. Proceed-
ings of the Academy of Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 3–8. www.alliedacademies.
org/public/Proceedings/Proceedings14/pae-10-1-no04.pdf#page=7
Ahl, H. (2004). The scientific reproduction of gender inequality: A discourse
analysis of research texts on women’s entrepreneurship. Copenhagen Business
Scholar Press.
Ahl, H. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions.
Al-Dajani, H., & Marlow, S. (2013). Empowerment and entrepreneurship: A
theoretical framework. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research, 19(5), 503–524. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-10-2011-0138
Al-Dajani, H., & Marlow, S. (2015). Empowerment, place, and entrepreneurship:
Women in the global south. In T. Baker & F. Welter (Eds.), The Routledge com-
panion to entrepreneurship (pp. 343–357). Routledge.
Allevato, E. (2020). Organizational culture change: Growth mindset, positive
psychology, and empowerment. In J. Marques & S. Dhiman (Eds.), Social
entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility (pp. 439–454). Springer.
American Psychological Association. (2008). Sexual orientation & homosexu-
ality: Introduction. American Psychological Association. www.apa.org/topics/
lgbtq/orientation
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and prac-
tice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
Ashforth, B. E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(2), 207–242.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership
and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empower-
ment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25(8), 951–968.
Baboolall, D., Cook, K., Noel, N., Stewart, S., & Yancy, N. (2020). Building sup-
portive ecosystems for Black-owned US businesses. McKinsey & Company.
Badgett, M. V. L. (2020). The economic case for LGBT equality: Why fair and
equal treatment benefits us all. Beacon Press.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource
construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 50(3), 329–366.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman & Co.
Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Iverson, R. D. (2003). High-quality work, job sat-
isfaction, and occupational injuries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 276.
Bayraktar, S. (2016). Do entrepreneurs really create entrepreneurial cultures?
When intentions do not match actions. Journal Review of Social, Economic,
and Administrative Studies, 30(2), 79–98.
Beers, M. (2011). Women-led businesses find value in social responsibil-
ity. Florida International University News. http://news.fiu.edu/2011/10/
fiu-report-women-led-businesses-find-value-in-social-responsibility/32879
Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2006). Identity, identi-
fication, and relationship through social alliances. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34(2), 128–137.
Bertagnoli, L. (2000). SBA reaches out to gays. Crain’s Chicago Business, 23(42).
www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20001008/HOLD/100015177/sba-reaches-
out-to-gays
Berti, M., & Simpson, A. V. (2021). The dark side of organizational paradoxes:
The dynamics of disempowerment. The Academy of Management Review,
46(2), 252–274.
Betters-Reed, B. L., Moore, L. L., & Hunt, L. M. (2007). A conceptual approach
to better diagnosis and resolution of cross-cultural and gender challenges in
entrepreneurial research. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research in entre-
preneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 198–216). Edward Elgar.
Blau, P. M. (1977). A macrosociological theory of social structure. American Jour-
nal of Sociology, 83(1), 26–54.
Boudrias, J. S., Morin, A. J. S., & Lajoie, D. (2014). Directionality of the asso-
ciations between psychological empowerment and behavioral involvement: A
longitudinal autoregressiveness cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 87(3), 437–463.
Braidford, P., Stone, I., & Tesfaye, B. (2013). Gender, disadvantage and enterprise
support—lessons from women’s business centres in North America and Europe.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 20(1), 143–164.
Brush, C., de Bruin, A., & Welter, F. (2009). A gender-aware framework for wom-
en’s entrepreneurship. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship,
1, 8–24.
Burns, J. M. (2010). Leadership. Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
Cabrera, E. M., & Mauricio, D. (2017). Factors affecting the success of women’s
entrepreneurship: A review of literature. International Journal of Gender and
Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 31–65.
Carr, G. (2005). Intellectuals of the African Diaspora: Carter G. Woodson and the
origins of African-American history month office of curriculum and instruc-
tion: African-American history course: Lessons in African studies the school
district of Philadelphia, 43–44.
Carsrud, A. L., & Johnson, R. W. (1989). Entrepreneurship: A social psychologi-
cal perspective. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1(1), 21–31.
Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence,
and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 167–199.
Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., & Balocco, R. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem
research: Present debates and future directions. International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, 15(4), 1291–1321.
Chalmers, D., MacKenzie, N. G., & Carter, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and
entrepreneurship: Implications for venture creation in the fourth industrial
revolution. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 1028–1053.
Charles, M., & Grusky, D. B. (2004). Occupational ghettos: The worldwide seg-
regation of women and men. Stanford University Press.
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-
efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Ventur-
ing, 13(4), 295–316.
Chetty, D. (2019, June 20). Pride month: 7 gay designers who changed how we dress.
Zoomer. www.everythingzoomer.com/style/2019/06/20/gay-fashion-designers/
Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity, and commitment in
exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 43(5), 721–739.
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215.
Daily, C. M., McDougall, P. P., Covin, J. G., & Dalton, D. R. (2002). Governance and
strategic leadership in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Management, 28, 387–412.
Dakoumi, A. H., & Abdelwahed, Y. (2014). Is entrepreneurship for you? Effects
of storytelling on entrepreneurial intention. International Journal of Business
and Management, 9(9), 176.
Dannreuther, C., & Perren, L. (2015). The rhetoric of power: Entrepreneurship
and politics. In T. Baker & F. Welter (Eds.), The Routledge companion to entre-
preneurship (pp. 376–390). Routledge.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024.
The Diana Project™. www.babson.edu/academics/centers-and-institutes/center-
for-womens-entrepreneurial-leadership/diana-international-research-institute/
research/diana-project/#
Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2005). Psychological empowerment and subjective
well-being. In D. Narayan (Ed.), Measuring empowerment: Cross-disciplinary
perspectives (pp. 125–140). World Bank.
Drees, J. M., & Heugens, P. P. (2013). Synthesizing and extending resource depen-
dence theory: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 39, 1666–1698.
Duberman, M. (1994). Stonewall. Plume.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit:
Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92, 1087–1101.
Esposito, N. (2019, May). Small business facts: Spotlight on minority-owned
employer businesses. U.S. Small Business Administration. https://cdn.advocacy.
sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/31131339/Small-Business-Facts-
Spotlight-on-Minority-Owned-Employer-Businesses.pdf
Fath, B. D., Dean, C. A., & Katzmair, H. (2015). Navigating the adaptive cycle: An
approach to managing the resilience of social systems. Ecology and Society, 20(2).
Fortunato, M. W-P (2017). Models of entrepreneurial community and ecosystem
development. In M. W-P Fortunato & M. R. Clevenger (Eds.), Toward entre-
preneurial community development: Leaping cultural and leadership boundar-
ies (pp. 51–103). Routledge.
Fortunato, M. W-P, & Clevenger, M. R. (2022). Introduction of entrepreneurial
communities, ecosystems, and empowerment. In M. R. Clevenger & M. W-P
Fortunato (Eds.), Empowering entrepreneurial communities and ecosystems:
Case study insights (pp. in press). Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. Pantheon.
French, Jr., J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1968). The bases of social power. In D. Car-
tright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.,
pp. 259–269). Harper & Row Publishers.
Fuller, J. B., Morrison, R., Jones, L., Bridger, D., & Brown, V. (1999). The effects
of psychological empowerment on transformational leadership and job satis-
faction. The Journal of Psychology, 139(3), 389–391.
Galloway, L. (2007). Entrepreneurship and the gay minority: Why the silence?
The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 8(4).
Galloway, L. (2012). The experiences of male gay business owners in the UK. Inter-
national Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 30(8), 890–906.
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic
leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership
Quarterly, 22, 1120–1145.
Ghosh, S., Hughes, M., Hughes, P., & Hodgkinson, I. (2021). Corporate digital
entrepreneurship: Leveraging industrial Internet of Things and emerging tech-
nologies. Digital Entrepreneurship, 183.
Goldschein, E. (2021, January 8). Racial funding gap shows Black business owners
are shut out from accessing capital. www.fundera.com/blog/racial-funding-gap
Goldsmith, S. (2010). The power of social innovation: How civic entrepreneurs
ignite community networks for good. John Wiley & Sons.
Goode, W. J. (1957). Community within a community: The professions. American
Sociological Review, 22(2), 194–200.
Gorman, I. (2017). The tapestry of Black business ownership in America:
Untapped opportunities for business success. https://community-wealth.org/
sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/AEO_Black_Owned_
Business_Report_02_16_17_FOR_WEB.pdf
Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. C. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the
nature of legitimate power and greatness (25th anniversary ed.). Paulist Press.
Guaracino, J., & Salvato, E. (2017). Handbook of LGBT tourism and hospitality:
A guide for business practice. Harrington Park Press.
Haataja, V., & Neergaard, H. (2017). Empowerment through transformative
entrepreneurial processes and everyday practice: The role of history, heritage,
community, and culture. ICSB Conference.
Hanson, S. (2009). Changing places through women’s entrepreneurship. Eco-
nomic Geography, 85, 245–267.
Hanson, S., & Blake, M. (2009, February). Gender and entrepreneurial net-
works. In R. Hassink (Ed.), Regional Studies, 43(1), 135–149. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00343400802251452
Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1999). No joking matter: Discursive struggle in the
Canadian refugee system. Organization Studies, 20(1), 1–24.
Heath, R. G., & Isbell, M. G. (2017). Interorganizational collaboration: Com-
plexity, ethics, and communication. Waveland Press.
Henao-Zapata, D., & Peiró, J. M. (2018). The importance of empowerment in
entrepreneurship. In A. T. Porcar & D. R. Soriano (Eds.), Inside the mind of
the entrepreneur: Cognition, personality traits, intention, and gender behavior
(pp. 185–206). Springer.
Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative
Inquiry, 3(3), 274–294.
Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence
theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35, 1404–1427.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. Routledge.
Howell, E. (2002). Lavender entrepreneurs: Gold at the end of the rainbow?
CELCEE Digest, 2–8. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership Clear-
inghouse on Entrepreneurship Education.
Jeffery, P. (2019, May). LGBT, Inc. First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion &
Public Life, 293, 55–57.
Jennings, J. E., & Brush, C. G. (2013). Research on women entrepreneurs: Chal-
lenges to (and from) the broader entrepreneurship literature? Academy of
Management Annals, 7, 663–715.
Johnson, D. K. (2021). Buying gay: How physique entrepreneurs sparked a move-
ment. Columbia Studies in the History of U.S. Capitalism. Columbia University
Press.
Johnson, S. K. (2020). Inclusify: The power of uniqueness and belonging to build
innovative teams. HarperCollins Publishers.
Jones, O., & Jayawarna, D. (2010). Resourcing new businesses: Social networks,
bootstrapping and firm performance. Venture Capital, 12, 127–152.
Kabanoff, B. (1990). Equity, equality, and power in organizations: A distribu-
tive justice view of organizational culture and change. Paper presented at the
Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Man-
agement Educators.
Kabanoff, B. (1991). Equity, equality, power, and conflict. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 16(2), 416–441.
Kabeer, N. (1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measure-
ment of women’s empowerment. Development and Change, 30, 435–464.
Karrass, C. L. (1974). Give and take: The complete guide to negotiating strategies
and tactics. Harper Collins.
Karrass, C. L. (1993). The negotiating game: How to get what you want. Harper
Collins.
Karrass, C. L. (2013). In business as in life—you don’t get what you deserve, you
get what you negotiate (2nd ed.). Stanford Street Press.
Kepner, J. (1988). Gay Los Angeles: The early days. International Gay and Les-
bian Archives.
Kepner, J. (1989). Our movement before Stonewall. International Gay and Les-
bian Archives.
Kuratko, D. F. (2016). Entrepreneurship: Theory, process, and practice (10th ed.).
Southwestern College Publishing.
Lederer, A., & Oros, S. (2020). Lending discrimination during COVID-19: Black
and Hispanic women-owned businesses. National Community Reinvestment
Coalition (NCRC). www.ncrc.org/lending-discrimination-during-covid-19-
Black-and-hispanic-women-owned-businesses/
Levin, S. (1998). In the pink: The making of successful gay- and lesbian-owned
businesses. Routledge.
Levine, S., & White, P. E. (1961). Exchange as a conceptual framework for the
study of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly,
5(4), 583–601.
Licata, S. J. (1978). Gay power: A history of the American Gay Movement, 1908–
1974. (Unpublished dissertation). University of Southern California.
Licata, S. J. (1981). The Homosexual Rights Movement in the United States: A
traditionally overlooked area of American history. Journal of Homosexuality,
6(1–2), 161–189.
Luma Institute. (2012). Innovating for people: Handbook of human-centered
design methods. Luma Institute, LLC.
Lung-Amam, W. (2021, May 19). Businesses are victims of gentrification, too:
Small businesses were already being displaced in gentrifying neighborhoods:
The pandemic made it worse. Bloomberg City Lab. www.bloomberg.com/
news/articles/2021-05-19/small-businesses-are-victims-of-gentrification-too
Lyons, T. S. (2015). Entrepreneurship and community development: What mat-
ters and why? Community Development, 46(5), 456–460.
Madden, J. R. (2017). Inter-organizational collaboration by design. Routledge.
Madden, J. R., & Washington, M. L. (2021, June 18–19). Transitional entre-
preneurship colloquium: Veterans, women, minorities, immigrants, refugees.
Presentation at the E.W. Kauffman Foundation’s “Transitional Entrepreneurs
Making a Difference in Urban Spaces”, Strome College of Business, Old
Dominion University.
Manolova, T. S., Brush, C. G., Edelman, L. F., & Shaver, K. G. (2012). One size
does not fit all: Entrepreneurial expectancies and growth intentions of U.S.
women and men nascent entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Regional Devel-
opment, 24, 7–27.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Wiley.
Martin, P., & Zedillo, E. (2004). Unleashing entrepreneurship: Making business
work for the poor. Report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
United Nations Development Programme. http://ycsg.yale.edu/sites/default/
files/files/unleashing_entrepreneurship.pdf
McClelland, D. C. (1963). The achieving society. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.
McGee, J. E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S. L., & Sequeira, J. M. (2009). Entrepreneur-
ial self-efficacy: Refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
33(4), 965–988.
Meindl, J. R. (1989). Managing to be fair: An exploration of values, motives, and
leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 252–276.
Menon, S. T. (1995). Employee empowerment: Definition, measurement and con-
struct validation. McGill University.
Messer, C. M., Shriver, T. E., & Adams, A. E. (2018). The destruction of Black
wall street: Tulsa’s 1921 riot and the eradication of accumulated wealth. Amer-
ican Journal of Economics and Sociology, 77(3–4), 789–819.
Miao, C., Rutherford, M. W., & Pollack, J. M. (2017). An exploratory meta-
analysis of the nomological network of bootstrapping in SMEs. Journal of
Business Venturing Insights, 8, 1–8.
Mills, C. W. (1958). The structure of power in American society. The British Jour-
nal of Sociology, 9(1), 29–41.
Minority Business Development Agency. (2021). State of minority business
enterprise (SMOBE) data by state.www.mbda.gov/page/state-minority-business-
enterprise-smobe-data-state
Mosedale, S. (2005). Assessing women’s empowerment: Towards a conceptual
framework. Journal of International Development, 17(2), 243–257.
Muntean, S. C. (2013). Wind beneath my wings: Policies promoting high-growth
oriented women entrepreneurs. International Journal of Gender and Entrepre-
neurship, 5, 36–59.
tems: Entrepreneurs’ self—regulatory processes and their implications for new
venture success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 1071–1097.
Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital innova-
tion management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital
world. Management Information Systems (MIS) Quarterly, 41(1), 223–238.
Narayan-Parker, D. (2002). Empowerment and poverty reduction: A sourcebook.
World Bank Publications.
Narayan-Parker, D. (2005). Measuring empowerment: Cross-disciplinary per-
spectives. World Bank Publications.
Neal, J. W. (2014). Exploring empowerment in settings: Mapping distribution of
network power. American Journal of Community Psychology, 53(3–4), 394–406.
Nordstrom, O., McKeever, E., & Anderson, A. (2020). Piety and profit; the moral
embeddedness of an enterprising community. Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, 32(9–10), 783–804.
Obschonka, M., & Audretsch, D. B. (2020). Artificial intelligence and big data
in entrepreneurship: A new era has begun. Small Business Economics, 55(3),
529–539.
Ogbor, J. O. (2000). Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurial discourse:
Ideology-critique of entrepreneurial studies. Journal of Management Studies,
37(5), 605–635.
Ortiz-Walters, R., Gavino, M. C., & Williams, D. (2015). Social networks of
Latino and Latina entrepreneurs and their impact on venture performance.
Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 21(1), 58.
Özaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team
effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(6), 335–344.
Ozer, E. M., & Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects:
A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(3), 472.
Ozkazanc-Pan, B., & Muntean, S. C. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: A gen-
der perspective. Cambridge.
Page, N., & Czuba, C. E. (1999). Empowerment: What is it. Journal of Extension,
37(5), 1–5.
Parsons, T. (1963). On the concept of political power. Proceedings of the Ameri-
can Philosophical Society, 107(3), 232–262.
Parsons, T. (2013). The social system. Routledge.
Peredo, A. M. (2015). Poverty, reciprocity, and community-based entrepreneur-
ship. In T. Baker & F. Welter (Eds.), The Routledge companion to entrepreneur-
ship (pp. 263–280). Routledge.
Perkins, D. D., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research,
and application. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5),
569–579.
Perry, A., Rothwell, J., & Harshbarger, D. (2020). Five-star reviews, one-star prof-
its: The devaluation of businesses in Black communities. Brookings Institution.
Pfeffer, J. (1987). A resource dependence perspective on interorganizational rela-
tions. In M. S. Mizruchi & M. Schwartz (Eds.), Intercorporate relations: The
structural analysis of business (pp. 25–55). Cambridge University Press.
Pfeffer, J. (Ed.). (1992a). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organi-
zations. Harvard Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J. (1992b). Understanding power in organizations. In J. Pfeffer (Ed.), Man-
aging with power: Politics and influence in organizations (pp. 29–50). Harvard
Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J. (2010a). Power: Why some people have it—and others don’t. Harper
Business.
Pfeffer, J. (2010b). Power, capriciousness, and consequences. Harvard Business
Review, 91(4), 36–37.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations. Harper
& Row.
Roundy, P. T. (2017). Hybrid organizations and the logics of entrepreneurial eco-
systems. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. https://doi.
org/10.1007/211365-017-0452-9
Rousseau, D. M. (1977). Technological differences in job characteristics, employee
satisfaction, and motivation: A synthesis of job design research and sociotech-
nical systems theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19(1),
18–42.
Rowlands, J. (1995). Empowerment examined. Development in Practice, 5(2),
101–107.
Rubin, J. Z., & Brown, B. R. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and
negotiation. Academic Press.
lective actions. Princeton University Press.
Rutherford, M. W., & Buller, P. F. (2007). Searching for the legitimacy threshold.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 16, 78–92.
Rutherford, M. W., Buller, P. F., & Stebbins, J. M. (2009). Ethical considerations
of the legitimacy lie. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 949–964.
Sadeh, L. J., & Zilber, T. B. (2019). Bringing “together”: Emotions and power in
organizational responses to institutional complexity. Academy of Management
Journal, 62(5), 1413–1443.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power—and how they hold on to it:
A strategic-contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, 5(3), 2–21.
Samman, E., & Santos, M. E. (2009). Agency and empowerment: A review of
concepts, indicators, and empirical evidence. University of Oxford.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Towards a theoretical shift
from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 26(2), 243–288.
Schindehutte, M., Morris, M., & Allen, J. (2005). Homosexuality and entrepre-
neurship: Implications of gay identity for the venture-creation experience. The
Schmidt, S. M., & Kochan, T. A. (1977). Interorganizational relationships: Pat-
terns and motivations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 220–234.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, nat-
ural, and open systems perspectives. Pearson Education, Inc.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the
next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfac-
tion. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 332–349.
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and conse-
quences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-
analytic review. American Psychological Association.
Shane, S. A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-
opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Smith, R., & McElwee, G. (2015). Informal, illegal, and criminal entrepreneur-
ship. In T. Baker & F. Welter (Eds.), The Routledge companion to entrepreneur-
ship (pp. 245–262). Routledge.
Snowden, D. (1999). Story telling: An old skill in a new context. Business Infor-
mation Review, 16(1), 30–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266382994237045
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimen-
sions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5),
1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empow-
erment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 483–504.
Steinberg, W. W. (2006). The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. Yale Uni-
versity Press.
Steiner, G. A. (Ed.). (1975a). Changing business-society interrelationships. Gradu-
ate School of Management, UCLA.
Steiner, G. A. (1975b). The social responsibilities of business. In G. A. Steiner
(Ed.), Changing business-society interrelationships (pp. 135–152). Graduate
School of Management, UCLA.
Sutton, R. I., & Rousseau, D. M. (1979). Structure, technology, and dependence
on a parent organization: Organizational and environmental correlates of indi-
vidual responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(6), 675.
Thomas, K. W., & Tymon, Jr., W. G. (1994). Does empowerment always work:
Understanding the role of intrinsic motivation and personal interpretation.
Journal of Management Systems, 6(2), 1–13.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment:
An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management
Review, 15(4), 666–681.
Timmons, S. (1990). The trouble with Harry Hay: Founder of the Modern Gay
Movement. Alyson Publications.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership
theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Job growth at small businesses, 1992–
2013. Bureau of Labor Statistics. www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/mobile/ted_2014
0512.htm
U.S. Census. (2020, May 19). Annual business survey release provides data on
minority- and women-owned businesses. www.census.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/2020/annual-business-survey-data.html
U.S. Census. (2021, January 28). Annual business survey release provides data on
minority-owned, veteran-owned, and women-owned businesses. www.census.
gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/annual-business-survey.html
Varnell, P. (2001, July 18). What gay entrepreneurs contribute. Independent
Gay Forum (IGF). Culture Watch. https://igfculturewatch.com/2001/07/18/
what-gay-entrepreneurs-contribute/
Vera, H. (2014). Is there empowerment in entrepreneurship? A systematic litera-
ture review. Working Paper No. 2014/16. Maastricht School of Management.
https://ideas.repec.org/p/msm/wpaper/2014-16.html
Wagner, A. (2019). Creating place: Business, community development, and
neighborhood identity in Shaw/U Street and Anacostia (Doctoral dissertation,
Georgetown University). https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/
handle/10822/1056273/Thesis%20final%20version%20%28April%20
30%2C%202019%29.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Washington, M. L., & Madden, J. R. (2020). Collaboration & design think-
ing: A transdisciplinary approach to redefining the next normal and creating
resilient ecosystems. Review of Business Research, 20(1), 61–74. https://doi.
org/10.18374/RBR-20-1.6
Weisbrod, B. A. (1977). The voluntary nonprofit sector: An economic analysis.
Lexington Books.
White, C. T. (2009). Pre-gay LA: A social history of the movement for homo-
sexual rights. University of Illinois Press.
Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost
approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 548–577.
Wilson, N. L. (1997). Queer culture and sexuality as a virtue of hospitality. In R.
Goss & A. A. Strongheart (Eds.), Our families, our values: Snapshots of queer
kinship (pp. 21–35). Haworth Press.
Winborg, J., & Landström, H. (2001). Financial bootstrapping in small busi-
nesses: Examining small business managers’ resource acquisition behaviors.
Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 235–254.
Wolfe, R. J., & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Perceived relative power and its influence
on negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 14(1), 3–20.
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward,
downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology,
75(2), 132–140.
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in down-
ward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 416–423.
Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with sub-
ordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 525–535.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy
in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 90(6), 1265–1272.
Zuniga, R. (2021, June 22). 33 LGBTQ+ founders, entrepreneurs, and VCs
you should know. PitchBook Blog. PitchBook. https://pitchbook.com/blog/
lgbtq-founders-entrepreneurs-and-vcs-you-should-know
5 Entreprenology of Formal
and Informal Education,
Co-Curricular and Extra-
Curricular Programming,
Vocational and Technical
Entrepreneuring, and Learning
From Failure to Support and
Empower Entrepreneurs
Morgan R. Clevenger, Marcus I. Crews,
Sara L. Cochran, Louise Underdahl,
Ronald G. Leach, Jean R. Perlman,
Elizabeth Isele, Norris F. Krueger Jr.,
Matthew Knight, and Dina Piepoli Udomsak
Rationale: Why Any of This Matters, and Should

We Be Worried?
National statistics from Gallup continue to indicate negative growth in
new business launches in the United States, with about 400,000 new busi-
nesses opened annually nationwide, while 470,000 are dying in that same
year aside from general economic dynamics (Clifton & Badal, 2014).
The cultural bias to “go work for someone or some company” reduces
the encouragement—and responsibility and risk—of venturing out on
one’s own. Additionally, this negative growth ensues amidst the surge
in course offerings for entrepreneurship education as the country places
entrepreneurialism front and center on the U.S. agendas in education and
economic development at all levels (Fortunato & Clevenger, 2017).
However, oddly enough, there is an inverse relationship between high
knowledge performance test scores and high entrepreneurial activity in
any given country (Zhao, 2012). “Educational practices and societal fac-
tors that help students achieve academically may hamper entrepreneurial
qualities and reduce creativity” (Zhao, 2012, p. 58). (cf. see studies by
the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.) Thus, “commonly used measures
of educational quality [e.g., reading, math, and sciences] have negative or
no relationships with entrepreneurship” (Zhao, 2012, p. 58). In 2008, the
United States ranked 24th in mathematics and 19th in science compared
DOI: 10.4324/9781351045711-5
144 Clevenger et al.
to 29 developed nations (Bell-Rose et al., 2008). The space is somewhat
controversial regarding the content and need for formal academic course-
work versus practical, hands-on often non-credit, co-curricular and extra-
curricular engagement—or a combination (or integration) of formal and
practical approaches (Macht & Ball, 2016). “Entrepreneurship education
should be adjusted to the purpose and the target group of the education”
(Blenker et al., 2008, p. 45).
Theory from focusing on textbook knowledge versus an emphasis on
hands-on, real-world entrepreneurship efforts—including experimenta-
tion and failure with creativity, innovation, and invention—have oppos-
ing results for a society (Zhao, 2012; Zhao et al., 2019). Jamieson (1984)
proposed three components of entrepreneurship education: (1) context
about entrepreneurship and entrepreneuring (the codified, textbook infor-
mation about the nature and context), (2) education content for preparing
students to start a business (e.g., ideation, resources, launch, maintenance,
and all related business education content), and (3) enterprise education
(experiential learning, hands-on opportunities). Ideally, a combination is
warranted (Honig & Martin, 2014; Young, 1997). Several other scholars
have proposed various models of entreprenology and entrepreneurial pro-
cesses (e.g., Moroz & Hindle, 2012; Timmons et al., 2011; Wilson, 2008).
A prioritization of entrepreneurship education is important to aid
youths, young adults, aspiring entrepreneurs of any age, communities,
and the country as a whole for prepared workers, managers, leaders in
any discipline (particularly STEM), and entrepreneurs (Bell-Rose et al.,
2008). Research has shown a positive correlation between education and
entrepreneurship, which is discussed later under impact (Dickson et al.,
2008; Fayolle & Gailly, 2015; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003). Most learn-
ing experts indicate that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation combine
for success (Helm-Stevens & Griego, 2009). However, in entrepreneur-
ship, research has evidenced that external motivation and support are
much more important for fostering success (Hytti et al., 2010). Addi-
tionally, research has illustrated that many people who start “innova-
tive” businesses have a high level of education (and income), compared
with those who do not have as much education (Bates, 1994; Bowen &
Hisrich, 1986; Graff & Clevenger, 2017; Guo et al., 2015). However,
“necessity” entrepreneurs often hail from those audiences without formal
education or training. Regardless, important resources are available in
communities, from educational institutions at all levels, nonprofits, for-
profits, foundations, and various governments.
Curriculum
In general, entrepreneurship education entails a strong foundation of
basic concepts (Fayolle, 2013). However, entrepreneurship is also often
taught differently than other business topics with more experiential
Entreprenology 145
learning, creative thinking, skill development, teamwork through various
exercises, and project-based learning (Brooker, 2020; Clevenger, 2017;
Kanter, 2002; Kuckertz, 2013). Entrepreneurship program curriculums
combine elements of creativity and innovation, business planning, entre-
preneurial processes, financing, and venture life cycle (Morris et al.,
2013a). (For a key discussion on entrepreneurship education literature,
see Baptista & Naia, 2015.) Additionally, it has been found that entrepre-
neurship students learn from synergies created by interdisciplinary teams
of students (Clevenger, 2021; Hynes, 1996; Shinnar et al., 2009). (For
literature reviews of content and textbooks, see DeTienne & Chandler,
2004; Edelman & Brush, 2008; Honig & Martin, 2014; for paradigms
of content and ontological framings, see Blenker et al., 2011; Fayolle &
Gailly, 2008; regarding the entrepreneurial classroom, see Naia et al.,
2014; and toward practice see Naia et al., 2015.)
However, Morris (2015) noted: “the emergence of entrepreneurship
education has occurred so rapidly that it has outpaced our understanding
of what should be taught by entrepreneurship educators, how it should
be taught, and how outcomes should be assessed” (p. 48). Examples of
gaps include curriculum concerns of business concepts versus entrepre-
neurship basics versus entrepreneurial approach (McClure, 2015; Morris,
2015; Torrance, 2013b); teaching techniques, pedagogy, and experiential
learning (Bager, 2011; Brooker, 2020; Cope & Watts, 2000; Dobson et
al., 2017; Fiet, 2001; Honig, 2004; Kolb & Kolb, 2005); educational
delivery mechanisms and models (Béchard & Grégoire, 2006; Fayolle &
Gailly, 2008; Jack & Anderson, 1998; Li, 2011); learning approaches
tied to various disciplines and across the curriculum at a given institution
(e.g., business, medicine, engineering, art, and humanities) (Hylton et al.,
2020; Shaver, 2005); required content in higher education for concen-
trations, certificates, a minor, or major in entrepreneurship (Katz, 2003;
Kuratko, 2005); the variance in titles for entrepreneurship degrees, such
as Bachelor of Arts (BA) at 23%, Bachelor of Science (BS or BSc) at 48%,
or Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) at 29% (Siddiqui & Alara-
ifi, 2019); the placement of formal and informal entrepreneurship oppor-
tunities and resources on campuses (Bodnar et al., 2015; Morris, 2015;
Penaluna & Penaluna, 2009; Siddiqui & Alaraifi, 2019); and metrics
for reporting, assessment, impact, outcomes, evaluation, and accredita-
tion (Béchard & Grégoire, 2006; Duval-Couetil, 2013; Fayolle & Gailly,
2015; Henry et al., 2007; Matlay, 2008; Morris & Liguori, 2016; Nabi
et al., 2017; Pittaway & Edwards, 2012; Rideout & Gray, 2013; Sid-
diqui & Alaraifi, 2019; Vanevenhoven & Liguori, 2013). Textbook com-
panies, practitioners, and software companies have all created a wide
range of case studies, teaching cases, learning materials and tools, and
software programs to support teaching entrepreneurship.
Multiple scholars have found entrepreneurship programs should focus on
an innovation platform with hands-on, real-world application (Kuckertz,
2013; Morris et al., 2013a; Morris, 2014; Siddiqui & Alaraifi, 2019). To
begin, however, an “entrepreneurial mindset” (Morris, 2015; Timmons,
1989) is needed to create vision and positive reinforcement that “it’s pos-
sible to be successful and happy and people will support your dream.”
Next, “entrepreneurial competencies” are to be fostered both academically
and practically (Morris, 2015, p. 47). Entrepreneurial competencies are
best learned through real-world projects (Bird, 1995, 2002; Dobson et al.,
2017; Izquierdo & Deschoolmeester, 2010; Morris et al., 2013b; Stoof,
2005; Taatila, 2010; Vanevenhoven & Liguori, 2013) as most business stu-
dents learn best through experiential learning (Kolb, 1984). Competencies
“may be a motive, trait, skill, aspect of one’s self-image or social role, or
a body of knowledge which an individual uses” (Izquierdo & Deschool-
meester, 2010, p. 195). These competencies get beyond “traits” and are
leveraged characteristics used to develop an idea or invention, new ven-
ture creation, launch, expanding a concept or business, or surviving (Bird,
1995). Important examples from a study of 60 practicing entrepreneurs
as well as 53 entrepreneur educators from 30 countries by Izquierdo and
Deschoolmeester (2010) include corroboration of ideas from both groups
as decision making, innovative thinking, identifying and solving problems,
identifying and evaluating business opportunities, communications (writ-
ten, verbal, persuasive, and presentation), deal making and negotiating, and
networking. Further, Sánchez (2011) would add cognitive characteristics of
self-efficacy, proactiveness, and risk-taking as key competencies to practice
(cf. Ehrlich et al., 2000; Hansemark, 1998; Kyrö & Tapani, 2007; Noel,
2001; for an extensive literature review, see Silveyra et al., 2019, p. 507).
More eloquently stated, Higgins et al. (2019) indicated the learning and
applying of these competencies is an “ontological position of ‘becoming’
(entrepreneuring) rather than simple ‘being,’ as a way of transcending how
we view and appreciate the rationality of the entrepreneur’s patterns of
interacting and enactment” (p. 33) (see additional competencies ideas by
Rezaei-Zadeh et al., 2014).
Methodologies for instruction in entreprenology and entrepreneur-
ing include a range of interactive means; such examples include business
idea generation and selection; formal presentations via drafting business
plans, poster presentations, elevator pitches, business plan competitions,
and financial incentive reinforcements; computer-based simulations and
games; behavioral simulations; entrepreneurship behaviors and actions
in film analysis; qualitative inquiry of entrepreneurs; engaging with
speakers and mentors; internships; and consulting (Balan & Metcalfe,
2012; Brooker, 2020; Carrier, 2007; Hills et al., 2007; Solomon, 2014).
Design thinking—regardless of discipline—is the major framework used
for brainstorming, ideation, prototyping, testing, and refinement (Huq &
Gilbert, 2016).
Ideally, the goal is getting students beyond theory and simulation relat-
ing to entrepreneurship to fostering intentions and action (e.g., invention,
Entreprenology 147
patenting, and venture creation) (Bae et al., 2014; Dobson et al., 2019;
Fayolle & Gailly, 2015; Liñán et al., 2011; Schenkel et al., 2015).
Ultimately—even if students do not become entrepreneurs—they have
an increase in critical thinking skills, which are vital to any job or career
(Brooker, 2020). In a 2011 study, only 5% of college and university grad-
uates intended to start businesses (Godofsky et al., 2011). Reticence was
a combination of not only challenging economic outlook but also a lack
of entrepreneurial preparation.
Entrepreneurship Students
Students enroll in entrepreneurship courses because they have an interest
in entrepreneurship (Duval-Couetil et al., 2014; Peterson & Limbu, 2010),
have a specific idea for a business (Duval-Couetil et al., 2014; Menzies &
Tatroff, 2006), need to fulfill an educational program or specific degree
requirement (Peterson & Limbu, 2010), or as a way to broaden their
career options (Duval-Couetil et al., 2014). Entrepreneurship students
desire to learn how as well as to start their own business to make money,
gain independence, create future opportunities, and achieve a satisfying
lifestyle (Peterson & Limbu, 2010). These students are also highly inter-
ested and motivated to learn about leadership, project management, and
managing teams (Duval-Couetil et al., 2014). One key for youths is to
develop self-regulatory processes, such as self-control, grit (i.e., fortitude
and persistence in efforts and focus for long-term goal attainment), and
metacognition (Nambisan & Baron, 2013; Zhao, 2012). Thus, important
attributes of entrepreneurs include “inspiration, creativity, courage, direct
actions, and fortitude” (Zhao, 2012, p. 82).
When studying entrepreneurship programs, it is important to under-
stand the students within the programs. Most K-12 opportunities are
decided by the schools and government officials as important. Co-
curricular opportunities are offered by organizations supporting educa-
tion, free enterprise, financial literacy, or business—or some combination
of these goals. Co-curricular ties into the regular classroom, whereas
extra-curricular is programming outside of the classroom such as after-
school, weekends, monthly club meetings, and summer camps. More
than half of entrepreneurship students in formal college and university
courses and majors have parents who were entrepreneurs (Peterson &
Limbu, 2010). Statistically, college-age children are more likely to desire
to start their own business (Pruett et al., 2009).
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education

Participation in entrepreneurship programs—whether formal or informal—
has been found to have a positive impact on students’ entrepreneurial com-
petencies (Fayolle & Gailly, 2015; Sánchez, 2013; Morris et al., 2013b),
attitudes toward entrepreneurship (Harris & Gibson, 2008; Hsu et al.,
2014; Packham et al., 2010), entrepreneurial intention (Bae et al., 2014;
Fayolle et al., 2006, 2007; Hsu et al., 2014; Sánchez, 2013; Vanevenhoven &
Liguori, 2013), perceptions of an entrepreneurial career (Hsu et al., 2014;
Lo et al., 2012; Packham et al., 2010), as well as self-efficacy (Duval-
Couetil et al., 2002; Lo et al., 2012; Vanevenhoven & Liguori, 2013), and
behavioral control (Fayolle et al., 2006; Vanevenhoven & Liguori, 2013).
However, others have found there to be no significant correlation with
students’ behavioral control, speculating entrepreneurship students are
given a realistic view of the difficulty of starting a business through these
programs (Muofhe & Du Toit, 2011). Further, students who participate in
an entrepreneurship program have been found to be more likely to start
their own business (Charney & Lidecap, 2000).
Beyond these outcomes, entrepreneurship programs have also been
shown to enhance skills beyond business startup knowledge, including
communication skills, leadership skills, and business literacy (Duval-
Couetil & Long, 2014), as well as employment performance (Li & Liu,
2011). Entrepreneurship education is of an utmost importance and is a
justifiable means by graduates creating or securing good jobs, alleviating
issues of being unemployable or unemployed, settling for an average job,
or being forced into more formal education.
Formal Classroom Entrepreneurship Education

Formal classroom education connotes purposeful content embedded in
curriculum and potentially entire courses and various programs focused
on entrepreneurship and entrepreneuring. At the K-12 level, much is pro-
moted through business educators. In higher education, entrepreneur
attention is found all over the place: business schools, classes outside
business schools, centers, incubators, partnerships with the local com-
munity, sponsored research, foundations, R&D labs, and maker spaces.
Additionally, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees have been
increasing substantially in the past few decades. As discussed here, there
is a great deal more formalization around entrepreneurship at the higher
education level.
Entreprenology in K-12
K-12 exists for two basic purposes in the United States: (1) to create an
educated citizenry able for self-governance and (2) to equip all citizens
with the basic knowledge to be able to have employment and self-
sufficiency in life. Entreprenology at the K-12 level supports economic
growth through individuals starting businesses (Narayan, 2015; Neck &
Regele, 2012; Ravenscroft et al., 2021). A main goal is “building skills” in
order to develop entrepreneurs (Lichtenstein & Lyons, 2001, p. 7).
Entreprenology 149
However, few school curriculums at any level offer electives in busi-
ness, economics, personal finance, or entrepreneurship. While 49 out of
the 50 U.S. states report having entrepreneurship standards, guidelines, or
proficiencies as required metrics, only 27 out of 50 states report requiring
entrepreneurship being embedded within a required course for graduation
(Junior Achievement, 2019, p. 3). Creating a culture of acceptability and
social acceptance for being an entrepreneur by choice is the exception, not
the rule. The K-12 system—under state and federal education oversight—
prepares students for future employment, thus the need to have relevant,
demand-based skills training and curriculum (LaRose, 1997).
Promoting entrepreneurship education has a positive impact on inspir-
ing and equipping youths to pursue self-employment (Fayolle & Gailly,
2015; LaRose, 1997; Volery et al., 2013). Kourilsky and Walstad (2007)
said if:
An education for entrepreneurship was provided in high schools, it

would have a lifelong effect on students’ thinking and actions, and
significantly contribute to their career success as adults, regardless of
whether they ever launch an enterprise. Entrepreneurship education
for youth would make lasting contributions to social mobility, com-
munities, and economic growth.
(p. 1)
Entrepreneurship education can create positive alliances and networks

“among the school, businesspeople, and the community at large, in a joint
and concerted effort to demonstrate to students the benefts of staying in
the community, learning how to be employers, and helping to rebuild the
community” (LaRose, 1997, p. 2). Yet, resource inequalities are a barrier:
“poverty, underperforming schools, and other factors outside” the con-
trol of students must be addressed (Bell-Rose, 2008, p. 9).
Entreprenology in Higher Education

The Smith-Lever Act provided the U.S. Department of Agriculture to fos-
ter Agricultural Extension Services in all land-grant universities in 1914
as the first wave in higher education for attention to entrepreneurship
through economic development (Jones & Garforth, 1997; Katz, 2007a,
2007b). Early years were focused on farm production, technological
efficiency, and sustainability. As universities became more sophisticated,
non-agricultural business emphases grew, including support for local com-
munities, chambers of commerce, economic development authorities, and
eventually full PhDs helping local communities.
The second wave of emphasis in entrepreneurship came through edu-
cational courses in business schools (Katz, 2007a, 2007b; Landström,
2005). The University of Michigan offered the first course in small
business management (Zell Lurie Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies,
2021). In 1947, Harvard University offered the first course in entre-
preneurship on record (Cooper et al., 2000; Katz, 2003). Since then,
entrepreneurship education has had ups and downs through prolifera-
tion widely during some periods, and other times having the pendulum
swing toward decreasing attention—usually based on economics as well
as social and cultural acceptability of entrepreneurship as a lifestyle (Bae
et al., 2014; Kuratko, 2005; Martin et al., 2013). In 1975, steady growth
was seen across more colleges and universities in their offering entrepre-
neurship courses in both business and engineering as well as the begin-
ning of funding of faculty lines and endowed chairs, entrepreneurship
and free enterprise centers, and clustering of courses into concentrations
and majors being formed—yet few research projects existed at this time
(Vesper, 1986). From the mid-1980s, entrepreneurship education and its
role in society have increasingly gained attention of researchers and edu-
cators (Kolvereid & Moen, 1997; Landström, 2005; Matlay & Carey,
2007; Seikkula-Leino et al., 2010; Sequeira et al., 2007; Solomon, 2007;
Higgins et al., 2019).
Much theoretical debate began in the 20th century and has ensued on
whether or not entrepreneurship could be taught, and if so, how? Recent
debates have created polarized opinions of isolated (i.e., housed in one
place on campus) or integrated entrepreneurship (i.e., a wide variety of
courses, programming, resources, and support in various places on cam-
pus both academic and non-academic) (Hindle, 2007; Siddiqui & Alaraifi,
2019) and how to best educate entrepreneurship educators (Blenker et
al., 2008; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Gibb, 1993; Kuratko, 2005). Regard-
less, significant growth in formal course offerings, various resources (e.g.,
special funding, partnerships with entrepreneurs), and entrepreneurship
(e.g., discovery, patents, incubators, and actual business launches) has
occurred. In 2003, Katz reported there were 2,200 entrepreneurship
courses offered at 1,600 colleges and universities—200 with majors and
concentrations in entrepreneurship (Edelman & Brush, 2008). More
recent reports indicate there are more than 5,000 courses serving nearly
400,000 students (Torrance, 2013b). However, Higgins et al. (2019) con-
tend that “we know there are a variety of differing factors and mecha-
nisms that influence practice-based entrepreneurship education and
learning, but our knowledge in the field is fragmented and limited at
best” (p. 32). Thus, growth has been “unprecedented” and “is likely to
continue in the years to come” (Morris, 2015, p. 47).
Scholars cite many reasons for educating entrepreneurs to generate
economic growth (Neck & Regele, 2012). There are a range of benefits
in fostering entrepreneurship in colleges and universities to boost the
regional, state, national, and global economic development (Clevenger,
2017; Fortunato et al., 2019; Harrington & Maysami, 2015). Higher
education provides a catalyst for new businesses to help foster a flexible,
Entreprenology 151
creative, motivated, and well-educated workforce to improve local and
regional economies. Entrepreneurship is enhanced when situated near
academic institutions (Audretsch & Lehmann, 2005; Florida, 2002; Pride
et al., 2014). Chapters 6 and 7 will elaborate on those initiatives.
With justified needs for educating entrepreneurs and creating support
systems, there is clear opportunity for college and university entrepreneur-
ship programs. For instance, thought leaders at the Kauffman Foundation
have stated: “to neglect entrepreneurship or relegate it to the educational
sidelines makes undergraduate learning orthogonal to the world it is sup-
posed to help students learn to understand” (Schramm, 2008, p. 6). While
some scholars are speculating that the 21st century will prove to be a new
golden age of entrepreneurship (Morris et al., 2013a, p. 17).
Though there have been stated goals and a desire for these programs,
concerns among scholars observe that programs lack uniformity, and tra-
ditional business programs sometimes fail to be relevant to the needs
of today’s entrepreneurs or business world (Solomon, 2007). However,
entrepreneurship education has been stated to be at a critical point,
“the emergence of entrepreneurship has occurred so rapidly that it has
outpaced our understanding of what should be taught by entrepreneur-
ship educators, how it should be taught, and how outcomes should be
assessed” (Morris & Liguori, 2016, p. xvi). Despite this challenge and
concerns about uniformity and relevancy, scholars have approached
understanding these programs, their structure, students, best practices,
and outcomes.
Scholars at The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation claim that entre-
preneurship “is ideal for general education because it is a practice that
applies to many fields and because it provides a revealing lens for study-
ing how cultural values, social institutions, economic policies, and legal
practices interrelate to shape human behavior” (Schramm, 2008, p. 10).
Thus, now is the third wave of entrepreneurship “called cross-campus
entrepreneurship” (Katz, 2007b, p. xi). Brooks et al. (2006) indicated four
key reasons for campus-wide attention to entrepreneurship: economics is
critical, the importance of entrepreneurship is growing, academic insti-
tutions themselves must practice entrepreneurship, and the curriculum
relating to entrepreneurship meets many important goals relating to a
quality undergraduate education. Two examples of such institution-wide,
trans-disciplinary prevalent programming across the curriculum to create
an entrepreneurial mindset are Babson College in Wellesley, Massachu-
setts, and Hiram College in Hiram, Ohio. Both schools have a perva-
sive, integrated entrepreneurship focus to have students frame learning
through a potentially entrepreneurial lens with tie-ins across campus in
nearly all disciplines. Schmidt and Molkentin (2015) noted,
The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation was a major thought

leader in this effort encouraging institutions to envision new,
interdisciplinary programs that transcended traditional academic
silos; stretching across disciplines and schools within institutions;
connecting the university community, outside as well as inside.
(p. 157)
Additionally, the Kauffman Foundation had invested $48 million to

accelerate entrepreneurship programs at Arizona State University, Flor-
ida International University, Georgetown University, Howard University,
Purdue University, Syracuse University, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, University of Maryland at Baltimore County, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Rochester, University of
Texas at El Paso, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wake Forest Univer-
sity, and Washington University in St. Louis as well as the Northeast Ohio
(NEO) College Entrepreneurship Program in partnership with the Bur-
ton D. Morgan Foundation at Baldwin-Wallace College, Hiram College,
Lake Erie College, Oberlin College, and The College of Wooster (Brooks
et al., 2006, p. 23; Torrance, 2013a). Momentum helped to create the
Entrepreneurship Education Consortium (EEC), a nonprofit corporation,
in 2006 with seven colleges and universities in Northeast Ohio, includ-
ing Ashland University, Baldwin-Wallace College, Case Western Reserve
University, Cleveland State University, John Carroll University, Kent State
University, and the University of Akron (Finkle et al., 2009).
The present EEC, funded by the Burton D. Morgan Foundation and
The Fred A. Lennon Charitable Trust, has expanded to now include Ash-
land University, The University of Akron, Baldwin Wallace University,
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland State University, Hiram Col-
lege, John Carroll University, Kent State University, Lake Erie College,
Lorain County Community College, and University of Mount Union
(EEC, 2021; Schmidt & Molkentin, 2015). “The EEC was founded to
promote the concept and the reality of entrepreneurship among col-
lege students of all disciplines” (EEC, 2021, para 1). The Consortium
promotes practical and theoretical education. Two focus areas are skills
development (e.g., communication, teamwork, presentations, creativity,
innovation, ideation, and ethics) and technical education (e.g., marketing,
finance, operations, legal issues and intellectual property management,
new product development, feasibility, and business planning) (Finkle
et al., 2009). Entrepreneurship is particularly of interest to liberal arts
programs and institutions with required core or general education pro-
gramming with a deep connection to U.S. democracy, culture, economics,
finance, the humanities, law, leadership, and politics as the enmesh as key
disciplines promoting entrepreneurs, entrepreneuring, entrepreneurship,
and economic development (Hines, 2005). Thus,
Entrepreneurship is ideal for general education because it is a prac-

tice that applies to many fields and because it provides a revealing
Entreprenology 153
lens for studying how cultural values, social institutions, economic
policies, and legal practices interrelate to shape human behavior.
Entrepreneurship naturally and authentically draws together subjects
usually taught and studied separately.
(Brooks et al., 2006, p. 10)
However, most higher education institutions usually locate these entre-

preneurship programs in the business school (Morris et al., 2013a). Many
colleges and universities offering courses in entrepreneurship also stream-
line their entrepreneurial activity by sometimes creating a center that
includes both curricular and extracurricular programs. Some institutions
also partner with major funding programs, such as the Small Business
Development Center (SBDC). These centers are often formed separate
from academic programming. Once a school has begun with one or two
successful courses, it often leads to more demand for courses, eventually
leading an institution to provide a wide variety of programming such
as a concentration, a minor, a major, and/or master’s program or MBA
concentration in entrepreneurship. Beyond this, programs often grow to
be campus wide. Currently, some institutions have formed an academic
department or even a school of entrepreneurship (Morris et al., 2013a).
A current fourth wave of entrepreneurship has grown to college or uni-
versity ecosystems with emphases in entrepreneurial communities locally,
regionally, state-wide, and national. This fourth wave, however, empha-
sizes authenticity, social responsibility, sustainability practices, ethics,
diversity, equity, inclusion, and transparency as values and concepts stu-
dents and citizens must learn for productivity in society (Huq & Gilbert,
2016). Interestingly enough, these values have come from lessons learned
from poor business and organizational behavior, and an accountability
demand from Generations X, Y, and especially Z.
Vocational and Career Technical Entrepreneuring

