The Journal of Technology Transfer (2019) 44:462–484

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9694-0

Who is left out: exploring social boundaries

in entrepreneurial ecosystems

Xaver Neumeyer1   · Susana C. Santos2 · Michael H. Morris3

Published online: 12 September 2018

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
This study attempts to develop our understanding of the ecosystem as a complex social
construct by advancing a social network perspective. Based on personal interviews we
model the entrepreneurial ecosystems of two municipalities through a diverse network of
entrepreneurs, investors, and institutional leaders. The two ecosystems were characterized
and compared on measures related to the level of connectivity between actors, the existence
of social boundaries, the role and position of actors with certain attributes (e.g. women,
minorities) and the presence of ties in multiple social contexts (e.g. friend and investor).
Our results suggest that entrepreneurial ecosystems consist of different social clusters,
forming boundaries along venture type (e.g. high-growth, lifestyle), type of support institu-
tion (e.g. university, government agency), gender, race, and ethnicity. High-growth/technol-
ogy entrepreneurs, for example, were predominantly white, male and strongly connected
to technology commercialization and acceleration programs. In contrast, entrepreneurs
operating survival ventures are mainly non-white, female and often socially disconnected
from the main institutions. We also found differences with respect to network connectiv-
ity between stakeholders in both ecosystems. Based on our findings, we draw managerial
implications for different stakeholders of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Keywords  Entrepreneurial ecosystem · Social boundaries · Venture diversity · Portfolio

entrepreneurship

JEL Classification  L26 · L25

* Xaver Neumeyer
neumeyerx@uncw.edu
Susana C. Santos
santossc@rowan.edu
Michael H. Morris
Michael.morris@warrington.ufl.edu
1
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 601 South College Road, Wilmington,
NC 28403‑5664, USA
2
Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ 08028, USA
3
Warrington College of Business, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32606, USA

1 Vol:.(1234567890)
3
Who is left out: exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial… 463

1 Introduction

Entrepreneurs and their venture(s) are part of a larger (eco)system of regulatory agen-
cies, consumers, financial institutions, equity investors, other entrepreneurs, meeting
spaces, suppliers, and support services (Neck et al. 2004; Sah and Stiglitz 1985). As such,
researchers and policy makers have sought to develop a conceptual and theoretical encas-
ing of these networks of stakeholders (Valdez 1988), coining the term entrepreneurship
ecosystem. Despite the concept’s rapid adoption, researchers and policy makers are only
beginning to understand the nature of ecosystems and their relative heterogeneity in par-
ticular. In fact, much of the focus has been on facilitating high-growth/high-technology
ventures. This is consistent with arguments that the primary emphasis of efforts to foster
entrepreneurship should be on ambitious entrepreneurs who are more likely to grow, inno-
vate, internationalize and create wealth compared to more ‘conventional’ entrepreneurs
(Ács 2011; Delmar et al. 2003; Shane 2009; Stam et al. 2011; Stangler 2010).
There is no doubt that aggressive or high-growth (HG) ventures make a significant
impact by launching dynamic breakthroughs, creating markets, introducing new types of
employment opportunities and competencies, and raising the competitive level of an econ-
omy. At the same time, the success of high-growth ventures is intrinsically connected to
other types of ventures. Amazon, for example, relies on the participation and transactions
of smaller non-HG firms that create the scale necessary for it’s growth and economic pros-
perity. On a societal level, HG ventures and their support networks have shown deficits
with respect to the participation of certain demographic groups such as women and minori-
ties (Fairlie 2007; Gatewood et  al. 2009). For example, women-led high tech businesses
receive disproportionally less funding than their male-led equivalents (Greene et al. 2001;
Harrison and Mason 2007). In a sense, entrepreneurial ecosystems described in the litera-
ture resemble clusters of high-technology/high-growth ventures more so than an intercon-
nected ecological system of different ventures, entrepreneurs, and associated stakeholders.
In short, a significant gap exists in our understanding of the structure of social network ties
among different (venture) communities in entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Therefore, we expand current conceptualizations of entrepreneurial ecosystems to
include four different types of entrepreneurial ventures (Morris et  al. 2016)—aggressive
or high-growth, managed-growth, lifestyle and survival. These ventures are character-
ized by a kaleidoscope of properties, make unique contributions and engage in a range
of entrepreneurial activities to create social and economic value (Ács and Mueller 2008;
Baker and Nelson 2005; Gohmann and Fernandez 2014; Robbins et al. 2000). They also
come with a diverse set of entrepreneurs (e.g. different ethnicities, identities, and experi-
ences), and a mix of public and private support structures and initiatives, such as incuba-
tors, or small business loans. Consequently, we explore one main research question: Are
there distinguishable social arrays in an entrepreneurial ecosystem, and if so what are their
characteristics?
To tackle this question, we employ a social network lens. Although a sizable number
of social network studies exist in the field of entrepreneurship, the vast majority have not
gone beyond individual-and firm-level considerations (Anderson and Jack 2002; Chen and
Wang 2008; Hoang and Antoncic 2003). We address these limitations by using network-
level metrics (multiplexity, density, modularity, and centralization) to socially reconstruct
an entrepreneurial ecosystem. This approach will allow us to examine the roles and posi-
tions of the different stakeholders, but also detect social boundaries and their configura-
tions in two different municipal ecosystems selected for our study.

13
 464 X. Neumeyer et al.

Our main results suggest that entrepreneurial ecosystems consist of different social clus-
ters that are characterized by venture type, gender, ethnicity, organizational affiliation and
venture experience. Entrepreneurs of high-growth ventures are mostly white and male and
embedded in a coordinated system of incubators/accelerators, investors, and institutions. In
contrast, entrepreneurs operating survival ventures are mainly non-white, female and often
socially disconnected from the main institutions. We also found differences with respect
to network connectivity between stakeholders in both ecosystems. Relationship strength
between stakeholders of the two ecosystems also showed some differences. In addition,
the degree of connection between different stakeholders is predominantly based on instru-
mental ties (e.g. work-or assistance related) rather than sociational ties (e.g. friendship),
signaling that many professional relationships have less of an informal dimension. Over-
all, our results imply that the differences in the connectivity, density and strength of net-
works among stakeholders, along with the formation of socially separated clusters, impact
the inclusiveness of an entrepreneurial environment. Finally, we found that different social
clusters, subgroups or communities emerge within entrepreneurial ecosystems. These clus-
ters are characterized by venture type, gender, ethnicity, organizational affiliation and ven-
ture experience. In sum, our results imply that the differences in the connectivity, density
and strength of networks among stakeholders, along with the formation of socially sepa-
rated clusters, impact the inclusiveness of an entrepreneurial environment.
We organize the paper into five sections. First, a theoretical discussion of past and pre-
sent conceptualizations of the ecosystem framework is presented. Next, a review on net-
work theory and its various applications in management and entrepreneurship is provided.
Then, we introduce the multilevel study design, describing the participants and munici-
palities selected. The results section reports on the presence of social boundaries found in
the two municipal ecosystems, their different characteristics as well as the position of the
different groups. Finally, the implications and contributions of the study are discussed, key
limitations are identified, and suggestions are made for future research directions.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 Origins of the ecosystem framework

