The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem

By Fiona Sussan, Zoltan J. Acs. Small Business Economics, 2017

749 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Science Applications, Management of Technology and Innovation, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e1a1217de436d72504caae05f8d8e350042ff8f3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computer Science Applications

1. Lokesh Dani
2. Philip E. Auerswald
3. Raffaello Balocco
4. Angelo Cavallo
5. Antonio Ghezzi
6. Saul Estrin
7. M. Salmador
8. Allan O’Connor

In Management of Technology and Innovation

1. David B. Audretsch
2. E. Stam
3. Zoltan J. Acs
4. Erik E. Lehmann
5. David Urbano
6. László Szerb
7. Maksim Belitski
8. Tomasz Mickiewicz

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Tomasz Mickiewicz
2. Saul Estrin
3. Lokesh Dani
4. Philip E. Auerswald
5. David B. Audretsch
6. Antonio Ghezzi
7. Raffaello Balocco
8. Angelo Cavallo

Citations in the corpus

• Digital Business Model, Digital Transformation, Digital Entrepreneurship: Is There A Sustainable “Digital”? (2020, background): “This also affects the way new ventures interact, laying ground for digital entrepreneurship [8], and, more specifically, by moving digital entrepreneurs’ borders beyond existing ecosystems to digital technology entrepreneurship [40].”
• Entrepreneurship, institutional economics, and economic growth: an ecosystem perspective (2018, positive): “This leads us to consider whether entrepreneurship and institutions, in combination as an ecosystem, might represent the Bmissing link^ in explaining crosscountry differences in economic growth (Braunerhjelm et al. 2010; Acs et al. 2017a, b; Sussan and Acs 2017).”
• The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach (2017, positive): “What is apparent is that digital technology that arises through the entrepreneurial ecosystem can contribute greatly to lowering of transaction costs among firms and actors (Sussan and Acs 2017).”
• The adaptive life cycle of entrepreneurial ecosystems: the biotechnology cluster (2017, methodology): “We adopted a conceptualization of the regional biotechnology entrepreneurial ecosystem similar in spirit to Sussan and Acs (2017), whereby the ecosystem represents the higher-level infrastructure that enables interactions between the entrepreneurial agents and institutions in the industrial sector.”
• The governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems (2019, positive): “…Stam, 2015), cities (Audretsch & Belitski, 2017), university ecosystem (Hayter, 2015, Wright et al., 2017), or defined in a functional way like service- (Minà & Dagnino, 2016), innovation- (Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Acs et al. 2015), production-, financial- or digital- (Sussan & Acs, 2017) ecosystem.”
• A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging economies (2020, background): “…inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualization of entrepreneurial ecosystems Small Business Economics Literature review NA NA 50 Sussan and Acs (2017) The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem Small Business Economics Conceptual NA NA 51 Miller and Acs (2017) The campus as…”
• Entrepreneurial ecosystem research: present debates and future directions (2018, positive): “In a similar vein, Autio and Levie (2015) and Sussan and Acs (2017) use the terms agents and micro-ecosystem, respectively, when referring, the former, to the biotic component and, the latter, to the institutional and macro-ecosystem for the abiotic component of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.”