According to Hemelt (2019, p. 161), “In the United States, between 15
and 20 percent of adolescents fail to finish high school”. Graduation from
and education beyond high school are requisite to quality of life, financial
independence, and career opportunity (Ross & Bateman, 2018). Recogniz-
ing that unemployment (including youth unemployment) negatively affects
the tax base, increases cost of social services, and triggers a cycle of poverty
entrapping youths throughout their lives (McLaverty et al., 2015; Zhao,
2012), local leaders have realized high-quality CTE programs improve
graduation rates and reduce U.S. high school dropout rates (Advance CTE,
2018; Gewertz, 2018a; McLaverty et al., 2015; U.S. Department of Educa-
tion, 2017).
Youth unemployment—including college graduates—is challenging,
thus entrepreneurship education could help (Zhao, 2012). For instance,
according to the Brookings Institution, 15% of 18- to 24-year-olds in the
United States are neither in school nor employed; approximately 50%
have completed high school, 20% have enrolled in some college course-
work, and 25% did not finish high school (Ross & Bateman, 2018). Strat-
egies to facilitate transition from high school to postsecondary education
and attractive career opportunities may include (1) more effective career
counseling for high school students, (2) offering dual enrollment and early
college high school programs, and (3) redesigning high school pathways
to postsecondary education and careers (Ross & Bateman, 2018).
Career Counseling
Initiatives to improve career counseling effectiveness encompass better
teacher and counselor training (Advance CTE, 2017; Alliance for Excel-
lent Education, 2018), improving student engagement by providing
meaningful curricula (Smith, 2019), and reframing career and technical
education as a venue “to be human and educated” and “not simply tied
to shifting labor markets. . . . In what ways does CTE increase engage-
ment and improve educational chances? What can we learn from CTE
courses and programs to continue supporting students in their academic,
career, and life trajectories?” (Jocson, 2018, p. 655).
Dual Enrollment and Early College High School

Dual enrollment provides college-level courses while students are concur-
rently still in high school. From the evidence, early college high school pro-
gram results are promising: approximately 15% of U.S. community college
students are high school-age students enrolled through dual-enrollment
programs (Alliance for Excellent Education & Johns Hopkins Institute
for Education Policy, 2018). More than 50% of dual-enrollment students
enrolled in a community college after high school. Once enrolled in post-
secondary education on a full-time basis, dual-enrollment students dem-
onstrated higher college grade point averages, persistence-to-graduation
rates, and degree attainment (Fink et al., 2017). Dual enrollment data indi-
cate positive effects on postsecondary degree attainment, college access and
enrollment, credit accumulation, high school completion, and academic
achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2017).
Redesigning High School Pathways

With approximately 8.3 million U.S. high school students enrolled in one
or more career and technical education courses in 2016–2017 (U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, 2019; Gewertz, 2018a), career and technical education
has been reframed as a college pathway, rather than a college alternative or
vocational education (Alfeld, 2016; Gerwetz, 2018a). Elective career and
Entreprenology 155
technical education courses include agricultural science, business entrepre-
neurship, computer graphic design, culinary arts, communications, health
care, and mechatronics and can answer “the question that many students
ask: Why do I need to learn this?” (Alfeld, 2016, para. 2). Delivery ven-
ues include career academies, programs linking high school and college
courses with workplace experience, and regional CTE centers, where spe-
cialized equipment is used by multiple schools or districts (Alfeld, 2016).
Research on regional vocational and technical high schools in Massachu-
setts suggested that this form of career and technical education increases
the likelihood of high school graduation, with a relatively larger boost for
low-income students (Dougherty, 2018). A study of one career academy
concluded that “high-quality career academies may improve rates of high
school graduation and college-going” (Hemelt et al., 2019, p. 176).
Due in part to employer interest and involvement, policymakers and
educators have focused on career and technical education as a venue to
ensure students are “college and career ready” when they graduate from
high school. CTE coursework is now viewed as a first step toward both
lucrative employment and enrollment in a technical college, community
college, or baccalaureate institution (Gewertz, 2017). Concurrently, CTE
high school programs are being redesigned to balance hands-on opportu-
nities to apply academic concepts to real-world problems with rigorous
college-preparatory curricula (Gewertz, 2018b). A survey of U.S. pub-
lic school career and technical education programs (U.S. Department of
Education, 2018, p. 3) indicated employer involvement with district high
school CTE programs included:
• Serve on the district’s CTE advisory council (43%);

• Advise about which occupations are in demand (33%);
• Provide guidance on industry standards (32%);
• Provide guidance on equipment or facilities (31%);
• Serve as guest speakers to CTE students (31%).
(Bass, 2019, pp. 28–34)
These joint efforts from schools, educators, administrators, employers,

and policymakers illustrate the value and impact combined focus can
make for the students, their employability, and positive contributions to
society.
Informal Education, Resources, and Ancillary Supports

Separate from formal education, a range of initiatives from foundations,
corporate signature programs, community organizations, colleges and
universities, and the government provide a wide range of non-credit,
extra-curricular programs. For K-12, these may be episodal curricu-
lum delivery in class, after school, or in the summer from a weeklong
bootcamp to a deep dive summer camp. Some organizations focus solely
on entrepreneurship education, while others focus on the broad range
of business skills or personal skills. Some co-curricular (and often extra-
curricular) programs offer a range of curriculum with entrepreneur-
ship as one. Both K-12 and higher education settings engage in a wide
range of entrepreneurship clubs, mentoring, speaker series, funding, and
competitions to support a positive culture and acceptability of entrepre-
neuring. These educational settings as part of the wider entrepreneur-
ial community often open their doors for volunteers, resource partners,
and community citizens to participate or to offer advice and funding.
Additionally, for educators, there are professional associations that offer
resources and conferences for faculty and entrepreneurs. Examples of
entrepreneurship education resources include Apex Striving, BizWorld,
Business for Profit, Dual Enrollment, Entrepreneurship Education Global
Project, Kickstarter, Lemonade Day®, MBA Research and Curriculum
Center, National Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education, New Tech
Network, Research Gate, Small Business Incubators, STEM + Entrepre-
neurship, Federal Reserve Bank, The National Business Education Asso-
ciation, DECA, FBLA, SkillsUSA, GoVenture, Virtonomics, and Virtual
Team Challenge (Brooker, 2020). Both co-curricular and extra-curricular
activities also contribute to learning in leadership development, profes-
sional development, competitive spirit, community service, and social
responsibility (DeVaal et al., 2020).
Non-Credit, Extra-Curricular Programs for K-12

While it may be challenging to get the U.S. Department of Education
to mandate entrepreneurship curriculum amidst competing other edu-
cational priorities, several initiatives create extra-curricular, non-credit
opportunities supported by various funding initiatives and curriculums.
Extracurricular activities are outside the curriculum (Roopesh, 2018).
Extra-curricular programming promotes positive outlooks, enhances
self-esteem, creates higher career aspirations and attainment, and pro-
motes diversity (Biernet & Klesse, 1989; Holland & Andre, 1987; Lewis,
1989). Participation promotes better physical and mental health, higher
academic grades, improved communication skills, increased independent
skills, lower dropout rates, lower academic burnout, higher aspirations
and achievement, better peer skills, higher life satisfaction, and increased
self-esteem (Roopesh, 2018).
Specifically, informal entrepreneurial education at the K-12 also supports
economic growth (Narayan, 2015; Neck & Regele, 2012; Ravenscroft et
al., 2021). Youth development programs through 4-H’s EntrepreneurShip
Investigation: Discover the E-Scene series, incubatoredu.org, and Junior
Achievement’s Be Entrepreneurial® provide entrepreneurial skills in K-12
(Jamieson, 2020; INCubatoredu®, 2021; Junior Achievement, 2021b.).
Entreprenology 157
The co-curricular programs continue to promote skill building in the
development of potential entrepreneurs (Lichtenstein & Lyons, 2001).
Four such organizations supporting entrepreneurship education include
4-H, Junior Achievement, The Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship
(NFTE), and The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. These four pro-
grams will be briefly highlighted, but all very deep-and-wide websites,
staffing, resources, and curriculums are available. Additionally, these pro-
grams have long-term commitments with significant evidenced outcomes
for youth development, community enrichment, and lifelong impact.
4-H
4-H, launched in 1914 in conjunction with the Smith-Lever Act, is a
youth development program operated under the U.S. Department of
Agriculture in the United States but also functions in 50 other countries
(Zimmer, 2017). In the United States, the program is delivered by the
Land Grant Universities and Extension Services (Zimmer, 2017). The
four Hs stand for learning development with attention to head, heart,
hands, and health. The 4-H programs have roots in agriculture but have
expanded over the years to promote other lifelong skills, STEM educa-
tion, and entrepreneurship. The 4-H Program provides impact for posi-
tive social well-being and community contribution (Lepley & Couch,
2015; Zimmer, 2017). Programming via localized clubs offers activities
usually monthly through curriculum books, summer camps, and student
conferences and conventions. The national 4-H curriculum is called Be
the “E” Entrepreneurship and includes three levels for young people in
grades 7 to 12 (Jamieson, 2020).
Junior Achievement (JA)

Junior Achievement (JA) was founded in 1919 by Sen. Murray Crane of
Massachusetts; Horace Moses, president of Strathmore Paper Company;
and Theodore Vail, president of American Telephone & Telegraph (Junior
Achievement, 2021a). Operating in all 50 states, JA reaches “nearly
4.8 million students per year in 208, 373 classrooms” (Junior Achieve-
ment, 2021a, para 6). JA is delivered by college students, businesspeople,
and community volunteers via JA-created curriculum, mainly in busi-
ness, financial literacy, and personal success skills (Junior Achievement,
2021b). For grades 9–12, JA Entrepreneurial® (Introduction), JA Entre-
preneurial® (Creative Problem Solving), JA Entrepreneurial® (Rapid
Business Planning), and JA Entrepreneurial® (Think Like an Entrepre-
neur) provide challenging and enlightening skills, mindset, and practi-
cal content to simulate the real-world via business and entrepreneurship.
JA BizTown® for grades 4–6 is a day-long simulation and very popular
(i.e., in demand), well-received program that allows “elementary school
students to operate banks, manage restaurants, write checks, and vote for
mayor” (Junior Achievement, 2021b, para 7). JA It’s My Business!® and
National Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education Standards pro-
vides curriculum for entrepreneurial skills in the entrepreneurial process,
entrepreneurial traits and behaviors, business foundations, and commu-
nications and interpersonal skills (Junior Achievement, 2021c). Program
delivery can be either classroom based or after school. JA is also operated
in more than 100 countries (Junior Achievement, 2021d; e.g., see Peter-
man & Kennedy, 2003).
The Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE)

Founded in 1987, (NFTE, 2021b), The Network for Teaching Entrepre-
neurship provides flexible, project-based experiential learning via class-
rooms, camps, and after-school programs whether in-person or online
(NFTE, 2021a). The goals are (1) to make learning more relevant and
more engaging for students by integrating real-life experiences and (2) to
unite communities by connecting students to business leaders who vol-
unteer to work with students as mentors and coaches (NFTE, 2021a).
Student programming includes Startup Tech, Entrepreneurship 1, Entre-
preneurship Essentials, Entrepreneurship 2, Emerging Entrepreneurs
Camp, NFTE BizCamp™, World Series of Innovation, and Venture, as
well as an adult program: NFTE Career Relaunch (NFTE, 2021c). The
organization provides a wide range of curriculum recommendations and
educational tools supporting entrepreneurship.
The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

Founded in 1966 by Ewing Marion Kauffman, founder of Marion Labo-
ratories, Inc., The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation not only pro-
motes education and civic engagement in Kansas City but also provides
resources nationally to boost entrepreneurship (Kauffman Foundation,
2021a). Founded in 1964, Marion Laboratories, Inc. is in the health care
industry and “manufactures and markets pharmaceutical, hospital, and
laboratory products” (encyclopedia.com, 2021, para 1). Entrepreneur-
ship focus areas for the Kauffman Foundation include communities, new
entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneur support organizations, policy, and
research (Kauffman Foundation, 2021b). Having more than $2.5 billion
in assets, the Kauffman Foundation “is one of the largest private founda-
tions in the United States” (Kauffman Foundation, 2021c, para 1). Thus,
the Foundation has vast resources and commitment to entrepreneurship
education and practice.
Other co-curricular entrepreneurship education resources include Boy
Scouts of America’s Entrepreneurship Merit Badge, Mini-Society, and
Rural Education through Action Learning (REAL).
Entreprenology 159
Extra-Curricular Opportunities in Higher Education
Extra-curricular programs are those outside the classroom (DeVaal et al.,
2020; Roopesh, 2018). A plethora of programming and resources are
seen in higher education. Examples include entrepreneurship clubs, ven-
ture capitalists, maker spaces, national business clubs, and resources such
as Small Business Development Centers (SBDC). Other extra-curricular
entrepreneurship higher education resources include The Collegiate
Entrepreneurs’ Organization (CEO), DECA, enactus, the Kauffman Foun-
dation Entrepreneur Internship Program, and Rural Education through
Action Learning (REAL). College and university programs offer business
pitch, “business plan competitions, accelerators programs, and hack-
athons to inspire and support entrepreneurship” (Jimenez, 2016, p. vii).
Competitions and extra-curricular activities have steadily increased since
the 1980s (Torrance, 2013b). Today’s inter-connected world via the Inter-
net makes it easier to learn of opportunities and award dollars; hun-
dreds of competitions exist at various local university, state, national,
and global levels (studentcompetitions.com, 2021). Resources are also
available to faculty through professional associations supporting entre-
preneurship such as the Academy of Management, U.S. Association of
Small Businesses & Entrepreneurs, the International Council for Small
Business, and the British Academy of Management.
College and University Entrepreneurship Centers, Incubators,

and Innovation Spaces
The demand for entrepreneurship centers is clear as academic leaders,
governments, and businesspeople all work together to create maker
spaces—incubators, innovation spaces, business consulting, and entre-
preneurship centers. These often happen separate from academic pro-
gramming. However, many such centers are credited with the growth of
and interest in hands-on applied, experiential entrepreneurship educa-
tion and launch (Bowers et al., 2006; Finkle et al., 2006; Morris et al.,
2013a). Depending on the type of academic institution, such spaces may
or may not be connected to the business school, economic development,
or sponsored research. This phenomenon is not U.S.-centric but is found
in many countries (cf. see Blenker et al., 2008; Siddiqui & Alaraifi, 2019).
Some centers focus on or have demand for research that can advance
economic development because they are the most effective way to facili-
tate outreach and connect students and faculty with appropriate funding
and production contacts. There is no “one size fits all,” and scholars do
not agree on where entrepreneurship could or should be housed. Some
entrepreneurship centers are housed in business schools (Morris et al.,
2013a), while some proport they should be on the opposite side of cam-
pus near the inventors (Feld, 2012) or embedded elsewhere on campus,
and often provide a range of programs and services with the core being
courses for students and the broader community. Beyond courses, the
next most common activity of centers is often academic research as well
as outreach activities for the campus and surrounding community. These
activities often include seminars and workshops, guest speakers, train-
ing, consulting, pitch competitions, incubators, accelerators, awards,
funding opportunities, and mentors (Finkle et al., 2006; Morris et al.,
2013a).
An example of an integrated program is the efactory associated with
Missouri State University in Springfield, Missouri. While the University
has entrepreneurship faculty and a full undergraduate program in entre-
preneurship, the efactory links students, educators, community mentors,
the SBDC, and entrepreneurs together. The efactory has classrooms (fund-
ing sponsored by local businesses), event spaces, support service offices,
free-lancers, maker space, incubator space, and space-for-rent for nascent
and start-up entrepreneurs. A larger example is a state-wide initiative by
Pennsylvania and the state government in funding Invent Penn State and
LaunchBox programming on all campuses. Again, these hubs provide a
range of resources for students (e.g., mentor networking, funding access,
and maker spaces) and for community entrepreneurs (e.g., networking,
business education, and encouraging support).
Academic Support Organizations With Conferences for Faculty

in Entrepreneurship Education, Research, and Practice
The Academy of Management (AOM) began as a professional association
in 1936 (AOM, 2021a). AOM has 19,000 members in 120 nations and
has 26 professional divisions and interest groups, including the Entre-
preneurship Interest Group formed in 1974 that became the Entrepre-
neurship Division founded in 1986 and now has 3,724 members (AOM,
2021a, 2021b, 2021c; Landström & Lindhe, 2016). The National Council
for Small Business Management Development (NCSBMD) began in 1955
during which time the U.S. Small Business Administration began (Dick-
son, 2017). The British Academy of Management began in 1986 with a
current membership of 2,000 and has 26 sub-divisions in management
like AOM including Entrepreneurship (British Academy of Management,
2021a, 2021b). Entrepreneurship research saw the first academic confer-
ence at Baylor College in 1980 (Vesper, 1986). The NCSBMD was inter-
national and became the International Council for Small Business (ICSB)
in 1978–1979; the U.S. affiliate birthed became the U.S. Association for
Small Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE) in 1981 (Dickson, 2017).
With nearly 1,000 members, USASBE has 16 Social Interest Groups that
are all sub-categories specifically in entrepreneurship (USASBE, 2021).
Soon after the Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference
(BCERC) began (Vesper, 1986, p. 385).
Entreprenology 161
The professional associations and related conferences have grown
to include a mix of entrepreneurship education, research, and practice.
Many of the professional associations (in partnership with sponsoring
universities and publishing companies) oversee various journals. Addi-
tionally, the organizations celebrate via awards for journal writing, book
writing, teaching, volunteerism, and best practices (e.g., programs, cen-
ters, and volunteerism). The conferences also provide venues for career
mentoring, career networking, and job hunting with career centers.
Learning From Failure

Aside from formal education and extra-curricular offerings, real-world
application and executing on ideas to become an entrepreneur create
additional learning opportunities. Formal classroom and extra-curricular
learning provide excellent opportunities for students to learn basic theory
and experience approaches simulating real-world synthesis in a variety of
settings, often with highly experienced oversight and guidance. This kind
of mentorship and learning-by-doing supplements more traditional, codi-
fied approaches to entrepreneurship education and provides a safe envi-
ronment for ongoing experimentation. However, despite its real-world
focus, the safety and consistency of extra-curricular learning in many
cases will not provide or simulate the one ingredient that accelerates entre-
preneurship learning: failure, which can provide invaluable understanding
when reflected and incorporated as part of the process.
Experience is the best teacher. Hence, entrepreneurs of any experience,
age, location, or industry learn by doing. Success is replicated. Failures
are reflected upon and create avoidance, despair, or learning opportuni-
ties. Popularized by Sitkin’s (1996) chapter Learning Through Failure:
The Strategy of Small Losses, many educators and practitioners believe
experiencing and mitigating failure aids and “inoculates” in the process
of entrepreneurship experience. Honig and Martin (2014) said:
Drawing on Piaget’s theory of equilibration, one approach is to view

entrepreneurial education as having to prepare an individual for dis-
equilibrium, as well as failure, stumbling, and the necessity to con-
tinue ‘chipping away at reality’ in order to assemble a usable model
that helps explain current circumstances. . . . Such failure can happen
in a number of ways. It can be accomplished through simulations, or
through practical experience.
(p. 128)
If any beneft is thought to arise from being involved with the creation
and development of a failed entrepreneurial venture, it is the learning that
comes from the experience.A primary motivation behind entrepreneurship
education programs is to train students such that their chances of failure
are reduced if they do indeed go on to launch a new venture. Note, how-
ever, there are some scholars with conficting fndings regarding the extent
to which entrepreneurship education fosters development of the skills
needed to successfully launch and grow companies (e.g., Gorgievski &
Stephan, 2016; Oosterbeek et al., 2010; von Graevenitz et al., 2010).
Despite the role of formal and informal education in promoting or
preventing, respectively, positive or negative entrepreneur results, the
experience of failure itself is presumed to teach invaluable lessons in the
business domain and beyond. To be sure, failure, as well as learning from
it, is viewed as the bridge that connects prior experience to future success.
But, learning from failure does not happen across the board for the many
entrepreneurs who experience it (Ariño & de la Torre, 1998; Ucbasaran
et al., 2010), and there are many factors that can influence the extent of
learning a given entrepreneur may walk away with (for a short, focused
review, see Walsh & Cunningham, 2016). In this subsection, we explore
what entrepreneurs have been found to learn from failure experiences,
then shift to how entrepreneurs may learn from failure by considering
the thought patterns, and approaches to acquiring information that is
conducive to learning. Last, we turn our attention to factors that enable
and constrain learning from failure.
Failure can be an important source of learning for entrepreneurs. Cope
(2011) identified four specific areas where entrepreneurs gain from a
failure experience. First, entrepreneurs learn about themselves, particu-
larly their personal and professional strengths, weaknesses, skills, and
areas needing further development. Second, entrepreneurs learn about
the venture itself. They identify what worked and what did not and aim
to specify the reason(s) that led to the company’s demise. Third, entre-
preneurs learn about internal and external networks and the importance
of managing relationships within and across those networks. Fourth,
entrepreneurs may extract general lessons about venture management,
particularly ways to approach operations and adapting to the broader
macroenvironment. To summarize, learning from failure leads entrepre-
neurs to a better understanding of oneself, the (focal) venture, managing
relationships, and managing ventures.
Across diverse organizational settings (e.g., independent versus cor-
porate ventures), additional support is emerging demonstrating what
entrepreneurs do and do not learn from failure. Additionally, there are
a wide range of root causes of failure (Mason & Hornsby, 2019). In a
longitudinal study of technology-intensive corporate ventures, Corbett
et al. (2007) found that three different cognitive scripts are used in mak-
ing project termination decisions and that these scripts are differentially
linked to action-based and post-performance learning.
Next, it is helpful to explore how entrepreneurs learn from failure. Let
us consider two cognitive orientations that are particularly conducive to
learning from failures or setbacks. The first is a growth mindset (Dweck &
Entreprenology 163
Leggett, 1988). A growth mindset reflects an incremental rather than a fixed
view of one’s intelligence; the incremental view fosters a way of thinking
where one believes that their talents, skills, and abilities can be developed
through diligent effort, developmental strategies, and feedback from others
(Dweck, 2016). Having a growth mindset has been linked with positive
performance results across a range of academic domains and exhibits par-
ticularly positive effects for women in STEM fields and underrepresented
minorities (Rattan et al., 2015). Another closely related set of thought pat-
terns are those associated with a learning goal orientation (LGO). An LGO
is defined as developing for competence by expanding your abilities in mas-
tering challenging situations (Gorman et al., 2012). LGOs orient people
to consider how challenges, obstacles, or setbacks can be applied toward
building one’s skills. Thus, mindsets that prize personal development enable
entrepreneurs to learn from failure.
In addition to cognitive orientation conducive to learning from failure,
there are various learning modes available to entrepreneurs. Especially
in the context of entrepreneurship education, it is helpful to distinguish
between experiential and vicarious learning (Holcomb et al., 2009).
Experiential learning occurs by participation in lived experiences as an
entrepreneur or in entrepreneurial settings (e.g., early employees of new
ventures, venture development staff in entrepreneurship fostering orga-
nizations). The potential value of experiential learning has undoubtedly
shaped modern entrepreneurship education, which has largely eschewed
business-planning-focused curricula in favor of project-based learning.
The guiding philosophy is that one must have some mental representation
of the experience of being entrepreneur in order to assimilate knowledge
to improve performance. Alternatively, vicarious learning involves observ-
ing the actions others perform and the outcomes associated with those
actions, then applying those lessons to one’s own personal needs, goals,
enablers, and constraints (Corbett, 2007). Through exposure to the cases
and narratives of the successes and failures of entrepreneurs and new ven-
tures, aspiring and novice entrepreneurs can benefit from vicarious learn-
ing as a specialized form of deliberate practice (Baron & Henry, 2010),
the mechanism underlying the development of domain-specific expertise.
One opportunity to empower entrepreneurs is to make the most of a
failure experience; they should be aware of factors that both facilitate
and constrain learning. A recent integrative literature review of failures
and errors in organizations posits that both individuals and firms require
opportunity, external motivation, and ability to learn from failure (Dahlin
et al., 2018). Others have pointed to routines, habits, and mental short-
cuts for decision-making as helping to foster learning (Aldrich & Yang,
2014; Bingham & Eisenhardt, 2011; Holcomb et al., 2009). Conducting
post-mortems of failures could be potentially very beneficial (Ellis et al.,
2006). In addition, since failure is often an event laden with emotion, oth-
ers have advanced the idea that effectively recovering from grief can help
one to learn from failures (Shepherd, 2003, 2004; Shepherd & Kuratko,
2009; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2017). Alternatively, there are factors that
can inhibit learning. Grief that prevents in-depth reflection on failures,
externally directed causal attributions, and noisy learning environments
(i.e., environments where it is difficult to distinguish pertinent from irrel-
evant information) may all be barriers to learning (Shepherd et al., 2009;
Mantere et al., 2013; Dahlin et al., 2018). Thus, individual differences
and environmental factors affect the degree to which entrepreneurs learn
from failures, and this experience provides some support to the idea that
failure should be conducted in a controlled environment where risks are
real, but small, to limit the pain and grief (e.g., financial, psychological,
or reputational) from trying and failing. It also speaks to the importance
of cultivating a culture that goes beyond embracing failure to accepting it
as part of the process—something that is not necessarily celebrated, but
that is expected, understood, and supported. In his book Startup Com-
munities, Feld (2012) speaks to the importance of a culture where failed
entrepreneurs are deeply valued and quickly picked up by other firms for
their experiential advantage.
Much as Taleb (2012) promoted in his book Antifragile, an overly pro-
tective culture—one that even goes so far as to use science to avoid and
avert even mundane risks in everyday life—robs people within that cul-
ture of opportunities for learning that are critical to human development
and psychology. Humans are robust and resilient creatures. Entrepreneu-
ring, a risky endeavor to begin with, possesses the property of benefit-
ting from exposure to risks, failed trails, and continuous improvement
to meet a market under conditions of uncertainty. To insulate would-be
entrepreneurs from these shocks, provided that they are not detrimentally
large, similarly robs entrepreneurs of an opportunity—for themselves,
and for their businesses—to learn, to grow, and to experience what is
not working first-hand in order to make essential improvements. Such
ideas are similarly reflected by Ries (2011), whose lean startup method
emphasizes the employment of a minimum viable product (MVP) as a
sort of prototype, designed to attract the maximum amount of feedback
and input prior to a full launch. To Ries, this process is best approached
with a scientific mind and bird’s eye stance almost like an experiment—
complete with data gathering—and is as much about learning as it is
about launching. Such learning, through a variety of means, is the focus
of entrepreneurial learning.
What Is Entrepreneurial Learning (EL)?

Entrepreneurial learning (EL) has been observed within individual entre-
preneurs (Cope, 2011) and among teams of co-founders (e.g., Clarysse &
Moray, 2004). Considering the multi-level nature of EL, we define entre-
preneurial learning as the process by which individuals or teams acquire,
Entreprenology 165
assimilate, and organize knowledge related to creating, developing, and
exiting independent new or emerging enterprises. “Pedagogy defines the
relationship among students, teachers, and the subject of study”; in other
words, shaping “learning spaces as educators and learners” (Pendoley,
2019, para 2). Additionally, pedagogy considers the didactics of program
objectives (the why), core content (the what), audience targets (for whom?),
methods of delivery (the how), and evaluation and assessment (depending
on desired results) (Béchard & Grégoire, 2007; Fayolle, 2013; Fayolle &
Gailly, 2008). The entrepreneurial learning process moves beyond text-
book theory and pedagogy to both andragogy (adult-centered learning)
and heutagogy (self-directed learning with creation, which is often found
in engineering and the arts) (see Hase & Kenyon, 2000; Heick, 2018,
2019; Knowles, 1975, 1980). (cf. Murphy et al., 2019, have mapped the
entrepreneurship development into their “Heptalogical Model.”)
Implicit in the definition of EL is a process view of entrepreneurship,
and the idea that learning can confer benefits at various points before,
during, and after venture creation. This specific point bears mentioning
because we see learning as a core capability that enables performance,
and it is through this capability that entrepreneurs can self-manage
their careers and the enterprises they create within them. Learning, then,
empowers aspiring entrepreneurs to enter into and practicing entrepre-
neurs to succeed at launching and growing ventures.
A singular definition of EL has yet to emerge (Wang & Chugh, 2014).
Approaches to defining entrepreneurial learning diverge in terms of
whether EL is a specific style of learning exhibited by entrepreneurs or if
it more generally involves acquiring knowledge about the requirements
and practices of engaging in the new venture creation and development
process (Cope, 2011; Holcomb et al., 2009), and the level of analysis,
individual or collective, at which EL is specified. The perspective adopted
here aligns EL as knowledge development about venture development for
several reasons. First, while experienced entrepreneurs exhibit cognitions
about new venture creation and development that differ from less expe-
rienced or novice entrepreneurs (e.g., Dew et al., 2009; Baron & Ensley,
2006; Mitchell et al., 2002) and from managers in large organizations
(e.g., Busenitz & Barney, 1997; Simon et al., 2000), the fundamental cog-
nitive processes underlying these differences are universally present across
most individuals (e.g., pattern recognition, heuristic decision making, and
cognitive scripts) and instead are likely conditioned by the (information)
environments in which entrepreneurs operate. Second, entrepreneurship
can be conceived as a specific career context (e.g., Crews, 2019; Bur-
ton et al., 2016; Katz, 1995) for which the learning processes involved
in acquiring knowledge in any career domain are plausibly applicable
(e.g., formal education, on-the-job training, and apprenticeships). Lastly,
the entrepreneurship literature has largely eschewed thinking, which pre-
supposes entrepreneurs are fundamentally different from other persons
and professionals. As such, reasoning from the perspective that EL is
a distinct learning style displayed by entrepreneurs reflects an implicit
assumption that the way entrepreneurs learn inherently differs from how
others learn.
Learning Empowers Entrepreneurs to Scale (Some) Barriers to

Self-Employment
Many working adults will be self-employed at some point during their
careers (Burton et al., 2016). Indeed, as the nature of work continues to
change, the gig economy enables more people than ever before to work as
independent contractors across a range of industries (e.g., Uber, AirBnB,
and TaskRabbit) and or as small vendors through online platforms such
as Etsy, Alibaba, and Amazon. While the prevalence of such platforms
has reduced the financial and logistical burdens associated with provid-
ing goods or professional services, barriers to self-employment remain.
While some barriers are directly or indirectly tied to immutable charac-
teristics, entrepreneurial learning can empower aspiring entrepreneurs to
overcome other barriers.
Barriers to self-employment and entrepreneurship that are largely
outside of an individual’s control are those based on demographic char-
acteristics. Here, we note three such characteristics documented in the
literature. First, along the lines of race and ethnicity, there is dispropor-
tionate representation among the self-employed. According to U.S. Cen-
sus Bureau data, White non-Hispanics owned 82.6% of all U.S. firms
in 1997 (Bogan & Darity, 2008) despite comprising 72.7% of the pop-
ulation at the time. While small business ownership rates have grown
impressively in the early 21st century for Blacks and Hispanics, the pro-
portion of self-employed among working-age members of these groups
lag behind their White and Asian counterparts (Liu, 2012). Lower rates
of minority business enterprise (MBE) ownership are largely attributed
to historical and current discriminatory practices that restrict access to
the critical resources needed to develop new companies—namely, (1) spe-
cialized human capital (education, experience, expertise), (2) financing
(capital in the form of debt or equity), and (3) access to product markets
(Bates et al., 2018; Bates & Robb, 2014; Bates, 1994, 2011).
Moreover, gender is also a persistent barrier to entrepreneurship. Pro-
portionally, self-employment rates among females are little more than
half that of males (Brush, 1992; for a more recent review of the empiri-
cal findings on female entrepreneurship worldwide, see Minniti, 2009).
Globally, roughly one-third of entrepreneurs are women (Terjesen et al.,
2011) despite females comprising approximately half the population.
Moreover, some sectors, such as technology, suffer from abysmally low
female participation (Wheadon & Duval-Couetil, 2019). Lastly, one’s
family background can also affect entry into entrepreneurship. The
Entreprenology 167
family business literature offers compelling support that having par-
ents or immediate family who are entrepreneurs increases one’s chance
of becoming an entrepreneur. In short, ethnicity, gender, and individuals
within families comprised solely of paid employees are associated with a
reduced likelihood of entering and remaining self-employed.
Fortunately, learning and creativity can empower individuals to scale
resource and belief-related barriers to self-employment. Resources must
be owned, controlled, created, or accessible to effectively launch a new
enterprise. To be concise, the resources we consider are the three forms
of capital conducive to entrepreneurial success: human capital, social
capital, and financial capital. Human capital is the “skills and knowl-
edge that individuals acquire through investments in schooling, on-the-
job training, and other types of experience” (Unger et al., 2011, p. 343;
Becker, 1964). As such, human capital represents the knowledge and
skills, developed through formal and informal education and training,
one could apply toward the tasks involved in new venture creation and
development. In technology- or knowledge-intensive industries, human
capital is exceedingly important. Social capital is “the actual and poten-
tial resources individuals obtain from knowing others, being part of a
social network with them, or merely from being known to them and
having a good reputation” (Baron & Markman, 2000, p. 107). Criti-
cal for mobilizing resources through one’s personal and professional net-
works, social capital can be used to secure partners, access information
about products, industries, and potential customers, and can reduce the
costs of setting up a new business. Finally, financial capital is the debt
or equity used to launch, operate, or grow. Undercapitalization is one of
the primary reasons early-stage companies fail. Additionally, problems in
human capital or social capital can also affect outcomes.
Beliefs about one’s capabilities and about the outcomes of engaging
in entrepreneurship may also pose barriers. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy
(ESE), or the belief that one can successfully perform the duties required
of entrepreneurs (Chen et al., 1998), has been shown to be an impor-
tant influence on entrepreneurial intentions and behavior (Tumasjan &
Braun, 2012; Bryant, 2007; Fayolle & Gailly, 2015; Forbes, 2005; Baum &
Locke, 2004). ESE provides the confidence aspiring entrepreneurs need
to forge ahead while facing uncertainty.
The New Venture Mortality Myth is the widespread belief that a given
attempt at starting a new venture will end in failure. New venture fail-
ures approaching 90% within the first 5 years of a company’s existence
are found widely across academic and practitioner literatures. Scholars
have increasingly called into question the reliability of these figures (e.g.,
Headd & Kirchhoff, 2009; Bates, 2005; Headd, 2003; Stokes & Black-
burn, 2002; Watson & Everett, 1996). Some have suggested that this
longstanding myth has engendered a fear of failure, which suppresses
rates of new venture formation (Levie et al., 2011). International studies
of entrepreneurial activity across countries reveal an inverse relationship
between the prevalence of fear of failure and levels of venture creation
(e.g., Noguera et al., 2013; Urbano & Alvarez, 2014). Unsurprisingly,
entrepreneurship education emphasizes failure avoidance (McGrath,
1999) and aims to prepare entrepreneurs by teaching processes that miti-
gate risks and promote limited or staged expenditure of resources.
Linking Pedagogy to Practice: Managing Opportunities to

Reduce the Likelihood and Magnitude of Failure
Failure is construed as an inevitable outcome one will experience during
their career as an entrepreneur. While scholars have increasingly called
into question statistics suggesting that up to 90% of new ventures fail
within their first 5 years of existence (e.g., Crews, 2019; Levie et al.,
2011; Headd, 2003; Watson & Everett, 1996), venture survival studies in
developed economies suggest a 5-year survival rate closer to 50%. Even
though these rates are more palatable than many might believe, the rate
is substantial enough to warrant scholars’ and practitioners’ attention to
managing and mitigating failure when possible. In recent years, entrepre-
neurship pedagogy strongly embraces this view.
Failure avoidance through risk management continues to be a staple
in entrepreneurship education. An early model that rose to prominence is
Robert Cooper’s stage-gate model of new product development (NPD) and
launch (Cooper, 1990). The stage-gate model reduces NPD risk by build-
ing in checkpoints where decision criteria can be applied as to whether
one should proceed, recycle, or terminate a project. With a greater appre-
ciation for the uncertainty and non-linearity of the startup process, more
recent models incorporate real options reasoning (McGrath, 1999) into
their philosophy. Real options allow one to cease investment into unvi-
able courses of action (risk mitigation) and continue or augment invest-
ments into more viable opportunities as the uncertainty of exploiting the
opportunity is reduced through iterative cycles of action and assessment.
Effectuation and the Lean Startup Method represent behavioral
approaches to managing the startup process that has gained wide trac-
tion both in the classroom and in practice. Although they launch from
different starting points, effectuation and the lean startup method guide
entrepreneurs to similar destinations—improved chances of startup suc-
cess through early experimentation (Ladd, 2016). Effectuation theory was
developed by studying entrepreneurs and the processes they used to pursue
opportunities. Effectuation rests on four key pillars (Fisher, 2012; Saras-
vathy, 2001; Dew et al., 2009): (1) starting with means—consider what
can be accomplished with the resources one currently can access and con-
trol, (2) affordable loss—making go/no go decisions on the basis of what
one can afford to lose, (3) leveraging strategic partnerships—emphasizing
partnerships over competitive analysis, and (4) flexibility—figuring out
Entreprenology 169
ways to benefit from unexpected events. Similarly, the Lean Startup
Method mentioned earlier (Ries, 2011) approaches the startup process as
a search for a viable business model. To conduct that search, entrepreneurs
frame the unknowns surrounding product, market, and process as a series
of hypotheses. These hypotheses, in turn, are (in)validated by gathering
feedback directly from customers and potential customers—via interviews
and from customer interactions with a minimum viable product. Based
on these early experiments, entrepreneurs can choose to pivot or proceed.
Both formal and informal pedagogy can go beyond traditional entre-
preneurship techniques to employ effectual logic and lean startup tech-
niques, as these represent strong diversions from a more traditional
“business plan-oriented” approach to opportunity exploration. Likewise,
understanding business models is another important piece for business
representation, scope, scale, placement, and target audience(s). While
business planning and business model development processes are vital to
understand the gamut of components and business concepts for a busi-
ness, synthesizing and applying that information is equally important. In
a classroom setting, for example, students can draw a random collection
of opportunities, needs, assets, technologies, and personal networks (e.g.,
supporters) from a bucket and, given the five or six items they drew, cre-
ate a business plan from the randomly selected advantages they have. This
scenario is an inverse logic to most business planning exercises. Similarly,
co-curricular opportunities could include a field excursion to talk to ten
local entrepreneurs about their greatest needs or unmet goals, and then
challenge the students to create a business that meets those gaps. This
exercise blends a lean startup approach (i.e., talking to the end customer
and filling needs organically) and an effectual logic (creating businesses
out of extant circumstances) in a creative way. In general, lean startup
hypothesis testing and MVP development (compared to a final, polished
business plan) is an excellent applied exercise for any entrepreneurship
education setting, whether formal or informal.
The previous sections have focused on the various forms of entreprenol-
ogy, entrepreneurship education, entrepreneuring, current offerings, and
a few promising new directions in teaching and learning methodologies.
With an eye toward application, the next section focuses on the main
aim of this chapter: How can a variety of entrepreneurship pedagogies
(or andragogies and heutagogies)—a true sense of entreprenology and
entrepreneuring—enhance the empowerment and self-efficacy of students
to launch new ventures, to value being an entrepreneur as an honorable
career choice, and to embrace an entrepreneurial mindset in everyday life?
Implications for Entrepreneurial Empowerment

Aligning educational initiatives in K-12 and K-20, career technical edu-
cation, higher education, and the community helps the interests, needs,
values, and goals of young people. For example, partnering has stimulated
entrepreneurship among new graduates in China, Nigeria, and Brazil
(Stadler & Smith, 2017). Researchers continue to work toward identify-
ing best practices in stimulating the entrepreneurial ecosystem for youth
in regions ranging from Australia to Zimbabwe (Birdthistle & Machirori,
2019). Promoting career and technical education in high schools repre-
sents a new frontier for entrepreneurship education and strengthening
readiness for employment (Bae & Darche, 2019). For example, Sutter
et al. (2019) validate “building entrepreneurial ecosystems that support
endogenous regional growth” (p. 208) and recommend exploring “the
process of building such ecosystems” (Sutter et al., 2019, p. 208).
Hahn and Gangeness (2019) underscore the challenges of business
operations, need for education on “Basic Business Skills” or “Business
101,” and relevance of the “community alliance model for business, leader-
ship, and education” for advancing entrepreneurship—particularly through
career and technical education. Building upon Neck and Greene’s (2011)
“do then learn” model, Hahn and Gangeness (2019) offer evidence to
support “active learning”:
There is growing support among academics . . . that the most effec-

tive way to engage with various industry stakeholders includes plac-
ing the learners into real-world environments that they are studying.
Apprenticeships provide this opportunity by placing learners in an
environment in which the skills learned can be applied and studied
in real time . . . active learning through practicum supports increased
knowledge retention for several reasons. Active learning requires
students to apply learning to a context, and in so doing develop a
concrete connection between the learning and the project or applica-
tion. In developing this connection, retrieval cues may be created for
future use in similar situations. Apprenticeships have long, successful
history in other countries as a method of work-force education and
skills training. Apprenticeship not only allows the learner exposure
to the actual environment in which they will eventually work’ . . . it
provides the opportunity for the assessment and development of the
learners’ skill sets, by both the organization and academic faculty. . . .
The current political environment in the United States acknowledges
the need for active learning.
(Hahn & Gangenes, 2019, p. 20)
Youth entrepreneurship represents a potential venue for developing

employment options for young people interested in exploring entrepre-
neurial ventures (OECD/European Commission, 2012). Policy studies
have validated integrating entrepreneurship training into existing educa-
tion systems, complemented by mentoring, coaching, fnancing, and sup-
port infrastructure for business start-ups (OECD/European Commission,
Entreprenology 171
2012). A survey of 555 Sverdlovsk youths aged 18 to 30 years identifed
the following “social policy measures to promote youth entrepreneur-
ship” (Zaborova et al., 2019, p. 636) and reaffrmed links between career
technical education and entrepreneurial empowerment:
1. Encourage students of educational institutions at different levels

(schools, technical schools, vocational colleges, and universities) to
participate in business training;
2. Provide financial assistance in the form of grants to higher edu-
cational students, aimed at planning and formulating small and
medium-sized enterprises’ business strategies;
3. Provide free legal assistance to young people planning to implement
their business ideas. Most common legal issues entrepreneurs face,
can turn into a barrier for an inexperienced young person, who plans
to start a business; [and]
4. Establish a mentor/mentee relationship between successful entrepre-
neurs and school and university students. Effective mentoring rela-
tionships, defined as when a successful, experienced entrepreneur
shares his or her advice and ideas, can help potential entrepreneurs
and make their business goals easier to achieve.
(Zaborova et al., 2019, p. 636)
Relevant, results-oriented school curricula aligned with industry needs

enhance employability and promote entrepreneurship (Darche & Stern,
2018). Noting the “paucity of solid evidence on interventions capable
of improving high school completion (Hemelt et al., 2019, p. 161), the
authors assert “research that explores promising high school innovations
in a manner capable of uncovering causal effects on completion (or lack
thereof) is critical to future human capital development” (p. 161). Studies
of the feasibility of career and technical education as a venue to promote
entrepreneurial empowerment are needed to support local, regional,
national, and global action (Alfeld, 2016; Jacob, 2017). “More rigor-
ous research on CTE programs is clearly needed. . . . Further progress
requires a series of studies that build on each other and examine different
approaches to CTE” (Jacob, 2017, p. 5).
Summary and Calls to Action for Advancing Entreprenology