The term “ecosystem” has become popular among researchers and policy makers in entre-
preneurship. Over the past decade, a variety of management and entrepreneurship schol-
ars has developed a set of conceptual and definitional characteristics of entrepreneurial
ecosystems. In management research, the concept of an ecosystem was first introduced by
Moore in the context of competitive dynamics, suggesting that firm strategy should move
away from a narrow-minded industry perspective to a business ecosystem (Moore 1993).
Accordingly, Moore recognized that companies co-evolve capabilities around a new inno-
vation: they work cooperatively and competitively to support new products, satisfy cus-
tomer needs, and eventually incorporate the next round of innovations, and, analogous to a
biological ecosystem (it) gradually moves from a random collection of elements to a more
structured community (p. 76). This line of research has been further developed into inno-
vation or platform ecosystems. Innovation or platform ecosystems are built around one or
two core innovators that form an ecosystem with upstream and downstream suppliers as
well as complementors to address internal innovation challenges (Clarysse et al. 2014; Ian-
siti and Levien 2004). This structure is also referred to as a multisided platform (Gawer

13
Who is left out: exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial… 465

and Cusumano 2014; Hagiu and Wright 2015) and has become an emerging topic in the
strategy literature (Adner 2017). In entrepreneurship, ecosystems have been largely defined
in the context of a regional economy. For example, Neck et al. (2004) conceptualized an
entrepreneurial ecosystem as an agglomeration of incubator organizations, spin-offs, infor-
mal and formal networks, physical infrastructure, and regional culture that all contribute to
system-level outcomes. Malecki (2011) further elaborated on the conceptual “DNA” of an
entrepreneurship ecosystem, defining it as a regional agglomeration of interconnected indi-
viduals, entities, and regulatory bodies in a given geographic area. Furthermore, Isenberg
(2010, p. 3) pointed out that an entrepreneurial ecosystem “consists of a set of individual
elements—such as leadership, culture, capital markets, and open minded customers—that
combine in a complex way”. Stam (2015) and Spigel (2017) further detailed the attributes
that are included in an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Audretsch and Belitski (2017) empiri-
cally assessed 70 municipal ecosystems in Europe, and found that culture and norms, infra-
structure and amenities, formal institutions, and internet access and connectivity showed to
have significant effects on entrepreneurial activity. Similarly, Nicotra et al. (2018) postulate
the need to develop a sound measurement framework that allows researchers and policy
makers to test causal relationships between characteristics of entrepreneurial ecosystems
and metrics of productive entrepreneurship such as employment growth, new technol-
ogy developments, or financial performance. Other studies have focused on the individual
components of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Hayter et  al. (2017), for example, points out
that although academic entrepreneurship is well researched, it is unclear how the complex
interactions between the different actors, firms and institutions emerge to becoming an eco-
system. In a recent study on technology business incubators (TBI), Lamine et  al. (2016)
emphasize how TBIs can bridge different aspects of entrepreneurial ecosystems such as
technology education and regional economic growth or technology incubators and promot-
ing environmental sustainability.
Despite the increasing work on ecosystems, many questions remain unanswered.
Neumeyer and Corbett (2017) pointed out that the term ecosystem remains a weak
metaphor, as areas such as (physical and virtual) boundaries, social structure, legiti-
macy, governance and diversity remain underexplored. Sussan and Acs (2017) found
a significant gap in the conceptualization of entrepreneurial ecosystems in the digi-
tal age and proposed that future research efforts should examine four key areas: digi-
tal infrastructure governance, digital user citizenship, digital entrepreneurship, and
the digital marketplace. In an increasingly digital economy, they conclude that physi-
cal boundaries become obsolete. Kuratko et al. (2017) found entrepreneurs who pursue
opportunities with high levels of technological and market newness confront a signifi-
cant challenge in legitimizing their venture within an entrepreneurship ecosystem. At
the same time, it is easier for ventures with newer elements to diffuse their innovations
beyond their ecosystem. Ecosystems as a complex system of stakeholders with vary-
ing goals and perspectives also pose governance challenges with respect to desirable
outcomes and how to achieve them. Two main viewpoints have emerged regarding eco-
system governance. Firstly, the bottom-up approach postulates that ecosystems emerge
“naturally” through self-regulatory coordination processes of the different stakehold-
ers that are based on certain cultural norms, rules and behaviors (e.g., Silicon Valley)
(Colombo et  al. 2017; Holmes et  al. 2013; Isenberg 2014). This “invisible hand” acts
without intention or formality, in which costs and benefits are in equilibrium. In con-
trast, the top-down approach advances the notion of intentional “designability” of eco-
systems by policy makers that provide and redistribute resources strategically from the
top (Ács et  al. 2015; Stam 2015). Proponents of both viewpoints agree however that

13
 466 X. Neumeyer et al.

ecosystem governance requires a holistic approach that pays more attention to the struc-
ture of stakeholder networks and how this structure can be influenced to enhance entre-
preneurial outcomes (Colombo et  al. 2017; Rampersad 2016). The effects that these
social networks of individual and organizational stakeholders have on the properties of
entrepreneurial ecosystems are an important, but understudied aspect of the ecosystem
framework.

2.2 Social networks and the entrepreneurship process

Scholars have long recognized the importance of social networks in the entrepreneurial
process (Aldrich and Martinez 2010; Downing 2005; Fletcher 2006). Key stages in this
process, such as opportunity recognition, financing, and commercialization, are shaped
by the social interactions between entrepreneurs and their environment (Jack and Ander-
son 2002; Kenney and Richard Goe 2004). Network theory has emerged as a powerful
tool for analyzing interrelationships among people, events and institutions in a variety
of contexts. For example, studies have examined networks of drug users, the spread of
innovations, and the effects of social embeddedness on weight loss (Poncela-Casasnovas
et al. 2015; Weeks et al. 2002; Weiss et al. 2014).
In entrepreneurship, research on personal networks dates back to the 1980s, where
scholars explored the role business and personal networks played in the start-up phase of
a new venture (Aldrich and Zimmer 1986; Birley 1986; Johannisson 1987). Since then,
entrepreneurial networks research has expanded to better understand the effect of strong
and weak ties, homophily (age or gender), or geographic proximity on aspects of entre-
preneurship such as opportunity discovery, resource acquisition, gaining trust, and legiti-
macy. As a case in point, Hills et al. (1997) found that the majority of entrepreneurs identi-
fied new business ideas through their social network. Although there have been conflicting
views on the optimal combination of strong (e.g. friends, family, business partners, advi-
sors, or mentors) and weak ties (e.g. acquaintances), the consensus is that weak ties expose
the entrepreneur to diverse information and contacts (Burt 2009; Granovetter 1973, 1983,
Singh et al. 1999), whereas strong ties provide access to social and financial capital that
would otherwise be inaccessible (Krackhardt 1992; Rowley et  al. 2000; Starr and Mac-
Millan 1990). In some environments, such as Russia, networks can also act as protective
barriers against government corruption or overreach, leading to unique entrepreneurial
ecosystems that include a diversity of actors, social connection points (e.g. private dinner
invitations), human and financial resources, as well as preferred access to central nodes
in the political system (Batjargal 2003; Ledeneva 2006; Vries and Florent-Treacy 2003).
However, high-density networks can erect hurdles that make it more difficult for newcom-
ers to enter, ultimately leading to lower levels of entrepreneurial activity (Aidis et al. 2008).
Network research has also been employed to examine firms and organizational clusters. On
a firm level, weak and strong ties have been found to positively or negatively influence a
firm’s ability to secure resources, gain legitimacy and discover new opportunities (Elfring
and Hulsink 2003). For clusters, a study conducted by Eisingerich et al. (2010) found that
network strength and openness are essential characteristics of successful regional clusters,
mitigating the negative effects that can come with environmental uncertainty. In another
study on biotechnology clusters in San Diego, Casper (2007) demonstrated that managers
from an early biotech company provided a network backbone that offered new and upcom-
ing firms in the space the necessary expertise to grow and develop.