Entrepreneurship education, training, and learning “are not just peda-
gogical issues in terms of methods we use to teach but ontological and
epistemological issues in terms of how we conceptualize social behav-
ior and action” (Higgins et al., 2019, p. 33). Likely entreprenology and
entrepreneur learning is a bricolage of theory, trial-and-error, competency
development and practice, hands-on application, and adjustment. Zhao
(2012) said, “one of the fastest-growing and most popular practices to
develop entrepreneurs is entrepreneurship education” (p. 92). While much
has been emphasized in entrepreneurship education, there is opportunity
for additional compilation of practices, curriculums, disciplinary needs,
and students’ entrepreneurial abilities, such as creativity, critical think-
ing, critical reading, critical analysis, problem solving, social networking,
and entrepreneurial leadership (Byrne et al., 2014; Kuratko, 2007, 2019).
For example, “one particular way to redesign an entrepreneurship cur-
riculum is to shift from a teaching perspective to a learning perspective”
(Kickul & Fayolle, 2007, p. 2). The teaching perspective revolves around
inputs, discipline specifics, faculty expertise, and internal stakeholders.
Additionally, this teaching perspective pedagogy is mostly theoretical and
deductive. The learning perspective, on the other hand, has an output
orientation, is cross-disciplinary based, relies on student ownership (i.e.,
using andragogy and sometimes heutagogy), and has a mix of both inter-
nal and external stakeholders plugging into entrepreneurial ecosystems
and entrepreneurial communities. Thus, the learning perspective peda-
gogy relies on theory and its practical application and combines both
deductive and inductive learning (cf. Béchard & Grégoire, 2007).
Much of the practice has followed the research of entrepreneurship
with exploration into individual behaviors and traits, the firm or enter-
prise unit, and economic functionality. Missing in both teaching entrepre-
neurship and research in entrepreneurship is the community of practice
for entrepreneurs and the sociological and cultural contexts of entrepre-
neurs and their businesses. Bell-Rose et al. (2008) summarized it best:
When it comes to entrepreneurs, Americans of all political stripes

agree: we like them, we respect them, and we need them to help build
our economic prosperity. For many of us, the entrepreneur, embod-
ied in the likes of Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Oprah, or Bill Gates,
is an exemplary American character. Because the entrepreneur is so
“quintessentially American,” many of us assume that entrepreneurs
just emerge out of thin air. Yet, history shows us that they don’t.
They need to be nurtured—by their parents, their teachers, and their
communities.
(p. 9)
Expanding career technical education programs in the United States

may reduce high school dropout rates and improve individual, insti-
tutional, and national productivity. In 2011, the Harvard University
Graduate School of Education report, Pathways to Prosperity: Meet-
ing the Challenge of Preparing Young Americans for the 21st Century,
questioned the prevailing “college for all” mindset (Gewertz, 2018a) and
recommended developing pathways to productive careers for the major-
ity of students who do not graduate from traditional four-year higher
educational institutions (Rothman, 2017). Although Guo et al. (2015)
Entreprenology 173
evidenced that a “college education is positively associated with entre-
preneurship” (p. 19).
Citing global models such as Australia and the Netherlands, the Har-
vard report urged educators, economists, and government policymakers
to develop similar systems:
We should begin by articulating a new social compact with Amer-

ica’s young people. This compact should spell out what educators,
employers, and governments will do to provide pathways, and how
they will support young people as they navigate them. In addition, it
should clarify what we expect from young people. . . . The compact’s
overarching goal should be that by the time they reach their early
20s, every young adult will be equipped with the education and expe-
rience he or she needs to lead a successful life as an adult.
(Symonds et al., 2011, p. 34)
Jobs for the Future, a national nonproft that develops innovative pro-
grams and public policies for college readiness and career success,
helped to launch Pathways to Prosperity, a network of states interested
in developing pathways systems. Collaboration between K-12 schools,
institutions of higher education, the community, and employers is vital:
“Without employers playing a leading role in defning the skills that are
required, it would not be successful” (Rothman, 2017, p. 7).
In July 2018, the Executive Order creating National Council for the
American Worker to promote new education and training opportunities
and foster a culture of lifelong learning (White House, 2018a; Wolfe,
2018). Council responsibilities include developing strategies to remediate
the “skills crisis” in the U.S. workforce deriving from developments in
“technology, automation, and artificial intelligence” (Wolfe, 2018, para
11) and to “create a workforce culture that fosters and prioritizes life-
long learning” (Trump, July 17, 2018, para 10).
On July 31, 2018, the bipartisan agreement Strengthening Career and
Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V) was signed
(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2018; Ferguson, 2018; Wolfe, 2018)
reauthorizing a $1.2 billion education Perkins Program (for the Carl T.
Perkins Career and Technical Education Act):
In the twelve years since Congress passed the last Perkins reautho-
rization, the economy has evolved tremendously, becoming increas-
ingly dependent on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) disciplines and other skilled labor. . . . By enacting it into
law, we will continue to prepare students for today’s constantly shift-
ing job market, and we will help employers find the workers they
need to compete.
(White House, 2018b)
Perkins V mandated collaborative partnerships between middle and high
schools, higher education institutions, employers, and other stakeholder
to deliver robust CTE programs. States are required to operationalize
their approach to “effective and meaningful collaboration between sec-
ondary schools, postsecondary institutions, and employers” (Alliance
for Excellent Education, 2018, p. 1). States may also create and expand
opportunities for high school students to participate in dual- or concurrent-
enrollment programs or early college high school (Alliance for Excellent
Education, 2018, p. 1).
The goal is to produce high school graduates with better credentials
that improve their workplace options (Ferguson, 2018; Kourilsky & Wal-
stad, 1998, 2007; Trump, 2018). In rural areas such as Nebraska, state
educators partnered with local community and industry leaders to iden-
tify emerging business sectors and align CTE programs with those areas
(Ferguson, 2018).
In 2019, the National Science Foundation (NSF) reaffirmed commit-
ment to research grounded in education, training, and work by invest-
ing $30 million in each of ten “Big Ideas” (NSF, 2019a). These “Big
Ideas” synthesized interdisciplinary perspectives on convergence research
addressing complex social needs (NSF, 2018, 2019a), such as transform-
ing education and career pathways to broaden participation in science
and engineering (NSF, 2019b; Scheidt, 2019).
Phi Delta Kappan (PDK) publishes articles related to K-12 education,
classroom practice, policy, research, professional issues, and innovations
in education. Each year, PDK queries U.S. adults about a range of issues
confronting education. According to the 2017 PDK poll (Phi Delta Kap-
pan, 2017), 82% of Americans supported job or career skills classes even
if that meant students might spend less time in academic classes; 86%
of Americans wanted schools in their community to offer certificates or
licensing programs that qualified students for employment in a given
field. According to the 2018 PDK poll (Phi Delta Kappan, 2018), 58% of
Americans believed public schools today are worse at work preparation
than the schools they attended, suggesting opportunities for improve-
ment in promoting effective career and technical education. As Lichten-
stein and Lyons (2010) presaged, it is time for social, economic, political,
and academic thought leaders to “act entrepreneurially” (p. 4). Thus,
communities, policy makers, schools and school districts, foundations,
entrepreneurs, businesses and corporations, higher education, and all
other feeder and support systems dynamically need to work together to
support an entrepreneurial community. Within any given entrepreneur-
ial community, potential for high-entrepreneurship exists. Additionally,
a myriad of entrepreneurial ecosystem can then be fertile helping a wide
range of opportunities to arise from fertile, positive, focused community
resources and networks.
Entreprenology 175
References
Academy of Management (AOM). (2021a). The history of the Academy of Man-
agement. https://aom.org/about-aom/history
Academy of Management (AOM). (2021b). Division and interest groups. https://
aom.org/about-aom/network/divisions-interest-groups-(digs)
Academy of Management (AOM). (2021c). History of entrepreneurship. https://
ent.aom.org/committees/history-of-entrepreneurship
Advance CTE. (2017, April). The value and promise of career technical educa-
tion: Results from a national survey of parents and students. Career Tech. https://
careertech.org/resource/value-and-promise-of-cte-results-from-a-national-survey
Advance CTE. (2018, October). CTE and dual enrollment. Fact sheet. Career
Tech. https://cte.careertech.org/sites/default/files/CTE_and_Dual_Enrollment_
2018.pdf
Aldrich, H. E., & Yang, T. (2014). How do entrepreneurs know what to do?
Learning and organizing in new ventures. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,
24(1), 59–82.
Alfeld, C. (2016, February 3). Career technical education is growing: Research
must follow. Inside IES Research. https://ies.ed.gov/blogs/research/post/
career-technical-education-is-growing-research-must-follow
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2018, September). Perkins career and technical
education primer: What’s new. https://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/
Perkins-CTE-Primer-Linked-Learning.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education & Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy.
(2018, April). Now’s the time: Early college and dual-enrollment programs in
the Higher Education Act. http://edpolicy.education.jhu.edu/nows-the-time-
early-college-and-dual-enrollment-programs-in-the-higher-education-act/
Ariño, A., & de la Torre, J. (1998). Learning from failure: Towards an evolution-
ary model of collective ventures. Organization Science, 9(3), 306–325.
Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory
of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191–1202.
Bae, S., & Darche, S. (2019). Work-based learning in the United States: Prepar-
ing secondary-level students for post-secondary success. In Global perspec-
tives on work-based learning initiatives (pp. 1–25). IGI Global. https://doi.
org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6977-0.ch001
Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The relationship between entre-
preneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta-analytic review.
Bager, T. (2011). The camp model for entrepreneurship teaching. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7, 279–296.
Balan, P., & Metcalfe, M. (2012). Identifying teaching methods that engage entre-
preneurship students. Education + Training, 54(5), 368–384.
Baptista, R., & Naia, A. (2015). Entrepreneurship education: A selective exami-
nation of the literature. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 11(5),
Now Publishers.
Baron, R. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection
of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced
entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52(9), 1331–1344.
Baron, R. A., & Henry, R. A. (2010). How entrepreneurs acquire the capacity to
excel: Insights from research on expert performance. Strategic Entrepreneur-
ship Journal, 4(1), 49–65.
Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2000). Beyond social capital: How social
skills can enhance entrepreneurs’ success. Academy of Management Executive,
14(1), 106–116.
Bass, J. (2019, January). Giving back from space: Astronaut alumnus partners
with school to engage students in CTE. Techniques, 28–34.
Bates, T. (1994). Self-employment entry across industry groups. Journal of Busi-
ness Venturing, 10, 143–156.
Bates, T. (2005). Analysis of young, small firms that have closed: Delineating
successful from unsuccessful closures. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3),
343–358.
Bates, T. (2011). Minority entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends® in Entre-
preneurship, 7, 151–311.
Bates, T., Bradford, W. D., & Seamans, R. (2018). Minority entrepreneurship in
twenty-first century America. Small Business Economics, 50(3), 415–427.
Bates, T., & Robb, A. (2014). Small-business viability in America’s urban minor-
ity communities. Urban Studies, 51(13), 2844–2862.
Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits,
skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 89(4), 587.
Béchard, J. P., & Grégoire, D. (2006). Understanding teaching models in entrepre-
neurship for higher education. In P. Kyrö & C. Carrier (Eds.), The dynamics of
learning entrepreneurship in a cross-cultural university context (pp. 104–134).
Faculty of Education, University of Tampere.
Béchard, J. P., & Grégoire, D. (2007). Archetypes of pedagogical innovation for
entrepreneurship in higher education: Model and illustrations. In A. Fayolle
(Ed.), Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 261–
284). Edward Elgar.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. Columbia University.
Bell-Rose, S., Payzant, T., Ashmore, C., Brady, T., Brown, M., Cardinali, D.,
Carter, G., Caslin, M. J., Crew, R. F., Davis, E. L., Dunbar, B. C., & Feinberg,
M. (2008). Youth entrepreneurship in America: A policymaker’s action guide.
The Aspen Institute.
Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rational heuristics: The “simple
rules” that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management
Journal, 32(13), 1437–1464.
Biernet, N. A., & Klesse, E. J. (1989). The third curriculum: Student activities.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. ISBN-0-88210-224-9
Bird, B. (1995). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial competency. Advances in
Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth, 2, 51–72.
Bird, B. (2002). Learning entrepreneurship competencies: The self-directed learn-
ing approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1, 203–227.
Birdthistle, N., & Machirori, T. (2019). Shining a light on the entrepreneurship
ecosystem to support youth entrepreneurship in Zimbabwe. In I. O. Abereijo
(Ed.), Institutional assistance support for small and medium enterprise devel-
opment in Africa. IGI Global.
Entreprenology 177
Blenker, P., Dreisler, P., Færgemann, H. M., & Kjeldsen, J. (2008). A framework
for developing entrepreneurship education in a university context. Entrepre-
neurship and Small Business, 5(1), 45–63.
Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., Neergaard, H., & Thrane, C. (2011). The questions we
care about: Paradigms and progression in entrepreneurship education. Indus-
try & Higher Education, 26(6), 417–427.
Bodnar, C. A., Clark, R. M., & Besterfield-Sacre, M. (2015). Lessons learned
through sequential offerings of an innovation and entrepreneurship boot camp
for sophomore engineering students. The Journal of Engineering Entrepreneur-
ship, 6(1), 52–67.
Bogan, V., & Darity, Jr., W. (2008). Culture and entrepreneurship? African Ameri-
can and immigrant self-employment in the United States. The Journal of Socio-
Economics, 37(5), 1999–2019.
Bowen, D. D., & Hisrich, R. D. (1986). The female entrepreneur: A career devel-
opment perspective. Academy of Management Review, 11, 393–407.
Bowers, M. R., Bowers, C. M., & Ivan, G. (2006). Academically based entrepre-
neurship centers: An exploration of structure and function. Journal of Entre-
preneurship Education, 9, 1–14.
British Academy of Management. (2021a). Who we are. www.bam.ac.uk/about-
bam.html
British Academy of Management. (2021b). Special interest groups. www.bam.
ac.uk/bam-community/special-interest-groups.html
Brooker, J. (2020). Entrepreneurship. In B. C. McEwen, M. A. O’Connor, & B.
Brown (Eds.), Effective methods of teaching business education in the 21st
century (pp. 239–253). National Business Association.
Brooks, R., Green, W. S., Hubbard, R. G., Jain, D., Katehi, L., McLendon, G.,
Plummer, J., & Roomkin, M. (2006). Entrepreneurship in American higher
education. A Report from the Kauffman Panel on Entrepreneurship Curricu-
lum in Higher Education. The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Brush, C. G. (1992). Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new
perspective and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(4),
5–30.
Bryant, P. (2007). Self-regulation and decision heuristics in entrepreneurial oppor-
tunity evaluation and exploitation. Management Decision, 45(4), 732–748.
Burton, M. D., Sørensen, J. B., & Dobrev, S. D. (2016). A careers perspective on
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(2), 237–247.
Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and
managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-
making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9–30.
Byrne, J., Fayolle, A., & Toutain, O. (2014). Entrepreneurship education: What
we know and what we need to know. In E. Chell & M. Karatas-Özkan (Eds.),
Handbook of research on small business and entrepreneurship (pp. 261–288).
Edward Elgar.
Carrier, C. (2007). Strategies for teaching entrepreneurship: What else beyond
lectures, case studies, and business plans. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of
research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 143–159). Edward Elgar.
Charney, A., & Lidecap, G. (2000). Impact of entrepreneurship education. Kauff-
man Research Series. The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy
distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing,
13(4), 295–316.
Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team for-
mation: The case of a research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing,
19(1), 55–79.
Clevenger, M. R. (2021). Forming your team. In M. Gagnon (Ed.), Entrepreneur-
ship (pp. in press). SAGE Business Skills. SAGE.
Clifton, J., & Badal, S. B. (2014). Entrepreneurial strengthsfinder. Gallup Press.
Cooper, A. C., Markman, G. D., & Niss, G. (2000). The evolution of the field of
entrepreneurship. In G. D. Meyer & K. A. Hepperd (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as
strategy: Competing on the entrepreneurial edge (pp. 115–133). Sage.
Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products.
Business Horizons, 33(3), 44–54.
Cope, J. (2011). Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative phenom-
enological analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 604–623.
Cope, J., & Watts, G. (2000). Learning by doing: An exploration of experience,
critical incidents, and reflection in entrepreneurial learning. International Jour-
nal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 6(3), 104–124.
Corbett, A. C. (2007). Learning asymmetries and the discovery of entrepreneurial
opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 97–118.
Corbett, A. C., Neck, H. M., & DeTienne, D. R. (2007). How corporate entre-
preneurs learn from fledgling innovation initiatives: Cognition and the devel-
opment of a termination script. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(6),
829–852.
Crews, M. I. (2019). Toward an entrepreneurial failure index. In M. R. Clevenger
(Ed.), USASBE 2019 Annual Conference Proceedings (pp. 35–48). USASBE
2019 Annual Conference. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QLqwz3TQI4wck
W8CmbrRjgxErKSTUG0k/view
Dahlin, K. B., Chuang, Y. T., & Roulet, T. J. (2018). Opportunity, motivation, and
ability to learn from failures and errors: Review, synthesis, and ways to move
forward. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 252–277.
Darche, S., & Stern, D. (2018). Practice-based learning: A proposed method to
develop and assess high school students’ career readiness. In Career and college
readiness and success for all students (pp. 71–104). Information Age.
DeTienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. N. (2004). Opportunity identification and its
role in the entrepreneurial classroom: A pedagogical approach and empirical
test. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 242–257.
DeVaal, J., Braathen, S., & Repnow, J. (2020). Managing student organizations.
In B. C. McEwen, M. A. O’Connor, & B. Brown (Eds.), Effective methods of
teaching business education in the 21st century (pp. 279–295). National Busi-
ness Association.
Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Effectual versus pre-
dictive logics in entrepreneurial decision-making: Differences between experts
and novices. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(4), 287–309.
Entreprenology 179
Dickson, P. (2017). Pivotal moments in USASBE’s history. USASBE History.
www.usasbe.org/page/history
Dickson, P. H., Solomon, G. T., & Weaver, K. M. (2008). Entrepreneurial selection
and success: Does education matter? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 15(2), 239–258.
Dobson, J. A., Jacobs, E., & Dobson, L. (2017). Toward an experiential approach
to entrepreneurship education. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Prac-
tice, 17(3), 57–69.
Dobson, J. A., Nieto, Y. C., Dobson, L., & Ochoa, A. M. (2019). Success through
failure: Towards a problem-based approach to entrepreneurship. Entrepre-
neurship Education and Pedagogy, 0(0), 1–37.
Dougherty, S. M. (2018). The effect of career and technical education on human
capital accumulation: Causal evidence from Massachusetts. Education Finance
and Policy, 13(2), 119–148.
Duval-Couetil, N. (2013). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education
programs: Challenges and approaches. Journal of Small Business Management,
51(3), 394–409.
Duval-Couetil, N., Gotch, C. M., & Yi, S. (2014). The characteristics and moti-
vations of contemporary entrepreneurship students. Journal of Education for
Business, 89(8), 441–449.
Duval-Couetil, N., & Long, Z. (2014). Career impacts of entrepreneurship educa-
tion: How and when students intend to utilize entrepreneurship in their profes-
sional lives. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 26(1), 63–87.
Duval-Couetil, N., Reed-Rhoads, T., & Haghighi, S. (2002). Engineering students
and entrepreneurship education: Involvement, attitudes, and outcomes. Inter-
national Journal of Engineering Education, 28, 425–425.
Dweck, C. (2016). What having a “growth mindset” actually means. Harvard
Business Review, 13, 213–226.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation
and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256.
Edelman, L. F., & Brush, C. (2008). Entrepreneurship education: Correspondence
between practices of nascent entrepreneurs and textbook prescriptions for suc-
cess. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 56–70.
Ehrlich, S. B., De Noble, A. F., Jung, D., & Pearson, D. (2000). The impact
of entrepreneurship training programs on an individual’s entrepreneurial
self-efficacy. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Conference
Proceedings.
Ellis, S., Mendel, R., & Nir, M. (2006). Learning from successful and failed expe-
rience: The moderating role of kind of after-event review. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(3), 669–680.
encyclopedia.com. (2021). Marion Laboratories, Inc. www.encyclopedia.com/
books/politics-and-business-magazines/marion-laboratories-inc
Entrepreneurship Education Consortium (EEC). (2021). Home. Entrepreneur-
ship Education Consortium. www.eecohio.org/
Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7–8), 692–701.
Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2008). From craft to science: Teaching models and learn-
ing processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 32(7), 569–593.
Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2015). The impact of entrepreneurship on entrepreneur-
ial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Busi-
ness Management, 53(1), 75–93.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entre-
preneurship education programmes: A new methodology. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 30(9), 701–720.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2007). Towards a new methodology to
assess the entrepreneurship teaching programmes. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook
of research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 187–197). Edward Elgar.
your city. Wiley.
Ferguson, M. (2018). Washington view: The past, present, and future of CTE. Phi
Delta Kappan, 100(2), 64–65.
Fiet, J. O. (2001). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of
Fink, J., Jenkins, D., & Yanagiura, T. (2017). What happens to students who take
community college “dual enrollment” courses in high school? Community Col-
lege Research Center at Columbia University Teachers College and National
Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
Finkle, T. A., Kuratko, D. F., & Goldsby, M. G. (2006). An examination of entre-
preneurship centers in the United States: A national survey. Journal of Small
Business Management, 44(2), 184–206.
Finkle, T. A., Soper, J. C., Fox, D., Reece, J., & Messing, J. (2009). Constructing an
innovative model of entrepreneurship education through regional collabora-
tion. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 12, 43–66.
Fisher, G. (2012). Effectuation, causation, and bricolage: A behavioral compari-
son of emerging theories in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship The-
ory and Practice, 36(5), 1019–1051.
Fletcher, D. (2007). Social constructionist thinking: Some implications for entre-
preneurship research and education. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research
in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 160–172). Edward Elgar.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work,
leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books.
Forbes, D. P. (2005). The effects of strategic decision making on entrepreneurial
self-efficacy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 599–626.
Fortunato, M. W-P, Alter, T. R., Clevenger, M. R., & MacGregor, C. J. (2019).
Higher educational engagement in economic development in collaboration
with corporate powerhouses. In M. R. Clevenger & C. J. MacGregor’s (Eds.),
Business and corporation engagement with higher education: Models, theories,
and best practices (pp. 151–178). Emerald Publishing.
Fortunato, M. W-P, & Clevenger, M. R. (Eds.). (2017). Toward entrepreneurial com-
Gewertz, C. (2017, May 9). Pruning dead-end pathways in career and technical
ed. Education Week. www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/05/10/pruning-dead-
end-pathways-in-career-and-technical.html
Gewertz, C. (2018a, April 24). Author Q&A: Looking beyond “college for all”.
Education Week. www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/04/24/author-qa-looking-
beyond-college-for-all.html
Entreprenology 181
Gewertz, C. (2018b, July 31). What is career and technical education,
anyway? Education Week. www.edweek.org/ew/issues/career-technical-
education/
Gibb, A. A. (1993). Enterprise culture and education: Understanding enterprise
education and its links with small business, entrepreneurship, and wider educa-
tional goals. International Small Business Journal, 11(3), 11–34.
Godofsky, J., Zukin, C., & Horn, C. V. (2011). Unfulfilled expectations: Recent
college graduates struggle in a troubled economy. John J. Heldrich Center for
Workforce Development, Rutgers University.
Gorgievski, M. J., & Stephan, U. (2016). Advancing the psychology of entrepre-
neurship: A review of the psychological literature and an introduction. Applied
Psychology, 65(3), 437–468.
Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park,
P., & Godbey, J. N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomo-
logical network: Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 80(1), 160–172.
Graff, D. D., & Clevenger, M. R. (2017, March 28). Entrepreneurial communi-
ties: How education matters. Wilkes Scholarship Symposium poster presenta-
tion. Wilkes University.
Guo, X., Chen, W., & Yu, A. (2015). Is college education worth it? Evidence from
its impacts on entrepreneurship in the United States. Journal of Small Business
and Entrepreneurship, 28(1), 1–26.
Hahn, C. J., & Gangeness, J. E. (2019). Business, leadership and education: A case
for more business engagement in higher education. American Journal of Busi-
ness Education (AJBE), 12(1), 19–32.
Hansemark, O. C. (1998). The effects of an entrepreneurship program on need
for achievement and locus of control reinforcement. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 4(1), 28–50.
Harrington, C., & Maysami, R. (2015). Entrepreneurship education and the role
of the regional university. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 18(2), 29–28.
Harris, M. L., & Gibson, S. G. (2008). Examining the entrepreneurial attitudes of
US business students. Education & Training, 50(7), 568–581.
Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000, December). From andragogy to heutagogy. ulti-
BASE In-Site. pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-wb/20010220130000/http://ultibase.
rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec00/hase2.htm
Headd, B. (2003). Redefining business success: Distinguishing between closure
and failure. Small Business Economics, 21(1), 51–61.
Headd, B., & Kirchhoff, B. (2009). The growth, decline and survival of small
businesses: An exploratory study of life cycles. Journal of Small Business Man-
agement, 47(4), 531–550.
Heick, T. (2018, February 8). The difference between pedagogy, andragogy, and
heutagogy.Teach Thought.https:///www.teachthought.com/pedagogy/a-primer-
in-heutagogy-and-self-directed-learning/
Heick,T. (2019, June 8). 15 examples of student-centered teaching. Teach Thought.
www.teachthought.com/pedagogy/15-examples-student-centered-teaching/
Helm-Stevens, R., & Griego, O. (2009). A path analysis model of intrinsic and
extrinsic academic motivation engagement in service learning. Review of Busi-
ness Research, 9(1), 99–103.
Hemelt, S. W., Lenard, M. A., & Paeplow, C. G. (2019). Building bridges to life
after high school: Contemporary career academies and student outcomes. Eco-
nomics of Education Review, 68, 161–178.
Henry, C., Hill, F. M., & Leitch, C. M. (2007). Evaluating entrepreneurship edu-
cation and training: Implications for programme design. In A. Fayolle (Ed.),
Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 248–260).
Edward Elgar.
Higgins, D., Galloway, L., Jones, P., & McGowan, P. (2019). Special focus:
Towards entrepreneurship learning practices—Thoughts and insights. Industry
and Higher Education, 33(1), 3–5.
Hills, G. E., Hultman, C. M., & Miles, M. P. (2007). Entrepreneurial marketing
and university education. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research in entre-
preneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 219–229). Edward Elgar.
Hindle, K. (2007). Teaching entrepreneurship at university: From the wrong
building to the right philosophy. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research in
entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 104–126). Edward Elgar.
Hines, Jr., S. M. (2005). The practical side of liberal education: An overview of
liberal education and entrepreneurship. Association of American Colleges &
Universities: A Voice and a Force for Liberal Education. Peer Review, 7(3), 4–7.
Holcomb, T. R., Ireland, R. D., Holmes, Jr., R. M., & Hitt, M. A. (2009). Architec-
ture of entrepreneurial learning: Exploring the link among heuristics, knowl-
edge, and action. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 167–192.
Holland, A., & Andre, T. (1987, Winter). Participation in extracurricular activi-
ties in secondary school: What is known, what needs to be known. Review of
Educational Research, 437–466.
Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-
based business planning. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
3(3), 258–273.
Honig, B., & Martin, B. (2014). Entrepreneurship education. In A. Fayolle (Ed.),
Handbook of research on entrepreneurship: What we know and what we need
to know (pp. 127–146). Edward Elgar.
Hsu, D. K., Shinnar, R. S., & Powell, B. C. (2014). Expectancy theory and entre-
preneurial motivation: A longitudinal examination of the role of entrepreneur-
ship education. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 26(1), 121–140.
Huq, A., & Gilbert, D. (2016). All the world’s a stage: Transforming entrepreneur-
ship education through design thinking. Education + Training, 59(2), 155–170.
Hylton, J. B., Mikesell, D., Yoder, J.-D., & LeBlanc, H. (2020). Working to instill
the entrepreneurial mindset across the curriculum. Entrepreneurship Educa-
tion and Pedagogy, 3(1), 86–106.
Hynes, B. (1996). Entrepreneurship education and training: Introducing entrepre-
neurship into non-business disciplines. Journal of European Industrial Train-
ing, 20(8), 10–17.
Hytti, U., Stenholm, P., Heinonen, J., & Seikkula-Leino, J. (2010). Perceived learn-
ing outcomes in entrepreneurship education: The impact of student motivation
and team behaviour. Education + Training, 52(8/9), 587–606.
INCubatoredu®. (2021). Entrepreneurship curriculum. http://incubatoredu.org
Izquierdo, E., & Deschoolmeester, D. (2010). What entrepreneurial competencies
should be emphasized in entrepreneurship and innovation education at the
undergraduate level? In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research in entrepre-
neurship education: International perspectives (pp. 194–208). Edward Elgar.
Entreprenology 183
Jack, S. L., & Anderson, R. (1998). Entrepreneurship education within the condi-
tion of entreprenology. Paper presented in the Proceedings of the Conference
on Enterprise and Learning.
Jacob, B.A. (2017, October 5).What we know about career and technical education
in high school. Brookings Institution Report. www.brookings.edu/research/
what-we-know-about-career-and-technical-education-in-high-school/
Jamieson, I. (1984). Schools and enterprise. In A. Watts & P. Moran (Eds.), Edu-
cation for enterprise (pp. 19–27). CRAC.
Jamieson,K.(2020,February28).Bethe“E”entrepreneurshipnational4-Hcurriculum.
Michigan State University, MSU Extension, 4-H Youth Entrepreneurship. www.
canr.msu.edu/resources/be_the_e_entrepreneurship_national_4_h_curriculum
Jimenez, B. (2016). The entrepreneurial sandbox: The role of co-curricular pro-
grams in nurturing student entrepreneurs. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
New York University Tandon School of Engineering.
Jocson, K. (2018, June). I want to do more and change things: Reframing CTE
toward possibilities in urban education. Urban Education, 53(5), 640–667.
Jones, G. E., & Garforth, C. (1997). This history, development, and future of
agricultural extension. In B. E. Swanson, R. P. Bentz, and A. J. Sofranko (Eds.),
Improving agricultural extension: A reference manual. Rome: Food and Agri-
culture Organization of the United Nations.
Junior Achievement. (2019, October 17). The states of entrepreneurship educa-
tion in America. Junior Achievement USA. https://jausa.ja.org/dA/22d1d8706c/
criticalIssuePdfDocument/JA%20States%20of%20Entrepreneurship%202019.pdf
Junior Achievement. (2021a). A brief history. About JA. https://jausa.ja.org/
about/index
Junior Achievement. (2021b). JA Be Entrepreneurial®. Junior Achievement Programs.
www.juniorachievement.org/web/ja-usa/ja-programs?p_p_id=56_INSTANCE_
abcd&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_
col_id=ja-maincontent&p_p_col_count=1&_56_INSTANCE_abcd_
groupId=14516&_56_INSTANCE_abcd_articleId=19466
Junior Achievement. (2021c). JA It’s My Business!®. Junior Achievement. https://
jausa.ja.org/programs/ja-it-s-my-business
Junior Achievement. (2021d). JA Worldwide®. We’re one of the world’s most-
impactful youth-serving NGOs. www.jaworldwide.org/
Kanter, R. M. (2002). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective,
and social conditions for innovation in organization. In R. Swedberg (Ed.),
Entrepreneurship: The social science view (pp. 167–210). Oxford University.
Katz, J. A. (1995). Guest editorial: Career approaches to entrepreneurship. Entre-
preneurship Theory and Practice, 19(2), 5–6.
Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entre-
preneurship education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2),
283–300.
Katz, J. A. (2007a). Education and training in entrepreneurship. In J. R. Baum,
M. Frese, & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 209–
236). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Katz, J. A. (2007b). Foreword: The third wave of entrepreneurship and the impor-
tance of fun in learning. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research in entrepre-
neurship education (Vol. 1, pp. xi–xv). Edward Elgar.
Kauffman Foundation. (2021a). Our programs. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foun-
dation. www.kauffman.org/
Kauffman Foundation. (2021b). Entrepreneurship. Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation. www.kauffman.org/entrepreneurship/
Kauffman Foundation. (2021c). Wendy Guillies. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foun-
dation. www.kauffman.org/people/wendy-guillies/
Kickul, J., & Fayolle, A. (2007). Cornerstones of change: Revisiting and challeng-
ing new perspectives on research in entrepreneurship education. In A. Fayolle
(Ed.), Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 1–17).
Edward Elgar.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning. Cambridge.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy
to andragogy. Cambridge.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing
experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning
and Education, 4(2), 193–212.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Prentice-Hall.
Kolvereid, L., & Moen, Ø. (1997). Entrepreneurship among business graduate:
Does a major in entrepreneurship make a difference? Journal of European
Industrial Training, 21(4), 154–160.
Kourilsky, M. L., & Walstad, W. B. (1998). Entrepreneurship and female youth:
Knowledge, attitudes, gender differences, and educational practices. Journal of
Kourilsky, M. L., & Walstad, W. B. (2007). The entrepreneur in youth: An
untapped resource for economic growth, social entrepreneurship, and educa-
tion. Edward Elgar.
Kuckertz, A. (2013). Entrepreneurship education: Status quo and prospective
developments. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 16, 59–71.
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Devel-
opment, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29,
577–598.
Kuratko, D. F. (2007). Entrepreneurial leadership in the 21st Century. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(4), 1–11.
Kuratko, D. F. (2019). Entrepreneurship: Theory, process, and practice (11th ed.).
Cengage Learning.
Kyrö, P., & Tapani, A. (2007). Learning risk-taking competences. In A. Fayolle
(Ed.), Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 285–
310). Edward Elgar.
Ladd, T. (2016). Customer development and effectuation: A review of textbooks
to teach a contemporary introduction to entrepreneurship. Management Teach-
ing Review, 1(3), 205–210.
Springer.
Landström, H., & Lindhe, J. (2016). A history of the entrepreneurship division of
the academy of management. Academy of Management. https://higherlogic
download.s3-external-1.amazonaws.com/AOM/Landstr%C3%B6m_Lindhe_-_
ENT_DIV_History.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAVRDO7IEREB57R7MT&E
xpires=1610309885&Signature=Cqq9jFzVRf5Tsdk46O%2F0jy1yv1A%3D
LaRose, C. L. (1997). Using entrepreneurial education in secondary schools to
enhance school and community relations. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Rowan University.
Entreprenology 185
Lepley, T. L., & Couch, M. E. (2015). The lifelong impact of 4-H: Stories from
Texas. Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Service Series. Texas
A&M University Press.
Levie, J., Don, G., & Leleux, B. (2011). The new venture mortality myth. In K.
Hindle & K. Klyver (Eds.), Handbook of research on new venture creation
Lewis, A. C. (1989). The not so extracurriculum. The Phi Delta Kappan, 70(9),
K1–K8.
Li, J. (2011). An introduction of teaching model for entrepreneurship education.
2011 International Conference on Management and Service Science. https://
doi.org/10.1109/ICMSS.2011.5997963
Li, Z., & Liu, Y. (2011). Entrepreneurship education and employment perfor-
mance: An empirical study in Chinese University. Journal of Chinese Entrepre-
neurship, 3(3), 195–203.
Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J. M. (2011). Factors
affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: A role for education. International
Entrepreneurship & Management Journal, 7, 195–218.
Liu, C. Y. (2012). The causes and dynamics of minority entrepreneurial entry.
Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 17(1), 1250003.
Lo, C., Sun, H., & Law, K. (2012). Comparing the entrepreneurial intention
between female and male engineering students. Journal of Women’s Entrepre-
neurship and Education, 1–2, 28–51.
Macht, S. A., & Ball, S. (2016). “Authentic alignment”: A new framework of
entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 58(9), 926–944.
Mantere, S., Aula, P., Schildt, H., & Vaara, E. (2013). Narrative attributions of
entrepreneurial failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 459–473.
Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of
human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship educa-
tion outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 211–224.
Mason, J. H., & Hornsby, J. S. (2019). Autopsy: Post mortem analysis of the root
causes of 105 failed startups. In M. R. Clevenger (Ed.), USASBE 2019 Annual
Conference Proceedings (pp. 151–158). USASBE 2019 Annual Conference.
Matlay, H. (2008). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial
outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 382–396.
Matlay, H., & Carey, C. (2007). Entrepreneurship education in the UK: A lon-
gitudinal perspective. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
14(2), 252–263.
McClure, K. R. (2015). Exploring curricular transformation to promote innova-
tion and entrepreneurship: An institutional case study. Innovation in Higher
Education, 40, 429–442.
McGrath, R. G. (1999). Falling forward: Real options reasoning and entrepre-
neurial failure. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 13–30.
McLaverty, A., Smith, S., Nutter, L., & Foster, J. (2015). Creating industry relation-
ships that work. Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers, 90(5), 28–31.
Menzies, T. V., & Tatroff, H. (2006). The propensity of male vs. female students
to take courses and degree concentrations in entrepreneurship. Journal of Small
Business & Entrepreneurship, 19(2), 203–223.
Minniti, M. (2009). Gender issues in entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends®
in Entrepreneurship, 5(7–8), 497–621.
Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith, J.
B. (2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the peo-
ple side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
27(2), 93–104.
Moroz, P. W., & Hindle, K. (2012). Entrepreneurship as a process: Toward har-
monising multiple perspectives. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 36(4),
781–818.
Morris, M. H. (Ed.). (2014). Annals of entrepreneurship education and pedagogy.
Edward Elgar.
Morris, M. H. (2015). Education, entrepreneurship, and the unreasonable. In D.
B. Audretsch, C. S. Hayter, & A. N. Link (Eds.), Concise guide to entrepreneur-
ship, technology, and innovation (pp. 47–53). Edward Elgar.
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Cornwall, J. R. (2013a). Entrepreneurship pro-
grams and the modern university. Edward Elgar.
Morris, M. H., & Liguori, E. (2016). Annals of entrepreneurship education and
pedagogy. Edward Elgar.
Morris, M. H., Webb, J. W., Fu, J., & Singhal, S. (2013b). A competency-based
perspective on entrepreneurship education: Conceptual and empirical insights.
Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 352–369.
Muofhe, N. J., & Du Toit, W. F. (2011). Entrepreneurial education’s and entrepre-
neurial role models’ influence on career choice. SA Journal of Human Resource
Management, 9(1), 1–15.
Murphy, P. J., Hood, A. C., & Wu, J. (2019). The Heptalogical Model of entrepre-
neurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 2(3), 188–213.
Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of
entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research
agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299.
Naia, A., Baptista, R., Januário, C., & Trigo, V. (2014). A systematization of the
literature on entrepreneurship education: Challenges and emerging solutions
in the entrepreneurial classroom. Industry & Higher Education, 28(2), 79–96.
Naia, A., Baptista, R., Januário, C., & Trigo, V. (2015). Entrepreneurship edu-
cation literature in the 2000s. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 18(1),
111–135.
tems: Entrepreneurs’ self-regulatory processes and their implications for new
venture success. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37(5), 1071–1091.
Narayan, B. (2015). Entrepreneurship education: Bridging the gap. Journal of
Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 11(4), 74–107.
National Science Foundation (NSF). (2018, March 23). Dear colleague letter:
Growing convergence research. NSF18–058. www.nsf.gov/pubs/2018/nsf18058/
nsf18058.jsp
National Science Foundation (NSF). (2019a, February 8). Funding opportunities
pursuant to the big ideas. News. www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=
297571
Entreprenology 187
National Science Foundation (NSF). (2019b). NSF Includes. News. www.nsf.gov/
news/special_reports/big_ideas/includes.jsp
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds
and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70.
Neck, H. M., & Regele, M. D. (2012). The Entrepreneurship education sub-
ecosystem in the United States: Opportunities to increase entrepreneurial activ-
ity. Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship, 23(2), 25–47.
The Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE). (2021a). How we do it.
NFTE.com. www.nfte.com/
The Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE). (2021b). Our founder.
NFTE.com. www.nfte.com/founder/
The Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE). (2021c). Programs. NFTE.
com. www.nfte.com/programs
Noel, T. W. (2001). Effects of entrepreneurial education on intent to open a busi-
ness. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson Conference Proceedings.
Noguera, M., Alvarez, C., & Urbano, D. (2013). Socio-cultural factors and female
entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
9(2), 183–197.
OECD/European Commission. (2012). Policy brief on youth entrepreneurship—
Entrepreneurial activities in Europe. www.oecd.org/employment/leed/Youth%
20entrepreneurship%20policy%20brief%20EN_FINAL.pdf
Oosterbeek, H., Van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entre-
preneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European
Economic Review, 54(3), 442–454.
Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., Pickernell, D., & Brychan, T. (2010). Attitudes
towards entrepreneurship education: A comparative analysis. Education &
Training, 52(8/9), 568–586.
Penaluna, A., & Penaluna, K. (2009). Assessing creativity: Drawing from the experi-
ence of the UK’s creative design educators. Education + Training, 51(8/9), 718–732.
Pendoley, R. (2019). If we don’t work on pedagogy, nothing else matters.
Age of Awareness. https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/if-we-dont-work-on-
pedagogy-nothing-else-matters-cla61207ff92
Peterman, N. E., & Kennedy, J. (2003, Winter). Enterprise education: Influencing
students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Prac-
tice, 129–142.
Peterson, R., & Limbu, Y. (2010). Student characteristics and perspectives in entre-
preneurship courses: A profile. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 13, 65–83.
Phi Delta Kappan. (2017, September). The 49th annual PDK poll of the public’s
attitudes toward the public schools. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.
1177/0031721717728274
Phi Delta Kappan. (2018, September). The 50th annual PDK poll of the pub-
lic’s attitudes toward the public schools. http://pdkpoll.org/assets/downloads/
pdkpoll50_2018.pdf
Pittaway, L., & Edwards, C. (2012). Assessment: Examining practice in entrepre-
neurship education. Education + Training, 54(8/9), 778–800.
Pride, W. M., Hughes, R. J., & Kapoor, J. R. (2014). Business (12th ed.). Cengage.
Pruett, M., Shinnar, R., Toney, B., Llopis, F., & Fox, J. (2009). Explaining entre-
preneurial intentions of university students: A cross-cultural study. Interna-
tional Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 15(6), 571–594.
Rattan, A., Savani, K., Chugh, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). Leveraging mindsets
to promote academic achievement: Policy recommendations. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 10(6), 721–726.
Ravenscroft, A., Coulson, G., Blackburn, A., & Mirho, M. (2021). Bridging the
gap: Building the K-12 entrepreneurship pipeline. Virtual presentation at the
2021 USASBE Annual Conference (online).
Rezaei-Zadeh, M., Hogan, M., O’Reilly, J., Cleary, B., & Murphy, E. (2014).
Using interactive management to identify, rank, and model entrepreneurial
competencies as universities’ entrepreneurship curricula. The Journal of Entre-
preneurship, 23(1), 57–94.
Rideout, E. C., & Gray, D. O. (2013). Does entrepreneurship education really
work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the
effects of university-based entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Busi-
ness Management, 51(3), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12021
Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup. Currency.
Roopesh, R. N. (2018). All work and no play: The importance of extracurricular
activities in the development of children. In S. Deb (Ed.), Positive schooling and
child development: International perspectives (pp. 287–301). Springer.
Ross, M., & Bateman, N. (2018, January 31). Millions of young adults have
entered the workforce with no more than a high school diploma (Blog post).
The Avenue. Brookings Institution.
Rothman, R. (2017). Propelling college and career success: The role of strategic part-
nerships in scaling Delaware pathways. A Jobs for the Future and Harvard Grad-
uate School of Education Initiative. https://jfforg-prod-prime.s3.amazonaws.
com/media/documents/Delaware_Case_Study_110717_FINAL_0.pdf
Sánchez, J. C. (2011). University training for entrepreneurial competencies: Its
impact on intention of venture creation. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 7, 239–254.
Sánchez, J. C. (2013). The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on
entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Journal of Small Business Man-
agement, 51(3), 447–465.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift
from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 26(2), 243–263.
Scheidt, R. A. (2019, February 11). Future of Work at the Human-Technology
Frontier (FW-HTF). Funding Webinar. www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/
big_ideas/human_tech.jsp
Schenkel, M. T., D’Souza, R. R., Cornwall, J. R., & Matthews, C. H. (2015). Early
influences and entrepreneurial intent: Examining the roles of education, expe-
rience, and advice networks. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 25(2), 1–20.
Schmidt, J. J., & Molkentin, K. F. (2015). Building and maintaining a regional
interuniversity ecosystem for entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurship education
consortium. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 18(1), 157–168.
Schramm, C. J. (2008). Entrepreneurship in American higher education. A Report
from the Kauffman Panel on Entrepreneurship Curriculum in Higher Educa-
tion. The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. www.kauffman.org/-/media/
kauffman_org/research-reports-and-covers/2008/07/entrep_high_ed_report.pdf
Seikkula-Leino, J., Ruskovaara, E., Ikävalko, M., & Kolhinen, J. (2010). Promot-
ing entrepreneurship education: The role of the teacher? Education + Training,
52(2), 117–127.
Entreprenology 189
Sequeira, J., Mueller, S. L., & McGee, J. E. (2007). The influence of social ties
and self-efficacy in forming entrepreneurial intentions and motivating nascent
behaviour. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 12(3), 275–293.
Shaver, K. G. (2005, Spring). Reflections on a new academic path: Entrepreneur-
ship in the arts and sciences. Peer Review, Spring, 15–17.
Shepherd, D. A. (2003). Learning from business failure: Propositions of grief recov-
ery for the self-employed. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 318–328.
Shepherd, D. A. (2004). Educating entrepreneurship students about emotion and
learning from failure. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3),
274–287.
Shepherd, D. A., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). The death of an innovative project:
How grief recovery enhances learning. Business Horizons, 52(5), 451–458.
Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2017). Trailblazing in entrepreneurship: Creating
new paths for understanding the field. Palgrave Macmillan.
Shepherd, D. A., Wiklund, J., & Haynie, J. M. (2009). Moving forward: Balanc-
ing the financial and emotional costs of business failure. Journal of Business
Venturing, 24(2), 134–148.
Shinnar, R., Pruett, M., & Toney, B. (2009). Entrepreneurship education: Atti-
tudes across campus. Journal of Education for Business, 84(3), 151–158.
Siddiqui, K., & Alaraifi, A. (2019). What they don’t teach at entrepreneurship
institutions? An assessment of 220 entrepreneurship undergraduate pro-
grams. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 22(6), 1–7. www.abacademies.
org/articles/what-they-don39t-teach-at-entrepreneurship-institutions-an-
assessment-of-220-entrepreneurship-undergraduate-programs-8766.html
Silveyra, G., Herroro-Crespo, A., & Pérez-Ruiz, A. (2019). Proposal of a com-
prehensive Model of Teachable Entrepreneurship Competencies (M-TEC): Lit-
erature review and theoretical foundation. In S. R. Nair & J. M. Saiz-Alvarez
(Eds.), Handbook of research on ethics, entrepreneurship, and governance in
higher education (pp. 491–518). IGI Global.
Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., & Aquino, K. (2000). Cognitive biases, risk per-
ception, and venture formation: How individuals decide to start companies.
Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 113–134.
Sitkin, S. (1996). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. In M.
Cohen & L. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 541–577). Sage.
Smith, E. (2019, February). Making education meaningful. Techniques, 60–62.
Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United
States. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 168–182.
Solomon, G. T. (2014). The national survey of entrepreneurship education: An
overview of 2012–2014 survey data. The George Washington University Cen-
ter for Entrepreneurial Excellence.
Stadler, A., & Smith, A. M. (2017). Entrepreneurship in vocational education:
A case study of the Brazilian context. Industry and Higher Education, 31(2),
81–89.
Stokes, D., & Blackburn, R. (2002). Learning the hard way: The lessons of owner-
managers who have closed their businesses. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 9(1), 17–27.
Stoof, A. (2005). Tools for the identification and description of competencies.
(Unpublished dissertation). Open University of Netherlands.
studentcompetitions.com. (2021). 370 competitions in design, business, engineer-
ing, and more. https://studentcompetitions.com/
Sutter, C., Bruton, G. D., & Chen, J. (2019). Entrepreneurship as a solution to
extreme poverty: A review and future research directions. Journal of Business
Venturing, 34(1), 197–214.
Symonds, W. C., Schwartz, R. B., & Ferguson, R. (2011). Pathways to prosper-
ity: Meeting the challenge of preparing young Americans for the 21st century.
Harvard University Graduate School of Education.
Taatila, V. P. (2010). Learning entrepreneurship in higher education. Education +
Training, 52(1), 48–61.
Terjesen, S., Elam, A., & Brush, C. G. (2011). Gender and new venture creation.
In Handbook of research on new venture creation (pp. 85–98). Edward Elgar.
Timmons, J. (1989). The entrepreneurial mind. Brick House Publishing Co.
Timmons, J. A., Gillin, L. M., Burshtein, S. L., & Spinelli, S. (2011). New ven-
ture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century: A pacific rim perspective.
McGraw-Hill.
Torrance, W. (2013a). Entrepreneurial campuses: Action, impact, and les-
sons learned from the Kauffman Campus Initiative. The Ewing Marion
Kauffman Foundation. www.kauffman.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/
entrepreneurialcampusesessay.pdf
Torrance, W. (2013b). Entrepreneurship education comes of age on campus, A
report from the Kauffman Campus Initiative. The Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation. www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/research/2013/08/entrepreneurship-
education-comes-of-age-on-campus
Trump, I. (2018, July 17). Training for the jobs of tomorrow: A new White House
initiative will tackle the challenges technology poses to the workforce. Wall Street
Journal. www.wsj.com/articles/training-for-the-jobs-of-tomorrow-1531868131
Tumasjan, A., & Braun, R. (2012). In the eye of the beholder: How regulatory
focus and self-efficacy interact in influencing opportunity recognition. Journal
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., Wright, M., & Flores, M. (2010). The nature of
entrepreneurial experience, business failure and comparative optimism. Journal
Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., Frese, M., & Rosenbusch, N. (2011). Human capital and
entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Ventur-
ing, 26(3), 341–358.
Urbano, D., & Alvarez, C. (2014). Institutional dimensions and entrepreneurial
activity: An international study. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 703–716.
U.S. Association of Small Business & Entrepreneurs (USASBE). (2021). Introduc-
tion to USASBE. www.usasbe.org/page/intro
U.S. Department of Education. (2017, February). Dual enrollment programs.
Institute of Education Sciences What Works Clearinghouse: WWC Interven-
tion Report. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_dual_
enrollment_022817.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2018, April). Career and technical education
programs in public school districts: 2016–17. National Center for Education
Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018028.pdf
U.S. Department of Education/Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education.
(2019). Consolidated annual report: Perkins data explorer. https://perkins.
ed.gov/pims/DataExplorer
Entreprenology 191
Vanevenhoven, J., & Liguori, E. (2013). The impact of entrepreneurship edu-
cation: Introducing the entrepreneurship education project. Journal of Small
Business Management, 51(3), 315–328.
Vesper, K. H. (1986). New developments in entrepreneurship education. In D.
L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship
(pp. 379–387). Ballinger Publishing Co.
Volery, T., Müller, S., Oser, F., Naepflin, C., & del Ray, N. (2013). The impact of
entrepreneurship education on human capital at upper-secondary level. Journal
of Small Business Management, 51(3), 429–446.
von Graevenitz, G., Harhoff, D., & Weber, R. (2010). The effects of entrepreneur-
ship education. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(1), 90–112.
Walsh, G. S., & Cunningham, J. A. (2016). Business failure and entrepreneurship:
Emergence, evolution and future research. Foundations and Trends® in Entre-
preneurship, 12(3), 163–285.
Wang, C. L., & Chugh, H. (2014). Entrepreneurial learning: Past research and
future challenges. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 24–61.
Watson, J., & Everett, J. E. (1996). Do small businesses have high failure rates?
Journal of Small Business Management, 34(4), 45.
Wheadon, M., & Duval-Couetil, N. (2019). Token entrepreneurs: A review of
gender, capital, and context in technology entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 31(3–4), 308–336.
WhiteHouse.(2018a,July19).ExecutiveorderestablishingthePresident’snationalcouncil
fortheAmericanworker.ExecutiveOrders.www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/
executive-order-establishing-presidents-national-council-american-worker/
White House. (2018b, July 25). Statement from the President on the passage of
legislation to reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education
Act. Briefings. www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-
passage-legislation-reauthorize-carl-d-perkins-career-technical-education-act/
Wilson, K. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in Europe. In J. Potter (Ed.),
Entrepreneurship and higher education (pp. 119–138). OECD and LEED.
Wolfe, A. (2018, August 10). Trump signs career and technical education bill
into law. FYI: Science Policy News. www.aip.org/fyi/2018/trump-signs-career-
and-technical-education-bill-law
Young, J. E. (1997). Entrepreneurship education and learning for university stu-
dents and practicing entrepreneurs. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.),
Entrepreneurship 2000 (pp. 215–238). Upstart Publishing Co.
Zaborova, E., Kleymenov, M., & Makarova, E. (2019, January). Entrepre-
neurship as the resource for re-industrialization. 2nd International Scientific
Conference on New Industrialization: Global, National, Regional dimension
(SICNI 2018), Atlantis Press.
Zell Lurie Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies, University of Michigan Official
Website. (2021). www.zli.umich.edu/
Zhao, Y. (2012, September). Flunking innovation and creativity: East Asia’s highly
touted test scores in math, science, and reading are masking important failures
in developing innovators and entrepreneurs. Kappan Magazine, 94(1), 56–61.
Zhao, Y., Emler, T. E., Snethen, A., & Yin, D. (2019). An education crisis is a ter-
rible thing to waste: How radical changes can spark student excitement and
success. Teachers College Press.
Zimmer, S. (2017). 4-H (organization). Salem Press Encyclopedia, 2.
Additional Reading List
Goldspink, C. (2007). Rethinking educational reform: A loosely coupled and
complex systems perspective. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 35(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143207068219
6 Avoiding Anomie
Diffusion of Support Resources
for the Empowerment
of Entrepreneurs
Morgan R. Clevenger and Garrett Munro
Introduction
As noted by Lichtenstein and Lyons (2001), “an entrepreneurial economy
requires entrepreneurs” (p. 4). Thus, an entrepreneurial community needs
to create a fertile environment to promote the development of entrepre-
neurs, entrepreneurship via support enablers, and entrepreneuring. Invest-
ment in these community members takes time and depth in development
to create social capital, including structural dimensions (i.e., network
ties and organization roles), cognitive dimensions (i.e., culture through
shared codes, common language, and shared narratives or experiences),
and relational dimensions of trust, norms, obligations, and shared identity
(Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Further, such social capital facilitates the
development of intellectual capital (Feldman & Zoller, 2012; Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998). Intellectual capital encompasses motivation, utilization
of capabilities, creating value, and synergizing. And as noted by Marshall
(1965), “capital consists a great part of knowledge and organization . . . .
[and] knowledge is our most powerful engine of production” (p. 115).
The culmination of these processes and practices provide productivity
for market relations, hierarchical relations, and social relations (Adler &
Kwon, 2002). Market relations—the centrality of entrepreneuring—
create legitimacy, capacity, and reliability when providing goods, services,
or processes (e.g., logistics, customer service, technology interfaces such
as apps or online interactions). Hierarchical relations provide for posi-
tive coordination of resources and compliance with rules and authority—
locally, within industry standards, legal compliance, material access via
vendors, and profitability. Finally, social relations complete the circle
through the value chain and diffuses information, goodwill, and satisfac-
tion for employees, customers, and the community at large, which builds
brand reputation, loyalty, and reliability.
The goal in this chapter is to take a closer look at various resources for
supporting entrepreneurship and how individuals or budding businesses
can leverage access. Wernerfelt (1984) said, “By a resource is meant any-
thing which could be thought of as a strength or weakness of a given
DOI: 10.4324/9781351045711-6
194 Clevenger & Munro
firm. More formally, a firm’s resources at a given time could be defined
as those (tangible and intangible) assets which are tied semi permanently
to the firm” (p. 172). Thus, resources for entrepreneurs include a range
of assets: tangible (e.g., money, facilities, materials, staffing, and equip-
ment) and intangible (e.g., energy, enthusiasm, motivation, ideas, and
knowledge) (Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001; Kretzman & McKnight, 1993;
Nielsen et al., 2013). Colleges and universities often serve as a hub for
resources. All U.S. citizens have access to Cooperative Extension Services
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Small Business Develop-
ment Centers (SBDCs) network. Access to faculty, students, and research
processes from higher education may also be of interest. Technology is a
broad term and is broken down into considerations of equipment hard-
ware, software and applications, and digital literacy. Whether adjacent or
located on college and university campuses or in downtowns or old malls,
incubators, maker spaces, and co-working have emerged as synergistic
places where entrepreneurs and related start-ups are welcome and share
ideas, processes, and sometimes expenses. Some special arrangements
are discussed such as living-learning communities, corporate support,
university-industry partnership programming, community development
groups, workshops, and the “meetup” culture. A “myriad [of] nonprofit,
private, and public organizations have sprung up to aid entrepreneurs
in starting and growing their businesses” (Kutzhanova et al., 2009).
Charitable foundations have also had a history of interest in supporting
entrepreneurial communities and economic development, which will be
discussed. Finally, the chapter explores leadership development efforts
for local leaders and entrepreneurs themselves.
Colleges and University Resources

The intent in this chapter is to discuss higher education as an entrepre-
neurial community resource, not to promote to academic administrators
how to build their college or university entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Five excellent books that would be useful for higher education leaders
to pursue entrepreneurship include Fairweather’s (1988) Entrepreneurship
and Higher Education: Lessons for Colleges, Universities, and Industry,
which is historical and a good base, and, unfortunately, was never made
into a revised edition; Clark’s (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universi-
ties: Organizational Pathways of Transformation and (2004b) Sustaining
Change in Universities; Audretsch and Link’s (2017) Universities and the
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem; and Hisrich et al.’s (2020) Academic Entrepre-
neurship: Creating the Ecosystem for Your University. These books provide
key reading and ideas for internal scaffolding to look across the academic
organization to inventory and build a “new” institutional mission with
appropriate resource allocation. Likewise, Miller and Ács’s (2017) seminal
case study journal article The Campus as Entrepreneurial Ecosystem: The
Avoiding Anomie 195
University of Chicago also provides key thoughts and best practice ideas.
In general, however, key concerns in developing an entrepreneurial college
or university ecosystem include strong leadership, high-caliber faculty with
buy-in and capacity, institutional culture, time commitment, classroom and
research resources, incorporation of offices in technology commercializa-
tion, creating technology outlets, and engaging critical mass of constituents
(Hallam et al., 2017). Likely the most important of these aspects is creating
the institutional culture to support entrepreneurship, else an uncoopera-
tive environment is likely to impede entrepreneurship (Clark, 2004a; Fogel,
2006; Graham, 2014). Gianiodis and Meek (2020) provide a valuable
questionnaire that can aid in understanding the climate of a campus and
for both focus on and attention to resources supporting entrepreneurship.
Gianiois and Meek also promote key enablers as a supportive administra-
tion and a value chain of research resources but add the need for robust
policies. Hence, higher education leaders are faced with contexts that are
continuously changing, diverse population demands, complex and volatile
needs, and problems prone to risk, so have strategic planning influenced
and shaped by civil society, governance through networks and partner-
ships, and key support through civic leaders (Benington, 2005).
As a resource, “the most significant contribution of colleges and uni-
versities is providing an educated populace” (Lane, 2012, p. 16). Higher
education exists to foster development of the individual mind and to pre-
pare individuals for careers and life work—including becoming entre-
preneurs. Academic credentials such as associate degrees, baccalaureate
degrees, and advanced degrees for master’s level, professions (e.g., MD,
JD)., and research doctorates (e.g., PhDs) are of interest, yet continu-
ing education, technical and vocational education, and adult training
are also of interest (see Chapter 5 for a robust discussion). Research
has shown that a formal education provides a substantial edge for life
and career preparation and advancement and is positively associated for
those becoming entrepreneurs and also evidenced higher income (Dick-
son et al., 2008; Graff, 2016; Guo et al., 2016; van der Sluis et al., 2004,
2005)—even helping to eliminate the wage gap between women and
men, given both having a formal education and being an entrepreneur
(Graff, 2016). Entrepreneurs and employers of any size need a skilled,
trained, and/or educated workforce (Carnevale & Rose, 2012; Clevenger,
2019; Frølund et al., 2018; Garber et al., 2019). Thus, academic institu-
tions provide one of three traditional assets for economic development
through education; the other two are access to capital and infrastructure.
Thus K-12, vocational programming, community colleges, colleges, and
universities all contribute to entrepreneurship, community development,
and economic development (Feld & Hathaway, 2020; Fortunato et al.,
2019; Jacobs, 2012; Kourilsky et al., 2007). Some community colleges,
colleges, and universities include special programming, titled workforce
development (Clevenger, 2014, 2019). Specifically, a secondary education
can provide a foundation for individual growth, professional training,
and potentially social mobility (Collins, 2019; Rhodes, 2001).
The historical and the current dynamics in higher education are tumul-
tuous at best. Labaree’s (2017) A Perfect Mess: The Unlikely Ascendency
of American Higher Education explains some history of higher education
and stratifies the space into four areas: community colleges, private lib-
eral arts colleges, regional universities, and public research universities.
The “American higher education is organized around an educational mar-
ket, fostering a kind of entrepreneurial autonomy” (Labaree, 2017, p. 5).
However, higher education never had a centralized national plan—nor
does it have today (Labaree, 2013). Over time, however, the historical lib-
eral education agenda and the post-World War II professional education
agenda have subverted one another, often times competed and yet other
times melded; both are important and capable of being woven together
(Labaree, 2006). Higher education contributes in a multitude of ways to
society via science, medicine, art, humanity, and many other disciplines
to improve and to enlighten the world (Clevenger, 2014; Gould, 2003).
Higher education seeks to advance public or societal goals (Clevenger,
2014, 2019) and serves to support and promote the “democratic mis-
sion” of individual responsibility (Benson et al., 2005, p. 191). The for-
profit sector—entrepreneurs, businesses, and corporations—serves as the
economic cornerstone of the U.S. capitalistic economy in a democratic
republic (Carroll et al., 2017; Drucker, 1946; Gould, 2003). Thus, both
education and entrepreneurship are centralities in the U.S. culture.
Since the 1980s and heavily in the 1990s, higher education has experi-
enced decreased public support, increased competition, and a push toward
productivity via economic development and entrepreneurial activities
(Campbell & Slaughter, 1999; D’Este & Perkmann, 2011; Fairweather,
1988, 1996; Kozeracki, 1998). The very mission of community colleges,
colleges, and “universities has become more complex, encompassing com-
mercialization goals and economic development along with the traditional
goals of educational and research excellence” (Feldman, 2012, p. 98). In
the United States, while public institutions were pushed by policy makers,
both public and private higher education leaders were faced with demands
to balance budgets, not only to sustain, but to grow, and were under new
metrics calculating productivity and impact—beyond mere inputs, out-
puts, and outcomes. Rothaermel et al. (2007) and Yusof and Jain (2010)
provided extensive literature reviews tracking higher education’s pivot
into entrepreneurial activities and economic development. It is noted that
these pressures are not solely U.S.-specific but also impact colleges and
universities around the world (Rothaermel et al., 2007).
Three “modern U.S. university and college” themes (Miller & Ács, 2017,
p. 80) embrace Turner’s (1920) categories of assets, liberty, and diverse pop-
ulations. Available assets for a modern focus include academic program-
ming, networking with other institutions, and having campus resources to
Avoiding Anomie 197
support entrepreneurship (e.g., faculty and staff, research, labs, and librar-
ies). The liberty or freedom of entrepreneur training promotes democracy,
and 21st-century campuses provide balance in decision-making and shared
governance, freedom of research, accessibility, and flexibility (AAUP,
2014). Finally, high-entrepreneurship campus frontier features include
diverse populations of knowledge producers (i.e., students, faculty, and
staff) to provide celebration of ideas and support synergy by focusing on
processes and development regardless of “ethnicity, place of birth, field of
study, age, education levels, [or] political ideologies” (Miller & Ács, 2017,
p. 79). Additionally, higher educational entrepreneurial ecosystems include
a number of entrepreneurial actors and organizations within the

boundaries of a [college or] university that connect, mediate, and
govern the performance of the entrepreneurial environment in order
to support students and the external [entrepreneurial] community in
order to promote their entrepreneurial initiatives.
(Rodríguez-Aceves et al., 2019, p. 475)
Further, Malecki (2018) noted, colleges and “universities are perhaps the
most frequently identified actor/institution in entrepreneurial ecosystems
after entrepreneurs themselves” (p. 9).
Feldman et al. (2012) categorized entrepreneurial activities in higher
education outcomes into three key combined areas of concern: economic
impact (i.e., jobs created, income effect, impact on industries, research
investment, licenses of intellectual property, number of start-up firms, lev-
eraged funding, and start-up center activity), research metrics (i.e., patents
and patent applications, networks, student engagement in networks, fund-
ing for student researchers, career placement of graduates into industry and
research institutes, conference presentations, student conference presenta-
tions, publications, citations, and workshops), and public benefit (i.e., K-12
enhancements for teachers, K-12 enrichment to students, student outreach,
diversity, cultural shifts in research practice, and web traffic). Additionally,
economic impacts are sub-categorized as direct, indirect, or induced.
Cooperative Extension Services

Many communities have higher educational institutions, while many oth-
ers do not. As a resource at a minimum, all communities have access to
Cooperative Extension Services provided through the land-grant system’s
colleges and universities—and their programming and resources—since
1914 under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Boeckmann,
2020). The Cooperative Extension Services campus offices and county
offices typically have economic development units and often also have
specialists in entrepreneurship. These universities provide programming
that is accessible to anyone (see Table 6.1). The USDA is also a conduit
Table 6.1 University Hosts of U.S. Cooperative Extension Services
Alabama Alabama A&M Mississippi Alcorn State

University University
Auburn University Mississippi State

University
Tuskegee University Missouri Lincoln University
Alaska University of Alaska University of
Fairbanks Missouri
Arizona The University of Montana Montana State
Arizona University
Arkansas University of Nebraska University of
Arkansas Nebraska
University of Nevada University of
Arkansas at Pine Nevada
Bluff
California University of New Hampshire University of New
California Hampshire
Colorado Colorado State New Jersey Rutgers University
University
Connecticut University of New Mexico New Mexico State
Connecticut University
Delaware Delaware State New York Cornell University
University
University of North Carolina North Carolina
Delaware A&T State
University
District of University of the North Carolina
Columbia District of Columbia State University
Florida Florida A&M North Dakota North Dakota State
University of Florida Ohio The Ohio State
University
Georgia Fort Valley State Oklahoma Oklahoma State
University of Georgia Oregon Oregon State
University
Guam University of Guam Pennsylvania Penn State
Hawaii University of Hawaii Rhode Island University of Rhode
at Manoa Island
Idaho University of Idaho South Carolina Clemson University
Illinois University of Illinois South Carolina
Urbana-Champaign State University
Indiana Purdue University South Dakota South Dakota State
University
Iowa Iowa State University Tennessee Tennessee State
University
Kansas Kansas State University of
University Tennessee
Kentucky Kentucky State Texas Prairie View A&M
University of Texas A&M
Kentucky University
Avoiding Anomie 199
Alabama Alabama A&M Mississippi Alcorn State

Louisiana Louisiana State Utah Utah State
Southern University Vermont University of
and A&M College Vermont
Maine The University of Virginia Virginia State
Maine University
Maryland University of Virginia Tech
Maryland
University of Washington Washington State
Maryland Eastern University
Shore
Massachusetts University of West Virginia West Virginia
Massachusetts University
Amherst
Michigan Michigan State West Virginia State
Minnesota University of Wisconsin University of
Minnesota Wisconsin-
Madison
Wyoming University of
Wyoming
(based on Boeckmann, 2020; USDA, 2021b)
for accessing a wide range of grant programs (USDA, 2021a). Addition-

ally, the Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) may be housed
on college or university campuses, but their resources are also for every-
one; SBDCs are discussed in Chapter 7. However, communities or regions
with brick-and-mortar higher education campuses are more robust in
physical spaces supporting entrepreneurship. Some communities have
partnerships between K-12 and particularly community colleges, liberal
arts colleges, and regional universities.
Cooperative Extension Services provide a wide range of trainings, feld
research, and mentoring to entrepreneurs at any stage. Their faculty also
create learning tools. For example, while designed and aimed at rural
communities, one resource for entrepreneurial community assessment
is Markley et al.’s (2005) Energizing Entrepreneurs workbook created
at the Center for Rural Entrepreneurship and the Heartland Center for
Leadership Development at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Access to Faculty and Research

Many scholars and authors have noted the tumultuous dynamics in U.S.
higher education during the past 40 years (e.g., Harvey, 2018; Pucciarelli &
Kaplan, 2016; Rhodes, 2001). The scientific 1980s ushered in more atten-
tion to government partnering with entrepreneurs, industry, and higher
education (Johannisson & Nilsson, 1989; Schramm, 2004; Schultz, 2012).
Since the Bayh-Dole Act, escalation of collaborations for research and
development increased integration with higher education and community
resources (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000)—especially the creation of
technology transfer offices. (For an exhaustive list of research sources see
section 4.7.1 Technology transfer offices in Hayter et al., 2018.) The various
economic and social challenges have pushed academia into areas beyond
teaching, research, and service (Cunningham & Menter, 2020; Goldstein
et al., 1995). “In addition to the traditional teaching and research func-
tions, [colleges and] universities today are expected to provide leadership
and infrastructure, stimulate the economy through technology transfer and
expenditures, and create a milieu that is favorable to economic and societal
development” (Goldstein et al., 1995, p. 128). As paradigm shifts are cre-
ated, colleges and universities “usually put in place new internal policies,
procedures, and initiatives” to support and encourage faculty, students,
and graduates in commercialization, technology transfer, and academic
entrepreneurship (Cunningham & Menter, 2020, p. 581).
These pivoting directions have made many academicians uncomfort-
able and concerned with mission creep of higher education’s purpose and
altering organizational emphases and processes in the struggle to remain
viable and able to exist and persist. Kozeracki (1998) said:
This transition is requiring college and university mangers to exam-

ine the way they operate, to reconsider their many functions, and
even, to question some of their most cherished values such as aca-
demic freedom and access. As a result, some conflicts have arisen. But
the trend is strong, and many higher education institutions, especially
universities and community colleges, are experiment with entrepre-
neurial programs and behavior.
(p. 3)
Practitioners and scholars both look at higher education as a “public

good” yet defne such differently. Audretsch (2014) noted,
Perhaps the confusion and concern about the university losing its
way reveals confusion concerning its role and mission in society and
in the economy. . . . Since the second world war, the university has
evolved from a mandate and role characterized as the Humboldt
model, with a primary emphasis on freedom and independence of
scholarly inquiry and “knowledge for its own sake” to being a source
of knowledge that is requisite for economic growth and a strong eco-
nomic performance. While this increased the importance and signifi-
cance of the university in terms of its impact on the economy, it did
not greatly alter the functions and activities of the university.
(p. 314)
Avoiding Anomie 201
Scholars emphasize enlightenment, discovery, academic freedom, and dis-
semination of knowledge, whereas practitioners and policy makers desire
marketization of applicable knowledge, skill development, and useful-
ness of efforts toward society in sum. As a result, entrepreneurialism has
become increasingly incorporated into higher education (Rothaermel
et al., 2007). Jongbloed et al. (2008) observed that higher education has
“interconnections and interdependencies” in society and the economy
in multiple levels locally, regionally, nationally, and even internationally
(p. 304). Hence, higher education administrators are engaged in valorized
stakeholder management and delivery of committed value to a range of
constituents—governing entities, employees (i.e., faculty, staff, and sup-
port staff), students and their families, suppliers, competitors, donors,
and various funding partners (e.g., corporations, alumni, foundations, and
government funding programs), community/ies served, regulators, and
joint venture partners (Benneworth & Jongbloed, 2010; Miller et al.,
2014). In contrast, Jongbloed et al. (2008) indicated:
Simultaneously, higher education institutions are not only expected to

act responsibly (i.e., pay attention to democratic and ethical values),
deliver value for money (and improve performance where possible),
but also to work on their corporate social responsibility . . . [such as]
efforts to develop socially and environmentally aware practices and
policies . . . within which they function in terms of the economic,
legal, ethical, and philanthropic impact of their way of conducting
business . . . [and] contributing to the solving of important problems
faced by our society—problems that call for innovation of various
kinds: social, economic, and cultural.
(pp. 318–319)
These dynamics interplay. Additionally, Pucciarelli and Kaplan (2016)

summarize three key pressures arising from the complex challenges in
academia: “(1) the need to enhance prestige and market share; (2) the
need to embrace an entrepreneurial mindset; and (3) the need to expand
interactions and value co-creation with key stakeholders” (p. 311).
Community colleges, colleges, and “universities cannot replicate success-
ful mechanisms, but need to adapt their strategies to the specificities of
the regional context” (Schaeffer & Matt, 2016, p. 726). Higher educa-
tion offers a wide range of valuable resources to entrepreneurs (Clevenger,
2014, 2019; Frølund et al., 2018; Garber et al., 2019; Watts, 2019). “Crit-
ics hold that university-industry relations are inherently problematic and
lead to a degradation of the traditional university mission, loss of aca-
demic freedom, and distortion of research direction when the university
scientists themselves become involved in commercialization of their own
research” (Etzkowitz, 2014, p. 228). Note that public institutions under
direct state control and public policies have a heavier burden to contribute
to economic development and specific agendas to support entrepreneurs
(Cunningham & Menter, 2021; Phan et al., 2015). Yet private colleges and
universities—competing for students, faculty, and staff—also recognize
the value of interacting with their areas served, offer a range of academic
entrepreneur degrees and programming, and often have entrepreneurship
centers, incubators, maker spaces, or laboratories. Colleges and universities
often measure their entrepreneurial ecosystems by input indicators, pro-
cess indicators, and output indicators (Graham, 2014). Frankly, there is no
consistency. Just like higher education itself historically emerged on per-
community and per-state needs whether public or private, there is no one-
size-fits-all model of including or excluding entrepreneurship as an agenda
item or focus for colleges and universities. The pendulum of public opinion
has also swung back-and-forth embracing entrepreneurship or supporting
a culture of big business and people “working for someone else.”
Technological Supports
Technology plays a number of vital roles in facilitating success at an orga-
nizational level. A common perspective for understanding the value a
technologically equipped organization might bring to an individual is by
thinking about access to certain technological hardware, software and
applications, and access to training for digital literacy. However, sim-
ply having the right components is not enough to realize potential and
develop new value. Rather, technology needs to be integrated within a
system of interrelated supports.
It is well established within economics and entrepreneurship that tech-
nology has become a primary driver to foster and support innovation and
productivity. Given the rapid advancement of personal communication and
computing devices (e.g., cell phones, Internet speed, and data systems)—
and the infrastructure of networks that support connecting them—there
has been a consistent increase of not just new businesses but also new
types of businesses. Given this growth, access to the right technology—
and the skills and communities that make it effective—is an almost vital
prerequisite for a firm’s ongoing success, and thus becomes a central role
that entrepreneurial communities can and do serve. However, effective and
empowering entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurial communities
require more than attention to the simple technological objects occupying
these spaces. This section will explore an integrated systems perspective
of effective technology to support entrepreneurs and includes a number
of illustrative examples. Figure 6.1 illustrates a shift of technology from a
side resource to an integrated consideration with literally all facets of an
organization—particularly for-profit or entrepreneurial.
A potential entrepreneur begins their journey with certain skills,
resources, and networks. They begin to create their own entrepreneur-
ial ecosystem within an entrepreneurial community and are acted upon
Avoiding Anomie 203
Figure 6.1 A Systems Model of Technology for Entrepreneurial Communities

Source: (Inspired by Jones, 2007)
by the network of forces and resources that make up that space. This
environment includes learning valuable new skills, gaining access to
new resources, tools, and training. In turn, they contribute to and alter
that space. They may offer their own unique expertise, perspective, or
resources to the entrepreneurial community. The outputs may include
new innovations, products, or even a new business or organization.
Jones’s (2007) model highlighted thinking about entrepreneurial com-
munities and their spaces through a circular model with “technology”
being a component. By 21st-century functionality, however, technology
now permeates all other resource and network components establish-
ing an environment where the physical and/or digital settings constitute
an entrepreneur’s and an entrepreneurial community’s centrality. Access
and layout of this space matter and impact how people and resources
interface within a given community. A particular locale will entice or
attract new resources, people invite other people, and then ideas fow,
synergize, and escalate. For instance, ample retroftted industrial space
may afford space for a prototyping workshop, warehouse, conference
rooms along with offce space, etc. Whereas a smaller physical space will
change the potential trajectory of an entrepreneur and their ability to
learn, practice, and apply new skills. Psychologists and educators might
explain the people-factor through situated cognition theory infuences,
whereby learning and doing are seen as inseparable from physical and
cultural contexts. Conceição and Heitor (2002) refer to this as wetware.
A Primer Exploring Technology Philosophy

Technology is a term used broadly and widely. It is one of those difficult
words that is very, very broad. Technology firms have gained attention
through the 1990s and the technology bubble as well as the billion-dollar
“unicorns” that have historically produced massive returns for some entre-
preneurs and their investors (Ács et al., 2017; Brown & Mason, 2017;
Erdogan et al., 2016; Stam & van de Ven, 2021). WeWork and many others
go to great lengths to portray themselves as a technology company even
if their core operations do not necessarily involve technology-related
endeavors—such as Google or Facebook. Technology has long been seen as
good and virtue in itself—from The Enlightenment to the Industrial Revolu-
tion technology has long been seen as the precocious offspring of science—
long before computers and software and applications were ever thought of.
The United States in particular has had a long romance with technology as
Marx (1964) documented in The Machine in the Garden. This articulation
between technology and virtue as well as power and beauty pervades to this
day with the latest Apple gadgets attracting zealous users and brands like
Tesla quickly becoming luxury brands on par with Rolex. Further, technol-
ogy-based occupations continue to expand have a special importance in
entrepreneurship, business, and organizations in general.
What is meant, then, by “technology,” and what do business scholars,
practitioners, entrepreneurs—and entrepreneurial communities—mean
when using the term? Again, the connotative use of the word technol-
ogy is broad and loose. Technology can range from talking about tools
and objects to knowledge, competence, resources, and skills. Generally
speaking, business scholars refer to technology in a high context sense
as in objects, machinery, technology skills, and/or technology processing
knowledge that make a particular firm operate and, ideally, create value.
An example would be the combination of having a laser printer, related
printer software, and the knowledge that an entrepreneur—or team
member—uses on Etsy to engrave products. However, we can begin to
see how the use of technology has broadened from industrial and 20th-
century thinking—that is, to operate such a business on Etsy requires
Avoiding Anomie 205
further knowledge of e-Commerce, personal computing, advertisement,
photography, copy writing, accountancy, and so on and so forth. So, a dis-
cussion of technology must include both specific facilitating and transfor-
mational technologies—such as a firm’s unique machinery or equipment,
processes, and administrative protocols to transform raw materials into
products, services, or processes (e.g., applications and logistics) (Nielsen
et al., 2013) and enabling and augmenting technologies, such as personal
computing devices, high-speed Internet, servers, software, labs, networks,
and communication systems. These ancillary technologies help to create
efficiencies, drive innovation, gather and send information, and manage
money and other assets.
The technological bar has risen for many of today’s enterprises, while
access to training, hardware, customer or user support, etc., has con-
tinued to be a scarcity, and, indeed, this starting point of scarcity is a
defining characteristic of an entrepreneur—at least in contrast to tradi-
tional and much earlier forms of business (Nielsen et al., 2013). And yet,
nascent entrepreneurs rarely start from “zero,” a hope and a shoestring,
but rather their inspiration usually comes from some source of knowl-
edge or expertise. This original knowledge—such as how to engrave with
a laser printer—however, must be folded in with new skills, knowledge,
and resources to realize a potential innovation or new organization. This
model is well articulated by Sarasvathy (2008), when discussing the usual
starting point of limited resources, and an entrepreneur might inventory
and think: who am I, what do I know, and whom do I know? The next
step is in exploring the environment, thereby gaining more resources and
control toward forming an organization or innovation.
As Chinsomboon (2000a) pointed out in Incubators in the New Econ-
omy, access to technology is one of the core barriers to start-ups and also
constitutes a core service offered by entrepreneurial communities. Hav-
ing a lab equipped with specialized machines, for instance, might offer
vertical innovation to highly specialized entrepreneurs such as genetic
engineers or biotechnologies. However, even highly trained scientists or
engineers will need basic training for technology literacy, including basic
aspects of business operations, financial literacy, networking, leadership—
yet others will require more specialized training depending on the scale
and integration of a business. It is important to emphasize how ubiqui-
tous technology has become in running a business—from digital etiquette
and data literacy with the engagement of stakeholders through SMS (i.e.,
short message service for texting) or emailing clients to more special-
ized operations, such as launching influencer campaigns or running
Google ads.
One of the major challenges in the 21st century in a hyper-saturated
and commodified “digital space” (a.k.a. wherever technology is utilized)
is sorting through complexity and increasing distractions. Beyond all the
noise (e.g., sophisticated and personalized advertisements, entertainment,
and competing brands) lays the knowledge of technological systems or
adjacent resources (i.e., hardware, software, and telecommunications)
that can take a nascent start-up or budding entrepreneur to liftoff. This
experience might manifest as a particular piece of hardware (such as
crypto mining GPUs, “pocket” projectors, or 3D printers), software (e.g.,
browser-based design applications, audio-visual mixing and production
suites), and wetware for marketing (e.g., Google, Facebook, or Insta-
gram advertising; influencer marketing) or eCommerce solutions (such
as Amazon, Shopify, Etsy, or a custom web solution).
Acquiring technology skills or systems can be daunting and expensive
for an individual to attain or begin learning but relatively easy to facilitate
in a shared community. Learning how to use and integrate a wide range of
resources, as well as understanding how they might interface to create new
dynamics for a particular business model, is not easy. Yet, through a coop-
erative of loosely interdependent experts, one might find mentors or guides
to assist in easing the learning curve and sorting through the complexity. To
better understand incorporation of technology, we turn next to expanding
a traditional definition of technology toward an integrated systems view.
Beyond Technology as “Just Hardware”

Many people think “hardware” when hearing the word technology.
Hardware might be understood broadly as physical or tangible assets
(e.g., equipment). Accountants and financial managers often think of
hardware as what occupies a firm’s balance sheet, but much of the value
hardware creates is realized in how it is situated and connected with
other resources. For example, consider an individual’s cellphone and the
various contacts stored within the hard drive. By simply networking and
developing a database, an individual develops the hardware’s potential—
and likewise with a well-connect device’s access to consistent and high-
speed Internet service. And so, while much of Western thinking prefers to
reduce and isolate concepts, an understanding of technology away from
an object (i.e., thing) orientation (noted as countable nouns like comput-
ers, cellphones, servers, printers, etc.) (Slack & Wise, 2014) and toward
an integrated effective systems perspective will serve entrepreneurs better.
Effective technological systems are thus created through assemblages of
interrelated components, such as when:
(1) the right tool or technology is accessible to

(2) a skilled human actor situation with a
(3) facilitating environment.
Deleuze and Guattari (1987) discussed the feudal example of the mounted
knight—a devastated system consisting of a skilled warrior, a trained
horse, and a steel sword. Alone, these components are interesting but
Avoiding Anomie 207
relatively inert. Operating as an assemblage, however, they create emer-
gent new properties and opportunities. A modern analogy to such assem-
blages may be an Uber driver, a Peloton ftness infuencer, or a short seller
on the Robin Hood app. Given this illustration of an effective assemblage
at an individual level, it is easy to imagine how multiple such interrelated
assemblage relationships create a team, and then at the highest level, an
organization or a frm. By integrating and acknowledging both technol-
ogy and environment alongside humans as equally powerful forces or
actors in this assemblage network, we begin to see the forcefeld or sys-
tem that emerges within effective and empowering entrepreneurial com-
munities. This perspective is informed by both Actor Network Theory
(see Callon & Latour, 1981) and Articulation and Assemblage Theory
(see Slack & Wise, 2014). Such communities are dynamic and act on new
or interfacing agents and are acted upon by them. This systems perspec-
tive of technology has emphasis on relationship and connection, rather
than the “nodes,” agents, or actors in the system (Colebrook, 2021). This
combination might be particularly evident in micro-communities, where
a new member brings with them a knowledge and resource base that
multiples the existing community’s repertoire.
Zooming out of a cultural studies perspective of technology as inte-
grated systems, one consideration might be how scholars and datasticians
reporting institutions track an entrepreneurship potential. The Michigan
Entrepreneurship Score Card (Toft et al., 2020) is an annual report track-
ing economic and other data across the states and regions of the United
States regarding resources that impact entrepreneurs and businesses. Edu-
cation and workforce preparedness (e.g., knowledge, skills, and competen-
cies) are also reported. “Digital connectivity” is a foundational aspect of
innovation and entrepreneur opportunity, which are also reported. All of
the various categories rank each state; and several subcategories culminate
into topics, also with the states ranked. Thus, education and workforce
preparedness alongside digital connectivity as key components reinforce
our discussion of technology as an integrated whole versus an industrial-
era object-orientated inventory of hardware and machines.
Presentation, training, and use of technological hardware have his-
torically carried with it great ritual, meaning, and exclusivity. As noted
from the Deleuze and Guattari (1987) mounted knight example: a whole
class of elites who were trained from birth to perform a particular role,
enmeshed in a cultural system that reinforced notions like courage, chiv-
alry, physical prowess, and brutality. In the 21st-century context, there are
also many rituals and routines with escalating attention including effec-
tive presentations, understanding and use of a wide range of hardware
and software, acumen for training and customer support, and adaptation
much more quickly than in any previous time period. A combination
of skills, knowledge, and access to infrastructure (hardware, software,
networks, telecommunications, the Internet, etc.) are integral to be
effectively used. Funding is often applied liberally to equate with physical
assets—like computers—in offices, classrooms, libraries, laboratories, or
community spaces—only to sit unused or barely activated because of a
lack of human and environmental attention. This reduction of attention
to the environment and human side of technological interacting might
be equally ascribed to the aforementioned Western reductionism as well
as to an interest in purchasing tangible, countable assets over investing
in intangible or less transferable resources like environments and people.
Environmental aspects might include ergonomics, electrical placement,
lighting, broadband, etc.
Of particular importance in avoiding such ineffective use of funds,
space, or time is conducting a technology needs assessment for the orga-
nization or co-working space in question. Along with the assessment
must also come a prioritization. What hardware is needed or might be
most used or game-changing? What are the requisite human and facilitat-
ing environmental factors? How might budget or partnering effectively
materialize? All of these important questions when planning integration
or development are vital.
A counterintuitive approach is to start “bottom up,” with examin-
ing human and environmental first versus starting with thinking about
object-focused technological systems, hardware, and software. This pro-
cess is similar to Miller and Ács (2017) when building a university-based
entrepreneurial ecosystem. By focusing specifically on space, for instance,
needs and fit might emerge. In fact, starting with an empty space and
inviting interested stakeholders for discussion or town-hall-style inven-
tory of needs, existing skills, and resources to be shared may prove to be
an efficient model for developing a technological plan or inventory. Two
examples are Kent Flexspace Cooperative™ and Hiram College’s Tech
and Trek™ Program.
Kent Flexspace Cooperative™

Such an alternative model, and one that operates on a shoe-string bud-
get, is offered by Kent Flexspace Cooperative™ in Kent, Ohio (Munro,
2021). This shared workspace cooperative was built from the bottom
up—starting first with an empty space, then inviting potential members to
bring their own skills and technologies. Finally, after piloting projects in the
co-working space, deliberation took place to determine what technologies
or other resources might serve the group collectively. In this way, planning
was led by the space first, people second, and the technological hardware
third. This approach is understood through design thinking principles,
whereby rapid prototyping is prioritized over forward planning (Liedtka &
Ogilvie, 2019). Besides being potentially cost saving, the process also puts
actual end-users in charge of the decisions, rather than administrators,
grant writers, or others assigned to “procure the technology.”
Avoiding Anomie 209
Hiram College Tech and Trek™
A more traditional example of an effective technology program can be
found at Hiram College in Hiram, Ohio (Varlotta, 2020). The Tech and
Trek™ Program offers all students, faculty, and staff an iPad Pro, and
students also get a pair of hiking boots. Besides this hardware, the Pro-
gram includes full-time staff experts to facilitate training, digital literacy,
consultation in a variety of modalities, and customer service to traffic
problems or questions. Furthermore, the Program offers a variety of
experiences (e.g., courses, student life events, co-curricular activities) that
embody the Program’s mission (i.e., “mindful technology”), Hiram Col-
lege’s values, and to engage students within the campus and surrounding
communities and natural environment. By creating a culture of powerful
mobile technology (i.e., iPad Pro, Apple pencil, and keyboard/case), with
enabling experts, and inspiring spaces (e.g., labs, classrooms, community
rooms, studios, and green spaces), the Program transcends the normal pit-
falls of institutional technology programs (that have inert devices stored
in laptop carts, or against the walls in classrooms, etc.). The Program was
developed with a combination of traditional planning strategies (such
as program research and budget building) and more deliberative stake-
holder engagement of faculty, staff, students, and technology-focused
committees.
Software and Applications

Along with advances in mobile technology development has come in equal
measure new software and application tools. Pankaj (2019) provides
definitions:
Software is a collection of programs that co-ordinates with the hard-

ware to run the machine. It is set of instructions or data that oper-
ates the computer how to work. Software is opposite of the physical
aspect, i.e., hardware and it is a complement to the hardware in
computer.
(para 1)
Application [aka app] is package that performs a specific task for end
users. It is a product or a program that is designed only for end user’s
requirements. All the applications may be in category of software but
vice-versa is not possible.
(para 2)
Of particular interest to entrepreneurs might be cross-platform browser-

based apps. These sorts of applications are particularly dynamic for
entrepreneurial communities because they can function on multiple
platforms, unbundled from particular operating systems, or hardware
requirements—and are often easier to learn and transfer. These are fea-
tures entrepreneurs especially enjoy as they pursue their enterprise proj-
ects, whereby the traditional friction of learning a new software suite or
application may stall out a project altogether.
Integrated software like Office 365 now operate almost entirely on
the web and even mobile devices such as a cellphone. The Google Suite
has been a browser-based system from its inception and included and
popularized by Chromebooks. Membership in specific organizational
communities such as a college or university often includes licenses for
products such as office tools, along with more advanced tools such as
Adobe Creative Suite, and statistical data tools like R or SPSS. Apple
includes, with the purchase of their hardware, creative applications and
now many of them perform cross-platform (e.g., iMovie, GarageBand,
and Pages). These tools let creative and content-focused entrepreneurs (or
their creative teams or marketing staff) to rapidly and easily create con-
tent to tell the stories and promote their products, services, or processes.
Wetware
Following the integrated systems model of technology and entrepreneur-
ship, the human side of these technologies is important to briefly discuss.
While YouTube and other content platforms have a plethora of free tuto-
rials on many common software operations, having in-person, live, or
tailored help can be more effective and engaging as a means of learning a
new skill. As more members with diverse skillsets interact and learn from
one another, they invite innovation and experimentation so long as the
proper relational foundations are set (i.e., trust, security, commitment).
Jones (2007) highlighted a cyclical model of entrepreneurial organizing
to include aspects of administration, rules, and expected competencies
under the technology category. For Jones, technology is in a triumvirate
alongside resources and networks. These three categories interface and
are acted upon by an entrepreneur to create an opportunity or innova-
tion. We content that “technology” has now infiltrated and permeates all
of the categories, thus becoming integrated and seminal as illustrated in
Figure 6.2.
While many traditional entrepreneur environments, start-ups, or firms
get away with a simple object-oriented (aka Industrial Era) understand-
ing of technology, an integrated system model for entrepreneurial com-
munities is important. The vital services, support, and resources they
offer intersect with access to machines, technology, and space(s) to cre-
ate an empowering and facilitating environment and support network
as needed for creating opportunities or innovations. The “technology”
and skill barrier to entry for entrepreneurship is evolving, and while new
services (e.g., eCommerce, online open courseware, and social media)
Avoiding Anomie 211
Figure 6.2 Technology Components
offer greater efficiency, more competition means start-up actors face

steep curves and challenging resource landscapes. Facilitators or scholars
in this area should look to needs inventories and understanding skill,
knowledge, and space design contingencies before jumping to purchasing
hardware, software, and machines.
Technology, indeed, has a lot of considerations in hardware, software,
and wetware. Aside from strategy and philosophy of technological uti-
lization, a number of other issues are important, but not covered here.
Funding is certainly a big concern and investment. Lifecycles of utili-
zation and maintenance for hardware, software, and wetware need to
be considered and likely planned over time for upgrades. And interac-
tive concerns of employee or customer monitoring and feedback systems
including big data, safety and security, and artificial intelligence are all
current topics of interest that could fill volumes (see Chalmers et al.,
2021; Obschonka & Audrestch, 2020).
Incubators, Science Parks, and Maker Spaces
Many view colleges and universities as the incubators and living labo-
ratories of the world (Graham, 2014). However, most regions have spe-
cific facilities available as incubators, science parks, and maker spaces.
Geographic areas with technology firms, research hubs, colleges and
universities, entrepreneurial incubators, national laboratories, and gov-
ernmental laboratories generate regional knowledge production (Owen-
Smith, 2018; Stam & Bosma, 2015). The goal is to create incubators,
science parks, and maker spaces that spawn ideas, businesses, and knowl-
edge as well as the ability to harness and implement ideas for the indi-
vidual, team, institution, and in support of economic development as well
as innovation and job creation (McAdam et al., 2016). Here, we give
basic definitions of incubators, science parks, and maker spaces, however,
a seminal resource that could be helpful is Friel and Vukotich’s (2018)
book The Start-Up Push: A Guide for Developers, Directors, and Resi-
dents: Incubators, Accelerators, and Science Parks.
An incubator is “a controlled environment that fosters the care, growth,
and protection of a new venture at an early stage before it is ready for
traditional means of self-sustaining operation” (Chinsomboon, 2000b,
p. 23). A science park, according to the International Association of Sci-
ence Parks and Areas of Innovation (IASP),
is an organisation managed by specialised professionals, whose main

aim is to increase the wealth of its community by promoting the
culture of innovation and the competitiveness of its associated busi-
nesses and knowledge-based institutions.
To enable these goals to be met, a Science Park stimulates and
manages the flow of knowledge and technology amongst universities,
R&D institutions, companies and markets; it facilitates the creation
and growth of innovation-based companies through incubation and
spin-off processes; and provides other value-added services together
with high quality space and facilities.
(IASP, 2021, para 1)
Maker spaces are shared production facilities and resource-rich envi-

ronments that include a range of basic and advanced offerings such
as personal computers, electronics, 3D printing, 3D modeling, coding,
robotics, laser cutters, and even woodworking, table saws, and welding
equipment (Bergman & McMullen, 2020a, 2020b; makerspaces.com,
2021, para 1). Maker spaces help in “fostering entrepreneurship and are
being utilized as incubators and accelerators for business startups” (mak-
erspaces.com, 2021, para 1). Incubators, science parks, accelerators, and
maker spaces provide important components to connect academic theory
to practice. A wide range of scholars have elaborated on these spaces:
Avoiding Anomie 213
regarding incubators (e.g., Barbero et al., 2014; Boh et al., 2016; Cooper
et al., 2012; Ghosal, 2015; Kolympiris & Klein, 2017; Lundqvist, 2014;
McAdam & McAdam, 2008; McAdam et al., 2016; Mian, 1996; Miller &
Bound, 2011; Mustar & Wright, 2010; O’Kane, 2015; Peters et al., 2004;
Rothaermel & Thursby, 2005), science parks (e.g., Lindelof & Lofsten,
2003; Link & Scott, 2005; Wright et al., 2007; Zou & Zhao, 2014),
or both (e.g., Fernández-Alles et al., 2015; Phan et al., 2005; Salvador,
2011), and maker spaces (e.g., Bergman & McMullen, 2020a, 2020b;
Browder et al., 2019; Ensign & Leupold, 2018; Hatch, 2013; Rieken
et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2016; Wolf-Powers et al., 2017).
According to Kanter (2012, p. 142), “The number of incubators in
North America has grown, going from an estimated 425 in 1991 to about
1,100 in 2006”. Main purposes of incubators include creating synergy
and shared culture, creating efficiencies and multiplier effects through
dividing basic overhead operation costs, and promoting entrepreneur-
ship, which in turn increases survival rates through strategic partners,
knowledge, and accessibility to capital resources (Kanter, 2012). Particu-
larly in higher education, incubators are part of “immersive programs”
in a wider environment as a practicum to enrich classroom coursework,
support showcases and competitions, provide seed money, and sometimes
offer internships (Hayter et al., 2018; Torrance, 2013, p. 4). “Incuba-
tors have a varied history. There is no single origin to their develop-
ment” (Orlando & Rostoker, 2018, p. 1). Some believe Thomas Edison’s
research room in Menlo, Park, New Jersey from 1876 to 1882 is where
it all began (Stross, 2007). Others point to the Batavia Industrial Center
in New York City founded in 1959 (Peters, 2017). McAdam et al. (2016)
noted that the type of college or university—or for that matter type of
community or corporate entity—may influence the abilities and capacity
of an incubator. Since the mid-2000s, there are more than “7,000 incu-
bators and accelerators around the world” (Orlando & Rostoker, 2018,
p. 1). Incubators are one of four types: mentorship, workspace, access to
capital, and community networking. They also may be for-profit (e.g.,
impact investors, business and corporate), nonprofit (foundations or
start-up funding), or hybrid (Orlando & Rostoker, 2018, p. 1). Colleges
and universities, downtown locations, or science parks are common ven-
ues. For-profit incubators were popularized in the mid-1990s until about
2002 with the collapse of the “dot-com” bubble (Orlando & Rostoker,
2018). Orlando and Rostoker (2018) also made several points regarding
incubators:
Non-profit incubators provided similar services and value as for-

profit incubators. However, because they measured success in
terms of social impact and job creation, they had access to philan-
thropic dollars. This alignment around a social return on investment
allowed non-profit incubators to work with a more diverse group of
companies and organizations. This included slow-growth companies,
lifestyle brands, social enterprises, and other nonprofits.
(pp. 11–12)
Trends in incubators include routine support for entrepreneurs at any

stage, setting milestones for momentum, and “the growth of consumer
demand for socially conscious products and companies” (Orlando &
Rostoker, 2018, p. 17) (see also Rice et al., 2014).
Science parks (and technology parks) began in the 1950s (Henriques
et al., 2018). Massey et al. (1992) provided an in-depth review of aims of
science parks and yielded 25 major resources. Purposes and benefits of sci-
ence parks vary based on location, management, and culture. Science parks
offer spaces to encourage academic spin-offs, marketing and promot-
ing launch companies, boosting growth, promoting interaction around
research, creating entrepreneur synergy, linking academia to community
and/or industry, and supporting local and regional economic develop-
ment (Westhead & Batstone, 1999). “There are approximately 400 sci-
ence parks worldwide, 72 in the United States” (Friel & Vukotich, 2018,
p. 71). Science parks may be think tank and research areas to promote
innovation as well as being a “catalyst for regional development by stim-
ulating economic growth” (Henriques et al., 2018, p. 144).
Examples of campus-based incubators, accelerators, and makerspaces
include The Allan P. Kirby Center for Free Enterprise at Wilkes University
in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania; the Missouri State University efactory in
Springfield, Missouri; Skysong at Arizona State University in Scottsdale,
Arizona; North Carolina Entrepreneurship Center in Greensboro; and
Raising Venture Capitalists

Capital Mission Driven or Corporate
Incubator Purpose or Social Entrepreneur
or Goal(s) Revenue
Generation
Studio
R&D Academic
$0 $120,000
$250,000
No equity 7% equity 51%
equity
Investment Parameter and Equity
Figure 6.3 Incubator Industry Diagram

Source: (Adapted from Orlando & Rostoker, 2018, p. 21)
Avoiding Anomie 215
the University of Texas at Arlington. Each example includes a different
set of stakeholders, capacity, and relevance to their host university.
The Allan P. Kirby Center for Free Enterprise

The Allan P. Kirby Center for Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship at
Wilkes University was founded in 1993 and is dedicated to teaching
the principles of free enterprise and entrepreneurship. The Center was
named for Allen Price Kirby, former chairman of the Alleghany Corpora-
tion, which controlled railroads. Kirby’s legacy and multi-million-dollar
fortune was inherited from the more well-known Fred Morgan Kirby—
co-founder of the famous F. W. Woolworth “Woolworths” department
store chains (Bedingfield, 1973). Affiliated with The Jay S. Sidhu School
of Business and Leadership at Wilkes University, the Center provides a
range of services to the University as well as Northeastern Pennsylvania.
The mission of The Kirby Center is:
We hold that economic individualism and independence within a

society that respects and protects the private ownership of property,
and acknowledges as primary to our free enterprise system the belief
that business must be permitted to operate for profit with minimal
government regulation and within a non-confiscatory tax structure
designed to provide incentive for the investment of private capital,
to the end that individual initiative and effort may be encouraged,
promoted, protected, and may receive its just reward, and that the
fallacies of theories and practices, which tend to hamper, discourage,
and throttle individual effort and individual energy, maybe exposed
and avoided.
(Wilkes University, 2018, p. 7)
Programming includes a rich history of activities for undergraduate,

graduate, and continuing education students, including annual Kirby key-
note lectures with renowned speakers, workshops, and seminars—“open
to the public and free of charge” (Wilkes University, 2016, p. 4). Sup-
port for student business owners to stress the real-world application of
classroom material including a network of venture capitalists, volunteer
mentors who are entrepreneurs or business professionals, and education
on patenting (Wilkes University, 2021). Services offered include business
development, marketing development, intellectual property management,
financial services, product/process development, and industry and com-
munity outreach (see Appendix A: The Allan P. Kirby Center for Free
Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Services). “The Center has since cre-
ated a Technology Transfer Office, the Wilkes Enterprise Center (busi-
ness incubator) and an Office of Industry & Community Outreach to
marry the assets of Wilkes University with needs in the area business
community. The Allan P. Kirby Center maintains a close working rela-
tionship with Wilkes University Small Business Development Center
(SBDC), The Family Business Alliance (FBA), and the Institute for Public
Policy & Economic Development” (Wilkes University, 2021, para 9). The
purpose of the Kirby Center is “advocating and nurturing free enterprise
as the foundation of freedom through discovery and motivation of entre-
preneurial spirit and capacity” (Wilkes University, 2021, para 1). The
Kirby Center staff and volunteers encourage and enable entrepreneurship
and entrepreneuring for students, faculty, staff, and community members
through:
• Planning, launching, and operating a business

• Understanding the nature of free enterprise, value creation, and
entrepreneurship through curricular and experience-based activities
• Developing, implementing, and supporting programs that will
enhance the entrepreneurial climate of Wilkes University and North-
eastern Pennsylvania—specifically including efforts in the redevelop-
ment of downtown Wilkes-Barre
• Fostering dialogue on the imperative of pursuing the constitutional
goals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through the free
enterprise system and entrepreneurship
Students from Wilkes University are employed by the Center as “Scholars”

and are high-caliber individuals who can aid the staff in preparing consult-
ing research or business planning. For businesses, the Center has a fee-for-
service membership model. The Center also hosts a network of mentors
who work with students across the University interested in entrepreneur-
ship or those preparing and launching new ventures (Wilkes University,
2016, 2017). Mentors are vetted and paired with the students by the staff.
Missouri State University efactory

The efactory opened in March 2013 “to serve entrepreneurs and busi-
ness owners throughout southwest Missouri” (efactory, 2021a, para 1).
Industrial warehouse space was retrofitted with corporate-sponsored
classrooms and meeting spaces, community spaces, incubator space, co-
working space, start-up rentable space, and private offices in downtown
Springfield, Missouri. Missouri State University has an entrepreneurship
major and program, but the downtown space is available community-
wide (Missouri State University, 2021). Currently, 35 companies are
utilizing the space—in addition to ad hoc nascent entrepreneurs and stu-
dents or individuals with day passes (efactory, 2021c). The efactory offers
business support, mentoring, business consulting, training and workforce
development, project assistance, and innovation assistance to corpora-
tions (efactory, 2021b).
Avoiding Anomie 217
Skysong at Arizona State University (ASU)
Skysong is The ASU Scottsdale Innovation Center, which was brainstormed
and built from 2005 to 2008, with its first facilities opening then (Skysong,
2021b). Skysong is a hub attracting “cutting-edge and innovative compa-
nies” to the Sun Valley as a home for innovation in one of six buildings on
42-acres of mixed-use development with 1.2-million-square-feet of space,
but to also employ local workers as well as provide leased apartments
(Skysong, 2021a). Skysong is a collaboration with a public university and
private sector partners among ASU University Realty, the City of Scotts-
dale, Plaza Companies, and Holualoa Companies (Skysong, 2021c).
The North Carolina Entrepreneurship Center

The North Carolina Entrepreneurship Center (NCEC) in Greensboro,
North Carolina, provides students, faculty, staff, and community mem-
bers with a variety of resources and meeting spaces to aid in launch-
ing, growing, and managing entrepreneurial businesses. Their framework
includes goals to:
• Inspire—We inspire people to think innovatively and help instill

confidence within to take ACTION and pursue their entrepreneurial
dreams.
• Educate—We develop initiatives for entrepreneurs to learn outside
the classroom, working on and off campus to develop unique and
impactful experiences.
• Connect—We serve as the bridge between students, faculty, and staff
on campus and the startup community in the Triad.
• Create—We help people blaze new paths to follow their passions,
either by creating their own companies or social ventures or helping
existing companies grow.
(UNCG, 2021, para 3)
Offerings by the NCEC include:
• Fine-tune your idea to a feasible, actionable concept.