13
Who is left out: exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial… 467

2.3 Networks in entrepreneurial ecosystems

The increase in ecosystem research has led to a variety of conceptualizations, with social
capital and networks being an integral (albeit underdeveloped) component in all of them.
For example, Neck et al. (2004) found that formal and informal networks are integral com-
ponents in entrepreneurial ecosystems, supporting new venture creation. Formal networks
(e.g., research universities, regional government agencies, professional and support ser-
vices, capital sources, a high-technology talent pool, and large corporations) were identi-
fied as relevant but the informal networks were also frequently mentioned as an important
system element (Neck et al. 2004). Isenberg (2010) suggested the creation of regional or
diaspora networks between expatriates and formal and informal networking groups as cru-
cial elements in an ecosystem. The interactions between networks of institutions, firms,
and individual actors are also an important phenomenon in the emergence of startup com-
munities (Feld 2012). Mentoring, advisory, and peer networks were also recognized as
important ecosystem components by the World Economic Forum (2013), Spigel (2017)
and Ács et  al. (2014). Yet, scholars point out that social capital and strong-tie networks
can have detrimental effects on entrepreneurial activity as they can promote mediocrities
(Light 2010), diminish objectivity and knowledge creation (Locke et al. 1999), and consti-
tute boundaries for outpost populations (Light and Dana 2013). In a study on social capital
boundaries between indigenous and non-indigenous populations (i.e., Old Harbor, Alaska,
with Alutiiq people), Light and Dana (2013) found that a combination of strong within-
group ties (characteristic of bonding social capital), weak external ties (typical of bridging
capital) and poor cultural capital (towards entrepreneurship) promoted the emergence of
detached social groups in the community. Similarly, Neumeyer and Santos (2018) discov-
ered social segregations between sustainable and conventional entrepreneurial ventures.
These social separations have also been found with respect to gender in ecosystems of
developed countries, where male-dominated, strong-tie and high-growth venture networks
that are socially detached from managed-or low-growth venture networks are a common
phenomenon (Brush and Chaganti 1999; Edelman et al. 2010; Neumeyer et al. 2018) (see
Fig. 1).
Furthermore, previous research points towards a set of categorical and contextual var-
iables (e.g., gender, Brush et  al. 2009; venture types, Morris et  al. 2016; and race and
ethnicity, Light and Dana 2013) that shape the outcomes of social capital and networks,
and define the configuration of social clusters in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Our study
will therefore examine the effects of venture typology, race, ethnicity and venture experi-
ence on the emergence of distinguishable social clusters in two municipal entrepreneurial
ecosystems.

Fig. 1  Network model of the entrepreneurial ecosystem

13
 468 X. Neumeyer et al.

3 The study

3.1 Context: characteristics of two municipalities

We focused our study on two different municipalities in two different states in the United
States—the city of Chicago and the city of Orlando. Orlando is located in the central
region of Florida (102.40 square miles land area) with a population of 277,173 (data from
2016; source: census.gov). Among the top employers is a major university, a number of
hospitals, a set of large and medium-sized companies, and county and city government
organizations. The city’s economy is mainly based on construction, manufacturing, leisure
and hospitality, education and health services as well as trade, transportation, and utili-
ties. With respect to their entrepreneurial ecosystem, Orlando ranks 22 on overall startup
activity and 3 on startup density (Kauffman Index of Startup Activity 2017). Orlando is
a major hub for simulation and gaming with more than 150 small and large firms oper-
ating in the space. The Orlando ecosystem includes various networking groups (e.g. the
Central Florida Hispanic Entrepreneurs), entrepreneurial events (e.g. Don Quijote awards,
Entrepreneurs Cruise), startup competitions (e.g. Megawatt Ventures, Rollins Elevator
Pitch competition), co-working and maker spaces (e.g. Canvs, Colab Orlando, FamiLAB),
incubators/acclerators (e.g. Burnout Game Ventures, UCF Business Incubation Program,
Starter Studio) and angel/venture capital groups (e.g. Arsenal, Florida Angel Nexus, ven-
Velo). The GDP per capita is $26,982 (data 2016), and there are 37,544 businesses, mostly
owned by White (66.5%) (ownership by race/ethnicity Black = 18.9%; Asian = 6.5%; His-
panic = 23.3%), male-led (50.7%) (female-led = 40.4%; equally owned = 5.3%) (Data from
2012 source: census.gov).
Chicago is a much larger metropolitan area, counting approximately 2,716,450 inhab-
itants (data from 2015), 227.63 square miles of land area, and a per capita income of
$30,847 (data from 2016). There are 291,007 firms in Chicago, 57.9% of which are owned
by White individuals (with Black = 26.8%; Asian = 8.0%; Hispanic = 13.4%) and primar-
ily male-led (50.9%) (female-led = 42.5%, and equally owned = 4.4%). Chicago’s economy
is broadly diversified among financial and distribution services, biomedical and technol-
ogy sciences, consumer goods, consulting, insurance and information services, manufac-
turing and retail, and other industries. Chicago ranks 31st on overall startup activity and
27st on startup density (Kauffman Index of Startup Activity 2017). The Chicago ecosystem
includes various networking groups (e.g. the Chicago Entrepreneur Group, The Founding
Moms’ Exchange), entrepreneurial events (e.g. Chicago Startup Week, Techweek Chi-
cago), startup competitions (e.g. HealthTECH Startup Competition, SVP Chicago Fast
Pitch), co-working and maker spaces (e.g. 1871, Coalition, MAKE! Chicago), incubators/
acclerators (e.g. 2112, Bunker Labs, Insight Accelerator Labs) and angel/venture capital
groups (e.g. Baird Capital, Chicago Ventures, Pritzker Group).