• Connect you with local meetups, organizations, events and other
resources.
• Introduce you to local entrepreneurs and community leaders.
• Provide feedback on your business plan.
• Expose you to technology, tools, books and other information to
improve your business or idea.
• Advise on next steps for your business.
• Connect you with campus resources including intern programs, fea-
sibility plan courses, etc.
• Brainstorm marketing strategies, markets to enter, efficiency improve-
ments and more.
(UNCG, 2021, para 6)
Center for Entrepreneurship and Economic Innovation at

University of Texas at Arlington (UTA)
The University of Texas at Arlington (UTA) is “the largest university
in North Texas and second largest in The University of Texas System”
(UTA, 2021a, para 1).
The Center for Entrepreneurship and Economic Innovation fosters

a vibrant and supportive atmosphere for our students, scholars and
researchers as they drive to innovate, commercialize new technolo-
gies, and pioneer new companies that will impact our North Texas
communities and the global economy for decades into the future.
(UTA, 2021b, para 1)
The Center provides various spaces across the campus for meetings,
maker spaces, innovation, and creativity. Resources are available for stu-
dents, faculty, local and regional citizens, and industry. The Center also
provides a range of networking, mentoring, research, training, and busi-
ness assistance including commercialization pathways.
Co-Working and Living-Learning Communities

Spaces and programs—often supported by local industry and corporate
America—for students to gather outside the classroom for internships,
externships, on-the-job-training, or in the community for nascent entre-
preneurs, startups, or job-to-work programs are able to be leveraged
for entrepreneurship. Bouncken and Reuschl (2018) prepared a litera-
ture review with a half-dozen prior articles providing definitions of co-
working spaces (cf. Bilandzic & Foth, 2013; Capdevila, 2013; Gandini,
2015; Garrett et al., 2014; Moriset, 2013; Spinuzzi, 2012). The shar-
ing economy has birthed this new model of workspaces with sharing,
socialization, knowledge, and stimulation for teamwork, project devel-
opment, and entrepreneurship (Bouncken & Reuschl, 2018). Basically,
these shared workplaces help to create synergy, share expenses, and pro-
vide for tacit knowledge sharing. Bilandzic and Foth (2013) classified
users of co-working areas a utilizers (desiring technological infrastruc-
ture), learners (desiring sharing and acquiring knowledge, often with
peers), and socializers (for synergy and acknowledgment affirmations).
Co-working spaces “facilitate student [and community member] access
to learning and networking opportunities with local entrepreneurs and
innovators” (Case et al., 2013, p. 22). Higher education and community
Avoiding Anomie 219
spaces include education and training centers, accelerators, and co-
working spaces that help
These spaces also host a variety of student entrepreneur clubs that

serve as a premier resource for aspiring student entrepreneurs and
foster a community of like-minded peers. These clubs are geared
toward building financial literacy and leadership skills, as well as
encouraging students to pursue commercialization opportunities for
innovative ideas and technologies.
(Case et al., 2013, p. 22)
Co-working spaces may or may not include usage fees, cost-sharing rents
and overhead expenses, or low-cost leasable space (Friel & Vukotich, 2018).
Assenza (2015) proposed important considerations are the physical organi-
zation of co-working spaces, community rooms or amenities for gathering
for social spaces, and private areas for individual productivity workspaces.
Hayter (2015) discussed high-impact practices for student entrepre-
neurship. Living-learning communities “are a unique trend in motivating
student involvement outside the classroom setting” (Case et al., 2013,
p. 22). Residence hall environments focused on entrepreneur develop-
ment include meeting spaces, high-speed internet, printers, modern fur-
nishings, community spaces, and other amenities. Two examples include
The Entrepreneurship Residential Learning Community (ERLC) at
Hiram College and Purdue University’s Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Learning Community (ELC).
The Entrepreneurship Residential Learning Community

(ERLC) at Hiram College
Hiram College provides The Entrepreneurship Residential Learning
Community (ERLC) housed in The Burden D. Morgan Entrepreneurship
Center in East Hall along with “classrooms, offices, and an incubator”
(Morgan Foundation, 2021b, para 16). The ERLC is “part of a new resi-
dential learning community established for entrepreneurship students”
(Morgan Foundation, 2021b, para 12). “Students are provided with a
supportive environment that encourages creativity and innovation in the
pursuit of entrepreneurial interests” (Hiram College, 2021, para 2). Open
to students at the sophomore level and above, a student must declare an
entrepreneurship minor and have demonstrated interest in entrepreneur-
ship by having participated in either ideablitz!™ or ideabuild!™ Students
participate in networking and programming opportunities such as:
• Live with other students interested in entrepreneurship

• Assist in creating and promoting Integrated Entrepreneurship pro-
grams and events
• Meet and interact with visiting entrepreneurs
• Develop teamwork, collaboration, leadership and communication skills
(Hiram College, 2021, para 3)
The ERLC is managed by an advanced student (e.g., residence life area

coordinator or graduate assistant) and is coordinated through the Center
for Integrated Entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurship minor in The
Scarborough School of Business & Communication.
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Learning Community

(ELC) at Purdue University
While students are pursuing a wide variety of majors, they have a common
interest in learning about entrepreneurship and gaining valuable, transfer-
able skills. Students focus on a range of topics in a multi-disciplinary envi-
ronment such as learning how to put creativity to work, analyzing markets,
teambuilding, and developing new products, services, and technologies that
can make a difference in society. These skills contribute to future working
for a company or creating, launching, and growing a new business enter-
prise. Harrison Hall houses the programming; students participate in ENTR
20000, Introduction to Entrepreneurship and Innovation, during fall semes-
ters. Purdue offers a Certificate in Entrepreneurship. Students also attend
a variety of workshops and networking events (Purdue University, 2021).
Corporate Support of Entrepreneurs and University-Industry

Programming
There are positive university-industry arrangements in support of entre-
preneurs (Perkmann, 2015; Clevenger et al., 2021). “Large corporations
are helping to alleviate the challenges startups face by offering entre-
preneurs the resources and training necessary to set them up for suc-
cess” (Smith, 2017, p. 27). A range of programs are targeted at various
geographies. While much effort has focused on small and medium enter-
prises (SMEs), there is an increase on microenterprises, which is defined
as having four or fewer employees (Hustedde, 2007). Diversity contin-
ues to be a key emphasis. Mentoring, marketing, technology, network-
ing, and funding are key offerings. Examples discussed include Amazon,
GoDaddy, Clemson University’s BMW partnership, the University of
Delaware’s Office of Economic Innovation & Partnerships (OEIP), and
the University of Minnesota’s partnership IPrime.
Amazon
Amazon has made $150 million, 4-year commitment to provide financial
assistance and grants for Black business owners, particularly for online
Avoiding Anomie 221
presence and marketing (Milanesi, 2021). “Amazon has formed strategic
partnerships with the Minority Business Development Agency and the U.S.
Black Chambers Inc” who stand ready to aid in “mentorship, business
development, training, and educational resources” (Milanesi, 2021, p. 3).
GoDaddy
GoDaddy is committed to helping entrepreneurs and small businesses
“through mentoring, supporting underserved communities, and promoting
entrepreneurship and innovation” (Smith, 2017, p. 27). Innovation Station
provides free articles and videos (Innovation Station, 2021) guiding entre-
preneurs “over common hurdles and through the first steps to starting a
business” (Smith, 2017, p. 27). Empower by GoDaddy in partnership with
AEO “equips microbusiness owners with training, mentorship, support, and
products to establish and amplify their digital presence in the marketplace”
(ImpactAEO, 2021, para 1). Curriculum assistants provide content relating
to branding, marketing, website design and support, and ecommerce.
Clemson University’s International Center for Automotive

Research (CU-ICAR)
BMW partnered with Clemson University with a $10 million investment
in 2002 to jump-start a $1.5 billion automotive research and educational
center (Browning, 2006). The partnership has yielded hundreds of gradu-
ates who became engineers or project managers for BMW (Alongi, 2015;
Browning, 2006). Corporate representatives worked with faculty to help
design curriculum to match real-world practice. For example, Browning
(2006) summarized:
BMW’s $10 million gift endowed two professorships at the gradu-

ate school, the Carroll A. Campbell Jr. Graduate Engineering Center,
named after the former South Carolina governor who lured the car-
maker to the state in 1992. The state matched the pledge, and kicked
in an additional $25 million to build the school. Next to the school
is the BMW Information Technology Research Center, built for the
sole use of BMW with $15 million in state funds last year as part of
an incentive package related to BMW’s $400 million expansion of its
nearby plant. That plant now makes one in six BMW’s. The gleaming,
high-tech research center, completed last summer according to BMW’s
design, will use Clemson graduate students to work on BMW’s custom-
ordered, proprietary projects in museumlike, airy bays.
(paras 28–29)
While the program has been controversial, it has provided quality edu-
cation for students and resources for the University and community.
Some of the graduates end up working at BMW, but others have gone to
work for other organizations throughout the automobile value chain or
become entrepreneurs (Clay, 2015).
Clemson is also home to The Arthur M. Spiro Institute for Entrepre-
neurial Leadership, founded in 1999, that is an interdisciplinary entre-
preneur program (Clay, 2015). “The College of Engineering was selected
as one of 25 schools to participate in a two-year Pathways to Innovation
program run through Stanford University,” which increased attention
and involvement by hundreds of students and launched nearly 40 busi-
nesses statewide (Clay, 2015).
University of Delaware’s Office of Economic Innovation &

Partnership (OEIP)
The OEIP in Newark, Delaware, aims to “achieve new levels of economic
development by bringing together the collective and integrated talents of
University of Delaware and the state’s business, academic, and entrepre-
neurial communities” (University of Delaware, 2021b, para 2).
OEIP provides a range of resources for start-ups, technology transfer,
and business development. “Special Programs” include Spin In® to pro-
vide “experiential education” and “to stimulate innovation and entrepre-
neurship within the undergraduate student communities,” SBIResource™
“to assist Delaware small businesses apply to agency solicitations and
receive awards,” Digital Compass as “a strategic advising program that
brings together promising small business and web/IT vendors to develop
high impact pilot programs using digital tools and analytics,” and with
DatAssured™ “to help the small business community integrate cyberse-
curity” (University of Delaware, 2021a, paras 2–6).
University of Minnesota’s Industrial Partnership for Research in

Interfacial and Materials Engineering (IPRIME)
IPRIME “is a university/industry partnership that includes a consortium
of companies supporting fundamental, collaborative research on materi-
als with University members” (IPRIME, 2021b, para 2). The Partner-
ship has an eclectic history with milestone in various years and multiple
partners (IPRIME, 2021a). The partnership involves 47 faculty and their
graduate students, hailing from 9 academic departments, and conducting
research in 7 program areas (IPRIME, 2021c). The goal is for faculty and
students to complete research together with potential for assisting real-
world companies and creating a range of ideas and products. The process
is just as important and provides positive business conditions, supportive
policies, materials, laboratories, mentoring, and experiential, hands-on
opportunities to aid in preparing future scientists, engineers, and entre-
preneurs (IPRIME, 2021c).
Avoiding Anomie 223
Community Development Groups: Workshops and the
“Meet-Up” Culture
Ruef (2010) introduced entrepreneurial social groups in The Entrepre-
neurial Group: Social Identities, Relations, and Collective Action, which
explores identity of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial social groups—
comprised of only entrepreneurs—are a special community development
alliance of those sharing similar entrepreneurial self-identities with cogent
shared group norms, values, and drive toward goals (Haslam et al., 2000,
2003, 2005; Newell, 2017). Sarkar et al. (2019) indicate these “orga-
nized peer networks” provide “efficacy of mutual aid groups for entre-
preneurial support” (p. 275). Newell (2017) discussed the pros and cons
of engaging in these groups and balancing individual identity yet impor-
tant human needs for work-life balance and intense demands of entrepre-
neuring. The case study on a faith-oriented mentoring group in Abilene,
Texas, in Chapter 12 is one example. Groups of entrepreneurs, regardless
of stage, meet to encourage one another, brainstorm, provide moral sup-
port, and share resource knowledge. Newell (2017) said, “entrepreneurs
can also receive advice for mastering entrepreneurial tasks from other
entrepreneurs; who are, theoretically, the only other people who face the
same entrepreneurial challenges within the community” (p. 270). Entre-
preneurs may provide moral, emotional, and technical support to oth-
ers (e.g., Cosley et al., 2010) or may receive such encouragement from
other entrepreneurs (Cohen & McKay, 1984; Haslam et al., 2005). Like
education and training, intel or technical knowledge from others can
increase the likelihood of productivity, success, and satisfaction (Col-
linson & Gregson, 2003). Vaillant and Lafuente (2007) evidenced that
“entrepreneurial role models also have a significant positive effect on
entrepreneurial activity” (p. 329). On the flip side, Landier (2005) found
that the social fear of entrepreneurial failure does not have a significant
influence upon entrepreneurial activity. Depending upon culture—failure
can be viewed as “lessons learned” and where to head next in the process
as discussed in Chapter 5’s section on Learning from Failure.
Community and Charitable Foundations

Hoover (2021) said, “Philanthropy and entrepreneurship are inextrica-
bly linked. We know that entrepreneurship breeds philanthropy, but the
reverse is also true—philanthropy in turn can breed entrepreneurship”
(p. 151). Philanthropy, or the Greek word philanthropia, means love
of humankind (Walton & Gasman, 2008). Resources from individuals
or organizations—such as corporations or foundations—are given to
enhance the well-being of humanity (Ciconte & Jacob, 2009; Levy &
Cherry, 1996). Investment is often done with no expectations of tangible
returns, thus altruistic (Galaskiewicz, 1989; Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007;
Walton & Gasman, 2008). The genesis of philanthropy is owed to the
great entrepreneur industrialists at the turn of the 20th century—such as
Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford and Edsel Ford, J. P.
Morgan, George Pullman, and Cornelius Vanderbilt (Chernow, 1998;
Cohen, 2010; Curti & Nash, 1965; DeMillo, 2011; Elliott, 2006; Jacoby,
1973) with philanthropic emphases aimed at economics (e.g., entrepre-
neuring), religion, higher education, medicine, and the arts—areas relat-
ing to social, economic, and moral conditions of society. While individuals
are philanthropic, nonprofit organizations called foundations are created
for specific goals and purposes. There are four types of foundations: com-
munity, operating, grant-making, and corporate. Foundations may oper-
ate locally, in a geographic territory, statewide, or nationally.
“A growing trend in entrepreneur ecosystem development has been
quietly emerging over the last few years” (Macan, 2021, para 1). Foun-
dations have been engaged in local and regional development, including
business and entrepreneurship. Foundations interact and often leverage
networks of funding from governments, businesses and corporations,
individuals, and other foundations within content-focus areas to create
a larger impact (Hoover, 2021). “There are a handful of larger . . . well-
known” foundations, but also “many small and local foundation” with
opportunities available (Macan, 2021, para 3). Appendix B. U.S. Founda-
tions Funding Entrepreneurship Programs provides a listing of 100 such
foundations (Pringle & Török, 2015). Foundations invest in entrepre-
neurship because of four main reasons:
• To strengthen and sustain the local philanthropic sector,

• To promote job creation and economic growth,
• To empower underserved communities, and
• To enrich quality of life and prevent brain drain.
(Pringle & Török, 2015, p. 3)
Foundations range from open discussions to online applications to “invi-

tation only.” It’s important to read the guidelines, meet deadlines, and
follow directions. [Note that additional foundation resources can be
explored on such third-party organization websites such as Candid (for-
merly The Foundation Center), Charity Navigator, and GuideStar® by
Candid.] Two examples of foundations discussed here include The Ewing
Marion Kauffman Foundation and The Burton D. Morgan Foundation.
The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

Founded in 1966 by Ewing Marion Kauffman, founder of Marion Labo-
ratories, Inc., The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation not only pro-
motes education and civic engagement in Kansas City but also provides
resources nationally to boost entrepreneurship (Kauffman Foundation,
Avoiding Anomie 225
2021a). Entrepreneurship focus areas for The Kauffman Foundation
include communities, new entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneur support
organizations, policy, and research (Kauffman Foundation, 2021b). The
Kauffman Foundation has more than $2.5 billion in assets, thus “is one
of the largest private foundations in the United States” (Kauffman Foun-
dation, 2021c, para 1).
The Burton D. Morgan Foundation

Founded in 1967 by Burton Davis Morgan, “an entrepreneur and inven-
tor . . . who started or supported the launch of dozens of businesses
that produced adhesives, pressure-adhesive papers, oxygen-permeable
cellophane, and other materials used widely in consumer products”
(Litt, 2017, para 1). The Burton D. Morgan Foundation “champions the
entrepreneurial spirit, contributes to a robust entrepreneurial ecosystem,
and serves as a leader in the field of entrepreneurship education” for
K-12, higher education, and adults (Morgan Foundation, 2021a, para
1). Entrepreneurship focus areas for The Kauffman Foundation include
communities, new entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneur support organi-
zations, policy, and research (Kauffman Foundation, 2021b). The Kauff-
man Foundation has more than $2.5 billion in assets, thus “is one of
the largest private foundations in the United States” (Kauffman Founda-
tion, 2021c, para 1). The Foundation is particularly keen on supporting
collegiate entrepreneurship (Morgan Foundation, 2021c). Promoting no
best formula for success, key program ideas include institutional culture,
strong senior leadership, interdisciplinary approach, an entrepreneurial
mindset, diversity, mentorship and coaching, collaborations, evaluation,
response to changing needs, and sharing best practices (Morgan Founda-
tion, 2021c).
Localized Leadership Development Programs

Two different arenas of leadership are considered here. The first are local
community leaders who emphasize entrepreneurial community develop-
ment and entrepreneurship (Kirk & Shutte, 2004). The second are entre-
preneurs themselves. Both are vital to entrepreneurial community and
entrepreneurial ecosystem development. Harper-Anderson’s (2018) study
of three U.S. regions indicated that “unique leadership models” shape
“each ecosystem’s culture and institutional norms” (p. 119). “Probably
the most important asset in a community is the available time of its lead-
ership” (Loveridge, 2007, p. 256). To begin, Gandz (2005), promotes that
leaders, in general, need to have five considerations:
1. Understand and interpret the environment being operated in;

2. Develop winning strategies;
3. Execute them brilliantly;
4. Measure the impact of strategies systematically, adjusting strategies
as indicated, and develop organizational, departmental, team, and
personal capabilities; and
5. Build organizational capacities.
(pp. 1–6)
Clevenger and Miao (2017) promote that “dimensions of leadership

include persuasion, infuence, goals, followers, structure, and power rela-
tionships” (p. 126). (cf. Antonakis & Autio, 2007; Burns, 1978; Cogliser &
Brigham, 2004; Fernald et al., 2005.) Hustedde (2007) provides seven
key concerns for leaders in building a culture of entrepreneurial commu-
nities; while discussed for rural beneft, we fnd the ideas more universal:
1. Create opportunities to learn, question, and think differently about

entrepreneurship
2. Welcome fresh voices and embrace diversity
3. Mobilize resources for entrepreneurs
4. Cultivate networks for entrepreneurs
5. Focus on assets instead of deficits
6. Build a shared vision about entrepreneurship
7. Foster entrepreneurial leaders and advocates
(pp. 44–45)
For entrepreneuring, both authentic leadership and transformational

leadership are important (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Avolio & Gardner, 2005;
Clevenger & Miao, 2017; George, 2004). Authentic leadership is being
oneself with an awareness of self-understanding, having a moral compass
and creating a personal and organizational value, providing open commu-
nication and organizational processes, and having an orientation toward
relationship building (Kernis & Goldman, 2006; McCarthy et al., 2010).
Gardner et al. (2011) provide a deeper literature review on authentic lead-
ership. Transformational leadership combines having rising performance
expectations of followers (Bass, 1995) along with aiding followers to lever-
age their personal values and concepts through maintaining needs while
achieving aspirations (Jung, 2001). Transformational leadership has “sig-
nifcant positive infuence on organizational innovation” (Gumusluoğlu &
Ilsev, 2009, p. 273). “Transformational leadership is the process of trans-
forming virtually everything of an organization including behaviour, cul-
tures, employees, and other involved parties” (Bose & Haque, 2011, p. 2).
Leadership development takes time and experience. Clevenger and Miao
(2017) discuss the four “I”s of transformational leadership as idealized
infuence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individu-
alized consideration. These components combined help to push individ-
uals and teams to goal-attainment and self-refected satisfaction.
Avoiding Anomie 227
Leadership Lackawanna
Leadership Lackawanna (LL) was founded in 1982 by private and public
sector officials (Leadership Lackawanna, 2021). This nonprofit organi-
zation is dedicated to community leadership and professional develop-
ment offering five programs: Tomorrow’s Leaders Today, Leadership U,
Core, Executive, and Welcome Scranton! Programs aim to “enhance the
skills, connections and knowledge of emerging and established leaders,
enabling them to better serve in our communities, workplaces and orga-
nizations” (Leadership Lackawanna, 2021, para 1). Values of the organi-
zation include:
• Leadership. We believe that the potential for leadership resides within

everyone and that it can grow if continuously nurtured.
• Community. We build strong communities by developing and con-
necting leaders committed to the common good.
• Diversity and Inclusion. We respect, appreciate and engage the unique
perspectives and contributions of all members of our community.
• Personal and Professional Growth. We are committed to helping par-
ticipants, alumni, volunteers and staff discover and develop their full
potential.
• Empowerment. We inspire leaders to develop other leaders.
(Leadership Lackawanna, 2021, para 2)
Leadership Lackawanna undergirds the growth and success of the area by

inspiring individuals to take responsibility and ownership for the future
of the area.
Leadership Wilkes-Barre
Leadership Northeast, formerly Leadership Wilkes-Barre, is a small,
independent nonprofit organization that offers annual training programs
to develop leaders who in turn serve in the NEPA region. Programming
includes a wide range of audiences including:
• LWB Core Program

• Impact: Leadership in Education
• Junior Leadership Wilkes-Barre
• Intercollegiate Leadership Wilkes-Barre
• Executive Leadership Wilkes-Barre
• Professional Development
Leadership Wilkes-Barre has a wide range of community partners and

network speakers. The organization promotes servant leadership with the
importance of skills development including motivation, trust, learning
through play, empowering others, accountability, and giving back to
communities through volunteerism.
Summary
When entrepreneur set out to act on their opportunity, they rarely come
empty-handed. At a minimum, entrepreneurs have a passion and begin
from a place of some kind of knowledge with a particular interest, skill,
idea, or technology. Taking their opportunities to an execution level or
to a next level may require additional resources. The resources often
come from support organizations within a locality, region, or state,
and come from peers, nonprofits, competitors, industries, or govern-
mental actors. Resources might be of skillsets or business acumen or
technological in nature. “Unless entrepreneurs are well equipped with
technical and business skills, they may not be able to overcome vari-
ous problems they encounter at different stages of their business devel-
opment” (Gnyawali & Fogel, 1994, p. 50). Thus, the importance for
building capacity and a supportive entrepreneurial community. Anomie
seems rampant in higher education, communities, and also in various
localities.
This chapter did not address finances, which could fill volumes. Many
towns, cities, counties, regions, and states provide angel networks, ven-
ture capital groups, and access to banking or other funding sources. A
good starting point of understanding these topics is provided by Mark-
ley (2007) in Building Communities through Entrepreneurship Develop-
ment: Financing Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurial Support.
“Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem [or entrepreneurial commu-
nity] is a long term, complex process involving various actors to different
extents over time. Successful environments are difficult to replicate as the
conditions of each local context differ” (Schaeffer & Matt, 2016, p. 726).
Torrance (2013) eloquently said: “no single approach works everywhere”
(p. 4). One consultant noted, some “things that work . . . don’t translate
to another, not because they’re bad, but because they don’t fit the envi-
ronment. Whatever works, works. There’s no norm” (Torrance, 2013,
p. 4). While the concepts of entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneur-
ial communities continue to be in popular academic conversations, Hay-
ter et al. (2018) note these perspectives have “not been fully leveraged to
influence policy decisions” (p. 1039). Policy is a topic in Chapter 7.
References
Ács, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B., & O’Connor, A. (2017). The lineages of
entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10.
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept.
The Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.
Avoiding Anomie 229
Alongi, P. (2015). BMW-Clemson University collaboration continues to flourish,
Clements says. The Newsstand. www.kissafe.com/newsstand/bmw-clemson-
university-collaboration-continues-to-flourish-clements-says/
Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L. W. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based
theory. Journal of Management, 27, 755–775.
AmericanAssociation of University Professors (AAUP).(2014).AAUP recommended
principles & practices to guide academy-industry relationships.https://www.aaup.
org/report/recommended-principles-guide-academy-industry-relationships
Antonakis, J., & Autio, E. (2007). Entrepreneurship and leadership. In J. R. Baum,
M. Frese, & R. Baron (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 189–
208). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Assenza, P. (2015). If you build it will they come? The influence of spatial config-
uration on social and cognitive functioning and knowledge spillover in entre-
preneurial co-working and hacker spaces. Journal of Management Policy and
Practice, 16(3), 35–48.
Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for
the entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 313–321.
Audretsch, D. B., & Link, A. N. (Eds.). (2017). Universities and the entrepreneur-
ial ecosystem. Edward Elgar.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma and
beyond. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Scriesheim (Eds.),
Emergent leadership vistas (pp. 29–50). Lexington.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to
the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338.
Barbero, J. L., Casillas, J. C., Wright, M., & Ramos Garcia, A. (2014). Do dif-
ferent types of incubators produce different types of innovations? Journal of
Technology Transfer, 39, 151–168.
Bass, B. M. (1995). Transformational leadership. Journal of Management Inquiry,
4(3), 293–298.
Bedingfield, R. E. (1973, May 3). Allan Kirby, head of Alleghany, dies. The New
York Times. www.nytimes.com/1973/05/03/archives/allan-kirby-head-of-alleghany-
dies-five-years-of-battles.html
Benington, J. (2005, June). Innovation and improvement through governance and
public services. Paper for the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accoun-
tancy (CIPFA) Annual Conference.
Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. W. (2010). Who matters to universities? A stake-
holder perspective on humanities, arts, and social sciences valorisation. Higher
Education, 59, 567–588.
Benson, L., Harkavy, I., & Hartley, M. (2005). Integrating a commitment to the
public good into the institutional fabric. In A. J. Kezar, T. C. Chambers, & J. C.
Burkhardt (Eds.), Higher education for the public good: Emerging voices from
a national movement (pp. 185–216). Jossey-Bass.
Bergman, Jr., B. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2020a). Arrested development: Organiza-
tional and entrepreneurial sensemaking in a maker space. Academy of Man-
agement Annual Conference Proceedings, 2020(1), 1238–1243. https://doi.
org/10.5465/AMBPP.2020.214
Bergman, Jr., B. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2020b). Entrepreneurs in the making: Six
decisions to foster entrepreneurship through maker spaces. Science Digest, 63,
811–824.
Bilandzic, M., & Foth, M. (2013). Libraries as coworking spaces: Understanding
user motivations and perceived barriers to social learning. Library Hi Tech, 31,
254–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378831311329040
Boeckmann, C. (2020, July 17). Cooperative extension services: Find your state’s
cooperative extension service! The Old Farmer’s Almanac. www.almanac.com/
cooperative-extension-services
Boh, W. F., DeHaan, U., & Strom, R. (2016). University technology transfer
through entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. Journal of Tech-
nology Transfer, 41, 661–669.
Bose, T. K., & Haque, M. E. (2011). Transformational leadership: Concepts,
applications, criticisms, and evaluations. White Paper. www.researchgate.
net/profile/Tarun-Bose/publication/344320611_Transformational_
Leadership_Concepts_Applications_Criticisms_and_Evaluations/
links/60992efb458515d3150de50f/Transformational-Leadership-Concepts-
Applications-Criticisms-and-Evaluations.pdf
Bouncken, R. B., & Reuschl, A. J. (2018). Co-working spaces: How a phenom-
enon of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for
entrepreneurship. Review of Managerial Science, 12(1), 317–334.
Browder, R. E., Aldrich, H. E., & Bradley, S. W. (2019). The emergence of the
maker movement: Implications for entrepreneurship research. Journal of Busi-
ness Venturing, 34(3), 459–476.
ics, 49, 11–30.
Browning, L. (2006, August 29). BMW’s custom-made University. The New York
Times, C1.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big leviathan: How actors macro-
structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In K. Knorr Cetina &
A. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an
integration of micro- and macro-sociologies. Routledge.
Campbell, T. I. D., & Slaughter, S. (1999). Faculty and administrators’ attitudes
toward potential conflicts of interest, commitment, and equity in university-
industry relationships. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(3), 309–352.
Capdevila, I. (2013). Knowledge dynamics in localized communities: Cowork-
ing spaces as microclusters. Paris School of Business. https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.2424121
Carnevale, A. P., & Rose, S. J. (2012). The convergence of postsecondary educa-
tion and the labor market. In J. E. Lane & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), Universities
and colleges as economic drivers: Measuring higher education’s role in eco-
nomic development (pp. 163–190). SUNY Press.
Carroll,A. B., Brown, J., & Buchholtz,A. K. (2017). Business & society: Ethics, sus-
tainability, and stakeholder management (10th ed.). Thomson South-Western.
Case, S., Coleman, M. S., & Deshpande, G. (2013). The innovative and entrepre-
neurial university: Higher education, innovation, & entrepreneurship in focus.
Office of Innovation & Entrepreneurship. U.S. Department of Commerce.
www.eda.gov/pdf/the_innovative_and_entrepreneurial_university_report.pdf
Chalmers, D., MacKenzie, N. G., & Carter, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence
and entrepreneurship: Implications for venture creation in the fourth
Avoiding Anomie 231
industrial revolution. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(21). https://
doi.org/10.1177/1042258720934581
Chernow, R. (1998). Titan: The life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. Random House.
Chinsomboon, O. M. (2000a). Incubators in the new economy. MIT. https://
dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/9258
Chinsomboon, O. M. (2000b). Incubators in the new economy. (Unpublished
master’s thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://dspace.mit.edu/
bitstream/handle/1721.1/9258/45577317-MIT.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
Ciconte, B. L., & Jacob, J. G. (2009). Fundraising basics: A complete guide (3rd
ed.). Jones and Bartlett.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational path-
ways of transformation. Pergamon.
Clark, B. R. (2004a). Delineating the character of the entrepreneurial university.
Higher Education Policy, 17, 355–370.
Clark, B. R. (2004b). Sustaining change in universities: Continuities in case stud-
ies and concepts. McGraw-Hill.
Clay, N. (2015, February 8). University paves new path for entrepreneurs.
USA Today. www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/02/08/clemson-
student-entrepreneurs/23066169/
Clevenger, M. R. (2014). An organizational analysis of the inter-organizational
relationships between a public American higher education university and six
United States corporate supporters: An instrumental, ethnographic case study
using Cone’s corporate citizenship spectrum. (ProQuest published doctoral dis-
sertation). University of Missouri-Columbia. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/
xmlui/handle/10355/45866
Clevenger, M. R. (2019). Corporate citizenship and higher education: Behavior,
engagement, and ethics. Palgrave.
Clevenger, M. R., MacGregor, C. J., & Sturm, P. (2021). Partnership motives and
ethics in corporate investment in higher education. Advances in Higher Educa-
tion and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series. IGI Global.
Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2004). The intersection of leadership and
entrepreneurship: Mutual lessons to be learned. The Leadership Quarterly, 15,
771–799.
Cohen, A. M. (2010). The shaping of American higher education: Emergency and
growth of the contemporary system (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, S., & McKay, G. (1984). Social support, stress and the buffering
hypothesis: A theoretical analysis. In A. Baum, S. E. Taylor, & J. E. Singer
(Eds.), Handbook of psychology and health (pp. 253–267). Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
Colebrook, C. (2021). Understanding Deleuze (cultural studies). Routledge.
Collins, R. (2019). The credential society: An historical sociology of education
and stratification. Columbia University Press.
Collinson, S., & Gregson, G. (2003). Knowledge networks for new technology-
based firms: An international comparison of local entrepreneurship promotion.
R&D Management, 33(2), 189–208.
Conceição, P., & Heitor, M. V. (2002). University-based entrepreneurship and
economic development: A learning-center model. International Journal of
Technology Policy and Management, 2(3), 220–239.
Cooper, C. E., Hamel, S. A., & Connaughton, S. L. (2012). Motivations and
obstacles to networking in a university business incubator. Journal of Technol-
ogy Transfer, 37, 433–453.
Cosley, B. J., McCoy, S. K., Saslow, L. R., & Epel, E. S. (2010). Is compassion for
others stress buffering? Consequences of compassion and social support for
physiological reactivity to stress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
46(5), 816–823.
Cunningham, J. A., & Menter, M. (2020). Guest editorial. Journal of Manage-
ment Development, 39(5), 581–598.
Cunningham, J. A., & Menter, M. (2021). Transformative change in higher edu-
cation: Entrepreneurial universities and high technology entrepreneurship.
Industry and Innovation, 28(3), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716
.2020.1763263
Curti, M., & Nash, R. (1965). Philanthropy in the shaping of American higher
education. Quinn & Boden Company.
D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry?
The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technol-
ogy Transfer, 36, 316–339.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizo-
phrenia. University of Minnesota Press.
DeMillo, R. A. (2011). Abelard to Apple: The fate of American colleges and uni-
versities. MIT.
Dickson, P. H., Solomon, G. T., & Weaver, K. M. (2008). Entrepreneurial selection
and success: Does education matter? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 15(2), 239–258.
Drucker, P. F. (1946). Concept of the corporation. The John Day Co.
efactory. (2021a). About us. efactory. Missouri State University. https://efactory.
missouristate.edu/about/
efactory. (2021b). Business support. efactory. Missouri State University. https://
efactory.missouristate.edu/business-support/
efactory. (2021c). Our companies. efactory. Missouri State University. https://
efactory.missouristate.edu/our-companies/
Elliott, D. (2006). The kindness of strangers: Philanthropy and higher education.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Ensign, P. C., & Leupold, P. (2018).Grassroots opportunities for innovation, technol-
ogy, and entrepreneurship: Makerspaces in non-urban communities. Proceedings
of the 2018 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering
and Technology, PICMET. https://doi.org/10.23919/PICMET.2018.8481850
Erdogan, B., Kant, R., Miller, A., & Sprague, K. (2016). Grow fast or die
slow: Why unicorns are staying private. www.mckinsey.com/industries/tech/
our-insights/grow-fast-or-die-slow-whyunicorns-are-staying-private
Etzkowitz, H. (2014). The entrepreneurial university wave: From ivory tower to
global economic engine. Industry & Higher Education, 28(4), 223–232.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From
national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-
government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
Avoiding Anomie 233
Fairweather, J. S. (1996). Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of
teaching and public service in American academic life. Allyn and Bacon.
Fairweather, J. S. (1988). Entrepreneurship and higher education: Lessons for col-
leges, universities, and industry. ASHE Higher Education Report, 14(6), Wiley.
Feldman, M. P., Freyer, A. M., & Lanahan, L. (2012). On the measurement of
university research contributions to economic growth and innovation. In J. E.
Lane & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), Universities and colleges as economic driv-
ers: Measuring higher education’s role in economic development (pp. 97–128).
SUNY Press.
Feldman, M. P., & Zoller, T. D. (2012). Dealmakers in place: Social capital con-
nections in regional entrepreneurial economies. Regional Studies, 46(1), 23–37.
Fernald, Jr., L. W., Solomon, G. T., & Tarabishy, A. (2005). A new paradigm:
Entrepreneurial leadership. Ayman Southern Business Review, 30(2), 1–10.
Fernández-Alles, M., Camelo-Ordaz, C., & Franco-Leal, N. (2015). Key resources
and actors for the evolution of academic spin-offs. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 40, 976–1002.
Fogel, K. (2006). Institutional obstacles to entrepreneurship. The Stern School of
Business.
Fortunato, M. W-P, Alter, T. R., Clevenger, M. R., & MacGregor, C. J. (2019).
Higher educational engagement in economic development in collaboration
with corporate powerhouses. In M. R. Clevenger & C. J. MacGregor (Eds.),
Business and corporation engagement with higher education: Models, theories,
and best practices (pp. 151–178). Emerald Publishing.
Friel, T., & Vukotich, G. (2018). The start-up push: A guide for Developers, direc-
tions, and residents: Incubators, accelerators, and science parks. Information
Age Publishing, Inc.
Frølund, L., Murray, F., & Riedel, M. (2018). Developing successful strategic
partnerships with universities. MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter Issue,
59(2), 71–79.
Galaskiewicz, J. (1989). Corporate contributions to charity: Nothing more than a
marketing strategy? In R. Magat (Ed.), Philanthropic giving: Studies in variet-
ies and goals (pp. 246–260). Oxford University Press.
Gandini, A. (2015). The rise of coworking spaces: A literature review. Ephemera
Theory & Politics in Organizations, 15(1), 193–205.
Gandz, J. (2005, February). The leadership role. Ivey Business Journal. https://
iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/the-leadership-role/
Garber, R., Watts, J., Clevenger, M. R., de Costa, P. F., Lanier-Shipp, E., Sturm,
P., & Takehara, D. (2019). Industry perspectives on academic corporate
relations: Results, opportunities, and best practices from a NACRO survey.
NACRO Research Report.
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic
leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership
Quarterly, 22, 1120–1145.
Garrett, L. E., Spretizer, G. M., & Bacevice, P. (2014). Co-constructing a sense
of community at work: The emergence of community coworking spaces.
Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/
ambpp.2014.139
George, B. (2004). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating
lasting value. Jossey Bass.
Ghosal, V. (2015). Incubators and accelerators. In D. B. Audretsch, C. S. Hayter, &
A. N. Link (Eds.), Concise guide to entrepreneurship, technology, and innova-
tion (pp. 108–117). Edward Elgar.
Gianiodis, P. T., & Meek, W. R. (2020). Entrepreneurial education for the entre-
preneurial university: A stakeholder perspective. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 45, 1167–1195.
and Practice, 18, 43–43.
Goldstein, H., Maier, G., & Luger, M. (1995). The university as an instrument for
economic and business development: U.S. and European comparisons. In
D. D. Dill & B. Sporn (Eds.), Emerging patterns of social demand and univer-
sity reform: Through a glass darkly (pp. 105–139). Pergamon.
Gould, E. (2003). The university in a corporate culture. Yale University Press.
Graff, D. (2016). Entrepreneurial communities: How much does education mat-
ter? Presentation at the 2016 Mason Entrepreneurship Research Conference
(MERC).
Graham, J. (2014, June). Creating university-based entrepreneurial ecosystems:
Evidence from emerging world leaders. MIT Skoltech Initiative.
Gumusluoğlu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership and organiza-
tional innovation: The roles of internal and external support for innovation.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 264–277.
Guo, X., Chen, W., & Yu, A. (2016). Is college education worth it? Evidence from
its impact on entrepreneurship in the United States. Journal of Small Business &
Entrepreneurship, 28(1), 1–26.
Hallam, C., Novick, D., Gilbert, D. J., Frankwich, G. L., Wenker, O., & Zanella,
G. (2017). Academic entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial ecosystem: The
UT transform project. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 23(1), 77–90.
Harper-Anderson, E. (2018). Intersections of partnership and leadership in entre-
preneurial ecosystems: Comparing three U.S. regions. Economic Development
Quarterly, 32(2), 119–134.
Harvey, W. R. (2018). Exercising institutional autonomy: Entrepreneurship in
higher education. In S. J. Trachtenberg, G. B. Kauvar, & E. G. Gee (Eds.), Lead-
ing colleges and universities: Lessons from higher education leaders (pp. 185–
196). Johns Hopkins University Press.
Haslam, S. A., O’Brien, A., Jetten, J., Vormedal, K., & Penna, S. (2005). Taking
the strain: Social identity, social support, and the experience of stress. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 355–370.
Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. C. (2000). Social identity, self-categorization,
and work motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and
sustainable organisational outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 49, 319–339.
Haslam, S. A., van Knippensberg, D., Platow, M. J., & Ellemers, N. (Eds.). (2003).
Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice. Psychol-
ogy Press.
Hatch, M. (2013). The maker movement manifest: Rules for innovation in the
new world of crafters, hackers, and tinkerers. McGraw Hill Professional.
Avoiding Anomie 235
Hayter, C. S. (2015). Student entrepreneurship. In D. B. Audretsch, C. S. Hayter, &
Hayter, C. S., Nelson, A. J., Zayed, S., & O’Connor, A. C. (2018). Conceptualizing
academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: A review, analysis, and extension of the
literature. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 1039–1082.
Henriques, I. C., Sobreiro, V. A., & Kimura, H. (2018). Science and technology
park: Future challenges. Technology in Society, 53, 144–160.
Hiram College. (2021). Entrepreneurship residential learning community.
www.hiram.edu/academics/centers-of-distinction/center-for-integrated-
entrepreneurship/student-opportunities/entrepreneurship-residential-
learning-community/
Hisrich, R. D., Stanco, T., & Wiseniewski, H. S. (2020). Academic entrepreneur-
ship: Creating the ecosystem for your university. World Scientific.
Hoover, D. (2021). Entrepreneurship ecosystem builders: Philanthropy, entre-
preneurs, universities, and communities working collaboratively. In C. H.
Matthews & E. W. Liguori (Eds.), Annals of entrepreneurship education and
pedagogy (pp. 151–168). Edward Elgar.
ImpactAEO. (2021). Empower by GoDaddy in partnership with AEO. Main
St. Rise™ helping small businesses thrive & grow. https://aeoworks.org/
main-street-rise-godaddy/
Industrial Partnership for Research in Interfacial and Materials Engineering
(IPRIME). (2021a). IPRIME’s history. University of Minnesota. https://cse.
umn.edu/iprime/iprimes-history
(IPRIME). (2021b). See what we do. University of Minnesota. https://cse.umn.
edu/iprime
(IPRIME). (2021c). What is IPRIME. University of Minnesota. https://cse.
umn.edu/iprime/what-iprime
Innovation Station. (2021). These small businesses are about to become the next
big thing. GoDaddy. www.mnswarm.com/www_subdomain/innovationstation.
html
International Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innovation (IASP).
(2021). Definitions. Science park. International Association of Science Parks
and Areas of Innovation. www.iasp.ws/our-industry/definitions#:~:text=Text
%3A,businesses%20and%20knowledge%2Dbased%20institutions.
Jacobs, J. (2012). The essential role of community colleges in rebuilding the
nation’s communities and economies. In J. E. Lane & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.),
Universities and colleges as economic drivers: Measuring higher education’s
role in economic development (pp. 163–190). SUNY Press.
Jacoby, N. H. (1973). Corporate power and social responsibility. Macmillan.
Johannisson, B., & Nilsson, A. (1989). Community entrepreneurs: Network-
ing for local development. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1(1),
3–19.
Jones, G. R. (2007). Organizational theory, design, and change. Prentice Hall.
Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its com-
munities: Interconnections, interdependencies, and a research agenda. Higher
Education, 56, 303–324.
Jung, D. I. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects
on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 185–195.
Kanter, R. M. (2012, March). Enriching the ecosystem: A four-point plan for
linking innovation, enterprises, and jobs. Harvard Business Review, 140–147.
Kauffman Foundation. (2021a). Our programs. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foun-
dation. www.kauffman.org/
Kauffman Foundation. (2021b). Entrepreneurship. Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation. www.kauffman.org/entrepreneurship/
Kauffman Foundation. (2021c). Wendy Guillies. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foun-
dation. www.kauffman.org/people/wendy-guillies/
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization
of authenticity: Theory and research. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experi-
mental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 283–357). Academic Press.
Kirk, P., & Shutte, A. M. (2004). Community leadership development. Commu-
nity Development Journal, 39(3), 234–251.
Kolympiris, C., & Klein, P. G. (2017). The effects of academic incubators on uni-
versity innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11, 145–170.
Kourilsky, M. L., Walstad, W. B., & Thomas, A. (2007). The entrepreneur in
youth: An untapped resource for economic growth, social entrepreneurship,
and education. Edward Elgar.
Kozeracki, C. (1998). Institutional entrepreneurship in higher education. Digest,
98(5), 3–4.
Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building community from the inside
out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
Kutzhanova, N., Lyons, T. S., & Lichtenstein, G. A. (2009). Skill-based develop-
ment of entrepreneurs and the role of personal and peer group coaching in
enterprise development. Economic Development Quarterly, 23(3), 193–210.
Labaree, D. F. (2006). Mutual subversion: A short history of the liberal and the
professional in American higher education. History of Education Quarterly,
46(1), 1–15.
Labaree, D. F. (2013). A system without a plan: Emergence of an American system
of higher education in the twentieth century. International Journal of Higher
Education, 3(1), 46–59.
Labaree, D. F. (2017). A perfect mess: The unlikely ascendency of American higher
education. The University of Chicago.
Landier, A. (2005, November). Entrepreneurship and the stigma of failure. SSRN,
1–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.850446
Springer.
Lane, J. E. (2012). Higher education and economic competitiveness. In J. E. Lane
& D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), Universities and colleges as economic drivers: Mea-
suring higher education’s role in economic development (pp. 1–30). SUNY
Press.
Leadership Lackawanna (LL). (2021). About. Leadership Lackawanna. www.
leadershiplackawanna.com/about
Avoiding Anomie 237
Leadership Wilkes-Barre. (2021). Our mission. Leadership Wilkes-Barre. https://
leadershipwilkes-barre.org/about/
Levy, B. R., & Cherry, R. L. (Eds.). (1996). The NSFRE fund-raising dictionary.
John Wiley & Sons.
Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2019). The designing for growth field book: A step-by-
step project guide (2nd ed.). Columbia Business School Publishing.
Lindelof, P., & Lofsten, H. (2003). Science park location and new technology-
based firms in Sweden: Implications for strategy and performance. Small Busi-
ness Economics, 20(3), 245–258.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis
of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies.
Research Policy, 34, 1106–1112.
Litt, S. (2017). Burton D. Morgan, entrepreneur, established foundation in his
name: PD 175. Business. www.cleveland.com/business/2017/11/burton_d_
morgan_entrepreneur_e.html
Loveridge, S. (2007). Getting started in community-based entrepreneurship. In
N. Walzer (Ed.), Entrepreneurship and local economic development (pp. 255–
273). Lexington Books.
Lundqvist, M. A. (2014). The importance of surrogate entrepreneurship for incu-
bated Swedish technology ventures. Technovation, 34, 93–100.
Macan, D. (2021, June 8). Which private foundations are funding entrepreneur-
ship? Best Practices. Source Link: R&D for your entrepreneurial community.
www.joinsourcelink.com/best-practices/best-practices/2020/10/09/which-
private-foundations-are-funding-entrepreneurship#.YPbigZNKj0o
makerspaces.com. (2021). What is a makerspace? Makerspaces.com. www.
makerspaces.com/what-is-a-makerspace/
phy Compass, 1–21.
Markley, D. M. (2007). Building communities through entrepreneurship development:
Financing entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial support. In N. Walzer (Ed.), Entrepre-
neurship and local economic development (pp. 125–143). Lexington Books.
Markley, D. M., Macke, D., & Luther, V. B. (2005). Energizing entrepreneurs:
Charting a course for rural communities. Heartland Center for Leadership
Development.
Marshall, A. (1965). Principles of economics. Macmillan.
Marx, L. (1964). The machine in the garden. Oxford.
Massey, D., Quintas, P., & Wield, D. (1992). High tech fantasies: Science parks in
society, science, and space. Routledge.
McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2008). High tech start-ups in University Science
Park incubators: The relationships between start-up’s lifecycle progression and
use of the incubator’s resources. Technovation, 28, 277–290.
McAdam, M., Miller, K., & McAdam, R. (2016). Situated regional university
incubation: A multi-level stakeholder perspective. Technovation, 50, 69–78.
McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., & Darda, S. V. (2010). Convergence in entre-
preneurial leadership style: Evidence from Russia. California Management
Review, 52(4), 48–72.
Mian, S. A. (1996). The university business incubator: A strategy for developing
new research/technology-based firms. Journal of High Technology Manage-
ment Research, 7(2), 191–208.
Milanesi, C. (2021, June 15). Amazon launches black business accelerator
with a $150 million commitment. Forbes. www.forbes.com/sites/carolinamilanesi/
2021/06/15/amazon-launches-black-business-accelerator-with-a-150-million-
commitment/?sh=2c376b246cd8
University of Chicago. Small Business Economics, 49, 75–95.
Miller, K., McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2014). The changing university busi-
ness model: A stakeholder perspective. R&D Management, 44(3), 265–287.
Miller, P., & Bound, K. (2011). The startup factories: The rise of accelera-
tor programmes to support new technology ventures. London: Nesta. http://
businessincubation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/StartupFactories-Accelerators-
Evaluation-NESTA-June-2011.pdf
Missouri State University. (2021). Entrepreneurship undergraduate program.
Department of Management. https://mgt.missouristate.edu/entrepreneurship/
Morgan Foundation. (2021a). About. Burton D. Morgan Foundation. www.
bdmorganfdn.org/about
Morgan Foundation. (2021b). Attic. Burton D. Morgan Foundation. www.
bdmorganfdn.org/attic
Morgan Foundation. (2021c). Collegiate entrepreneurship values poster. Burton
D. Morgan Foundation. www.bdmorganfdn.org/sites/default/files/assets/misc/
BMF_Collegiate_Poster.pdf
Moriset, B. (2013). Building new places of the creative economy: The rise of
coworking spaces. Paper presented at the 2nd Geography of Innovation Confer-
ence, Utrecht University. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00914075/
document
Munro, G. R. (2021, April 2). Flexible space for dynamic work. Kent Flexspace
Cooperative™. www.kentflexspacecoop.org
Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Convergence or path dependency in policies to
foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the
United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 42–65.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the
organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2),
242–266.
Nielsen, S. L., Klyver, K., Evald, M. R., & Bager, T. (2013). Entrepreneurship in
theory and practice: Paradoxes in play (2nd ed.). Edward Elgar.
Obschonka, M., & Audretsch, D. B. (2020). Artificial intelligence and big data
in entrepreneurship: A new era has begun. Small Business Economics, 55(3),
529–539.
O’Kane, C. (2015). University technology transfer offices. In D. B. Audretsch,
C. S. Hayter, & A. N. Link (Eds.), Concise guide to entrepreneurship, technol-
ogy, and innovation (pp. 236–241). Edward Elgar.
Avoiding Anomie 239
Orlando, P., & Rostoker, B. (2018). Incubators and their role in growing entre-
preneurial ecosystems. Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, USC
Marshall School of Business. Harvard Business Publishing.
Owen-Smith, J. (2018). Research universities and the public good: Discovery for
an uncertain future. Stanford Business Books.
Pankaj, P. P. (2019, May 30). Difference between software and application.Geeksfor-
Geeks. www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-software-and-application/
Perkmann, M. (2015). University-industry relations. In D. B. Audretsch, C. S.
Hayter, & A. N. Link (Eds.), Concise guide to entrepreneurship, technology,
and innovation (pp. 227–233). Edward Elgar.
Peters, J. (2017). How a 1950s egg farm hatched the modern startup incuba-
tor: The first-ever business incubator wasn’t trying to build unicorns—
its goal was to bring jobs to the rust belt. Wired. www.wired.com/story/
how-a-1950s-egg-farm-hatched-the-modern-startup-incubator/
Peters, L., Rice, M., & Sundararajan, M. (2004). The role of incubators in the
entrepreneurial process. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 83–91.
Phan, P. H. (2015). University venture funds. In D. B. Audretsch, C. S. Hayter, &
Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators:
Observations, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Business Venturing,
20, 165–182.
Pringle, C., & Török, L. (2015). Foundations leading through entrepreneurship: A
new philanthropic trend to create jobs, improve quality of life, and strengthen
local giving. eNDEAVOR INSIGHT. https://issuu.com/endeavorglobal1/docs/
foundation_leading_through_entrepre
Pucciarelli, F., & Kaplan, A. (2016). Competition and strategy in higher educa-
tion: Managing complexity and uncertainty. Business Horizons, 59, 311–320.
Purdue University. (2021). Entrepreneurship and innovation. Learning Communities.
University Residences. Purdue University. www.purdue.edu/learningcommunities/
profiles/University-wide%20LCs/entrepreneurship.html
Rhodes, F. H. T. (2001). The creation of the future: The role of the American
university. Cornell University.
Rice, M. P., Fetters, M. L., & Greene, P. G. (2014). University-based entrepreneur-
ship ecosystems: A global study of six educational institutions. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18(5/6), 481–501.
Rieken, F., Boehm, T., Heinzen, M., & Meboldt, M. (2019). Corporate maker-
spaces as innovation driver in companies: A literature review-based frame-
work. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(1), 91–123.
Rodríguez-Aceves, L., Mojarro-Durán, B., & Muñíz-Ávila, E. (2019). University-
based entrepreneurial ecosystems: Evidence from technology transfer policies
and infrastructure. In S. R. Nair & J. M. Saiz-Alvarez (Eds.), Ethics, entrepre-
neurship, and governance in higher education (pp. 455–475). IGI Global.
Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A
taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.
Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University-incubator firm knowledge
flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy,
34, 305–320.
lective actions. Princeton University Press.
Salvador, E. (2011). Are science parks and incubators good “brand names” for
spin-offs? The case study of Turin. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 203–232.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). Effectuation: Elements of entrepreneurial experience.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 15(2), 232–
236. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550910944593
Sarkar, S., Osiyevsky, O., & Hayes, L. (2019). Talking your way into entrepre-
neurial support: An analysis of satisfaction drivers in entrepreneur mutual aid
groups. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(2), 275–297.
Schaeffer, V., & Matt, M. (2016). Development of academic entrepreneurship in
a non-mature context: The role of the university as a sub-organisation. Entre-
preneurship & Regional Development, 28(9–10), 724–745.
Schramm, C. J. (2004). Building entrepreneurial communities. Foreign Affair,
83(4), 104–107 and 109–115.
Schultz, L. I. (2012). University industry government collaboration for economic
growth. In J. E. Lane & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), Universities and colleges as
economic drivers: Measuring higher education’s role in economic development
(pp. 129–162). SUNY Press.
Seitanidi, M. M., & Ryan, A. (2007). A critical review of forms of corporate com-
munity involvement: From philanthropy to partnerships. International Journal
of Nonprofits and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(3), 247–266.
Skysong. (2021a). Overview. Skysong: The ASU Scottsdale Innovation Center.
www.skysong.com/about-skysong/overview/
Skysong. (2021b). Project history. Skysong: The ASU Scottsdale Innovation Cen-
ter. www.skysong.com/about-skysong/project-history/
Skysong. (2021c). Project team. Skysong: The ASU Scottsdale Innovation Center.
www.skysong.com/about-skysong/project-team/
Slack, J. D., & Wise., J. M. (2014). Culture and technology: A primer (2nd ed.).
Peter Lang Inc., International Academic Publishers.
Smith, K. V. (Ed.). (2017, Winter). Small businesses get a lift. The Corporate Citi-
zen, 27, 26–31.
Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collab-
orative activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4),
399–441.
Stam, E., & Bosma, N. (2015). Growing entrepreneurial economies: Entrepre-
neurship and regional development. In T. Baker & F. Welter (Eds.), The Rout-
ledge companion to entrepreneurship (pp. 325–340). Routledge.
Stross, R. (2007). The wizard of Menlo Park. Crown Publishers.
Toft, G., Jeserich, N., & McCabe, L. (2020). Michigan entrepreneurship
score card (16th annual ed.). Small Business Association of Michigan. VP
Demand Creation Services. www.sbam.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SBAMS
corecard2020_Digital-2.pdf
Torrance, W. (2013). Entrepreneurship education comes of age on campus, A
report from the Kauffman Campus Initiative. The Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation. www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/research/2013/08/entrepreneurship-
education-comes-of-age-on-campus
Avoiding Anomie 241
Turner, F. (1920). The frontier in American history. Holt and Company.
UNC Greensoro (UNCG). (2021). https://startup.uncg.edu/about/
University of Delaware. (2021a). Special programs. University of Delaware Office
of Economic. www.oeip.udel.edu/special-programs/
University of Delaware. (2021b). What we do. University of Delaware Office of
Economic. Innovation & Partnerships. www.oeip.udel.edu/
University of Texas at Arlington. (UTA). (2021a). About us. University of Texas
at Arlington. www.uta.edu/about
University of Texas at Arlington. (UTA). (2021b). Research: Center for Entrepre-
neurship & Economic Innovation. University of Texas at Arlington. www.uta.
edu/research/centers/ceei
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (USDA). (2021a). Grants. National Institute of
Food and Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture. https://nifa.
usda.gov/grants
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (USDA). (2021b). Land-grant university website
directory. National Institute of Food and Agriculture. United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture. https://nifa.usda.gov/land-grant-colleges-and-universities-
partner-website-directory?state=All&type=Extension
Vaillant, Y., & Lafuente, E. (2007). Do different institutional frameworks condi-
tion the influence of local fear of failure and entrepreneurial examples over entre-
preneurial activity? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19, 313–337.
van der Sluis, J., van Praag, M., & Vijverberg, W. (2004). Education and entre-
preneurship in industrialized countries: A meta-analysis. Tinbergen Institute
Working Paper No. TI03–046/3. Tinbergen Institute.
van der Sluis, J., van Praag, M., & Vijverberg, W. (2005). Entrepreneurship selec-
tion and performance: A meta-analysis of the impact of education in develop-
ing economies. The World Bank Economic Review, 19(2), 226–261.
Varlotta, L. (2020, March 26). The new liberal arts: Where mobile technology
meets mindful technology. Tech Tools and Resources. The evoLLLution: A
Modern Campus Illumination. https://evolllution.com/technology/tech-tools-
and-resources/the-new-liberal-arts-where-mobile-technology-meets-mindful-
technology/
Walton, A., & Gasman, M. (Eds.). (2008). Philanthropy, volunteerism, and fun-
draising. Pearson.
Walzer, N. (Ed.). (2007). Entrepreneurship and local economic development. Lex-
ington Books.
Wang, F., Wang, W., Wilson, S., & Ahmed, N. (2016). The state of library maker-
spaces. International Journal of Librarianship, 1(1), 2–16.
Watts, J. S. (2019). Navigating the partner landscape: Understanding the impact
of external resources and partners on universities in the modern economy.
(Doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Dallas.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 5, 171–180.
Westhead, P., & Batstone, S. (1999). Perceived benefits of a managed science park
location. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 11(2), 129–154.
Wilkes University. (2016). Activity report June 2015–May 2016. Allan P. Kirby
Center for Free Enterprise. www.wilkes.edu/about-wilkes/centers-and-institutes/
allan-p-kirby-center-for-free-enterprise-entrepreneurship/_assets/ActivityReport_
2015-16.pdf
2016-17.pdf
2017-18.pdf
Wilkes University. (2021). About. Allan P. Kirby Center for Free Enterprise. www.
wilkes.edu/about-wilkes/centers-and-institutes/allan-p-kirby-center-for-free-
enterprise-entrepreneurship/index.aspx
Wolf-Powers, L., Doussard, M., Schrock, G., Heying, C., Eisenburger, M., &
Marotta, S. (2017). The maker movement and urban development. Journal of
the American Planning Association, 83(4), 365–376.
Wright, M., Liu, X., Buck, T., & Filatochev, I. (2007). Returnee entrepreneurs,
science park location choice and performance: An analysis of high-technology
SMEs in China. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32, 131–155.
Yusof, M., & Jain, K. K. (2010). Categories of university-level entrepreneurship:
A literature survey. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
6, 81–96.
Zou, Y., & Zhao, W. (2014). Anatomy of Tsinghua University Science Park in
China: Institutional evolution and assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer,
39, 663–674.
7 Beyond Bureaucracies
and Bourgeoisie of Regional,
State, and National Economic
Development
Framework Conditions, Policy,
and the Interplay of Support
Organizations
Morgan R. Clevenger, Michael W-P Fortunato,
and Kenneth G. Okrepkie
with Laura S. Eppler
Introduction
Entrepreneurial communities are as unique as the entrepreneurs within
them and are influenced by different contexts at the regional, state, national,
and global levels of social, political, economic, cultural, and environmen-
tal. As noted by Isenberg (2010), “there’s no exact formula for creating an
entrepreneurial economy” (p. 1). Many factors and conditions impact the
atmosphere for entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs themselves, includ-
ing culture at various levels, economic trends, policy, environment, per-
sonal goals, community assets, and socioeconomic-spacial characteristics
(e.g., population, unemployment rate, available human capital, access to
finance), infrastructure, technologies (e.g., telecommunications, hardware,
software, wetware), viewpoint of necessity-driven versus opportunity-
driven focus, and family versus non-family start-ups (Abel & Deitz, 2011;
Ács et al., 2008; Bird & Wennberg, 2014; Furchtgott-Roth, 2008; Hen-
derson et al., 2007; Kuckertz et al., 2015; Walzer & Athiyaman, 2007;
Walzer et al., 2007). These concerns are relevant regardless of geographi-
cal situation as metropolitan, urban, suburban, or rural areas; each loca-
tion and environs has its own set of circumstances (Walzer et al., 2007).
This chapter will begin with a review of framework conditions and their
importance to entrepreneuring as the context within which entrepreneurial
communities and ecosystems emerge. We discuss levels of analysis (often
studied from various unit of analysis perspectives), followed by an exami-
nation of their interaction. We briefly discuss the challenges and opportuni-
ties in measuring the entrepreneurship context. The chapter then focuses on
two major types of institutions: formal (including policy, support systems,
DOI: 10.4324/9781351045711-7
and funding) and informal (culture), and how these shape the sphere of the
possible in building entrepreneurial communities and ecosystems.
Understanding Framework Conditions