3.2 Sampling strategy

Following Heckathorn (1997), we employed a stratified sampling procedure to study net-

works of hidden populations. This sampling strategy is appropriate when there is less
detailed public information on the population (e.g., yellow pages for all of the entrepre-
neurs and stakeholders in a region), and when researchers want to capture the characteris-
tics and structure of the relational ties (networks) among entrepreneurs and stakeholders.

13
Who is left out: exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial… 469

According to this sampling method, the team of researchers contact the first pool of par-
ticipants in the study, who in turn refer and introduce new potential participants based on
their own social connections. The information about naming (who names whom), as well
as characteristics of the network members (nodes) and their relationships (ties) allows the
reconstruction of the network.
To ensure that we had a group of eight interviewees in each ecosystem to serve as the
key participants for the ensuing chain-referral, our approach to select the initial set of
respondents was as follows. First, the initial seeds included different stakeholder catego-
ries: investor (N = 1), institutional leaders from a government agency (N = 1), member of
an incubator/accelerator organization (N = 1), member of an institution of higher educa-
tion (N = 1) and entrepreneurs (N = 4); one individual from each one of the four types of
ventures specified by Morris et al. (2016): survival, lifestyle, managed growth and aggres-
sive growth. Survival ventures often have no physical location, sometimes working out of
their own home, but they may operate from a stall or public market. They do not typically
have formal employees, their work tends to be labor intensive, with little to no use of tech-
nology, no machinery, and limited access to supplies and raw materials. Differentiation is
difficult, as the offering is perceived to be a commodity. Financial resources include lim-
ited personal savings and any generated revenues, which are targeted principally for indi-
vidual subsistence. There is no external equity investment and no retained earnings. The
organizational resources of survival ventures are characterized by a daily planning, defin-
ing day-to-day procedures, and simple control and coordination systems. Firm reputation is
limited or absent. Similarly, the social resources of survival ventures are tied to the small
personal network of the entrepreneur, suggesting little to no social capital, and with lit-
tle in the way of inter-and intra-firm relations. To recruit the seed subject, the researchers
visited farmer’s markets, local street vendors, flea markets, craft and arts fairs, and com-
munity bulletin boards. Lifestyle ventures focus on serving a niche within a local market,
usually limited to one or two locations in the same geographical area. They have access
to basic technology and raw materials, and own or lease basic equipment, machinery and
furnishings, with very little innovation. This type of business may be able to attract some
debt financing based on personal guarantees, while building a small amount of equity in
the business over time. The venture generates a limited reserve of retained earnings that
are periodically reinvested to maintain the competitiveness of the business and a stable
income for the owners. These ventures are sometimes able to establish a strong local repu-
tation and identity. Social resources of lifestyle ventures center on their families together
with their local business and personal networks, with limited social capital, and low local
inter-and intra-firm relations, where some linkages are established with similar businesses
in the same geographic area. We selected the initial seed lifestyle entrepreneurs by con-
necting directly with prominent small business owners in both municipalities. Managed
growth ventures are characterized by having multiple locations or operations that usually
begin in a local market and expand across one or more larger regions. The venture has a
growing pool of physical resources that can embrace a steady expansion of facilities and
employees, moderately sophisticated technology and equipment, and an expanding infra-
structure to support steady growth. Furthermore, the business operates with an attractive
revenue model where new revenue sources (products, services, locations) are regularly
added. The organization is able to leverage relationships with a diverse network of indi-
viduals and organizations, both private and public. We reached the initial managed-growth
entrepreneur using local chamber of commerce databases, and purposively selecting ven-
tures that show an annual growth of 10–15%. Aggressive growth ventures are character-
ized by extensive knowledge-based assets including patents, strong innovation capacity,

13
 470 X. Neumeyer et al.

and incorporation of leading-edge technologies. Based on an innovative, high growth

business model, these ventures demonstrate high potential for large external equity invest-
ments, from venture capitalists and angels, and can attract significant debt capital. Revenue
growth is very high, but profits may lag for some time, while continued expansion to meet
explosive growth demands places severe cash flow pressures on the business. A proactive
culture of creativity and change is coupled with the development of a national or global
brand. Aggressive growth ventures have a scalable social network, with a strong and rich
pool of social capital, and strong global inter-and intra-firm relations. We reached the ini-
tial seed of aggressive-growth entrepreneurs using the public records of high-growth ven-
tures through their affiliation with incubators/accelerators as well as venture capital firms.
To recruit the leader from a government agency, an incubator or accelerator and a higher
education institution, we contacted the referred local institution in both ecosystems and
sought out the main decision-maker.

3.3 Measures and data analysis

We conducted in-depth face-to-face interviews with each participant (average

time = 45  min). The semi-structured interview included a group of questions referring to
attendance and participation at entrepreneurship-related events, the frequency, nature and
purpose of the interactions with other entrepreneurs/investors/institutional, leaders/educa-
tors, and their personal history of entrepreneurship to capture their ties within the entre-
preneurial ecosystem. We imported the information about naming (who named whom), as
well as characteristics of the network members (nodes) and their relationships (ties) into
the UCINET social network data analysis program (Borgatti et al. 1999). Using this soft-
ware, each interview resulted in a set of nodes, which were subsequently assembled into a
network, and constitute a proxy of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. A node in a network cor-
responds to different stakeholders (e.g., entrepreneurs, investors, or leaders of the universi-
ties, regulatory institutions, incubators, etc.) in the ecosystem that the interviewee is inter-
acting with. We collected 150 interviews in each municipal ecosystem. On average, each
participant generated between 7 and 20 connections, leading to a network of 993 nodes in
the Orlando ecosystem ­(Eco1) and 1088 nodes in the Chicago ecosystem ­(Eco2).
We analyzed the structure of each entrepreneurial ecosystem using four measures: (1)
Network Density, (2) Multiplexity, (3) Modularity, and (4) Network Centralization. Net-
work density measures the ratio of existing ties compared to all theoretically possible ties in
the network (Wasserman and Faust 1994). Networks with higher density have higher levels
of information exchange or coordination. In the context of our study, network density is
an overall measure of social exchange. Multiplexity measures the interaction of exchanges
within and across relationships and the emergence of multilayers—the multi-relational
nature of social networks (e.g., two investors can share a friendship and an advice tie in the
same relationship). Multiplexity is also a measure of tie strength: when two nodes share a
higher number or ties, the relationship is stronger (Bliemel et al. 2015). Multiplexity is dif-
ferentiated into two types: instrumental ties (having information or advice, normally estab-
lished for funding, evaluation, or professional purposes), and sociational ties (referring
to social support, normally as personal advice, counselling and friendship). Multiplexity
was measured using the method developed by Skvoretz and Agneessens (2007). Modular-
ity detects the existence of a community structure in a network (Newman 2006), and this
is the key measure to detect the emergence of subgroups and boundaries in the entrepre-
neurial ecosystem. Modularity was measured using the Girvan–Newman algorithm (2003)

13
Who is left out: exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial… 471

to compute the modularity score Q. Network centralization refers to the degree to which a
network is more or less centralized around particular points or sets of points. Centralization
is estimated by the ratio of the actual sum of differences to the maximum possible sum of
differences and its value varies from 0(%) to 1(00%).