Often referred to as framework conditions in the entrepreneurship lit-
erature (see Mitra, 2019; Audretsch & Belitski, 2017; Valliere, 2010),
the socio-cultural, political, and historical contexts surrounding the
entrepreneur and relevant social milieu are the ambient bedrock alive
beneath the social relations comprising entrepreneurial action. Entrepre-
neuring is a social phenomenon occurring within and across communities
of entrepreneurs, their customers and suppliers, their support systems,
and of course, other entrepreneurs—often rooted in a geographic place
(Anderson & Gaddefors, 2016; Johannisson & Nilsson, 1989). Frame-
work conditions can be broadly conceived as institutional arrangements
that support, are neutral toward, or create barriers to entrepreneurship
(Mitra, 2019). These institutional arrangements can be either formal
(such as a major business support institution like the Small Business
Administration, or SBA) or informal (such as cultural attitudes) (Julien,
2008; Mitra, 2019). Such frameworks can occur at the national level,
which is a popular focus with studies like the Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor (GEM) (see Bosma et al., 2020) and the Global Entrepreneur-
ship and Development Index (GEDI) (see Ács et al., 2017a). Frameworks
can occur at the regional level, which is a common focus among regional
economists, economic geographers, and some sociologists (see Fritsch &
Wyrwich, 2017; Huggins et al., 2015; Tamásy, 2006; Ács & Armington,
2006). And, frameworks can occur at the local or community level, which
has been our own major area of focus (see Fortunato, 2017a) as well
as others (see Lyons et al., 2012 for a discussion of the community as a
frontier in entrepreneurship research).
In Chapter 2 of this book, we discussed Lewin’s Force Field Analysis in
some detail. Lewin envisioned social outcomes as being the resultant vec-
tors of three types of forces: facilitating, constraining, and blocking (Cron-
shaw & McCulloch, 2008). In a similar fashion, contextual factors can
facilitate, constrain, or block the cultivation of an ecosystem or commu-
nity. A history of small business development—fueled by plenty of small
business mentors found locally—can create an environment where youths
are cheered on, mentored, and supported when declaring their intention
to support a business. A regionally important college or university may
have an ambivalent view toward entrepreneurship, allocating business
resources toward placing its students in larger companies, and failing to
interact meaningfully with entrepreneurs in their own community. Or,
political instability and corruption at the national level may suppress new
business formation by supporting incumbent businesses and excessively
taxing, fining, or “black balling” new entrants into the market. In any of
Beyond Bureaucracies and Bourgeoisie 245
these cases, the resultant levels of entrepreneurship on the ground will be
the net sum of these forces acting upon the local society at any time.
Granovetter (1985) expounded that all economic action is embedded
to some degree in the context of the surrounding socio-political environ-
ment. While this embedding is not fully deterministic of outcomes (i.e.,
a gazelle entrepreneur can still arise from within a stifling environment
lacking entrepreneurship supports), it can play a major role in shaping
what local entrepreneurs can accomplish, how easily the journey will be
for them, and how likely they are to launch a new venture in the first
place. And as seen in the preceding paragraph, these contexts act upon
entrepreneurs and their communities at multiple, intersecting levels of
analysis: from the national (i.e., macro-level 3) down to the meso and
micro levels. (See Chapter 3 for a review and discussion regarding lev-
els of analysis.) After all, even the culture and norms surrounding busi-
ness that happens in a local bank are likely to differ from the culture
and norms surrounding business in the dive bar with broken windows
located next door—although both may be facilitated or constrained by
higher-level entrepreneurship factors like streamlined regulations, plenti-
ful business mentors, or a mistrustful local population. In the following
paragraphs, we will explore some of the different contexts at which such
forces may occur, followed by a conversation about their interplay.
National-Level Contexts
A major focus of entrepreneurship researchers has been national-level
differences that cross not only policy regimes, but oftentimes language
groups, cultures, and resource bases. For example, the GEM (Bosma
et al., 2020) for many years has examined features of national policy and
institutional culture, from taxation to corruption, that either facilitate or
constrain entrepreneurial action, noting that there are stark differences
between nations that produce many opportunity-driven entrepreneurs,
who tend to be better educated, launching higher-growth businesses,
and those that produce many necessity-driven entrepreneurs. Ács and
Varga (2005) similarly studied 11 different countries and indicated that
opportunity-driven entrepreneurship positively effects economic develop-
ment while necessity entrepreneurship evidenced no effect: hence, those
areas containing individuals with greater capabilities of taking advan-
tage of opportunity are more likely to experience those positive economic
development effects (Stoica et al., 2020; Suchart, 2017). Likewise, Bird
and Wennberg (2014) found that more populated areas have a positive
impact on encouraging both family and non-family entrepreneur start-
ups, although also noted that rural areas have high family start-up capac-
ity but are “more strongly tied to non-economic factors than to economic
factors” (p. 433). Regardless of type, location, or size of business, “much
empirical evidence documents that entrepreneurs have played a crucial
role in stimulating economic growth and improving economic perfor-
mance. Hence, many countries have designed programs and institutions
to encourage business ownership” (Furchtgott-Roth, 2008, p. 2).
State and national governments—in support of entrepreneurship—
often aim to reduce taxes, to deregulate, to create training programs, to
provide space and support for start-ups, to allocate resources for infor-
mation and advice via data, and to reduce short-term emphasis over long-
term investments. Likewise, then, governments wish to increase financial
assistance, increase networking and dialogue, and in various instances
create emphasis on specialty needs or demands (e.g., technologies, tar-
geted geography, and STEM). These efforts are aimed at stimulating job
growth, increasing skillsets and education, reducing unemployment, and
increasing personal and household income and wealth, which in turn
supports a positive economy. But note, there is no governmental control
in charge of an entrepreneurial ecosystem or entrepreneurial community.
The national government has political and economic influence at the
macroeconomic level including policies effecting broad U.S. concerns,
such as “security, rule of law (property rights, contract enforcement,
bankruptcy law), immigration, labor rights, science, innovation, technol-
ogy, markets, infrastructure, taxation (including subsidies and incentives),
regulation, education, inflation, and fiscal stability” (Feld & Hathaway,
2020, p. 55). “Like large corporations and universities, national govern-
ments may engage with startups as customers, suppliers, collaborators, or
even investors” (Feld & Hathaway, 2020, p. 55).
Regional-Level Contexts
Regions are often not demarcated by clear boundaries of governance,
instead representing parts of a broader whole (such as the Palouse region
of Washington State in the United States), a cluster of multiple smaller
entities (i.e., Mountain and Heartland states), or a cluster of portions of
other government entities with geographic or historical importance (i.e.,
Greater Appalachia, regions in Italy, or the Balkans). A common focus
of regional economists, cultural sociologists and anthropologists, and
economic geographers, regional variation in entrepreneurship has had
a robust focus in the literature. Regions may have cultural and histori-
cal features that broadly shape action on the ground across the region.
Such cultural variation, in turn, has important implications for building
ecosystems. Venkataraman (2004) demarcated seven intangibles to aid in
supporting regional entrepreneurial ecosystems:
1. Focal points capable of producing novel ideas (such as R&D via

higher education, incubators)
2. The need for the right role models (peers, educators, mentors, other
successful entrepreneurs, serialpreneurs)
3. The need for informal forums of entrepreneurship (i.e., social net-
working, ideation, growing seeds previously planted in the classroom)
4. The need for region-specific ideas to be created (e.g., districts, clus-
ters, employee and pooling, as regional experts)
5. The need for safety nets (i.e., consideration of planned risk, fiasco or
flop, laws, social support systems—that are not punitive for failure
or negative stigmas)
6. The need for gateways to large markets (e.g., distribution and
marketing)
7. The need for executive leadership (e.g., access to visionaries, experts,
institutions that produce knowledge, venture capital, informal edu-
cation, culture of acceptability, network of resources)
(pp. 162–166)
Regarding region-specifc support factors, Siegel et al. (2007) labeled such

factors segmentation. Thus within a state or multi-state area, coordina-
tion is often key for planning and developing the region(s). Effectiveness
of economic development “depends on various factors in the regional
entrepreneurial ecosystem, notably including knowledge bases, absorp-
tive capacity, competition, networks of people, diversity, and culture”
(Qian, 2018, p. 163). In understanding that there are multiple entrepre-
neurial ecosystems as well as multiple and overlapping entrepreneurial
communities, it is also possible to try to clarify a level of analysis and
demarcate regional level (i.e., sub-national), state level, or national level.
Some policies, regulations, and laws would apply at multiple levels simul-
taneously (Fritsch, 2013; Stam & Bosma, 2015; Stam & Spigel, 2017).
Clusters (a unit of analysis) are related to regional economic devel-
opment, as these create agglomeration economies that are typically
well-suited to the region’s specific attributes. Multiple entrepreneurial
ecosystems within a given industry (a unit of analysis) often network
and create their own industry cluster. Clusters create strength and unique
localized identities (cf., Chinitz, 1961; Hoover, 1948; Malmberg &
Maskell, 2002; Marshall, 1920; Martin & Sunley, 2003; Porter, 2000).
For example, Stam and Bosma (2015) said:
Localization economies involve agglomeration economies resulting

from the concentration of the same or similar activities: e.g., benefits
resulting from the local access to a specialized workforce or the spe-
cialized reputation of a locality, while related variety emphasizes pos-
itive effects (on entrepreneurship, innovation) of the co-presence of
different but related industry or organizational populations. Regions
that have a concentration of organizations of a certain kind (in a
specific industry) tend to generate a relatively large number of new
organizations of that same kind.
(p. 329)
Beyond these considerations, clusters foster a regional cultural that often
is supported by formal institutions (e.g., venture capitalist groups, angel
networks, economic development grant agencies or foundations, entre-
preneur facilities, and governmental support agencies with funding pro-
grams or special initiative funds).
Local-Level Contexts
Communities (macro-level 1) and localities (meso-level 2) are the level
of analysis commonly used to categorize entrepreneurs in the collective
sense. These levels are above meso-level 1 and the focus on a firm. Lyons
et al. (2012) stressed the importance of the community and its stock of
social capital in shaping everything from traditional firms to community-
based ventures (i.e., those where a profit motive is secondary), family
firms, and other types of ventures. Communities thus shape entrepre-
neurship as much as entrepreneurs shape their communities.
Individual entrepreneurs (at the micro level) have a key role in their
communities (Cornwall, 1998). Bearse (1981) indicated there are eight
less easily measured support factors in an entrepreneurial community:
1. The level of change/instability in the local economy creating gaps

2. Uncertainty
3. Fluidity in social structure and institutional resources providing
linkages
4. Diversification of industrial, occupational, and social structures
5. Resources available (e.g., information, capital, specialized services,
space)
6. Critical mass of entrepreneurs
7. Cultural traditions
8. Government policies
Interacting Levels of Analysis

Ács et al. (2017a) note that entrepreneurial ecosystem literature stems from
the fields of strategy and regional development (e.g., industrial districts,
industrial clusters, regional innovation systems, and regional socioeconomic
performance). Additionally, Ács et al. (2017a) have observed the discussion
for entrepreneurship research jumps from “entrepreneurial ecosystems
strategies” to “regional development”—completely missing the sociologi-
cal level of entrepreneurial communities. Thus, the gap would also miss
economic development, policy, leadership, and culture at the community
level of analysis. Much of the regional development literature “focuses on
the territorial boundedness” (Ács et al., 2017b, p. 3), whereas the strategic
management literature illuminates a global context (Zahra & Nambisan,
2011), thus missing community, state, and national considerations—all
of which are important to view in the conversation. Some of the strategy
management literature points to entrepreneurs as leaders of the processes
whereas regional development literature “hardly acknowledges any central
leadership role” but characterizes the role of facilitation by government(s)
or business associations (Ács et al., 2017b, p. 3).
Various scholars have explored frameworks to interpret overlapping
sectors, which often look at national or state levels of analysis. Sábato’s
Triangle, developed in 1968 by Jorge Sábato and Natalio Botana, illus-
trates the relationship among government, U.S. businesses, and the pri-
vate sector (Hatakeyama & Ruppel, 2004). Similar to Sábato’s Triangle,
Etzkowitz and Dzisah (2008) identified in the 1990s the specific concern
of technology transfer and innovation as the Triple Helix when discuss-
ing university-industry-government relations. Schramm (2004) identi-
fied The Four Sector Model, which includes high-impact entrepreneurs,
mature firms (i.e., companies), government, and universities. Carayannis
and Campbell (2010) and Carayannis et al. (2017) created a Quadruple/
Quintuple Helix Innovation Model to describe regional entrepreneurial
ecosystems to include government, industry, civil society, and higher edu-
cation. Encircling the five sectors creates “environment” to establish the
quintuple perspective. Similarly, Galán-Muros and Davey (2017) illumi-
nated the UBC ecosystem and created a comprehensive framework for
university-business cooperation. These Venn diagrams are helpful to con-
sider overlaps in missions and goals and to illustrate the complexities
involved. Thus, interdependence is a reality.
When different sectors interact, they often have to balance among vari-
ous goals and agendas, such as noted by Nielsen et al. (2013):
• the need for entrepreneurial autonomy vs democratic accountability;

• the need for entrepreneurial secrecy vs democratic openness;
• the need for entrepreneurial risk taking vs democratic stewardship;
or
• the need for entrepreneurial vison vs democracy’s need for citizens’
input and participation.
(p. 277)
Thus, “partnerships [between and across sectors] are seen as a means of

enhancing economic development” (Eddy, 2010, p. 5).
Borrowing from the literature on human dimensions of the environ-
ment, Gunderson and Holling (2002) introduced the term panarchy to
describe complex hierarchies of influence within and across different
levels of analysis, from the global down to the hyper-local. A panarchy
shows relationships in how local phenomena can cause higher-order levels
to adapt, and how higher-order levels affect lower-order levels down the
panarchy. Thus, a local can have an outsized effect on global phenom-
ena, while the global can influence outcomes in many localities. Similar
patterns exist across entrepreneurship dynamics. A new way of organiz-
ing entrepreneurial communities (such as allowing entrepreneurs to lead
ecosystems) can inform and influence policy makers, who may change the
foci of policy efforts much like Mason and Brown (2014) described. Simi-
larly, changes in policies can create macro-level situational disturbances
that can be highly opportunistic for entrepreneurs (Baumol, 1968), or may
universally stifle entrepreneurial action (as in East Germany following
World War II, see Wegenroth, 2010—also see Wenger & Cavelty, 2022 for
a description of constrained innovation amidst a rising tide of autocratic
regimes). In either case, a change at one level is likely to cause evolutions
at a different level. New opportunities that emerge in one specific region
may inform the whole of a nation, or a change in national sentiment may
have a universal effect on what entrepreneurs can and cannot do. Panar-
chy dynamics are not necessarily always facilitating and may not all point
in the same direction. But, they do illustrate how the entrepreneurship
context is often simultaneously impacting entrepreneurs at a multitude
of different levels of analysis. It is thus important for entrepreneurship
researchers and ecosystem and community builders to have an awareness
of multiple different levels of context, even if these are not consciously
observed by leaders and feeders on the ground, as this may be an impor-
tant source of change that is latent in the community or ecosystem.
Measuring Contextual Factors

As we consider multiple entrepreneurial ecosystems and multiple entre-
preneurial communities at various levels of the panarchy, there are “mul-
tidimensional set[s] of interacting factors that moderate the effect of
entrepreneurial activity on economic growth” (Bruns et al., 2017, p. 31).
Yet “measuring (the size and/or quality of) entrepreneurial ecosystems
[and entrepreneurial communities], however, continues to prove a chal-
lenge” (Bruns et al., 2017, p. 32). Hindle (2010) looked at community
context (e.g., property rights and capital management, governance and
institutions, and baseline physical resources of land and infrastructure)
and contextualized entrepreneurship (e.g., human capital, world views,
social networks, and boundary spanning).
“In the United States, the Small Business Administration (SBA), estab-
lished in 1953, aims to monitor and promote business ownership”
(Furchtgott-Roth, 2008, p. 2). Since that time, there have been many efforts
made to measure entrepreneurship in the United States. Some examples
include the Economic Census (see www.census.gov/EconomicCensus),
which tracks both employer and non-employer statistics, business starts,
and industry trends. Similarly, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
publishes the Regional Economic Information System (REIS, see www.
bea.gov/regional), which contains a range of information about proprietor
sales and income year to year. These data are the principal components
for calculating self-employment breadth (self-employment density) and
self-employment depth (income to the self-employed), as well as revenue
capture when blending with Economic Census data, which are common
proxies for entrepreneurship health and growth in a county, region, met-
ropolitan area, or state (Henderson et al., 2007).
Variations in measurements are common, even among regions that
appear to be relatively similar on the surface (Ács & Armington, 2006).
Goetz and Rupasingha (2014) found similar lagged variation in spatial
determinants that influence startups and self-employment across U.S.
counties, including culture, ethnic diversity, educational attainment, and
an economy that is historically high in self-employed persons. This dif-
ference may be concerning to places that appear to have a suppressed
level of entrepreneurship or self-employment, but it does not necessarily
represent a seriously deficient economy—just one that is lagging in self-
employment or entrepreneurship more broadly. “Despite all efforts made
by political agents to reduce the gap between regions with a high level of
economic activities and those with a considerably lower one, an uneven
distribution of regional success and development can be observed” (For-
nahl, 2003, p. 38).
There have also been various frameworks proposed for measuring
entrepreneur efforts. Mason and Brown (2014) noted, “measurement is
far from straightforward. It poses challenges both in terms of defining
what to measure and how, and identifying proper data” to utilize for
analysis (p. 25). Ács et al. (2014) said: “at the country level, entrepreneur-
ship should be treated as a systemic phenomenon” (p. 477). Examples of
measurement that have been created include Entrepreneurial Develop-
ment System (EDS) (Lichtenstein & Lyons, 2001); National Systems
of Entrepreneurship through the Global Entrepreneurship and Devel-
opment Index (GEDI) (Ács et al., 2014); entrepreneur development via
connectivity, fluidity, diversity, and density (Stangler & Bell-Masterson,
2015); the Regional Entrepreneurship and Development Index (REDI)
(Audretsch & Belitski, 2017); the Regional Entrepreneurship Accelerator
Programme (REAP) developed by The Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology (MIT) (Autio & Levie, 2017); and empirical indicators (Stam &
van de Ven, 2021). These measurements have approached the phenom-
enon of entrepreneurs from differing qualities and viewpoints. Ács et al.
(2014) said:
National Systems of Entrepreneurship cannot be properly under-

stood without considering both population-level processes (attitudes,
ability, and aspirations) and the institutional context within which
these processes are embedded. Furthermore, any systemic approach
to measure country-level entrepreneurship has to allow system com-
ponents to interact to produce system performance.
(p. 477)
On the heels of understanding differences in entrepreneurship from place
to place, it is appropriate to turn our attention to policy, which is one of
the most clearly observed ways that places differ in their formal entrepre-
neurship context.
Entrepreneurship Policy
Policy can have an important effect on ecosystem outcomes at the

local, regional, state, and national levels. The goal of governments
and quasi-governmental organizations in economic development is
to create a policy context that is ideally friendly toward business
and attractive to organizations that seek to do business in any envi-
ronment that will give them a strategic advantage over competitors.
Or, they can create regulatory barriers to economic development.
Public policy is the use of government power and resources to bring
about particular social outcomes, such as an increase in the number
of entrepreneurs. . . . Governments have multiple policy options they
can employ to achieve their entrepreneurship and economic develop-
ment goals.
(Spigel, 2020, p. 77)
Here, we use the term policy as an overarching characterization. Policy

is derived from agreed-upon cultural norms, protocols, rules, and behav-
iors. Such behaviors may be initiated from unwritten methods, rules, and
constitute legitimacy for intents and behaviors; however, the most com-
mon of such protocols or behaviors are those which become spelled out
as law. Precedence and norms establish expectations under law. “Gov-
ernment seeks to allocate resources for the collective good and tries to
simultaneously satisfy a larger number of constituencies” (Feldman et al.,
2016, p. 13).
Institutions—whether governmental, associational, industry, or local—
create rules. The rules may appear in a variety of forms such as con-
stitutions, charters, by-laws, laws, regulations, etc. Regulations are used
to influence behavior of organizations or entrepreneurs (Neave & van
Vught, 1994). “Regulations can be both burdens and opportunities; they
can stifle or promote competition, depending on how they are structured
and enforced” (Kourilsky & Walstad, 2007).
Government regulations are created to support certain societal actors
to help meet objectives set by governments (Neave & van Vught, 1994).
“Governments in developed and developing economies have turned to
the development of ecosystems as a way in which to create jobs, boost
innovation, and, in turn, generate economic prosperity” (Spigel et al.,
2020, p. 483). However, “many policies have unintended consequences”
(Feld & Hathaway, 2020, p. 55).
Mason and Brown (2014) and Mazzarol (2014) indicated that, in
supporting an entrepreneurship environment, policies should be holistic
and consider the entrepreneurs, resource providers, connectors and gov-
ernment representatives, the environment of the process (i.e., the entre-
preneurial community), and include some kind of metrics to monitor
strengths and weaknesses. Put differently, “Governments can influence
the market mechanisms and make them function efficiently by removing
conditions that create market imperfections and administrative rigidities.
They can also create an “enterprise culture” that enables firms to take
reasonable risks and seek profits” (Gnyawali & Fogel, 1994, p. 46). On
the flip side, Nielsen et al. (2013) posited:
• Does political intervention do more harm than good because it dis-

torts the market conditions and the natural reproduction of great
entrepreneurial talent?
• Is political intervention (at the end of the day) more of a support to
the many consultants, trainers, and consultants that feed on design-
ing entrepreneurial projects than a support to entrepreneurs—and
is it also a support to the politicians themselves who want to gain
popularity by aligning themselves with the growing entrepreneurship
field?
Increasingly, governments seek to support not only business, or entrepre-

neurs, but holistic ecosystems that inspire entrepreneurs to self-organize,
innovate, and do the work of economic development. “Entrepreneurial
ecosystems are the focus of government economic policies around the
world for their potential to generate entrepreneur-led economic develop-
ment” (Spigel et al., 2020, p. 482). Policymakers thus determine the best
mechanisms to create, foster, and sustain social relationships that pro-
mote economic action for sustainable communities, entrepreneurs, and
economics (Woolcock, 1998). However, much more research is needed
around public policy to know which initiatives generate the best envi-
ronments for entrepreneurs (Spigel et al., 2020), and there remains some
skepticism that policy alone will support a better entrepreneurship envi-
ronment due to a history of underperformance of such policies (Lichten-
stein & Lyons, 2001; Cornwall, 1998; Aziz, 1984).
Legitimacy
The efficacy of policy relies on the legitimacy of the governing body cre-
ating that policy. “Legitimacy can be understood as a socially accepted
compatibility with some values. The legitimate is that which is consid-
ered right, appropriate or the like, in accordance with those specific val-
ues” (Dequech, 2013, p. 95). Three types of legitimacy include moral
legitimacy, political legitimacy, or epistemic legitimacy. Moral legitimacy
follows common social mores, behaviour, or values. Political legitimacy
concerns issues of democracy, freedom, equality, social justices, and civics.
Finally, epistemic legitimacy is moreso cultivated most often in academic
framings such as mental models, processes, or return-on-investment prin-
ciples. Epistemic legitimacy is often founded from empirical evidence,
rigor of standards, and consistency.
Engaging policy leaders with major institutions in business and aca-
demia aids in legitimacy and include “creating and maintaining links
among these institutions require[ing] a commitment to: invest in the
foundational institutions; seek integrated, collaborative solutions; and
identify and reward excellence” (Kanter, 2012, p. 143). A seminal work
by Shaffer and Wright (2010) A New Paradigm for Economic Develop-
ment increased organization of institutional thoughts and planning and
“painted a colorful picture of the many ways that community colleges,
research universities, liberal arts institutions, and regional comprehen-
sive colleges enhance the vitality and competitiveness of their local and
regional communities” (Zimpher, 2012, p. xv). Higher education institu-
tions are multiproduct organizations that include support for human cap-
ital, worker production, R&D, and spending multipliers (Goldstein et al.,
1995). Higher education can enjoy greater autonomy—self-governance with-
out outside controls—when not relying on government support (Neave &
van Vught, 1994).
Sanctions
The focus thus turns toward the mechanisms that governments use to sup-
port or suppress entrepreneuring—intentionally or unintentionally. Sanc-
tions are categorized as rewards or punishments for certain behaviors.
Incentives may be used as positive-reinforcing sanctions to sometimes
provide attraction or momentum for entrepreneurs. Incentives “represent
variations on the environment that can be introduced at the discretion
of the government either locally [or regionally or state-wide] or nation-
ally and can therefore directly modify the attractiveness of the locations
in which they are introduced” (Dubini, 1988, p. 19). Examples would
include “tax structure, cost of credit, insurance costs, access and distance
to suppliers, land cost, cost of energy, cost of transportation, cost of liv-
ing” (Mokry, 1988, p. 20). Incentives can be used with momentum in
growing areas or used to boost declining regions (Dubini, 1988; Ostrom
et al., 1993). Incentives and rewards are sometimes offered in contribut-
ing environments for entrepreneurial activity such as higher education
institutions (Feldman, 2001; Siegel et al., 2007).
With implementation, “formal and informal social norms imply the
possibility of negative or positive sanctions: some sort of punishment
against dissenters or reward for those who comply” (Dequech, 2013,
p. 91). Informal networks stem from personal contacts, relationships,
and independent behaviors (Lowe & Feldman, 2017). Both formal and
informal systems provide entrepreneurs with information, connectivity to
potential resources, and mentoring. However, formal supports tend to be
studied and documented more, yet informal supports and networks are
more likely valuable components in entrepreneurial ecosystems and entre-
preneurial communities that need more exploration and documentation—
typically from qualitative research methods such as interviews.
Capacity Building
Any community’s capacity is a reference to its ability to self-organize to
get things done: it refers to the social structures that are built to evolve
and adapt over time rather than the specific tasks and accomplishments
of the community (Wilkinson, 1991). Building capacity is critical to the
ecosystem or community’s ability to grow and adapt to change.
Capacity building requires government investment: there is simply

no other entity that has societal benefit as its main objective and is
able to command the resources required to have significant impact.
Government is a vehicle for collective action: an agent for whom the
principal is its citizens and the businesses within its borders.
(Feldman et al., 2016, p. 12)
Important components for building capacity include venture capital avail-

ability and other financing mechanisms, technical labor force, incubator
organizations, resources at colleges and universities such as R&D, regional
loan policy, regional zoning policy, and support services (Bruno & Tyebjee,
1982; Parisi et al., 2018; Van de Ven, 1993). “Cooperative and competitive
relationships between populations of organizations affect the distribution
of resources available to entrepreneurs” (Van de Ven, 1993, p. 213).
Life Cycles and Firm Diversity

Entrepreneurs engage in life cycle processes in business development:
discovery, idea, start-up, initial survival, early growth, growth syn-
drome, accumulation, and maturity—with many decisions along the way
(Harrington, 2016, 2017; Stam, 2007). Life cycles would be similarly
key to viewing entrepreneurial ecosystems as dynamic and evolution-
ary. Expanded investigation is needed to explore how and where they
emerge, exploration of growth, understanding reinvigoration, evolve-
ment and boundary management and engagement in an entrepreneurial
community, and, unfortunately, decline and death (Autio et al., 2017).
Lichtenstein and Lyons (2010) stressed this point, noting that it is nor-
mal for businesses to exist at different life cycle stages. These stages may
be meaningfully different from the experience of any one entrepreneur
(e.g., a serialpreneur who had launched a mature business but currently
operates two early-stage enterprises) and that a plurality of entrepreneur
experience and business life cycle stages are important for building a
comprehensive pipeline of mentorship and mutual support.
Morris et al. (2015) noted that firms fall into different categories
motivating their action and thus filling different niches in a comprehen-
sive ecosystem, including survival ventures, lifestyle ventures, managed
growth ventures, and aggressive high-growth ventures. Survival ventures
are categorized as likely necessity-driven and typically support a fam-
ily with no formality of registrations, few assets, no employees, and
self-sufficiency over integrated systems (e.g., no network support such as
banks). Lifestyle ventures are more stable than survival ventures and typ-
ically include a business model, maintenance for ongoing business contin-
uance, a small number of employees, and operating in a single location.
Managed growth ventures are more advanced than lifestyle ventures and
seek stable growth and may include considerations of extended offerings,
new markets, multiple locations, increased staffing needs, and business
development focus. Finally, aggressive high-growth ventures—supported
by Shane (2009)—sometimes referred to as gazelles are often technology-
based or innovation with high entry to create new markets; these ven-
tures may instantaneously become national or international and have a
high potentiality for initial public offerings and/or acquisition. Akin to
gazelles are unicorns—“start-ups valued at more than $1 billion” (Ács
et al., 2017b); a majority of examples emphasize technology (i.e., digital)
platforms (Evans & Schmalensee, 2016). Morris et al. (2015) said, “all
venture types matter and should be encouraged, but they play fundamen-
tally different roles in the economy” (p. 715).
A Range of Thoughts on Policy

There is little agreement about how much of a role policy should play in
shaping entrepreneurship, or what that role should be. Isenberg (2011)
indicated that entrepreneurship should have its own policies separate
from small business owners, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), or
self-employment. Shane (2008, 2009) admonished that public policies
should not encourage new entrepreneurs but rather provide support for
growth and high-growth ventures. Completely counter is Morris et al.’s
(2015) recommendation for a “portfolio policy perspective” and is
advocated across four types of entrepreneur ventures. Isenberg (2011)
suggested that from a policy perspective, “an enlightened Darwinistic
approach to resource allocation” would aid entrepreneurs with the best-
received ideas for success while weeding out unsuccessful ventures and
promoting value in learning from entrepreneurial failure (p. 3). Isenberg
(2011) said, “Ironically, there are strong political pressures for policy
makers to do the exact opposite of what is required. What you want is
a system in which deserving ventures get resources, and no less impor-
tant, in which non-deserving ventures are denied them” (p. 3). Policies
may also support infrastructure with broader goals. From a recent study
by Audretsch and Belitski (2017), their top recommendations for policy-
makers at a regional level included:
1. Enabling labor mobility through resource allocations

2. Combining public and entrepreneurship leaders for private-public
partnerships
3. Improving cultural facilities and amenities
4. Reinforcing entrepreneur culture with localized embeddedness
5. Stimulating entrepreneur awareness and access to growth financing
(pp. 1045–1046)
Similarly Feld and Hathaway (2020) indicated the following:
Regional and local policymakers are more likely to be more actively

involved in coordinating and funding entrepreneurial activities,
including underwriting incubators, facilitating connections and
learning, supporting grassroots initiatives, and encouraging start-
ups and company founders. Local officials can also play an essential
role in assessing the startup community through asset mapping or
incorporating startups and entrepreneurs into a regional economic
development agenda. Local officials have stronger ties to the startup
community, which gives them a direct hand in enhancing or restrict-
ing those factors, enabling them to be conveners, connectors, and
promoters in chief.
(p. 53)
It should be noted that entrepreneurship policy has a checkered history,

especially when implemented in larger domains than communities. Sev-
eral scholars have pointed out that entrepreneurship policy at the national
level has underperformed in the past (Aziz, 1984; Cornwall, 1998; Lich-
tenstein & Lyons, 2001). Others pointed to success stories like Denmark
for their inclusive policies at the nexus of entrepreneurship and economic
development (Jepsen et al., 2017). Regardless, there appears to be a clear
split between those policies that are more closely rooted in traditional eco-
nomic development thinking compared with those that are growth-ori-
ented, and provide entrepreneurs the freedom to fnd their best pathway to
growth. Table 7.1 illustrates the difference between these two approaches.
Governmental Perspectives
Governments often find themselves in the business of giving support to
small businesses and ecosystems more broadly. Governmental support
Table 7.1 A Comparison Between Traditional and Growth-Oriented Entrepre-
neurship Policy
Traditional Enterprise Policies Growth-Oriented Enterprise Policies
Main unit of focus is on specific actors, Main unit of focus is on specific

such as individuals, entrepreneurs, types of entrepreneurs, networks
geographic clusters of firms of entrepreneurs or “temporary”
clusters
Policy objectives is to generate more Policy objective is to focus on the
entrepreneurs and grow more new high potential or “blockbuster
ventures entrepreneurs” with the largest
economic potential
Policy actors are targeted by specific Policy is targeted at connecting
focused interventions aimed at parts components within ecosystems to
of entrepreneurial systems (i.e., enable the system to better function
non-systemic) (i.e., systemic)
Main forms of assistance are Main forms of assistance are
“transactional” forms of support “relational” forms of support such
such as grants, tax incentives, as network building, developing
subsidies, etc. connections between entrepreneurial
actors, institutional alignment of
priorities, fostering peer-based
interactions
Main push by policy makers Recognition that different businesses
is to generate and promote have different funding requirements
entrepreneurial sources of finance such as debt finance, peer to peer,
aimed at start-ups, particularly in the crowdfunding, etc. As businesses
form of venture capital and business grow and upscale different firms
angel funding require access to a “funding
escalator” and “cocktails” of
different funding sources
The generation of new firm-based Focus on developing innovation
intellectual property and innovation systems and fostering connections
was seen as vitally important. with customers, end users, suppliers,
The focus was very much on universities, etc. Increasing
R&D and the protection of recognition of unprotected and
intellectual property rights. Strong “open” sources of innovation.
encouragement to technology and Innovation is porous transcending
innovation within high-tech sectors many sectors and industries—both
new and traditional
The level of policy making is mostly “top The bulk of systemic policies are
down”. The implementation of policy enacted at the regional or local level.
is mostly undertaken at national level Multi-scalar policy frameworks are
but some initiatives are devolved emerging
(based on Mason & Brown, 2014, p. 4)
comes in basically three forms: an invisible hand, a helping hand, or a

grabbing hand (Frye & Shleifer, 1997):
Under the invisible hand model, the government is well-organized,

generally uncorrupted, and relatively benevolent. It restricts itself to
providing basic public goods, such as contract enforcement, law and
order, and some regulations, and it leaves most allocative decisions
to the private sector.
Under the helping-hand model, bureaucrats are intimately involved
in promoting private economic activities, they support some firms
and kill off others, pursue industrial policy, and often have close eco-
nomic and family ties to entrepreneurs. . . . Bureaucrats are corrupt,
but correction is relatively limited and organized.
In the final, grabbing-hand model, government is just as interven-
tionalist, but much less organized, than in the helping-hand model.
The government consists of a large number of substantially indepen-
dent bureaucrats pursuing their own agendas, including taking bribes.
(Frye & Shleifer, 1997, p. 354)
Rules, legal environment, and governmental controls are key concerns.