4 Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the two municipal ecosystems analyzed in the
study. This information provided a first estimate of the ecosystem’s characteristics. In both
ecosystems the sample of interviewed stakeholders was predominantly white and male
­(MaleEco1 = 65%, ­MaleEco2 = 61%, ­WhiteEco1 = 67%; ­WhiteEco2 = 60%), with a dispropor-
tionate (compared to their proportions in the economy) numbers of entrepreneurs operating
aggressive-and managed-growth ventures, and survival ventures being under-represented
­(SurvivalVentureEco1 = 6%; ­SurvivalVentureEco2 = 4%). This is due in part to the informal
nature of their organization that makes them difficult to capture (Morris et al. 2016). The
demographic divide is even more pronounced in aggressive and managed-growth busi-
nesses, where 75–80% of the entrepreneurs were white and male. This falls in line with
previous research that has shown that high-growth entrepreneurship suffers from a lack of
gender and ethno-racial diversity (Gatewood et al. 2009; Mirchandani 1999). Both entre-
preneurs and institutional leaders commented on this in our interviews. One of the female

Table 1  Descriptive statistics of Eco1 (in %) Eco2 (in %)

the sample
Organizational affiliation
 Entrepreneurial ventures 52 46
 Government agencies 13 19
 Incubator/accelerator organizations 14 18
 Angel/VC investors 8 11
 Higher education organizations 13 6
Demographics
 Male 65 61
 Female 35 39
 White 67 60
 African American 14 25
 Asian 15 12
 Other 4 3
 Hispanic 15 7
Venture type
 Aggressive growth 17 14
 Managed growth 35 34
 Lifestyle 42 47
 Survival 6 4
Venture age
 < 5 years 60 55
 > 5 years 40 45

13
 472 X. Neumeyer et al.

entrepreneurs in our sample mentioned that: “I have been working in the technology area
for a while now, and I am still surprised how few women are breaking into this space.
It definitely feels like a boys’ club sometimes, especially with respect to venture capital.”
One of the institutional leaders corroborated this: “We are actively trying to engage more
women and minorities. Our track record here at the center has been poor, historically, but
one of the things we have been doing is to diversify our pool of venture capital and angel
investors. That has helped a bit, but these things change slowly, so we have been trying
to develop some all-female entrepreneurship programs to increase our yield.” In contrast,
we found more demographic diversity with leaders of institutional stakeholders (e.g. uni-
versities, small business development centers), where 40% of directors or managers were
female. With respect to venture age, about 60% of entrepreneurial ventures were not older
than five years (VentureAge > 5yEco1 = 60%; VentureAge > 5yEco2 = 55%), with an average
age of 4.1 years, showing a balance between early-stage and established businesses.
In the network density analysis (e.g. level of connectivity) we differentiated by type
of interaction (instrumental vs. sociational), type of network (institutional leaders, entre-
preneurs and investors) and municipality (see Table  2). The data indicates that, in gen-
eral, all of the stakeholders in E ­ co1 are better connected than their counterparts in E
­ co2
­(NetworkDensityAllEco1 = 0.19; ­NetworkDensityAllEco2 = 0.13). Due to Chicago’s size and
geographic dispersion, meeting points are often scattered around the city, making it more
difficult to meet and exchange. As one of the interviewees states: “In Chicago, startup
events are mainly concentrated in downtown, but it takes me about 45  min to get there,
which makes it hard to participate.”.
Data analysis also showed that the degree of connection between different stakehold-
ers based on instrumental ties (e.g. work-or assistance related) was higher than for socia-
tional ties (e.g. friendship), signaling that many professional relationships have less of an
informal dimension. For example, the network density scores for the instrumental ties in
­Eco1 and ­Eco2 were 0.16 and 0.14 respectively, in contrast to the density for sociational
ties, which were 0.10 and 0.06 respectively. This is consistent with previous research on
manager (Krackhardt 1987) and lawyer networks (Lazega 2001). In ecosystem networks,
however, this difference in density between instrumental and sociational ties can vary sig-
nificantly for different types of stakeholders. Entrepreneurs and institutional leaders were
mostly tied professionally, whereas early stage investors (e.g. investment clubs or angel
groups) referred to friendship ties, leading to a higher degree of network density (soci-
ational and instrumental): “After retirement, I was looking for a way to stay active and
invest some of my money. A friend suggested joining him at a meeting of his investment

Table 2  Network densities Network Eco1 Eco2

All institutional leaders 0.19 0.13

 Instrumental 0.23 0.17
 Sociational 0.11 0.03
Entrepreneurs
 Instrumental 0.16 0.14
 Sociational 0.10 0.06
Angel/VC investors
 Instrumental 0.41 0.34
 Sociational 0.32 0.21

13
Who is left out: exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial… 473

club, and I have been a member there since. We often meet outside our official meetings to
discuss new opportunities or with the people who seek investment. We found that talking
with the actual entrepreneurs is giving us a more substantial insight than just looking at
their proposal.”
To further confirm the presence of multiplexity, the analysis compared the number of
observed multiplex relations with their corresponding random occurrences. As Table  3
illustrates, in both ecosystems angel/venture capital investor and entrepreneur networks
were multiplex ­ (MultiplexityInvestorsEco1 = 25, p < 0.05; ­MultiplexityInvestorsEco2 = 23,
p < 0.05; ­MultiplexityEntrepreneursEco1 = 63, p < 0.05; ­MultiplexityEntrepreneursEco2 = 55,
p  < 0.05). Furthermore, we found multiplex ties among institutional leaders
­(MultiplexityInstLeadersEco1 = 36; p < 0.05) as well as between entrepreneurs and angel/
venture capital investors of ­ Eco1 ­(MultiplexityEntrAngVCinvestorsEco1 = 41; p < 0.05).
Overall, our multiplexity analysis suggests that relationship ties are stronger in E ­ co1. One
possible explanation is the overall size of the community as well as the geographic charac-
teristics. The venture communities in Orlando are not as fractionalized and geographically
separate as in Chicago. As one interviewee put it: “The startup community here in Orlando
is sizable but feels like a small town. I have been to other places like Los Angeles and New
York and it is hard to stay in touch with everyone there.”
To further elaborate on this point, we conducted a statistical analysis to the existence of
subgroups or communities in our two ecosystems. To estimate the statistical quality of each
community, we computed and ranked the modularity score Q using the Girvan–Newman
algorithm (Newman and Girvan 2003), and number of partitions in our ecosystem network.
Based on the modularity scores, we found that the optimal number of clusters (or com-
munities) for E­ co1 and ­Eco2 was two and three respectively (see Table 4) ­(QEco1 = 0.355, 2
clusters; ­QEco2 = 0.401, 3 clusters).
The cluster configuration for both E ­ co1 and E
­ co2 suggest a division along venture type,
gender, ethnicity, organizational affiliation and venture experience. In ­Eco1, for example,

Table 3  Multiplexity analysis
Relations Observed multi- Maximum (based on z-score
plexity total ties)

Eco1
 Inst. leaders–inst leaders 36 50 4.8*
 Inst. leaders–Ang/VC investors 27 71 1.9
 Inst. leaders–entrepreneurs 37 130 1.5
 Ang/VC investors—Ang/VC investors 25 41 5.1*
 Entrepreneurs–entrepreneurs 63 110 2.9*
 Entrepreneurs–Ang/VC investors 29 65 2.1
Eco2
 Inst. leaders–inst leaders 21 83 1.3
 Inst. leaders–Ang/VC investors 34 92 2.0
 Inst. leaders–entrepreneurs 22 101 0.8
 Ang/VC investors–Ang/VC investors 23 34 5.9*
 Entrepreneurs–entrepreneurs 55 85 6.7*
 Entrepreneurs–Ang/VC investors 12 58 0.5

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

13
 474 X. Neumeyer et al.