How do they support or inhibit entrepreneurial frms, economic develop-
ment, and entrepreneurial ecosystems or entrepreneurial communities?
The answers to these considerations vary greatly from region to region,
state to state, and country to country. Fogel et al. (2006) observed:
‘Helping hand’ governments proactively manage their economies to

advance social and economic development. These governments typi-
cally have large budgets and direct many state controlled enterprises.
While these activities are probably covers for ‘grabbing hand’ politics in
some countries, they reflect genuinely benevolent government in others.
Even so, ‘helping hand’ governments impose costs upon the economy.
Their activities bid up factor costs, including capital costs, and crowd
out private investment. This is particularly unfavourable to upstarts.
(p. 551)
Hence, some communities favor large corporations because of the posi-

tive infux into governmental coffers. Large corporations are great—
while they remain and support the systems they are part of. However,
once withdrawn, major gaps from “corporate towns” have a dramatic
negative impact (see Fortunato, 2017a, 2017b). Goetz and Freshwater
(2001) indicated:
A state’s climate can be support of, detrimental to, or neutral with

respect to entrepreneurship. For example, two states with the same
levels of entrepreneurial inputs will have different outputs of entre-
preneurship if they have different climates. Alternatively, a state with
low levels of inputs may generate the same level of output as a state
with higher levels of inputs if the state has a climate that is more
conducive to, or supportive of, entrepreneurial activity.
(p. 60)
Table 7.2 illustrates the aggregated entrepreneurial climate of the 50 U.S.
states, as ranked in the 2020 Michigan Entrepreneurship Scorecard (Toft
et al., 2020). They defne entrepreneurial climate as “the broader busi-
ness climate and institutional environment” as a foundation, with ele-
ments including “the general magnitude and effectiveness of investments
in innovation activity, the availability of fnancial capital, and the general
level of economic dynamism” (p. 54). The report has dozens of various
indicators, and each is ranked by state.
The next section discusses supports for entrepreneuring beyond the
realm of policy and examining both formal and informal institutional
supports.
Formal Institutional Supports

Formal institutions set an important context of facilitating, blocking,
and constraining conditions for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and
small business research supports information development (such as job
generation and labor market change) that creates as well as impacts pol-
icy making regionally, in states, and nationally (Landström, 2005; Stam &
Bosma, 2015).
This section provides some applied examples of formal institutions that
influence entrepreneurship and economic outcomes through non-policy
mechanisms. Several are likely to be familiar, some work to create an
uplifting socioeconomic context for entrepreneurship by fostering local
social capital, while others are more concerned with physical capital and
Table 7.2 Assessment of Entrepreneurial Climate of the 50 U.S. States
State Rank Grade State Rank Grade State Rank Grade
AL 15 B LA 45 F OH 13 B
AK 47 F ME 37 D OK 48 F
AZ 23 C MD 5 B+ OR 10 B
AR 44 F MA 1 A PA 12 B
CA 2 A MI 22 C RI 20 C
CO 7 B+ MN 11 B SC 39 D-
CT 30 C MS 43 F SD 29 C
DE 24 C MO 40 D- TN 27 C
FL 25 C MT 31 C TX 9 B
GA 17 C NE 42 F UT 3 B+
HI 34 D NV 32 D VT 26 C
IA 36 D NH 14 B VA 18 C
ID 21 D NJ 28 C WA 8 B
IL 16 C NM 19 C WV 50 F
IN 35 C- NY 4 B+ WI 33 D
KS 38 D- NC 6 B+ WY 46 F
KY 41 F ND 49 F
(based on Ranks from Toft et al., 2020, p. 54)
financing. All play an important role at various levels, national through
local, in the United States.
The Office of Innovation & Entrepreneurship

The U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) is a bureau
within the U.S. Department of Commerce (EDA, 2021a). It has a variety
of resources available including grant programs, federal collaborations,
and the National Advisory Council of Innovation & Entrepreneurship
(NACIE) (see www.eda.gov/oie/).
Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs)

A number of scholars contend that entrepreneurship promotes local job
creation, support of economic development, continued community stra-
tegic development, deregulation, and privatization of enterprise (Birch,
1979; Gibb, 1996; Kirby, 2007; Peters, 1987). According to the national
SBDC website, “a new business starts every 26 minutes, a new job every
5.7 minutes, $100,000 in financing every 8.8 minutes, and $100,000 in
new sales every 7.2 minutes” (SBDC, 2021, para 2). SBDCs provide a
range of services such as free business consulting, accessing capital, busi-
ness planning, marketing, technology development, regulatory compli-
ance, training, and international trade. For a list of SBDC locations in the
U.S., visit https://americassbdc.org/find-your-sbdc/
States and regions often have specialized support organizations. One
such organization in Pennsylvania is Ben Franklin Technology Partners,
discussed here as an example of regional support.
Ben Franklin Technology Partners

The Ben Franklin Technology Partners of Northeastern Pennsylvania
(BFTP/NEP) is part of a four-center, state-funded economic development
initiative that creates and retains highly paid, sustainable jobs by linking
early-stage technology-based firms and established manufacturers with
experts, universities, funding, and other resources to help them prosper
through innovation. It is part of an award-winning, four-center economic
development initiative of the Pennsylvania Department of Community
and Economic Development and is funded by the Ben Franklin Technol-
ogy Development Authority. Since beginning operations in 1983, BFTP/
NEP has helped to create 19,740 new jobs for Pennsylvania workers
and to retain 49,864 existing jobs, to start 531 new companies, and to
develop 2,296 new products and processes. Since 2007, BFTP/NEP cli-
ents have generated $1.6 billion in follow-on funding. The Pennsylvania
Ben Franklin Technology Partners network has returned $3.90 to the
state treasury for every $1.00 invested in the program.
BFTP/NEP’s strategy encompasses three key areas:
1. developing and growing early-stage technology-oriented companies;

2. supporting established manufacturers as they creatively apply new
technology to help them succeed globally by producing better,
cheaper, and faster;
3. promoting an innovative community-wide infrastructure that sup-
ports Pennsylvania’s business technology ecosystem.
BFTP/NEP owns, manages, and is headquartered in Ben Franklin Tech-

Ventures®, an award-winning business incubator/post-incubator facil-
ity on Lehigh University’s campus in Bethlehem with regional offces in
Bloomsburg, Reading, and Scranton. BFTP/NEP also owns and manages
the Bloomsburg Regional Technology Center. Applying more than 37
years of experience and two international awards for excellence in busi-
ness incubation, BFTP/NEP leads a 14-member business incubator net-
work that is among the largest in the nation.
Ben Franklin Technology Partners History

In 1978, while Dick Thornburgh was in the midst of his gubernato-
rial campaign, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was facing eco-
nomic challenges. The heavy manufacturing jobs that had sustained
Pennsylvania’s workforce were disappearing and the economy was
facing serious economic challenges. When Thornburgh and Lieu-
tenant Governor Bill Scranton were elected, they acted on their
campaign promise to address the ailing economy. A business-labor
organization conducted a study, and the results were published in
a report titled, “Choices for Pennsylvanians” in September 1981.
Major points included:
• Pennsylvania has been losing out to other states in the competi-

tion for rapidly expanding high-technology industries. One rea-
son is its inability to train enough youth in applied science and
technology. A refocusing of faculties and institutions of learn-
ing to meet future workforce needs in these areas is critical.
• Pennsylvania should encourage private investors to make more
investments in higher-risk ventures. Along with this, expand
and better target government-based business loan funds as
sources of venture capital for Pennsylvania small businesses.
Such funds should be used only to fill needs unmet by private
capital markets and higher risk ventures.
• Pennsylvania should encourage the creation of multiple-occupant
enterprise development sites.
• Pennsylvania should provide specialized technical assistance to
facilitate the continued successful operation of sound companies.
The report concluded that small business development and

advanced technology development were extremely important, and
that private industry should play a major role in revitalizing Penn-
sylvania’s economy through a statewide focus on high-tech. Rec-
ommendations from this and other research resulted in a six-point
economic development strategy, including one addressing advanced
technology. Regarding this, Thornburgh said, “We have proposed
in our state that government serve as a catalyst for growth in this
area through the Ben Franklin Partnership (BFP).”
Walt Plosila, Director of the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Policy, was charged with directing a policy package and strategy.
On December 17, 1981, Plosila released an opinion paper, An
Advanced Technology Promotion for Pennsylvania. In the paper,
Plosila made the following points:
• Although heavy manufacturing was declining nationally, high-

tech industries were on the rise.
• Financing should be more readily available to advanced tech-
nology and business.
• Pennsylvania could focus on already-existing advanced tech-
nology both to raise awareness of export potential and to draw
new advanced technology companies.
Committees were formed to define approaches to promoting

advanced technologies. The Governor introduced the program in
his budget address on February 9, 1982. The Governor’s team con-
ducted early outreach efforts to colleges and universities, industry
groups, local economic development groups, and chambers of com-
merce to obtain their input and support. There was widespread
backing for the plan; citizens were anxious for a workable eco-
nomic development plan to address the problems caused by shrink-
ing heavy industry sectors.
Plosila benchmarked features of the BFP based on the success
of the research corridors in California, Massachusetts, and North
Carolina. Among the findings were that relationships with colleges
and universities are key. Harnessing the resources, faculty, equip-
ment, and students of Pennsylvania’s higher education institutions
provides companies with expertise, state-of-the art practices, and
inexpensive labor from students. Colleges and universities benefit
from the opportunity to apply their research in the market through
a company as well as the opportunity for their students to garner
practical experience in their academic endeavors.
On March 22, 1982, the Ben Franklin Partnership Challenge
Grant Program (H.B. 2344) was introduced, and the general assem-
bly appropriated $1 million to the program on June 8, 1982. The
Ben Franklin Partnership Challenge Grant Program passed the
legislature in November, and on December 6, 1982, the Governor
signed the bill into law. Ben Franklin serves all 67 counties in Penn-
sylvania through its four regionally based centers in the Lehigh
Valley, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and University Park, serving north-
eastern Pennsylvania, southeastern Pennsylvania, southwestern
Pennsylvania, and central and northern Pennsylvania, respectively.
The four headquarters allow each center to develop and execute
partnerships, college and university relationships, and invest-
ment strategies that best serve their regional economies under the
umbrella mission of the Ben Franklin Partnership. More than 35
years has passed since the passage of the enabling legislation, and
the sociopolitical drivers and political environment have changed.
But mission and strategy of the Ben Franklin Technology Partners,
as it is now called, remain sound.
The Ben Franklin Technology Partners has earned international
acclaim as the gold standard in technology-based economic devel-
opment. It has assumed leadership roles in supporting ecosystems
that support innovation, in areas such as business incubation and
centers of excellence. It has received multiple awards and garnered
visits from other states and countries that are interested in modeling
the program’s success. Since 1989, the program statewide created
148,000 new jobs directly attributable to Ben Franklin Technol-
ogy Partners and boosted the Pennsylvania economy by $25 bil-
lion. More important, every 5 years Ben Franklin commissions a
third-party assessment of the impact to the Commonwealth. From
the most recent period 2012–2016, Ben Franklin clients generated
$386 million in direct tax revenue for Pennsylvania, that’s a 3.9–1
payback to the Commonwealth on its $100 million investment. By
every measure, the Ben Franklin Technology Partners is a resound-
ing success.
Culture and Informal Institutional Supports

Perhaps most subtle in influencing entrepreneurship outcomes are cul-
tural and informal supports to entrepreneurship. Institutions are any
arrangement of human relationships that structure and order human
action, and thus influence human outcomes (Schmid, 2008). A com-
bination of social structure (an independent variable with an internal
locus of control) with situations facing the group (an independent vari-
able with an external locus of control) influences the performance of
that institution (the dependent variable) (Schmid, 2008). This generalized
model can be applied to nearly any situation, formal or informal. While
formal institutions are easy to understand (i.e., it is easy to see and mea-
sure how new policies create different outcomes), it is more difficult to
see how informal institutions like culture, norms, attitudes, and values
influence entrepreneurship—although this literature is growing. Culture,
norms, and values begin to influence human behavior from a very early
age, beginning with the family and, just beyond, the community (Wilkin-
son, 1991; Berger & Luckmann, 1966).
In an entrepreneurship context, culture shapes the realm of what is
possible, and what is valued, and it can vary across nations, states (or
provinces), regions, territories, communities (e.g., counties, boroughs,
and townships), or even neighborhoods—right down to the different cul-
tures of different restaurants, clubs, and retail stores on the same street
and the customers they attract. Like any institution, this variation plays
an important role in shaping entrepreneurship or economic outcomes on
the ground, inherent not only in the values and beliefs that provide bar-
riers or supports for entrepreneuring but also in the belief that entrepre-
neurship is a valuable and honorable life choice in the first place (Julien,
2008). These cultural values impact not only entrepreneurs but also the
societies in which they do business—which can lead to support for local
business, or preference for extra-local offerings from larger corporations
(see Breazeale & Hustedde, 2017; Hustedde, 2007).
Networks have also been at the root of examination for what consti-
tutes an entrepreneurial community. Beginning with Granovetter’s the-
ory of weak ties (1973) and social embeddedness in economic systems
(1985), the social network basis of entrepreneurship (and its brokering
power for supporting new venturing) has been explored by Aldrich and
Zimmer (1986), Johannisson and Nilsson (1989), Burt (2000), Jack and
Anderson (2002), and many others since. At the heart of this literature
is the simple idea that strategically networked entrepreneurs are able
to venture more effectively, find resources, find customers, learn and
act upon opportunities, and enjoy greater levels of success. This under-
standing also forms the basis of modern descriptions of entrepreneurial
ecosystems like Isenberg (2010) and Feld (2012), who stress interper-
sonal connectivity across leaders (entrepreneurs) and feeders (and sup-
port organizations) as central to the ecosystem concept. And, since
entrepreneurship tends to pass from person to person via role modeling
(including parenting), having a pipeline of entrepreneurs and more entre-
preneurs in the local society is critical to the spread of entrepreneurship
knowledge (Lindquist et al., 2015; Lichtenstein & Lyons, 2010; Reyn-
olds et al., 1994). One key lesson is simple: from a contextual perspec-
tive, those cultures that support higher levels of interpersonal interaction
and strategic collaboration (even among potential rivals) are more likely
to spawn a culture that is favorable to entrepreneurship, that supports
local business venturing, and that effectively incubates new ventures
while absorbing failures.
Of course, not every institution is a cultural support in the strictest
sense. Fortunato (2017b) and Fortunato and McLaughlin (2012) have
examined the ways that culture and institutions differ across high- and
low-entrepreneurship areas, finding that high-entrepreneurship areas are
highly interactive and possess a local culture (among non-entrepreneurs)
that values entrepreneurs and their ventures. Low-entrepreneurship areas,
by contrast, are often rooted in the ethics of corporations, especially domi-
nance by one or a few large companies, and thus have a more hierarchi-
cal, less interactive culture that is oriented toward economic stability, risk
aversion, and a paucity of entrepreneur mentors. Such places may even
have a negative view of entrepreneurs and entrepreneuring, seeing it as
frivolous, doomed to fail, attention-seeking, or foolish when compared
to getting a wage employment job (Fortunato, 2017b). Julien (2008)
similarly asked why some regions are able to generate endogenous entre-
preneurship, while others struggle to do so, sometimes for generations.
Such cultures have been called communities of disentrepreneurship, where
entrepreneurship is not valued by the surrounding cultural context, thus
providing a cultural disincentive to see entrepreneurship as a valued activ-
ity in the first place (Honig & Dana, 2008; Honig & Black, 2007).
Much like any social movement toward an intended outcome, the les-
son of culture is relatively straightforward: positive and proactive cul-
tures in the background of any entrepreneurial community or ecosystem
is likely to have a substantially supportive effect on entrepreneurial action
in the foreground. Cultural change is a challenging proposition, but cre-
ating organizations to raise awareness of the benefits of local entrepre-
neurship, buy local, replace extra-local suppliers with local ones (even
for large companies and governments), hold meetups and interest groups
to discuss support for local entrepreneurship, and to explore a career in
entrepreneurship—all of these are ways that any community or ecosys-
tem builder can start to make a difference (see the American Independent
Business Alliance, or AMIBA, at www.amiba.net for more ideas).
Summary
The interplay of contextual factors at a variety of levels has critically
important implications for entrepreneurial action in any ecosystem or
community, providing a variety of facilitating, blocking, and constrain-
ing factors that influence outcomes under any situation. While national
and state initiatives are important from a top-down, governmental, and
policy framework, entrepreneurship culture identities and impact are rec-
ognized more at the regional and local levels (Aoyama, 2009; Gertler,
2010; Hayton & Cacciotti, 2013, 2014; Syssner, 2009). “When business,
academic, and policy leaders collaborate to bridge the gaps, they create
a fertile environment for job growth and more-inclusive prosperity”
(Kanter, 2012, p. 143). Specific documentation is needed at the local and
regional levels because “national-level data hide a great deal of variation
between and within city-regions, which makes it difficult to understand
the reality of the situation on the ground” (Spigel et al., 2020, p. 485).
While the field of entrepreneurship and research in economic develop-
ment with a focus on entrepreneurs has increased over time, there is an
ongoing need for further research (Stam & Bosma, 2015; Trettin & Wel-
ter, 2011). Thus, Chapters 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 explore specific,
on-the-ground case studies. Feld and Hathaway (2020) promote that illu-
minating interactions within entrepreneurial communities and entrepre-
neurial ecosystems is the key to understanding the parts of these systems.
Evidence by Spigel et al. (2020) indicates that policymakers desire such
data from key stakeholders to include both quantitative and qualitative
insights. These sentiments are also supported by practitioners (e.g., Feld,
2012; Isenberg, 2010).
Framework conditions are not totalizing: they are not fully deter-
ministic of outcomes. High-growth firms have come from low-growth
areas (the story of Cabela’s, from Sidney, NE comes to mind), and top
entrepreneurs continue to emerge in environments that have placed con-
straints on growth, financialization, and information sharing (see Zhai
et al., 2021, for the story of the recent turbulence following a meteoric
rise experienced by Jack Ma in China, a runaway success free-market
enterprise in a nation ruled by the Chinese Communist Party). However,
framework conditions are highly influential in facilitating, blocking, and
constraining action on the ground. The average entrepreneur may or
may not be aware of this broader context, or of the potential resources
and threats that exist at levels or domains higher than their own com-
munity or region. The best way to learn this, as with all research, is to
ask. In ecosystems research, the role of framework conditions at multiple
levels of the panarchy is likely to continue to be an important focus,
particularly when it comes to their interplay and how different levels
catalyze evolution and adaptation in other levels. Framing conditions;
government regulations, policies, resources; and support organizations
(e.g., higher education, nonprofits, funding agencies and groups, youth
development organizations, industries, and associations) all have para-
mount considerations effecting entrepreneurs and the environments in
which they function.
References
Abel, J. R., & Deitz, R. (2011). Do colleges and universities increase their region’s
human capital? Federal Reserve Bank of New York staff reports. Staff Report
No. 401. www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/
sr401.pdf
Ács, Z. J., & Armington, C. (2006). Entrepreneurship, geography, and American
economic growth. Cambridge University Press.
Ács, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship:
Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43, 476–494.
Ács, Z. J., Desai, S., & Hessels, J. (2008). Entrepreneurship, economic develop-
ment, and institutions. Small Business Economics, 31, 219–234.
Ács, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B., & O’Connor, A. (2017a). The lineages of
the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49, 1–10.
Ács, Z. J., Szerb, L., Autio, E., & Lloyd, A. (2017b). Global entrepreneurship
index. Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute (GEDI).
Ács, Z. J., & Varga, A. (2005). Entrepreneurship, agglomeration, and technologi-
cal change. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 323–334.
Aldrich, H., & Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. In
D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship
(pp. 3–23). Ballinger Publishing Company.
Anderson, A. R., & Gaddefors, J. (2016). Entrepreneurship as a community phe-
nomenon; reconnecting meanings and place. International Journal of Entrepre-
neurship and Small Business, 28(4), 504–518.
Aoyama, Y. (2009). Entrepreneurship and regional culture: The case of Hama-
mtsu and Kyoto, Japan. Regional Studies, 43(3), 495–512.
Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities:
Establishing the framework conditions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42,
1030–1051.
Autio, E., & Levie, J. (2017). Management of entrepreneurial ecosystems. In G.
Ahmetoglu, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, B. Klinger, & T. Karcisky (Eds.), The Wiley
handbook of entrepreneurship (pp. 423–449). Wiley.
Aziz, S. (1984). Rural development—some essential prerequisites. International
Labour Review, 123(3), 277–285.
Baumol, W. J. (1968). Entrepreneurship in economic theory. The American Eco-
nomic Review, 58(2), 64–71.
Bearse, S. J. (1981). A study of entrepreneurship by region and SMSA size. Public/
Private Ventures.
Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2006). Identity, identi-
fication, and relationship through social alliances. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34(2), 128–137.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise
in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday & Company.
Birch, D. (1979). The job generation process. MIT Program on Neighborhood
and Regional Change.
Bird, M., & Wennberg, K. (2014). Regional influences on the prevalence of family
versus non-family start-ups. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 421–436.
Bosma, N. S. A. D. J., Hill, S., Ionescu-Somers, A., Kelley, D., Levie, J., & Tarnawa,
A. (2020). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2019/2020 global report. Global
Entrepreneurship Research Association, London Business School.
Breazeale, N. D., & Hustedde, R. J. (2017). Understanding the impact of culture
in entrepreneurship. In M. W-P Fortunato & M. R. Clevenger (Eds.), Toward
Bruno, A. V., & Tyebjee, T. T. (1982). The environment for entrepreneurship. In
C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneur-
ship (pp. 288–307). Prentice-Hall.
Bruns, K., Bosma, N., Sanders, M., & Schramm, M. (2017). Searching for the
existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: A regional cross-section growth
regression approach. Small Business Economics, 49, 31–54.
Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organiza-
tional Behavior, 22, 345–423.
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Mode 3 and Quadruple Helix:
Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of
Technology Management, 46, 201–234.
Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Campbell, D. F. J., Meissner, D., & Stamati,
D. (2017). The ecosystem as helix: An exploratory theory-building study of
regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Qadruple/Quintuple Helix
Innovation Models. R&D Management, 48(1), 148–162.
Chinitz, B. (1961). Contrasts in agglomeration: New York and Pittsburg. Ameri-
can Economic Review, 51, 279–289.
Cornwall, J. R. (1998). The entrepreneur as a building block for community. Jour-
nal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 141–148.
Cronshaw, S. F., & McCulloch, A. N. A. (2008). Reinstating the Lewinian vision:
From force field analysis to organization field assessment. Organization Devel-
opment Journal, 26(4), 89–103.
Dequech, D. (2013). Economic institutions: Explanations for conformity and
room for deviation. Journal of Institutional Economics, 9(1), 81–108.
Dubini, P. (1988). The influence and motivations and environment on business
start-ups: Some hints for public policies. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 11–26.
Eddy, P. L. (2010). Partnerships and collaborations in higher education. ASHE
Higher Education Report, 36(2). Wiley.
Etzkowitz, H., & Dzisah, J. (2008). Rethinking development: Circulation in the
triple helix. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(6), 653–666.
Evans, D. S., & Schmalensee, R. (2016). Matchmakers: The new economics of
multisided platforms. Harvard Business Review Press.
your city. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Feldman, M. P. (2001). The entrepreneurial event revisited: Firm formation in a
regional context. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 861–891.
Feldman, M. P., Hadjimichael, T., Lanahan, L., & Kemeny, T. (2016). The logic of
economic development: A definition and model for investment. Environment
and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34, 5–21.
Fogel, K., Hawk, A., Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2006). Institutional obstacles to
entrepreneurship. In M. Casson, B. Yeung, A. Basu, & N. Wadeson (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of entrepreneurship (pp. 540–579). Oxford University Press.
Fornahl, D. (2003). Entrepreneurial activities in a regional context. In D. Fornahl &
T. Brenner (Eds.), Cooperation, networks, and institutions in regional innova-
tion systems (pp. 38–57). Edward Elgar.
Fortunato, M. W-P, & McLaughlin, D. K. (2012). Interaction and purpose in
highly entrepreneurial communities. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 2(1).
Fritsch, M. (2013). New business formation and regional development: A sur-
vey and assessment of the evidence. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneur-
ship, 9(3), 249–264.
Fritsch, M., & Wyrwich, M. (2017). The effect of entrepreneurship on economic
development—an empirical analysis using regional entrepreneurship culture.
Journal of Economic Geography, 17(1), 157–189.
Frye, T., & Shleifer, A. (1997). The invisible hand and the grabbing hand. Ameri-
can Economic Review, 87(2), 354–358.
Furchtgott-Roth, D. (2008). What are the barriers for entrepreneurs? In D.
Furchtgott-Roth (Ed.), Overcoming barriers to entrepreneurship in the United
States (pp. 1–14). Lexington Books.
Galán-Muros, V., & Davey, T. (2017). The UBC ecosystem: Putting together
a comprehensive framework for university-business cooperation. Journal
of Technology Transfer, 44, 1311–1346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-
017-9562-3
Gertler, M. S. (2010). Rules of the game: The place of institutions in regional
economic change. Regional Studies, 44, 1–15.
Gibb, A. A. (1996). Entrepreneurship and small business management: Can we
afford to neglect them in the twenty-first century business school? British Jour-
nal of Management, 7(4), 309–324.
Goetz, S. J., & Freshwater, D. (2001). State-level determinants of entrepreneur-
ship and a preliminary measure of entrepreneurial climate. Economic Develop-
ment Quarterly, 15(1), 58–70.
Goetz, S. J., & Rupasingha, A. (2014). The determinants of self-employment
growth: Insights from county-level data, 2000–2009. Economic Development
Quarterly, 28(1), 42–60.
Goldstein, H., Maier, G., & Luger, M. (1995). The university as an instrument for
economic and business development: U.S. and European comparisons. In D. D.
Dill & B. Sporn (Eds.), Emerging patterns of social demand and university
reform: Through a glass darkly (pp. 105–139). Pergamon.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Psy-
chology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and the economic structure: The
problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding
transformations in human and natural systems. Washington: Island press.
Harrington, K. (2016). Is your entrepreneurial ecosystem scaling? An approach
to inventorying and measuring a region’s innovation momentum. Innovations:
Technology, Governance, Globalization, 11(1–2), 126–142.
Harrington, K. (2017, April). Entrepreneurial ecosystem momentum and matu-
rity: The important role of entrepreneur development organizations and their
activities. The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. www.kauffman.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Entrepreneurial_Ecosystem_Momentum_and_
Maturity_2017.pdf
Hatakeyama, K., & Ruppel, D. (2004, June 27–30). Sábato’s triangle and inter-
national academic cooperation: The importance of extra-relations for the Latin
American enhancement. Paper presented at the International Conference on
Engineering Education and Research “Progress through Partnership,” Olo-
mouc and Bouzov Castle, Czech Republic. www.ineer.org/Events/ICEER2004/
Proceedings/papers/0535.pdf
Hayton, J. C., & Cacciotti, G. (2013). Is there an entrepreneurial culture? A
review of empirical research. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25,
708–731.
Hayton, J. C., & Cacciotti, G. (2014). Culture and entrepreneurship: Empiri-
cal evidence for direct and indirect effects. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of
research on entrepreneurship: What we know and what we need to know
Henderson, J., Low, S., & Weiler, S. (2007). The drivers of regional entrepreneur-
ship in rural and metro areas. Entrepreneurship and local economic develop-
ment (pp. 81–102). Lexington Books.
Hindle, K. (2010). How community context affects entrepreneurial process: A
599–647.
Honig, B., & Black, E. L. (2007). The industrial revolution and beyond: Two hun-
dred years of entrepreneurship and “dis-entrepreneurship” in a small Scottish
town. Journal of Management History, 13(3), 269–289.
Honig, B., & Dana, L. (2008). Communities of disentrepreneurship: A compara-
tive cross-national examination of entrepreneurial demise. Journal of Enter-
prising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 2(1), 5–20.
Hoover, E. M. (1948). The location of economic activity. McGraw-Hill.
Huggins, R., Morgan, B., & Williams, N. (2015). Regional entrepreneurship and
the evolution of public policy and governance: Evidence from three regions.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 22(3), 473–511.
ness Review, 88(6), 40–50.
Isenberg, D. J. (2011, May 12). The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a
new paradigm for economic policy: Principles for cultivating entrepreneurship.
Presentation at The Institute of International and European Affairs, Dublin,
Ireland. www.innovationamerica.us/images/stories/2011/The-entrepreneurship-
ecosystem-strategy-for-economic-growth-policy-20110620183915.pdf
Jack, S. L., & Anderson, A. R. (2002). The effects of embeddedness on the entre-
preneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 467–487.
Jepsen, A., Halabisky, D., & Lavison, C. (2017). Inclusive entrepreneurship poli-
cies, country assessment notes. Organization for Economic Cooperation &
Development (OECD).
Johannisson, B., & Nilsson, A. (1989). Community entrepreneurs: Networking
for local development. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1(1), 3–19.
Kanter, R. M. (2012, March). Enriching the ecosystem: A four-point plan for
linking innovation, enterprises, and jobs. Harvard Business Review, 140–147.
Kirby, D. (2007). Changing the entrepreneurship education paradigm. In A.
Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1,
pp. 21–45). Edward Elgar.
Kourilsky, M. L., & Walstad, W. B. (2007). The entrepreneur in youth: An
untapped resource for economic growth, social entrepreneurship, and educa-
tion. Edward Elgar.
Kuckertz, A., Berger, E. S. C., & Allmendinger, M. P. (2015). What drives entrepre-
neurship? A configurational analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurship
in innovation-driven economies. Die Betriebswirtschaft—Business Administra-
tion Review, 75(4), 273–288.
Springer.
Lindquist, M. J., Sol, J., & Van Praag, M. (2015). Why do entrepreneurial parents
have entrepreneurial children? Journal of Labor Economics, 33(2), 269–296.
Lowe, N. J., & Feldman, M. P. (2017). Institutional life within an entrepreneurial
region. Geography Compass, 11, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12306
Lyons, T. S., Alter, T. R., Audretsch, D., & Augustine, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship
and community: The next frontier of entrepreneurship inquiry. Entrepreneur-
ship Research Journal, 2(1).
Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2002). The elusive concept of localization econo-
mies: Towards a knowledge based theory of spatial clustering. Environment
and Planning A 34, 429–449.
Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2003). Deconstructing clusters: Chaotic concept or pol-
icy panacea? Journal of Economic Geography, 7, 573–603.
entrepreneurship. OECD. www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/entrepreneurial-ecosystems.pdf
Mazzarol, T. (2014). Growing and sustaining entrepreneurial ecosystems: What
they are and the role of government policy. White Paper WP01–2014, Small
Enterprise Association of Australia and New Zealand (SEAANZ). https://
smallbusiness.report/Resources/Whitepapers/28ea2090-9f50-4220-a098-
a9435a2dbe20_iicie.pdf
Mitra, J. (2019). Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional development: An
introduction. Routledge.
Mokry, B. W. (1988). Entrepreneurship and public policy: Can government stim-
ulate business startups? Quorum Books.
Morris, M. H., Neumeyer, X., & Kuratko, D. F. (2015). A portfolio perspective
on entrepreneurship and economic development. Small Business Economics,
45, 713–728.
Neave, G., & van Vught, F. A. (Eds.). (1994). Government and higher educa-
tion relationships across three continents: The winds of change. IAU Press/
Pergamon.
Nielsen, S. L., Klyver, K., Evald, M. R., & Bager, T. (2013). Entrepreneurship in
theory and practice: Paradoxes in play (2nd ed.). Edward Elgar.
Ostrom, E., Schroeder, L., & Wynne, S. (1993). Institutional incentives and sus-
tainable development: Infrastructure policies in perspective. Westview Press.
Parisi, E., Miglietto, A., & Peirone, D. (2018). Business incubators and entrepre-
neurial networks: A methodology for assessing incubator effectiveness and per-
formance. In E. G. Carayannis, G. B. Dagnino, S. Alvarez, & R. Faraci, (Eds.),
Entrepreneurial ecosystems and diffusion of startups (pp. 139–167). Edward
Elgar.
Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a management revolution.
Pan Books.
Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local
clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15–34.
Qian, H. (2018). Knowledge-based regional economic development: A synthetic
review of knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial ecosys-
tems. Economic Development Quarterly, 32(2), 163–176.
Reynolds, P., Storey, D. J., & Westhead, P. (1994). Cross-national comparisons of
the variation in new firm formation rates. Regional Studies, 28(4), 443–456.
Schramm, C. J. (2004). Building entrepreneurial economies. Foreign Affairs,
83(4), 104–115.
Shaffer, D. F., & Wright, D. J. (2010). A new paradigm for economic development:
How higher education institutions are working to revitalize their regional and
state economies. Report. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
Shane, S. A. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is
bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 141–149.
Siegel, D. S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2007). The rise of entrepreneurial activity
at universities: Organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corpo-
rate Change, 16(4), 489–504.
Small Business Development Center. (SBDC). (2021). America’s SBDC. https://
americassbdc.org/
Edward Elgar.
Spigel, B., Kitagawa, F., & Mason, C. (2020). A manifesto for researching entre-
preneurial ecosystems. Local Economy, 35(5), 482–495.
Stam, E. (2007). Why butterflies don’t leave: Locational behavior of entrepre-
neurial firms. Economic Geography, 83(1), 27–50.
Stam, E., & Bosma, N. (2015). Growing entrepreneurial economies: Entrepre-
neurship and regional development. In T. Baker & F. Welter (Eds.), The Rout-
ledge companion to entrepreneurship (pp. 325–340). Routledge.
Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. In R. Blackburn, De
Clercq, D., & Heinonen, J. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of small business and
entrepreneurs (pp. 407–422). Sage.
Stangler, D., & Bell-Masterson, J. (2015). Measuring an entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. www.kauffman.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/12/measuring_an_entrepreneurial_ecosystem.pdf
Stoica, O., Roman, A., & Rusu, V. D. (2020). The nexus between entrepreneurship
and economic growth: A comparative analysis on groups of countries. Sustain-
ability, 12(3), Article 1186.
Suchart, T. (2017). Factors influencing opportunity driven nascent entrepreneurs
in Europe and Asia. European Research Studies Journal, XX(3A), 774–782.
Syssner, J. (2009). Conceptualizations of culture and identity in regional policy.
Regional and Federal Studies, 19(3), 437–458.
Tamásy, C. (2006). Determinants of regional entrepreneurship dynamics in con-
temporary Germany: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Regional Stud-
ies, 40(4), 365–384.
Toft, G., Jeserich, N., & McCabe, L. (2020). Michigan entrepreneurship
score card (16th annual ed.). Small Business Association of Michigan. VP
Demand Creation Services. www.sbam.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SBAMS
corecard2020_Digital-2.pdf
Trettin, L., & Welter, F. (2011). Challenges for spatially oriented entrepreneurship
research. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(7–8), 575–602.
U.S. Economic Development Administration. (EDA). (2021a). About OIE. www.
eda.gov/oie/
U.S. Economic Development Administration. (EDA). (2021b). Build to scale pro-
gram. www.eda.gov/oie/
Valliere, D. (2010). Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial framework conditions.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(1), 97–112.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1993). The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneur-
ship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 211–230.
Venkataraman, S. (2004). Regional transformation through technological entre-
preneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 153–167.
Walzer, N., & Athiyaman, A. (2007). Introduction and overview. In N. Walzer
(Ed.), Entrepreneurship and local economic development (pp. 1–20). Lexing-
ton Books.
Walzer, N., Athiyaman, A., & Hamm, G. F. (2007). Entrepreneurship and small
business growth. In N. Walzer (Ed.), Entrepreneurship and local economic
development (pp. 59–79). Lexington Books.
Wegenroth, U. (2010). History of entrepreneurship: Germany after 1815. In D. S.
Landes, J. Mokyr & W. J. Baumol (Eds.), The invention of enterprise: Entrepre-
neurship from ancient Mesopotamia to modern times (pp. 273–304). Princeton
University Press.
Wenger, A., & Cavelty, M. D. (2022). The ambiguity of cyber security politics in
the context of multidimensional uncertainty. In M. D. Cavelty, & A. Wenger
(Eds.), Cyber security politics: Socio-technological transformations and politi-
cal fragmentation (pp. 239–266). Routledge.
Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theo-
retical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27, 151–208.
Zahra, S. A., & Nambisan, S. (2011). Entrepreneurship in global innovation eco-
systems. AMS Review, 1(1), 4.
Zhai, K., Wei, L., & Yang, J. (2021, August 20). Jack Ma’s costliest business les-
son: China has only one leader. The Wall Street Journal. www.wsj.com/articles/
jack-mas-costliest-business-lesson-china-has-only-one-leader-11629473637
Zimpher, N. L. (2012). Foreword. In J. E. Lane & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), Uni-
versities and colleges as economic drivers: Measuring higher education’s role in
economic development (pp. ix–xix). SUNY Press.
8 Omnipreneurship
Morgan R. Clevenger
Introduction
So how does a word become a word? Dictionary.com (2022) indicates
development of and use of words must:
1. It has to be in widespread use among a group of people. This means

a lot of people are using the word and agree upon what it means,
whether it’s spoken or in writing.
2. That word has to have staying power. This means the word isn’t a
one-off, that the word is likely going to be in continuous use for a
long time.
(para 4)
Omnipreneurship is a newly coined term. It has little to no references

available and no research. There is one defnition foating around, but it
is aimed in personal life development or faith-oriented aspirations. This
chapter provides thoughts on developing this concept and applying the
new phrasing correctly. Merriam-Webster (2021) defnes “omni” as all
or universally. The Google Dictionary (2021) defnes omni as all, in all
ways, places, etc. without limits.
As defined in Chapter 1, entrepreneurship is “the process of the approach
in organizing and using resources for the purpose of entrepreneuring”
(Clevenger & Fortunato, 2022, p. ___). Thus combining omni- and entre-
preneurship would create a new definition for omnipreneurship as:
the process of the approach in organizing and using resources for the
purpose of entrepreneuring in all ways, places, or universally without
limits
Thus, an omnipreneur, would be defned as:
someone who takes on the risk and responsibility to own and oper-
ate a business to potentially reap a reward by organizing and using
DOI: 10.4324/9781351045711-8
Omnipreneurship 277
resources for the purpose of entrepreneuring in all ways, places, or
universally without limits.
The latter half of this defnition is from Clevenger (2017, p. 26). This
discussion and development of these words have been inspired by Gibb
(1987) and Shane (2008). Omnipreneur is a different role so stands
separate from entrepreneur, intrapreneur, corporate entrepreneur, or
serialpreneur.
Omnipreneur or omnipreneurship brings to mind big thinkers, extreme
visionaries, and truly global mindedness. This thinking is authentic, sin-
cere, passionate, and broad. With this mindset comes determination.
Inspiration of the magnitude that transcends a local community, a single
entrepreneur, or a single business could be evoked by examples of such
inspiration as:
Paul the Apostle expounding to the Jewish-Christian community to be

strengthened and in unity by saying, “Now faith is confidence in
what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” from
Hebrews 11:1 (Biblica, 2011, para 1). Faith—it is unseen and all-
encompassing of belief, passion, and action.
Indiana Jones stepping out across the abyss with a literal “leap of faith”
where there are no stones or bridge viewable in The Last Crusade
(Spielberg, 1989) until he steps out, and the walking stones appear.
The dynamic parable of three stone masons (or bricklayers) after the
great fire of 1666 that leveled London to rebuild St Paul’s Cathe-
dral. One day in 1671, [the architect] Christopher Wren observed
three bricklayers on a scaffold, one crouched, one half-standing and
one standing tall, working very hard and fast. To the first bricklayer,
Christopher Wren asked the question, “What are you doing?” to
which the bricklayer replied, “I’m a bricklayer. I’m working hard lay-
ing bricks to feed my family.” The second bricklayer, responded, “I’m
a builder. I’m building a wall.” But the third brick layer, the most
productive of the three and the future leader of the group, when
asked the question, “What are you doing?” replied with a gleam in
his eye, “I’m a cathedral builder. I’m building a great cathedral to The
Almighty.”
(Baker, 2019, paras 1–2)
These examples provide big picture thinking, extreme optimism and pas-
sion, a magnitude of vision, transcendence of thought for the future, and
connection to mission as well as action. However, these examples are not
of for-proft or entrepreneurship. Yet, having confdence of the unknown,
passion, drive, and vision are historic traits, noted by psychologists, of
entrepreneurs (Baum & Locke, 2004; Baum et al., 2007; Begley & Boyd,
1987; Carsrud & Brännback, 2009). Big picture entrepreneur thinkers
have ideas, optimism, understand information and data, and take action
(Corrales-Estrada, 2019). An omnipreneur understands opportunity ver-
sus necessity entrepreneurship, differing economic structures, driving
versus restraining forces (see Lewin, 1939, 1942, 1943, 1946; Lewin &
Lippitt, 1938), resource constraints, network analysis, institutional devel-
opment, and levels of complexity in ecosystems at all levels (see Spigel,
2020). While understanding a wide range of issues, topics, disciplines,
technologies, people, felds, and complexities, the omnipreneur is not a
jack-of-all-trades (Kaiser, 2016; Lazear, 2004, 2005). An omnipreneur is
able to determine the right questions and network for the right answers
and surround themselves with the right people or support organizations.
In the field of business, various terminology is helpful to understand lev-
els of large-scale organizations. International is defined as doing business
in two or more countries. Multi-national means that a business organiza-
tion has “boots-on-the-ground” in two or more countries as operations;
the goal is often efficiency to be closest to materials and/or lower costs
by being proximate to customers or clients. Worldwide means “anywhere
in the world.” Likely FedEx with their brand slogan being The World on
Time promises to deliver to anywhere with an address conjures the best
connotation of the concept by FedEx in 1994 (FedEx, 2011). Finally,
global, then, is a bit different from the other three business-oriented
words and is reserved for broader issues or global-level concerns such as
initiatives by the United Nations or when thinking about global warm-
ing, global education, or global development initiatives such as the United
Nations Millennium Development Goals (Lakin & Scheubel, 2010) or
efforts via The Ten Principles of the United Nations Global Compact to
promote more socially conscious behavior and reinforced expectations
of businesses and corporations of all sizes around the globe to provide
fundamental responsibilities relating to people in human rights, educa-
tion, and labor; the environment; and positive practices avoiding anti-
corruption (Ruggie, 2013; United Nations Global Compact, 2021).
Omnipreneur and omnipreneurship would work on the grandest scale
of an ecosystem: the world. While still individually focused, a parallel could
be multi-national corporations with a broad presence and impact (Ryan
et al., 2021). These omnipreneurs would be considered “born globals” (Velt
et al., 2018, p. 117). Examples of omnipreneurs might include Thomas
Alva Edison, Matthew Boulton, Madame C. J. Walker, Orville and Wilbur
Wright, George Eastman, Carlos Slim Helu, Walt Disney, Coco Chanel,
Mary Kay Ash, Sir Richard Branson, Anita Roddick, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates,
Martha Stewart, Oprah Gail Winfrey, Larry Page, and Elon Musk.
The Entrepreneurial Spirit Beyond Entrepreneurship

The case studies presented in this book illustrate examples of the manifold
motivations behind creating an entrepreneurial community, and perhaps
Omnipreneurship 279
entrepreneurial ecosystems. The idea of profit is fundamental to entre-
preneuring, and this understanding is bedrock to the entrepreneurship
field (Marshall, 1920; Knight, 1921; Schumpeter, 1934; Kirzner, 1973;
Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). A question remains as to whether profit
may be a necessary, but insufficient motivator for starting a business.While
lifestyle entrepreneurs (see Bredvold & Skålén, 2016) and social entrepre-
neurs (see Thompson, 2002; Leadbeater, 1997) are well-established in the
literature for evading traditional profit-seeking behavior toward greater
humanitarian purpose, there are other quasi-entrepreneurial activities that
seem to evade even these definitions.
All of these ideas are getting closer to a central kernel that binds these
disparate activities together: that risk-bearing; opportunistic behavior to
solve problems; and to create new amenities, products, and services can
have the common goal of making life better beyond profit motives, and
that this drive to improve the world is basic to a range of activities beyond
entrepreneurship. Although traditionalists and historians would indicate
that business’s purpose is to improve the quality of life and standard of
living for others. Perhaps the broader aim can be called the entrepreneur-
ial spirit, although it entails more than just a desire to make the world
better. The humanitarian aim also entails the same rigors through which
entrepreneurs must pass in launching any new venture—risk-taking,
resource allocation, market identification, product-market fit, experimen-
tation, failure, incremental innovation and pivoting, marketing, promo-
tion, team building, customer relations, and relationship building—these
are all skills that apply to the world of quasi-entrepreneurial action, and
layers of deliberate acts that are combined to create a functioning idea
(not necessarily a business).
What, then, do we call the entrepreneurial spirit when it is applied
to something other than launching a venture in the pursuit of profit? A
predictable response is nonprofit venturing, and of course this is true.
The same may be said for social entrepreneurship, which balances social
and environmental aims at parity with profit, creating the “triple bottom
line.” The terms corporate entrepreneurship and even intrapreneurship
have been used to describe quasi-entrepreneurial actions within larger
firms and organizations. The idea of omnipreneurship speaks to this
broad spectrum of activities that can be just as equally applied to finding
a solution for a persistent litter problem, or a lack of childcare, or fear of
certain medical treatments among some populations as it does to a tra-
ditional for-profit enterprise. The result could be a nonprofit, initiative,
social group, ecosystem, or just a very innovative culture or even just one
voice that inspires others to take action.
It should be noted here as well that omnipreneurship is much like the
term development, aimed at improving human well-being (Wilkinson,
1991). Inherent in this idea is problem-solving, which involves using the
tools and techniques of entrepreneurship to overcome adversity and meet
needs using whatever structure makes the most sense. Omnipreneur is a
meta-form of Sarasvathy’s effectuation idea (2009), where a person or
population may realize that a for-profit business is not the best form of
organization for solving a particular problem. Perhaps, given the context
of the omnipreneur, there are sufficient individuals to create an interest
group whose aim is to inspire and collectively support those individu-
als who are capable of taking direct action to solve a problem. Perhaps
the answer is a program, de novo or attached to an incumbent institu-
tion, that can address needs and structure and coordinate action around
an issue with very few dollars entering or leaving the program. Perhaps
a large company makes an unintended R&D discovery that benefits a
pediatric illness and begins a charitable campaign that expands on this
discovery at minimal cost to the patient and to hospitals—while also sup-
porting the company’s goodwill and marketing efforts.
All of the above examples require some degree of risk-taking, even
when a firm is not formed. They certainly require the discovery or cre-
ation of an opportunity. They require novelty, and almost certainly some
degree of innovation, even if that innovation is replicative (i.e., taking a
good idea from one place and applying it in a new market or context . . .
see Davidsson, 1995, 2015; Schumpeter, 1934). They require people act-
ing strategically, relationships with the end-user, and likely feedback loops
that can provide cues about what is working and what is not working.
They require the allocation and reallocation of scarce resources, whether
physical, financial, or human (i.e., volunteer time). They do not require
the formation of a for-profit business. Instead, the human organizations
that result could be as loose and disorganized as a peer-based support
group, interest group, or online forum. But the results of such actions
can be profound, especially where they were absent before. Even the very
creation of an entrepreneurial ecosystem or community, meta to the act
of entrepreneuring, is its own kind of firm-independent entrepreneurial
venture that requires a person or people to launch things, even something
as simple as a meetup, coffee talk, or online webinar event. Across all of
these broad situations that may or may not involve the launch of firms,
that may or may not take profit as a major motive, that may or may not
involve the allocation of large sums of capital, the question remains: what
do we call it? What is the umbrella term representing the entrepreneurial
spirit applied to problems and issues of human development to create
real outcomes and solutions?
Omnipreneurship and Relevance for Entrepreneurial

Communities or Ecosystems
Omnipreneur and omnipreneurship are our own attempts to create
meaningful, theoretically-important terms that move conversations about
entrepreneurship toward a broadening of our understanding about how
Omnipreneurship 281
opportunity, innovation, and risk can be applied to solve real problems
and meet emergent needs in novel ways. Entrepreneurship is a subset of
this term, but one that provides the basic, historical understanding and
literature about how it works in the more general case. It is about how
entrepreneurial knowledge applies a great deal to Mrs. Ledermeyer’s
second-grade class trying to figure out a creative way to build a play
space for their school starting with few resources; or to a young person
who grew up in the slums of Mumbai, create a social program to promote
sexual health; or to a Native American tribe who wants to overcome a
local food desert, improve local health outcomes, reintroduce traditional
foods, and reduce their dependency on mainstream agri-food systems off
the reservation. These are not clean-cut entrepreneurial activities, but all
require some degree of entrepreneurial spirit, strategy, grit, and action.
In fostering new entrepreneurial communities and ecosystems, it
should be noted that broader omnipreneurial activities may arise that,
while not adding to the local count of for-profit businesses and business
revenues, may bring manifold benefits to the broader community. The
entrepreneurial spirit can apply to launching a wide range of activities
that improve life without involving much money or profit. The employ-
ment of peoples’ time, talents, and energy is already a community-based
activity if participants are drawn from a diverse spectrum of individuals
within the community. Entrepreneurial ecosystems and community may
recognize these omnipreneurs as having important contributions for the
rest of the group and may be deliberately embraced for their capacity
to innovate in tandem with entrepreneurs. Ecosystems may evolve both
market and non-market focus areas, coordinating more traditional busi-
ness organization and development on one side while supporting strong
interaction with people trying to solve local problems through non-market
means. Indeed, this may already be a feature of diverse ecosystems in
both their early and mature stages of development.
In the case studies presented in this book, the development, cultivation,
and participation of non-market entities that still embrace and apply the
entrepreneurial spirit to achieve non-market outcomes are exhibited. In
Madison, Indiana, live music and quality of life are just as important as
the vague promise of economic development through the cultivation of
music venues, festivals, and performances. The Madison Music Move-
ment (M3) was an entity to be launched that has impacts well beyond
its mission as a nonprofit ongoing concern, extending deep into the local
culture. In Abilene, Texas, it took entrepreneurial effort to launch Ventu-
reCall, whose mission is to bring together entrepreneurs under a banner
of mutual support, and a commitment to Christian values. In Minnesota,
it took an entrepreneurial mindset to set Red Lake Nation and White
Earth Nation on different courses that overcome a past filled with oppres-
sion and isolation, toward one that is grounded in traditional values and
self-empowerment. And in Nova Scotia, entrepreneurship is not only a
solution to the problems of unemployment and under-employment, but
entrepreneurial thinking helped to create mentorship solutions to sup-
port entrepreneurial activity among that group.
Omnipreneur and omnipreneurship can thus occur at a level meta to
entrepreneurship itself. If generating entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial
growth is the task of an effective ecosystem, then omnipreneurship is very
much about building the structures that support the creation of entre-
preneurs and entrepreneurial action in perpetuity (for a discussion on
task accomplishment versus structure building in a community develop-
ment context, see Theodori, 2005). Omnipreneurship is often as much
about inspiring others to action and supporting them in their goals as it is
launching non-entrepreneurial activities that require quasi-entrepreneurial
behaviors in order to get off the ground.
Future Research
Just as entrepreneurial community work has likely been overlooked and
lumped into entrepreneurial ecosystems or regional entrepreneurial eco-
systems, so, too, has the concept of an omnipreneur and omnipreneurship
been lumped in with inventors, famous entrepreneurs who developed
ideas that grew into large corporations, or popular businesspeople. How-
ever, these individuals likely think on a multi-dimensional vision and
inspiration. They also took action. In the process, they made discoveries,
connections, and earned large amounts of money, even though money
was not the driving motivator.
Further, as numerous scholars have questioned the typological, atheo-
retical, underdeveloped analytical framework(s), and confusing nature of
entrepreneurial ecosystems, (e.g., Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017; Audretsch
et al., 2021; Autio et al., 2018; Busenitz et al., 2003; Kimjeon & Davids-
son, 2021; Roundy et al., 2018; Spigel & Harrison, 2017), so the concept
of omnipreneur and omnipreneurial ecosystems could also emerge from
future research. The depth of complexity and adaptive system natures
remain for entrepreneur behaviors (Roundy et al., 2018), so could the
natures of omnipreneurs. While sorting out the misuse or confusion of
the tight nature of defintions of “entrepreneurial ecosystems” in contrast
to other systems such as entrepreneurial communities, including compar-
ative and multi-scalar perspectives could also find the concept of “omni-
preneur” emerging (e.g., Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017; Isenberg, 2016).
In general, future research is needed because much empirical evidence is
lacking (Spigel & Harrison, 2017), and there are also gaps with lacking
of rigorous social science research, thus needing additional consideration
of non-linear methodologies for entrepreneurs and omnipreneurs (Fortu-
nato & Clevenger, 2017; Malecki, 2017; Stam & Spigel, 2018).
Future research could begin with formulating a list or set of internal
motivators and external vision to classify an omnipreneur. The instrument
Omnipreneurship 283
could then be held against prior entrepreneurs and their work to include
or exclude people as omnipreneurs.
Omnipreneurs may be White men, but likely omnipreneurs can come
from any representation: youths and seniors; women as much as men;
LGBTQIA+; ethnicity and religious variety; veterans; the disabled; immi-
grants; Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), Latinx and
Asian, etc. Research from any of these units of analysis could find com-
monalities in resources, framework outlooks, networks, or entrepreneur-
ial community resources—likely in positive, driving-force environments
or facilitating factors. Further research on any of the case studies in the
book could be a basis as a lens: technology, faith-based, decolonization,
unemployed or underemployed, music or other arts, or really any disci-
plinary focus. Likely all fields and disciplines have at least one example
of an omnipreneur and their omnipreneuring.
Power and empowerment—or the disempowerment and powerlessness—
frames could also be used to find out limitations that disallowed someone
to be an omnipreneur. Restraining forces could be self-constraints, family,
economic, cultural, or environment of facilitating factors. Explore the use
of power and execution may be key elements of omnipreneur activity. As
noted in Chapter 16, a few examples of omnipreneurs could arise from
other populations including rural areas; impoverished areas or nations;
underrepresented racial and ethnic groups; Indigenous entrepreneurship;
gender disparity; illicit, informal, or dark entrepreneurship; digital com-
munities; specialized industries like music, agriculture, or arts; and higher
education.
Finally, another research agenda could be retrospective and consider
time periods, economic resources, technologies, political structure, model
hero/ins of the time period. Again, what environmental or facilitating
conditions supported or inhibited omnipreneuring? From a meta-analysis
perspective, are there commonalities across omnipreneurs in general? Or
in a specific country or historic time period?
Depending on the level of analysis and unit of analysis, any variety
of research methodologies and forms of data could be organized to
explore omnipreneurs and omnipreneurship. Of course, living or future
research could include interviews. Retrospectives would need to piece
together alternative interview items, such as journals, letters, and formal
documents.
Summary
Omnipreneur and omnipreneurship have likely existed previously with-
out being labeled as such. As discussed, the concepts occur at a level
meta to entrepreneurship itself. Omnipreneurs and their work in omni-
preneurship is as much about inspiring others to action and supporting
them in their goals as it is omnipreneuring by launching for-profit or
non-entrepreneurial activities that require quasi-entrepreneurial behav-
iors in order to get off the ground.
Scholars and practitioners alike could consider stratification between
an entrepreneurial ecosystem and elements that are really part of the big-
ger entrepreneurial community to identify omnipreneurs. Retrospectives
and re-evaluation could benefit the field of entrepreneurship by provid-
ing a degree of omnipreneurs and how they emerge(d). Omnipreneurs
likely come from diverse social, economic, political, environmental, and
cultural backgrounds.
References
Alvedalen, J., & Boschma, R. (2017). A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosys-
tems research: Towards a future research agenda. European Planning Studies,
25(6), 887–903.
Audretsch, D., Mason, C., Miles, M. P., & O’Connor, A. (2021). Time and the
85626.2020.1734257
Baker, J. (2019). The story of the three bricklayers—A parable about the power
of purpose. Sacred Structures. https://sacredstructures.org/mission/the-story-
of-three-bricklayers-a-parable-about-the-power-of-purpose/
Baum, J. R., Frese, M., & Baron, R. (Eds.). (2007). The psychology of entrepre-
neurship. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits,
skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 89, 587–598.
Begley, T. M., & Boyd, D. P. (1987). Psychological characteristics associated with
performance in entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of Busi-
ness Venturing, 2, 79–93.
Biblica. (2011). Hebrews 11:1. New International Version Bible. https://biblehub.
com/niv/hebrews/11.htm
Bredvold, R., & Skålén, P. (2016). Lifestyle entrepreneurs and their identity con-
struction: A study of the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 56, 96–105.
Busenitz, L. W., West, III, G. P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G. N., &
Zacharakis, A. (2003). Entrepreneurship research in emergences: Past trends
and future directions. Journal of Management, 29(3), 285–308.
Carsrud, A. L., & Brännback, M. (Eds.). (2009). Understanding the entrepreneur-
ial mind: Opening the black box. Springer.
Clevenger, M. R., & Fortunato, M. W-P (2022). An introduction to entrepreneur-
ial ecosystems and entrepreneurial communities to empower entrepreneurs.
Omnipreneurship 285
In M. R. Clevenger & M. W-P Fortunato (Eds.), Empowering entrepreneurial
communities and ecosystems: Case study insights (pp. in press). Routledge.
Corrales-Estrada, M. (2019). Innovation and entrepreneurship: A new mindset
for emerging markets. Emerald Publishing.
Davidsson, P. (1995). Culture, structure and regional levels of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 7(1), 41–62.
Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship
nexus: A re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 674–695.
Dictionary.com (2022). How to get a word in the dictionary. https://www.
dictionary.com/e/getting-words-into-dictionaries/
FedEx. (2011). FedEx Milestones. FedEx. www.fedex.com/kw/about/story.html#:~:
text=Federal%20Express%20officially%20adopts%20%E2%80%9CFedEx,
’The%20World%20on%20Time’
Fortunato, M. W-P, & Clevenger, M. R. (2017). Leaping cultural and leadership
boundaries: Catalyzing entrepreneurial communities. In M. W-P Fortunato &
M. R. Clevenger (Eds.), Toward entrepreneurial community development: Leaping
Gibb, A. A. (1987). Enterprise culture—Its meaning and implications for educa-
tion and training. Journal of European and Industrial Training, 11(2), 2–38.
Google Dictionary. (2021). Omni. Google Dictionary.
Hindle, K. (2010). How community context affects entrepreneurial processes: A
599–647.
Isenberg, D. J. (2016). Applying the ecosystem metaphor to entrepreneurship:
Uses and abuses. The Antitrust Bulletin, 61(4), 564–573.
Kaiser, U. (2016). A primer in entrepreneurship. Presentation in the Department of
Business Administration at University of Zurich, Switzerland. www.business.
uzh.ch/dam/jcr:d4dcb177-6a4b-4aa6-b7d5-f998324c32ea/Lecture%20
1_A%20Primer%202016.pdf
Kimjeon, J., & Davidsson, P. (2021). External enablers of entrepreneurship: A
review and agenda for accumulation of strategically actionable knowledge.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 00(0), 1–45.
Press.
Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. University of Chicago.
Lakin, N., & Scheubel, V. (2010). Corporate community involvement: The definitive
guide to maximizing your business’ societal engagement. Stanford University Press.
Lazear, E. P. (2004). Balanced skills and entrepreneurship. The American Eco-
nomic Review, 94(2), 208–211.
Lazear, E. P. (2005). Entrepreneurship. Journal of Labor Economics, 23(4),
649–680.
Leadbeater, C. (1997). The rise of the social entrepreneur. Demos.
Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Concepts
and methods. American Journal of Sociology, 44(6), 868–896.
Lewin, K. (1942). Field theory and learning. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), The forty-first
yearbook of the national society for the study of education: Part 2, the psychol-
ogy of learning (pp. 215–242). University of Chicago Press.
Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the “field at a given time”. Psychological Review,
50(3), 292–310.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social
Issues, 2(4), 34–46.
Lewin, K., & Lippitt, R. (1938). An experimental approach to the study of autoc-
racy and democracy: A preliminary note. Sociometry, 1(3/4), 292–300.
phy Compass, 12, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12359
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2021). Omni. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. www.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omni-
Roundy, P. T., Bradshaw, M., & Brockman, B. K. (2018). The emergence of entre-
preneurial ecosystems: A complex adaptive systems approach. Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 86, 1–10.
Ruggie, J. G. (2013). Just business: Multinational corporations and human rights.
W. W. Norton.
Ryan, P., Giblin, M., Buciuni, G., & Kogler, D. F. (2021). The role of MNEs
in the genesis and growth of a resilient entrepreneurial ecosystem. Entrepre-
neurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, 33(1–2), 35–53.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2020.1734260
Spielberg, S. (Dir.). (1989). Indiana Jones and the last crusade. Lucasfilm Ltd.
Edward Elgar.
Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2017). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial
ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12, 151–168.
Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2018). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. In R. Blackburn, D.
de Clercq, & H. Heinonen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of small business and
entrepreneurship (pp. 407–422). Sage.
Theodori, G. L. (2005). Community and community development in resource-
based areas: Operational definitions rooted in an interactional perspective.
Society and Natural Resources, 18, 661–669.
Thompson, J. L. (2002). The world of the social entrepreneur. International Jour-
nal of Public Sector Management, 15(5), 412–431.
United Nations Global Compact. (2021). The ten principles of the UN Global Com-
pact. United Nations. www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles
Velt, H., Torkkeli, L., & Saarenketo, S. (2018). The entrepreneurial ecosystem
and born globals: The Estonian context. Journal of Enterprising Communities:
People and Places in the Global Economy, 12(2), 117–138.
Additional Reading
Barkema, H., & Chvyrkov, O. (2002). What sort of top management team is
needed at the helm of internationally diversified firms? In M. A. Hitt, R. D.
Omnipreneurship 287
Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creat-
ing a new mindset (pp. 299–306). Blackwell.
Bell, J., McNaughton, R., & Young, S. (2001). Born-again global firms: An exten-
sion to the “born global” phenomenon. Journal of International Management,
7(3), 173–189.
Blanchflower, D. G., Oswald, A., & Stutzer, A. (2001). Latent entrepreneurship
across nations. European Economic Review, 45, 680–691.
ics, 49, 11–30.
Cavusgil, S. T., & Knight, G. (2015). The born global firm: An entrepreneurial
and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalization. Journal of
International Business Studies, 46(1), 3–16.
Guerrero, M., Liñán, F., & Cáceres-Carrasco, F. R. (2020). The influence of eco-
systems on the entrepreneurship process: A comparison across developed and
developing economies. Small Business Economics. https://link.springer.com/
article/10.1007/s11187-020-00392-2
Katz, B., & Nowak, J. (2018). The new localism: How cities can thrive in the age
of populism. Brookings Institution Press.
Khanna, T. (2007). Billions of entrepreneurs: How China and India are reshaping
their futures and yours. Harvard Business School Press.
Kukertz, A., Berger, E. S. C., & Allmendinger, M. (2015). What drives entrepre-
neurship? A configurational analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurship
in innovation-driven economies. Business Administration Review, 75(4), 273–
288. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2554944
Lafuente, E., Alonso-Ubieta, S., Leiva, J. C., & Mora-Esquivel, R. (2021). Stra-
tegic priorities and competitiveness of businesses operating in different entre-
preneurial ecosystems: A Benefit of the Doubt (BOD) analysis. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJEBR-06–2020–0425
Saiz-Alvarez, J. M. (2019). New approaches and theories of entrepreneurship. In
M. Corrales-Estrada (Ed.), Innovation and entrepreneurship: A new mindset
for emerging markets (pp. 14–30). Emerald Publishing.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). International entrepreneurship: The current
status of the field and future research agenda. In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland,
S. M. Camp, & D. L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new
mindset (pp. 255–288). Blackwell.
9 Conclusions
Final Thoughts on Culture,
Empowerment, and Leadership
to Support Entrepreneurs
and Morgan R. Clevenger
A Cake Is More Than Its Ingredient List

We were truly pleased to have been asked to write a sequel to our original
book, Toward Entrepreneurial Community Development: Leaping Cul-
tural and Leadership Boundaries, (Fortunato & Clevenger, 2017). From
the outset, we intended that first book to be a different kind of entre-
preneurship book: one that was both generative in nature and one that
drew unabashedly from different areas of the literature than one com-
monly finds in the field of entrepreneurship research. In the first book,
we explored a tension between the entrepreneurship literature and our
own areas of expertise. The authors—an applied sociologist who is an
entrepreneur, musician, and educator; a business professor who has been
an entrepreneur; a managerial studies and entrepreneurship professor
who has an extensive background in nonprofit management, resource
development, and philanthropy—are much like the entrepreneurship
field itself. We represent a hodgepodge of diverse backgrounds brought
together by our insatiable appetite for opportunity, possibility, and both
market-based and community impact—a perfect yin-yang combination.
And, in our first book, we were inspired by some of the ways that our
own experiences shaped how we perceive the field of entrepreneurship
quite differently than many of our peers: through the lens of culture and
leadership.
That was in 2017. And now, only 4 years later, it is extraordinary how
the field of entrepreneurship has opened up to the notion that entrepre-
neurs, as a collective, do not merely arrange themselves into industrial
clusters for individual profit maximization, or flock to “hot” gentrified
cities just to have a better chance of making it on their own (Florida,
2012). A deeper understanding of the entrepreneur collective is emerging
in a way that would make any sociologist, community scholar, manage-
ment or entrepreneurship researchers and consultants, or even evolu-
tionary biologist, very proud indeed. It is that entrepreneurs and their
supporters are increasingly found to create self-organizing, place-based
DOI: 10.4324/9781351045711-9
Conclusions 289
entrepreneurial communities. These are social ecosystem arrangements
that inhere in dynamic and evolving relationships paired with resources
that include financial, political, and human capital, arranged in a way that
entrepreneurial activity (and often success) is amplified far beyond the
sum of its parts.
This realization is profound. It is more than the idea that a masterfully
baked cake tastes better than the sum of its ingredients (i.e., the process
or “recipe” matters beyond the ingredient list of flour, vanilla, salt, sugar,
eggs, leavening, and oil or butter). There has also been a recognition that
entrepreneurial ecosystems evolve stochastically, following complex and
often unexpected lines of natural advantage (Isenberg, 2010) much like
a natural ecosystem. This creation and destruction process presents chal-
lenges to the traditional practices of planning and policy that are often
linear and fixed in their outcomes, as entrepreneurial ecosystems evolve
frequently cannot be planned in advance, nor can their models be copied
easily (Isenberg, 2010, 2011). Instead, it speaks to the need for an effectual
logic and leadership style (Sarasvathy, 2009; Miles & Morrison, 2020)
that can evolve with changing market opportunities but—quite unique
to ecosystems—a changing cast of characters and participants as well.
Fundamentally, it also places the social capital of human interpersonal
relationships at parity with—or perhaps even ascendent to—a traditional
focus on opportunity recognition and profit maximization (Shane, 2004;
Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Kirzner, 1973). Finally, these entrepre-
neurial ecosystems do not operate within a vacuum but rather within
entrepreneurial communities.
The Genesis of New Ecosystems Can Emerge From Anywhere

Another major aim of this book has been to shake the tree—gently, but
firmly—of the entrepreneurship ecosystem literature. It is easy to under-
stand why the literature has been dominated by Isenberg’s (2010) ideas of
runaway successes borne from relatively large, sophisticated ecosystems;
ecosystems that spawn high-growth firms that inspire others to aim for
the same heights, and who create waves of opportunity for supporting
enterprises in their wake. Deliberate in this point of view is the goal of
an ecosystem: it is precisely to cultivate those high-growth firms upon
which other firms depend for their tailwind. And many scholars have fol-
lowed suit, using science to seek ways to engineer the perfect ecosystem
with the perfect components, the best networks, and thus, the best out-
comes as defined by the classical focus of the entrepreneurship literature:
gazelles, patents, and industry disruption. This focus is exciting, even
Schumpeter-approved. Where we have taken issue with this focus is that
it is so badly divorced from the real-world, lived experiences of millions
of low-growth, or repeat-failure, or rural and small-town, or low-tech, or
lifestyle, or family-oriented businesses that nonetheless play a critically
important role in the functioning of local and regional commerce, sup-
porting entrepreneurs and their families, and in making a difference in
the lives of people around them. As scholars and practitioners, we dread
the idea that the entire raison d’être of an ecosystem is simply to spawn
superstars and near-superstars. It is as disappointing as a music industry
whose primary goal is to spawn international superstars while forsak-
ing that really talented singer/songwriter who plays at your favorite café
every week, singing lyrics you care about, making your life better—talking
face-to-face to you after the show. Are we to believe that entrepreneurial
ecosystems and entrepreneurial communities are not, first and foremost,
about them as well?
This perspective matters immensely to an entrepreneurial ecosystem
or entrepreneurial community builder. In his 2011 book Start With Why,
marketing guru Simon Sinek asks readers to begin to understand market-
ing messages, core strategies, and even one’s own leadership philosophies
by beginning narratives with core motivations. Such an activity requires
deep introspection and critical thinking about what really drives human
action—why we do what we do? The same holds true for entrepreneur-
ship researchers and ecosystem and community builders. Why do you, as
a reader, care about building ecosystems? What is the goal, and what do
you hope to see emerge as the fruits of such work? And of course, what
are the beliefs behind those motivations? As noted by Audretsch et al.
(2021), “entrepreneurship is a multi-level phenomenon” (p. 2). Our work
on fettering out entrepreneurial community as a level of analysis to some
extent responds to Stam’s (2015) reflections on shortcomings of “every-
thing” seemingly being an entrepreneurial ecosystem, and our own search
for why ecosystems matter:
The mere popularity of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach is

by no means a guarantee of its profundity. Seductive though the
entrepreneurial ecosystem concept is, there is much about it that is
problematic, and the rush to employ the entrepreneurial ecosystem
approach has run ahead of answering many fundamental concep-
tual, theoretical, and empirical questions. The phenomenon at first
appears rather tautological: entrepreneurial ecosystems are systems
that produce successful entrepreneurship, and where there is a lot
of successful entrepreneurship, there is apparently a good entrepre-
neurial ecosystem. Such tautological reasoning ultimately offers little
insight for public policy. Secondly, the approach as yet provides only
long laundry lists of relevant factors without a clear reasoning of
cause and effect. These factors do provide some focus, but they offer
no consistent explanation of their coherence or their interdependent
effects on entrepreneurship—and, ultimately, on aggregate welfare.
And third, it is not clear which level of analysis this approach is tar-
geting. Geographically, it could be a city, a region, or a country. It can
Conclusions 291
also be other systems, less strictly defined in space, such as sectors or
corporations. So, the approach offers insufficient adequate explana-
tions and has not been clearly demarcated.
(p. 1764)
In Startup Communities (2012), Feld described the importance of an

entrepreneur-led ecosystem. This common-sense strategy purports that
ecosystems led by entrepreneurs tend to convey the ethics, intentions,
incentives, and motivations of entrepreneurs to others, lending these eco-
systems immense credibility by “speaking an entrepreneur’s language.”
However, in many younger and non-traditional entrepreneurial commu-
nities, clearly feeders and outsiders play a central role as well in catalyz-
ing efforts, convening the right people, aligning funding, developing a
vision, and perhaps especially, in legitimizing the effort. After all, feeders
typically exist in the same communities as entrepreneurs and may have
just as cohesive of vision for the community’s future. An entrepreneurial
ecosystem truly can emerge from and be fostered anywhere.
While our first book discussed the entrepreneurial collective through a
leadership and cultural theoretical lens, in this book we turned our atten-
tion toward the deliberate cultivation of entrepreneurial ecosystems and
entrepreneurial communities. The aims of book have contributed to the
conversation by:
(1) Building on our first work, this book provides current theories, prin-
ciples, and processes that enhance entrepreneurial ecosystem devel-
opment and entrepreneurial community development
(2) Offering an alternative approach to a “prescription” for entrepre-
neurial communities, demonstrating multiple viable paths toward
entrepreneurialism rooted in a citizen-driven culture
(3) Providing an authoritative overview of entrepreneurial community
development, ecosystems, and leadership through the current day,
as an educational guide or classroom applied text for students and
researchers
(4) Illustrating strategies for both formal and informal community lead-
ers for building alliances from scratch, creating a voice and forum for
local entrepreneurs, and keeping busy people coming back for more
(5) Developing real, actionable implications and suggestions for individ-
uals as diverse as researchers, economic development practitioners,
current and former entrepreneurs, local leaders, and policy makers
(6) Tackling the sometimes complex theoretical world of entrepreneur-
ship in plain language that is accessible to anyone.
Aldrich (1990) began using the biological workings from ecology as a

metaphor to understand the complex relationships in entrepreneurial
communities. Ecosystems develop at multiple levels (Cain, 2012; Corno
et al., 2014; Fortunato, 2017; Mazzucato, 2013) and there are nuances
within entrepreneurial ecosystems—led and forged by entrepreneurs—
and entrepreneurial communities—which include multiple entrepre-
neurial ecosystems as well as a wide range of feeder organizations (e.g.,
K-12, higher education credentials or programs, co-curricular offerings,
national programming such as 4-H and Junior Achievement, and incuba-
tors) and support organizations (e.g., governmental agencies, nonproft
organizations, foundations, and a range of funding agents) (Clevenger,
2017). Aldrich and Wiedenmayer (1993) explored entrepreneurial activ-
ity at various levels including intrapopulation (i.e., frms and density), to
inter-population (i.e., competition in an industry), and then at societal
levels (e.g., cultural norms, governmental policies, both micro and macro
considerations). Cain (2012) said,
Cultivating a business environment is no different [than a biological

ecosystem]—you are assessing and strengthening a system, loosely
characterized by accessibility to mentors, knowledge centers, like-
minded partners (leadership), capital, workforce (talent), and the
desirability of the city, town, or place in which you operate.
(p. 6)
Entrepreneurial social groups and entrepreneurial ecosystems differ

from—but are highly related to and embedded within—entrepreneurial
communities. Adding to the complexity are multiple entrepreneurial com-
munities within regions, states, and nations. The key difference is that eco-
systems are dynamic, generative, and inhere in the relationship between
actors and their environment. Like communities, ecosystems carry with
them “system ethics,” but like entrepreneurship, they also connote a
degree of destruction and turnover to beneft the entire system. Entre-
preneurial communities are often viewed as an “ideal state,” by contrast,
that exists quite happily in perpetuity and does not necessarily focus on
system change and evolution (central to ecosystems). However, an entre-
preneurial ecosystem is typically self-actualizing for business productiv-
ity, whereas an entrepreneurial community also includes non-business
organizations and actors.
We anticipate that this book opens up the potential for researchers
and practitioners alike to guide answers to the following questions—
questions that we have pondered ourselves since the first book:
(a) How do entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurial communi-

ties differ?
(b) What can the field of community development tell us about develop-
ing more entrepreneurial communities?
(c) What hope is there for smaller, fragmented, or declining communi-
ties in terms of developing an entrepreneurial community or helping
Conclusions 293
entrepreneurs and their entrepreneurial ecosystems? Is it possible, or
is it a lost cause?
As we hope you saw throughout this book, there are many options
available for making communities more entrepreneur-friendly. We aim
to lift up the voices of smaller, ordinary, non-fashy, not-necessarily-
growth-oriented (but perhaps a little), everyday environments and
economies that have taken strides to improve their local entrepreneur-
ial climate. We also hope to elucidate some key practices and analytic
points that tie these communities together, and that offer some promis-
ing suggestions for how to make any community more entrepreneurially
minded, entrepreneurially supportive, and just a bit more entrepreneur-
friendly. To borrow from the old adage, “it takes a village to raise a
child;” in our own experience and the experience of those communities
and scholars featured in this book, it takes a village to raise an entre-
preneur, too.
Summary
Entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurial communities are like
any ecosystem or community: they are complex mechanisms that are
very old, and that have sustained life since the beginning of bartering,
trade, and entrepreneuring. The focus in this book is simply those same
old, “antifragile” mechanisms—just intentionally directed at launching
ideas that serve society in any place, at any time, facing any situation.
From an entrepreneurial community viewpoint, we might take the eco-
logical imagery to a rose garden. The garden celebrates a wide range of
types, colors, sizes, and genesis of roses. There are also hybrid roses. The
roses need support—soil, enriching nutrients, sun, water, and sometimes
catalysts (i.e., fertilizers)—with each rose specimen needing a different
combination. Let alone considering the wide range of other plants and
even hard-structure in a garden—and birds, bees, worms, fertilization,
humans, and nature—contribute! Thus, an entrepreneurial community
needs to realize there is diversity in entrepreneurs, fields, industries, his-
tories, and cultures that combine to make up a community itself. From
entrepreneur research, demographics continue to document stories of
males and Whites as dominant majorities (Hayter et al., 2018). Celebrat-
ing this achievement is important, but just like the rose garden—there is
room for more rose variety, so there is more room for more entrepreneurs
of variety—aka diversity, considering examples as youths and seniors;
women as much as men; LGBTQIA+; ethnicity and religious variety; vet-
erans; the disabled; immigrants; Black, Indigenous, and people of color
(BIPOC), Latinx and Asian, etc.
Ryan’s (2004) admonishment for due diligence in building entrepre-
neurial communities included: entrepreneurs role modeling to inspire
others to become entrepreneurs, realizing the power and responsibility
an entrepreneur has—specifically entrepreneur leaders, investing in tech-
nology and infrastructure systems, and balancing a portfolio of types and
sizes of entrepreneur and businesses in a community (a.k.a. diversity).
These scholarly reflections capture a sound truism and resounding mag-
nitude of both identity and process—culture, entrepreneur development,
and entrepreneurial community creation take time and combine the sci-
ence of management and planning with the art of social sciences and the
establishment of support systems and networks from all sectors.
It is our hope that this book represents an opening of thinking about the
nature of entrepreneurial ecosystems and communities. Grounded in very
old social and ecological ideas that have sustained the self-organization of
life for millennia, an entrepreneurial ecosystem or community thus pro-
motes the same self-organization through an effectual context: adapting
to changing situations on the ground, given whatever is around in the
service of making life better for others. This perspective is the essence of
market-based interactions, as people are typically glad to exchange their
own time, energy, and labor for those things beyond their own grasp
that can improve their lifestyle. But such an understanding evades more
abstract ideas about economic growth, or technological innovation, or
creating jobs for others. Such an evaluation may include all of these
things to the extent that this is what society needs at the time. However,
a focus only on designing ecosystems to maximize such activities is much
like planting an entire forest only to grow and harvest the benefits of red-
wood trees—what we miss are the long-trends and “embedded wisdom”
of that ecosystem: the idea that things may have evolved the way they did
for a very good reason, tested and reaffirmed by millennia of overcom-
ing shocks and crises, and thus displaying humble robustness to such
phenomena. In the same way, we support that the same principles apply
to those smaller communities and unusual circumstances that present
vastly different characteristics and outcomes from the ecosystems that
comprise much of the focus in the mainstream literature. Taking a cue
from Stam (2015) that the ink on the definition of ecosystem is still not
dry, we thus admonish that it is the responsibility of the research commu-
nity to see entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurial communities
holistically, in their totality, and this includes the majority of places that
evade the focus of research. Put differently, it is our hope that ecosystem
terminology and thinking—down to the “why”—are not captured as the
exclusive territory of a more traditional focus on growth-oriented entre-
preneurship. Rather, we hope that our entire community of researchers
and practitioners can appreciate the holistic life cycle of ecosystems and
communities wherever they may be, and the remarkable contributions
that the deliberate and intentional organization of human entrepreneur-
ial efforts can give to the world.
Conclusions 295
References
Aldrich, H. E. (1990). Using an ecological perspective to study organizational
founding rates. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3), 7–24.
Aldrich, H. E., & Wiedenmayer, G. (1993). From traits to rates: An ecological
perspective on organizational foundings. In J. A. Katz & R. H. Brockhaus
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, firm emergence, and growth (Vol.
1, pp. 145–195). JAI Press.
Audretsch, D., Mason, C., Miles, M. P., & O’Connor, A. (2021). Time and the
85626.2020.1734257
Cain, C. (2012, May–June). The entrepreneurial ecosystem: Think biology 101.
The Small Business Advocate, 6.
Corno, F., Lal, R., & Colombo, S. (2014). “Entrepreneurship & new venture cre-
ation” key elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystem facilitating the growth of
ICT entrepreneurs in Italy. European Scientific Journal, 2, 330–345.
Florida, R. (2012). The rise of the creative class, revisited. Basic Books.
Fortunato, M. W-P (2017). High- and low-entrepreneurial communities: A
Fortunato, M. W-P, & Clevenger, M. R. (2017). Toward entrepreneurial com-
Hayter, C. S., Nelson, A. J., Zayed, S., & O’Connor, A. C. (2018). Conceptualizing
academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: A review, analysis, and extension of the
literature. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 1039–1082.
ness Review, 88(6), 40–50.
Press.
Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private
sector myths. Anthem Press.
Miles, M. P., & Morrison, M. (2020). An effectual leadership perspective for
developing rural entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 54(4),
933–949.
Ryan, R. (2004, Fall). The next generation of entrepreneurs: How to attract, keep,
and grow them. Perspectives: Community Development. Spectrum: The Jour-
nal of State Government, 37–39.
Shane, A. S. (2004). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-
opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar.
Sinek, S. (2011). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take
action. Portfolio.
Appendix A
The Allan P. Kirby Center for Free
Enterprise and Entrepreneurship
Services
Business Development
• Mentorship by experienced regional business professionals
• Business plan development and financing (in conjunction with Wil-
kes SBDC)
• Small business start-up assistance (in conjunction with Wilkes SBDC)
• Quarterly training sessions (e.g., intellectual property)
• Capital Access Strategies (e.g., micro grant fund)
• Access to students in all majors (Kirby Scholars, internships,
externships)
• Access to faculty with specialized expertise (direct funded projects in
partnership with Ben Franklin Technologies)
• Access to extensive list of resource contacts
• Access to SCORE national mentor network
Marketing Development
• Cultivating business identity (e.g., name creation, logo development)
• Graphic design
• Advertising assistance (e.g., social media, web presence)
• Market analysis
• Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT analysis)
• Competitor research
Intellectual Property Management

• Patents
• Assessments
• Training (reading and understanding)
• Workaround strategies
• Competitive analysis
• Trademarks
• Copyrights
• Licensing
298 Appendix A
Financial Services
• Financial projections
• Business valuation
• Cost revenue model creation
• Financial analysis
Product/Process Development Services

• Engineering related services
• CAD drawings
• Product design assistance
• Materials requirements
• Electrical and mechanical system design and testing
• Additive manufacturing/3D printing assistance
Industry and Community Outreach

• Regional economic development partnerships
• Assistance with accessing university resources
• Assistance with accessing industry resources
(Wilkes University, 2017, p. 5, 2018, pp. 8–9)
References
Center for Free Enterprise. https://www.wilkes.edu/about-wilkes/centers-and-
institutes/allan-p-kirby-center-for-free-enterprise-entrepreneurship/_assets/
ActivityReport_2016-17.pdf
Center for Free Enterprise. https://www.wilkes.edu/about-wilkes/centers-and-
institutes/allan-p-kirby-center-for-free-enterprise-entrepreneurship/_assets/
ActivityReport_2017-18.pdf
Appendix B
U.S. Foundations Funding
Entrepreneurship Programs
80/20 Foundation
A-B Tech Education and Entrepreneurial Development Foundation
The Abell Foundation
The Algernon Sydney Sullivan Foundation
Allan Houston Legacy Foundation
Amarillo Area Foundation
The Anna B. Stearns Charitable Foundation
Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation
Bangor Savings Bank Foundation
Berks County Community Foundation
Berkshire Bank Foundation
Bloomberg Philanthropies
Booth Ferris Foundation
The Boston Foundation
The Burton D. Morgan Foundation
Central New York Community Foundation
Circle of Service Foundation
Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation
The Cleveland Foundation
The Coleman Foundation
The Columbus Foundation
The Community Foundation for Greater New Haven
Community Foundation for Ocala Marion County
Community Foundation for San Benito County
Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan
Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham
The Community Foundation of Herkimer and Oneida Counties
Community Foundation of Howard County
Community Foundation Sonoma County
The Community Foundation of Utah
The Dakota Foundation
The Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation
300 Appendix B
Duluth Superior Area Community Foundation
East Bay Community Foundation
Elkhart County Community Foundation
The Erie Community Foundation
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
Fremont Area Community Foundation
Friedman Family Foundation
GAR Foundation
Georgia-Pacific Foundation
The Gheens Foundation
Goldhirsh Foundation
Grand Rapids Community Foundation
Greater New Orleans Foundation
Hardin County Community Foundation
Hartford Foundation for Public Giving
Henry E. Niles Foundation
Holthouse Foundation for Kids
Hudson Webber Foundation
Initiative Foundation
Invest Detroit Foundation
The Isabel Allende Foundation
The James Graham Brown Foundation
James R. Jordan Foundation
Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles
The Jim Moran Foundation
The John E. and Jeanne T Hughes Charitable Foundation
The John R. Oishei Foundation
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
The Kresge Foundation
Latino Community Foundation
Liberty Prairie Foundation
Louisiana Cultural Economy Foundation
Madison Community Foundation
Marin Community Foundation
MICE Foundation
Michigan Women’s Foundation
Mizuho USA Foundation
Mortar Foundation
NAWBO Greater Philadelphia Foundation for Women Entrepreneurs
Nebraska Community Foundation
Northwest Minnesota Foundation
Old National Bank Foundation
Omaha Community Foundation
Opportunity Through Entrepreneurship Foundation
Orange County Community Foundation
Appendix B 301
Oregon Community Foundation
The Paul Ogle Foundation
PNC Foundation
POISE Foundation
The Paul and Edith Babson Foundation
Polk Bros Foundation
Price Foundation
The Profeta Urban Investment Foundation
The Raymond John Wean Foundation
Richmond Community Foundation
The Robin Hood Foundation
The San Francisco Foundation
Santa Fe Community Foundation
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Foundation
Scott County Community Foundation
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
Southeastern Illinois Community Foundation
Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation
Southwest Initiative Foundation
Spirit of Entrepreneurship Foundation
Hattie M. Strong Foundation
Telluride Foundation
Toledo Community Foundation
Triangle Community Foundation
The University of Akron Research Foundation
Wakerly Family Foundation
The Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation
Washington Research Foundation
Women’s Foundation for a Greater Memphis
Y&H Soda Foundation
Yelp Foundation
The Zellerbach Family Foundation
(Pringle & Török, 2015, p. 5)
Reference
Pringle, C., & Török, L. (2015). Foundations leading through entrepreneurship: A
new philanthropic trend to create jobs, improve quality of life, and strengthen
local giving. eNDEAVOR INSIGHT. https://issuu.com/endeavorglobal1/docs/
foundation_leading_through_entrepre
Index
accelerator 19, 70–77, 159–160, competition 1, 28–29, 35, 42, 62, 65,
212–214, 219 68, 70, 105, 129, 146, 156, 159,
actor(s) 43, 45, 57, 67, 114, 197, 206, 196, 211, 247, 252, 262, 292
207 cooperate/ion 29, 63, 68–70, 249, 255
adapt/able 27–30, 43–44, 60–64, 84, Cooperative Extension 194, 197–199
162, 201–207, 249, 255, 267, 282, coopetition 9, 29, 42, 67–68
294 curriculum 4, 144–158, 172, 221
alliance 20, 45, 56, 62–67, 114, 149, cycle(s) 41–42, 168, 211, 255–256
154, 170–174, 223, 291
authority 12, 63, 101–107, 114, 193 discovery (of opportunity) 150, 201,
216, 255, 280
barrier(s) xxi, 12, 40, 59, 106, 120, disentrepreneurship 19, 33–34, 266
125, 127, 131–132, 164–167, 205, district (business) 13, 17, 57, 60, 64,
244, 252 68, 247–248
BIPOC 14, 102, 124–132, 283, 293 diversity: business 27, 72–75,
Black iii, 118–132, 220–221, 283, 293 255–256, 293–294; human iii, 25,
boundary/ies 44–46, 58–63, 70, 28, 37, 45–46, 54, 67, 73–75, 83,
75–76, 81, 246, 250, 255 102, 117, 131, 132, 153, 156, 197,
business venture xxvii, 9–12, 16, 20, 220, 225–227, 247, 251, 293–294
29, 33, 36, 43, 69–72, 77, 104, domain (of activity) 1, 60, 71–74, 81,
107, 113–114, 125–127, 145–147, 162–166, 257, 267
156–170, 201, 212, 216–217,
245–248, 255–258, 265–266, ecology 2, 17, 27–28, 33, 56–84, 291
279–280 economic development xxvii, 3, 9–13,
19–20, 35, 43, 79–83, 101–102,
capacity xxi, 1–3, 10–12, 16, 27, 143, 149–152, 159, 194–197, 202,
37–38, 70, 81–82, 106, 193–195, 212, 222, 243–267, 281, 291, 298
215–216, 228, 247, 255, 281 economic growth 3, 117, 148–150,
capital xii, 6, 7, 19, 26, 29, 34, 38, 39, 156, 200, 214, 224, 246–250, 294
65, 66, 68–70, 72–77, 81, 126–128, efficiency 8, 20, 32, 44, 47, 57, 64, 68,
131, 167, 171, 193, 195, 213–215, 117, 149, 204–218, 253, 278
228, 247, 248, 254, 255, 258–262, empower(ment) (of businesses, others)
280, 289, 292, 297 iii, xxvii–xxviii, 1, 11–15, 100–112,
capitalism 7–9, 127 117, 122–124, 132, 163–171, 202,
cluster 6, 13, 27, 37–38, 57, 60, 207, 210, 221, 224–228, 283
64–69, 115, 150, 246–248, 258, 288 entrepreneurial action xiv, 6, 8, 13, 14,
collective xii, 3, 10–12, 17, 46, 47, 57, 15, 18, 20, 26, 29, 32, 40, 79, 101,
65–67, 83, 165, 208, 222–223, 248, 244, 245, 250, 266, 279, 282
252, 280, 288, 291 entrepreneurial social group 13, 132
Index 303
entrepreneurialism 4, 143, 201, 291 202, 205, 212–220, 246,
entrepreneuring iii, xxvii, 4–20, 255–257, 262
31–32, 56–57, 74, 79–82, 100–105, Indigenous 102, 124–125, 283, 293
120, 122, 125, 127, 131, 143–154, industry 2–8, 13–14, 20, 60, 65,
169, 193, 216, 226, 243, 254, 69, 75, 81, 101, 105, 155–161,
265–266, 276–280, 293 170–174, 193–202, 214–222,
entreprenology iii, 4, 14, 20, 247–252, 263, 289–292, 298
143–174 infrastructure xxvii, 1, 18–19, 25,
equity (human) 83, 101–102, 31–34, 39–41, 44, 61, 69–82, 170,
115–132, 153 195, 200–202, 207, 243, 246, 250,
exchange theory 101, 110 257, 262, 294
exploit/ation 1, 3, 26, 29, 101, 168 initiative 19, 44, 57, 64, 76, 81, 151,
154–156, 160, 169, 197, 200, 215,
failure 4–5, 11–14, 18–19, 27–31, 217, 248, 253, 257, 258, 261, 266,
42–44, 48, 57, 79, 101, 108, 124, 278, 279
143–144, 151–153, 161–169, 223, inter-organizational/interorganizational
244–247, 256, 266, 279, 289 60–63, 112–113
feeder(s) 6, 9, 12–20, 31–34, 42–46,
56–57, 64–67, 77, 81, 174, 250, K-12 4, 14, 19, 147–149, 155–156,
265, 291–292 169, 173–174, 195–199, 225, 292
force field 46–48, 244
framework conditions 15, 47, 61, levels (of analysis) 6, 13, 62–66,
243–252, 267 243–250
funding 4–6, 14, 19–20, 39, 70, 74, LGBT iii, 14, 102, 115, 127–132, 283,
113, 123–130, 150–160, 197, 201, 293
208, 211–213, 220, 224, 228, 244, low-entrepreneurship 9, 33, 266
248, 257–261, 267, 291–292
measure 4, 38, 45, 69, 73, 75, 76, 77,
Gallup 4, 143 103, 143, 171, 202, 209, 213, 226,
gay see LGBT 248, 250, 251, 264, 265
generation/al iii, 45–46, 72, 108, 115, metric 11, 64, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 122,
153, 266 145, 149, 196, 197, 253
geography 6, 17, 28, 39, 60, 68, 246
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 4, new business 1, 31–35, 102, 143, 167,
41, 49, 143, 244–245 203, 220, 244, 261
government xiii, 3, 6–8, 14–15,
33–44, 69, 72–73, 77–82, 100–101, omnipreneur/ship 20, 60–66,
105, 117, 131, 144, 147, 155, 276–284
159–160, 173, 199–201, 215, 224, outlier 37, 120
246–267, 292
People of Color see BIPOC
hardware 202–211, 243 power iii, xxvii, 6, 12
high-entrepreneurship 9, 174, 197, 266 powerlessness 13, 102, 107–110, 283
practices 1–4, 8, 26, 29, 34, 44, 48,
IBM 32 77, 81–84, 100, 132, 143–146,
impact xi, 70, 77–84, 102–111, 150–153, 158–174, 193–204,
119–120, 129, 131, 144–149, 212–225, 263, 278, 289, 293
155–157, 196–204, 207, 217–228, practitioners 9, 33, 38, 48–49, 69, 83,
243–267 145, 161, 167–168, 200–204, 267,
inclusion 13, 102, 117, 132, 153, 227, 284, 290–294
257, 267 productivity 8, 64, 83, 100–103, 153,
incubator 6, 14, 19, 39, 66, 71–77, 172, 193–197, 202, 219, 223
148–150, 156, 159–160, 194, profitability 8, 40, 193
304 Index
resource dependence 59, 101–102, student 4, 14, 24, 34, 75, 143–174,
107–116 193–202, 209, 215–222, 263, 291,
risk (entrepreneurial) xxvii, 1–2, 297
10–11, 16, 19, 26, 34, 56–57, 143, suburban xi–xiii, 2, 243
146, 164, 168, 195, 246–249, 253, symbiosis 29, 42
262–263, 266, 276–277, 279–281
rural xiii–xiv, 1–2, 9, 25–27, 32, 79, talent 2, 4, 11, 29–35, 42, 71–77, 103,
158–159, 174, 199, 226, 243–246, 119, 163, 253, 281, 292
283, 289 technical (expertise/education) xii, 6,
72, 77, 152–155, 169–174, 195,
SBDC 6, 15, 19, 33, 153, 159–160, 223, 228, 255, 263
194, 199, 216, 261, 297 technology 6, 14, 31, 74–75, 108, 110,
self-directed/ion 3, 165 162, 166–167, 173, 193–228, 249,
self-employment 4, 73, 149, 166–168, 256–264, 283
251, 256 theory iii, 13–14, 47–48, 57–59, 101,
self-empowerment xxvii, 12–15, 110–113, 127, 144–146, 161, 165,
101–108, 281–284 168–172, 204, 207, 212
self-sufficiency 4–6, 14, 256 transformation/al 1, 43–45, 103–104,
social action 2–3, 38 186, 226
social network/ing 45, 66, 167, 172,
265 urban xiii–xiv, 25, 36, 69, 117, 123,
society xiii, 1–21, 45, 56–65, 73, 106, 130, 243
112, 115, 124, 127, 132, 150–158, U.S. economy xi, 3, 8, 100
195–196, 200–201, 215, 220, 224,
245, 249, 265, 293–294 venture see business venture
sociocultural dynamics iii vocational 153–155, 171, 195
sociology iii, xiv, 3, 28, 38, 46, 62, 84
software xxiv, 111, 145, 194, wetware 204–206, 210–211, 243
202–211 White 120–132, 166, 283
spin-off 71–75, 212–214, 222 World War II 32–33, 196, 250

(Routledge Studies in Entrepreneurship and Small Business) Morgan R. Clevenger, Michael W-P Fortunato - Entrepreneurial Communities and Ecosystems-Routledge (2022)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Routledge Studies in Entrepreneurship and Small Business) Morgan R. Clevenger, Michael W-P Fortunato - Entrepreneurial Communities and Ecosystems-Routledge (2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“Thought leaders in policy and business are turning to entrepreneurial

ecosystems to deliver sustainable prosperity in their entrepreneurial

Entrepreneurial Communities and Ecosystems: Theories in Culture,

Morgan R. Clevenger, EdD, MBA, is Associate Professor of Management

Michael W-P Fortunato, PhD, is an internationally published scholar,

Motivating SMEs to Cooperate and Internationalize

How Small to Medium Enterprises Thrive and Survive in Turbulent Times

Managing People in Small and Medium Enterprises in Turbulent

Business Transfers, Family Firms and Entrepreneurship

The Persistence of Entrepreneurship Myths

Corporate Volunteering, Responsibility and Employee Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurial Communities and Ecosystems

Empowering Entrepreneurial Communities and Ecosystems

For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.

Edited by Morgan R. Clevenger

ISBN: 978-0-815-37862-4 (hbk)

Jeff Alves Milan Kirby Chuck Pierce

as well as friends in the networks of enactus (formerly Students in Free

My dedication goes out to anyone out there—especially those working in

1 An Introduction to Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and

2 Revisiting Entrepreneurial Communities, Entrepreneurial

3 An Ecology of Entrepreneurship: A Review of Concepts,

4 The Power of Entrepreneurs and Social Systems: Driving

5 Entreprenology of Formal and Informal Education,

7 Beyond Bureaucracies and Bourgeoisie of Regional, State,

9 Conclusions: Final Thoughts on Culture, Empowerment,

Appendix A: The Allan P. Kirby Center for Free Enterprise

Entrepreneurship is an important driving force in the U.S. economy. The

THEODORE R. ALTER, PhD, is a professor of agricultural, environmen-

Michael W-P Fortunato

A broad concept of development is especially useful for defining

A Rationale for Entrepreneurial Communities

Figure 1.1 Entrepreneurial Ecosystem provides a visual representation of a lean,

Figure 1.2 Entrepreneurial Community provides a visual representation of the wide

Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurship in the Individualistic

From Individuals to Communities

Ecosystems differ from entrepreneurial communities. The key: eco-

In order to achieve the kind of critical momentum necessary to remain self-

Key Terms and Definitions

1. a unified body of individuals: such as

Defnitions by Google Dictionary (2021a) are:

1. a group of people living in the same place or having a particular

Figure 1.3 Community illustrates major elements often found in a community.

A community can be imagined as somewhere with various interest groups

One elder, grabbing the elephant’s ear, stated, “It’s a fan!”

Studying Entrepreneurial Community and Entrepreneurial

Purposive Epistemology: That Which Benefits

Beneficial Effect Neutral Effect Deleterious Effect

Vibrant third places with Vibrant third places A lack of gathering

Beneficial Effect Neutral Effect Deleterious Effect

Isenberg’s Nine Prescriptions

1. Stop emulating Silicon Valley.

If this can be summarized, it might be something like

start small, focus on your own advantages, build naturally, do not

This perspective is a holistic, multi-stakeholder, grassroots, no-holds-

Four Approaches to Entrepreneurship Development

Table 2.2 Four Approaches to Entrepreneurship Development

Primacy of Non- Primacy of

Static Conditions Facilitating Conditions National and Regional

processes are necessary for ecosystem building—an idea that seemed to

Approach 1: Facilitating Conditions Approach

Approach 2: National and Regional Policy Approach

Approach 3: Entrepreneurial Communities Approach

Approach 4: Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Approach