Table 4  Modularity ranking Rank Eco1 Eco2

# of clusters Q # of clusters Q

1 3 0.355 4 0.401
2 2 0.299 3 0.333
3 4 0.243 2 0.298
4 6 0.150 5 0.236
5 5 0.070 7 0.103

49% of nodes categorized as male are located in the first cluster. Similarly, a majority of
aggressive (65%) and managed growth (48%) entrepreneurs are located in the first cluster
(see Table  5). In contrast, the majority of female (55%), black (48%), mixed (60%) and
Hispanic (40%) entrepreneurs are concentrated in cluster 2. The third cluster contains the
vast majority of survival entrepreneurs (75%), and a small proportion of angel/venture cap-
ital investors (6%), incubators/accelerators (13%), higher education organizations (13%),
and government agencies (17%).
Eco2 contains four clusters but shows many distributional similarities to ­Eco1. The
majority of aggressive-and managed-growth ventures were located in cluster 1 and cluster
2 (83% and 68% respectively). The majority of lifestyle and survival ventures, on the other
hand, were located in cluster 3 and 4 (73% and 95% respectively) (Table 6). Male entrepre-
neurs were concentrated in cluster 1 and 2 (78%) and their female counterparts were pre-
dominately distributed across cluster 3 and 4 (58%). Overall, the cluster configuration of

Table 5  Rank 1 cluster configuration for ­Eco1

Variable Category Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
(in %) (in %) (in %)

Venture type Aggressive growth 65 28 7

Managed growth 48 34 18
Lifestyle 27 56 17
Survival 3 22 75
Gender Male 49 35 16
Female 21 55 24
Race/ethnicity White 63 24 13
Black 25 49 26
Asian 29 40 31
Hispanic 37 42 21
Other 20 60 20
Organizational affiliation Entrepreneurial ventures 37 42 21
Government agencies 48 35 17
Incubator/accelerator organizations 79 8 13
Angel/VC investment organizations 62 32 6
Higher education organizations 59 28 13
Venture age < 5 years 75 15 10
> 5 years 33 46 21

13
Who is left out: exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial… 475

Table 6  Rank 1 cluster configuration for ­Eco2

Variable Category Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster 4
1 (in %) 2 (in %) 3 (in %) (in %)

Venture type Aggressive growth 52 31 12 5

Managed growth 33 35 20 12
Lifestyle 7 20 52 21
Survival 0 5 45 50
Gender Male 48 30 16 6
Female 15 27 30 28
Race/ethnicity White 69 20 8 3
Black 15 22 36 27
Asian 41 29 20 10
Hispanic 25 22 37 16
Other 24 35 27 14
Organizational affiliation Entrepreneurial ventures 27 23 25 25
Government agencies 43 16 20 21
Incubator/accelerator organizations 63 24 8 5
Angel/VC investment organizations 71 15 10 4
Higher education organizations 52 23 20 5
Venture age < 5 years 55 26 7 12
> 5 years 21 58 15 6

­Eco1 showed a slightly more proportionate mix of node attributes, suggesting a lower level
of segregation between stakeholders, when compared to E ­ co2.
A look at the network centralization measures for each ecosystem further enhances this
point. Table 7 shows that E ­ co1 shows a larger network centralization score than E ­ co2. Fur-
thermore, we found that the network centralization measures differed depending on venture
type, with aggressive growth ventures showing the highest degree of network centraliza-
tion and survival ventures the lowest degree.
In summary, we detected a set of boundaries in both municipal ecosystems that sug-
gest the formation of segregated entrepreneurial communities. E ­ co1 consists of three such
communities that are segregated along venture and gender lines (see Fig. 2), but showed a
higher level of blending than ­Eco2 with its four social clusters.
Communities can have many positive effects, such as providing social support and
knowledge, but also impose barriers to entry. Examples include requiring membership fees
or a personal invitation to certain events or gatherings. The height or extent of these barri-
ers can differ significantly. We found these barriers to be especially pronounced in clusters

Table 7  Network centralization Network centralization (in %)

measures for ­Eco1 and E
­ co2
All Aggressive Managed Lifestyle Survival
growth growth

Eco1 48 52 38 13 5
Eco2 25 60 43 18 8

13
 476 X. Neumeyer et al.

Fig. 2  Social cluster configurations for ­Eco1 and ­Eco2

that are related to high-growth/high-technology entrepreneurship. Overall, our findings

with respect to the social clusters in entrepreneurial ecosystems align with recent calls to
increase the support for a more diversified portfolio of entrepreneurs and ventures (Morris
et al. 2015).

5 Discussion and implications

As scholarly interest in entrepreneurial ecosystems continues to expand (e.g., Adner 2017;

Kuratko et  al. 2017), research on the social organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems
(Neumeyer and Corbett 2017) is still scarce. To address this shortcoming, we applied a
social network lens to characterize and assess the complex nature of social connectivity (or
lack thereof) in these ecosystems. More specifically, we were able to quantify the differ-
ences in connectivity of entrepreneurs (and their associated stakeholders) in two munici-
palities, and therefore build an empirical foundation to detect the presence and the configu-
rational attributes (venture type, race, ethnicity, and venture experience) of social clusters
in an entrepreneurial ecosystem. This is aligned with the multilateral concept of an eco-
system that is not just “a set of relationships that are not decomposable to an aggregation
of bilateral interactions” (Adner 2017, p. 42) allows us to expand current empirical frame-
works (Ács et al. 2014).
The perspective presented here allows for the formulation of an ecosystem framework
that incorporates micro-, meso-and macro-level perspectives on entrepreneurial activ-
ity. Similar to physical systems in biology or materials science (Baeurle 2009; Murtola
et al. 2009), the behavior and outcomes of entrepreneurial ecosystems will be influenced
by interactions across different scales. Research has predominantly focused on develop-
ing single scale views of entrepreneurship. The unit of analysis is the entrepreneur or the
entrepreneurial firm, with a few notable exceptions (DiPrete and Forristal 1994; Moliterno
and Mahony 2011). Our research breaks new ground in that it leverages network metrics to
characterize the entrepreneurial ecosystem. It also provides an opportunity to extend work
beyond the traditional classifications of weak versus strong ties (Jack 2005), or brokerage
versus closure (Kreiser 2011; Stam 2010). Researchers can therefore use this approach to
further examine the person x context nexus (Welter 2011).

13
Who is left out: exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial… 477

Our research also has some implications for ecosystem governance. Results suggest
that governance structures will vary depending on the social cluster. Top-down approaches
will more likely be found in social clusters of stakeholders of high-technology managed-
and aggressive-growth ventures, that are often favored by public policies. For example,
in the Orlando ecosystem, the majority of early-stage high-growth ventures are located in
technology parks, incubators, and accelerators that are (partially) funded and coordinated
by public institutions. In contrast, clusters of lifestyle and survival ventures will exhibit a
mix of bottom-up and top-down approaches, depending on location and industry. Certain
trade associations (e.g. maple syrup cartel in Canada) can impose a strict set of norms
and rules on their members, thereby resulting in a more top-down governance approach
of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. In contrast, social clusters of stakeholders of survival
ventures such as cleaning or cooking services may exhibit a more informal bottom-up gov-
ernance structure. Overall, (regional) entrepreneurial ecosystems contain a blend of gov-
ernance approaches that are influenced by a variety of factors, including the underlying
social network structure. However, research in that area is underdeveloped and requires
more attention.
Our research also has broader implications on the economic, technological, and soci-
etal dimensions of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Whether it is access to financial or material
resources or the sharing of knowledge, the social structure of entrepreneurial ecosystems
can have profound effects on entrepreneurial and economic activity. Nee (1998) recognized
that “[i]nformal constraints embedded in norms and networks, operating in the shadows of
formal organizational rules, can both limit and facilitate economic action”. As such, our
research focuses on examining the structure of the relational ties between a wide variety of
stakeholders in an entrepreneurial ecosystem. In contrast to previous studies that defined
entrepreneurial ecosystems very narrowly, usually in the context of high-tech/high-growth
entrepreneurship (Ács and Mueller 2008; Shane 2009)—or as an affiliation (Adner 2017),
the present conceptualization includes a broad spectrum of stakeholders with a wide vari-
ety of attributes (types of ventures, ethnicity, gender, organizational affiliation and venture
experience). Different venture types require different support networks and their economic
outcomes can therefore vary in scope and impact. High-growth ventures, for example, tend
to exhibit more favorable revenue and customer growth, but require significant upfront
investment and dedicated social network of mentors, investors, and policy makers (Ács
and Mueller 2008). In contrast, lifestyle and survival ventures can (or often have to) make
due with less, but their economic impact is less pronounced (Morris et  al. 2018). More
importantly though, these social clusters of different ventures and stakeholders are eco-
nomically connected. Survival and lifestyle ventures offer basic services and products that
are often the foundation for large-scale technological platforms, introduced by high-growth
ventures, forming a sort of symbiotic relationship (Tiwana 2013). Therefore, understanding
the structure and characteristics of the relational links between the different social clusters
is pertinent to assess their economic output in an entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Furthermore, this study addresses societal aspects of entrepreneurial ecosystems. By
examining the social boundaries between different venture groups, we enhance current
discussions about diversity and social inclusion in entrepreneurship and the broader eco-
nomic system (Piketty 2015). Our study examines diversity not only by using a broad sam-
pling strategy, but also through the ability to specify sub-groups within an ecosystem. For
instance, we demonstrate the predominant role that white male stakeholders play, espe-
cially in aggressive growth ventures. Identifying diversity ‘gaps’ is important to avoid eco-
nomic and social silos, and increase the participation of women and minorities in entre-
preneurship (Gatewood et al. 2009; Neumeyer et al. 2018). We expand previous work on

13
 478 X. Neumeyer et al.

social capital boundaries (Light and Dana 2013) to the ecosystem level, but also emphasize
the importance of institutional support that, as we found in our data, varies by the type of
venture. Specifically, entrepreneurs with poverty backgrounds are often disconnected from
institutional support, which inhibits their ability to grow their venture, escape their poverty
conditions and help improve their community.
This work also relates to the technological impacts of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Access and use of technology can differ based on industry, venture type and socioeconomic
status. Technology implementation can also vary based on region and/or municipality,
due to regulations, consumer preferences, and existing infrastructure. Ride-sharing appli-
cations such as Uber and Lyft, for example, are concentrated in densely populated areas,
which often leads to uneven transportation options between different municipalities. With
respect to socioeconomic status, poverty entrepreneurs often have access to technology,
but lack technology literacy (Morris et  al. 2018), which can lead to a digital disconnect
within an entrepreneurial ecosystem. At the same time, technology platforms such as Face-
book and Amazon offer survival and lifestyle ventures an opportunity to better connect to
regional and national markets. Social connectivity between different stakeholders is also a
key aspect in the development and adoption of new technologies. Therefore, for knowledge
spillover and technology adoption to occur effectively in an ecosystem connectivity needs
to be assessed and gaps minimized.
Finally, several interesting managerial implications can be derived from these findings.
First, the selection, navigation and creation of strategic networks have become a crucial
component in the entrepreneurial process (Stuart and Sorenson 2007). Entrepreneurs need
to find the most efficient route to access the necessary resources—be that startup capi-
tal, mentorship, recruitment of new employees or other elements that are important for a
sustainable enterprise. A better understanding of the structure and properties of their sur-
rounding networks could help them identify weaknesses such as a lack of diversity (e.g.
demographic or knowledge) or scale (e.g. number of links). They might ask themselves:
‘What is a good ratio of weak to strong ties?”; and, “Which relationships should I improve
on and which ones should they pay less attention to?”. These questions are relevant for
entrepreneurs and, since there is evidence that social networks and connectivity are a key
element in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, reflecting on the answers is an important aspect
of the entrepreneurial process.
Answers to these questions will also depend on the venture type and stage of develop-
ment. Entrepreneurs with survival businesses need to build networks that can help them
better produce and deliver their services and connect with the larger ecosystem. In contrast,
entrepreneurs of aggressive growth ventures should build networks that help them raise
risk capital and recruit qualified employees. Similarly, other stakeholders such as institu-
tional leaders can determine the position of their institution in the overall entrepreneurial
ecosystem, and subsequently develop initiatives to address structural weaknesses such as
the participation of women or ethnic minorities. For example, using our modularity analy-
sis, institutional leaders can determine which parts of the ecosystem are the most isolated/
connected and develop avenues for improvement.

5.1 Limitations and future research

This study has several limitations that should be kept in mind. First, the findings are lim-
ited to two municipalities which help describe the local entrepreneurial ecosystem but tell
us little about state-and national-level ecosystem differences. Context in entrepreneurship

13
Who is left out: exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial… 479

research matters (Welter 2011) and our data did not capture a detailed enough picture of
the regional or state-wide entrepreneurial ecosystems. Examining geographically proxi-
mate ecosystems was necessary for our in-depth approach, but offered a limited set of dif-
ferentiators. Future research should contrast municipalities with starker structural differ-
ences. For example, cities that experienced sustained economic decline (e.g. Detroit) could
be compared to cities in economic recovery (e.g. Pittsburgh), and cities with a dominant
industry cluster (e.g., energy in Houston or tourism in Honolulu) might be compared to
cities with a more diverse mix of major industries. Related to the issue of site selection
is the lack of a tool for capturing ecosystem networks on a larger scale. Interviews were a
valuable source of information, but in order to capture the temporal dynamics of the eco-
systems’ social structure, a more longitudinal data collection approach would be necessary.
The dataset should also be augmented with additional variables such as entrepreneurial ori-
entation (Kreiser 2011). Another key issue is ecosystem identity (Warren 2004). Although
research on personal and organizational identity has been increasing over the years, iden-
tity development in ecosystems is still in its infancy. Future research needs to address this
gap and build a comprehensive theory on ecosystem identity, modifying existing frame-
works on collective identity (Helms 1994; Lamont and Molnár 2001; Schlesinger 1997;
Touraine 1985) and addressing questions such as: What are the processes that contribute
to the formation of an ecosystem identity? Does the formation of such an identity lead to
the exclusion of certain groups? Thirdly, ecosystem governance is an important area of
future research that deserves more attention. Although scholarly work on governance in
entrepreneurial ecosystems is steadily increasing (Colombo et al. 2017; Cunningham et al.
2017; Rampersad 2016), many questions remain. Specifically, the adaptation of network
governance for entrepreneurial ecosystems requires a more robust theoretical and empirical
foundation, but also offers opportunities for future studies. Lastly, the role of institutions
of higher education in entrepreneurial ecosystems also deserves more attention. Higher
education institutions and educators are important agents in the entrepreneurial ecosys-
tem, connecting faculty and students with outside resources and vice versa. Among the
various formal classroom experiences, colleges and universities also offer valuable incu-
bation space as well as provide essential social capital in the form of alumni or outside
experts (Fetters et al. 2010). Faculty members and advisors have to enhance participation
of all groups, actively pursuing programs and other opportunities to engage minorities and
women. Teachers can also integrate entrepreneurial ecosystems in the classroom through
case studies (Kerr et al. 2017), calling students’ attention to the dynamics of ecosystems,
boundaries and clusters, as well as their relevance to business performance.

6 Conclusion

The need to better understand entrepreneurial ecosystems is generally recognized by

policy makers (Mason and Brown 2014) and researchers (Isenberg 2010; Malecki 2011;
Spigel 2017). However, most research on entrepreneurial ecosystems has remained on
the conceptual level and requires a more solid empirical foundation. To address this
shortcoming, we used network theory to not only model, but also evaluate and compare
the network structure of two municipal ecosystems. Our results indicate that both eco-
systems showed the formation of social boundaries, separating male-led high-growth
entrepreneurs from woman-led lifestyle and survival entrepreneurs. For researchers, our
study supports the increasingly prominent role that the underlying structure assumes in

13
 480 X. Neumeyer et al.

dynamic ecosystem behavior, but raises new questions about its temporal and contextual
boundary conditions. We hope that these insights invite scholars in the field to further
disentangle the role that ecosystems play in the entrepreneurial process.

References
Ács, Z. J. (2011). High-impact firms: Gazelles revisited. In M. Fritsch (Ed.), Handbook of research on
entrepreneurship and regional development: National and regional perspectives (pp. 133–174).
Chetenham: Edward Elgar.
Ács, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and
policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494.
Ács, Z. J., & Mueller, P. (2008). Employment effects of business dynamics: Mice, gazelles and ele-
phants. Small Business Economics, 30(1), 85–100.
Ács, Z. J., Szerb, L., & Autio, E. (2015). National systems of entrepreneurship. In Global Entrepreneur-
ship and Development Index 2014 (pp. 13–26). Springer. Accessed 14 July 2015
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management,
43(1), 39–58.
Aidis, R., Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. (2008). Institutions and entrepreneurship development in Russia:
A comparative perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 656–672.
Aldrich, H. E., & Martinez, M. A. (2010). Entrepreneurship as social construction: a multilevel evolu-
tionary approach. In Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 387–427). Springer. Accessed
11 January 2016
Aldrich, H., & Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in
Entrepreneurship.
Anderson, A. R., & Jack, S. L. (2002). The articulation of social capital in entrepreneurial networks: A
glue or a lubricant? Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 14(3), 193–210.
Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: Establishing the frame-
work conditions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5), 1030–1051. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1096​
1-016-9473-8.
Baeurle, S. A. (2009). Multiscale modeling of polymer materials using field-theoretic methodologies: A
survey about recent developments. Journal of Mathematical Chemistry, 46(2), 363–426.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through
entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.
Batjargal, B. (2003). Social capital and entrepreneurial performance in Russia: A longitudinal study.
Organization Studies, 24(4), 535–556.
Birley, S. (1986). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing,
1(1), 107–117.
Bliemel, M. J., McCarthy, I. P., & Maine, E. M. A. (2015). Levels of multiplexity in entrepreneur’s net-
works: implications for dynamism and value creation. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 6, 247.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (1999). UCINET 6.0 Version 1.00. Natick: Analytic
Technologies.
Brush, C. G., & Chaganti, R. (1999). Businesses without glamour? An analysis of resources on per-
formance by size and age in small service and retail firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 14(3),
233–257.
Brush, C. G., De Bruin, A., & Welter, F. (2009). A gender-aware framework for women’s entrepreneurship.
International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 8–24.
Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Casper, S. (2007). How do technology clusters emerge and become sustainable? Social network formation
and inter-firm mobility within the San Diego biotechnology cluster. Research Policy, 36(4), 438–455.
Chen, M.-H., & Wang, M.-C. (2008). Social networks and a new venture’s innovative capability: The role of
trust within entrepreneurial teams. R&D Management, 38(3), 253–264.
Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., & Mahajan, A. (2014). Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the
chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy, 43(7), 1164–1176.
Colombo, M. G., Dagnino, G. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Salmador, M. (2017). The governance of entrepre-
neurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1118​7-017-9952-9.

13
Who is left out: exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial… 481

Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Wirsching, K. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystem governance: A
principal investigator-centered governance framework. Small Business Economics. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1118​7-017-9959-2.
Delmar, F., Davidsson, P., & Gartner, W. B. (2003). Arriving at the high-growth firm. Journal of Busi-
ness Venturing, 18(2), 189–216.
DiPrete, T. A., & Forristal, J. D. (1994). Multilevel models: Methods and substance. Annual Review of
Sociology, 1, 331–357.
Downing, S. (2005). The social construction of entrepreneurship: Narrative and dramatic processes in
the coproduction of organizations and identities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2),
185–204.
Edelman, L. F., Brush, C. G., Manolova, T. S., & Greene, P. G. (2010). Start-up motivations and growth
intentions of minority nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(2),
174–196.
Eisingerich, A. B., Bell, S. J., & Tracey, P. (2010). How can clusters sustain performance? The role
of network strength, network openness, and environmental uncertainty. Research Policy, 39(2),
239–253.
Elfring, T., & Hulsink, W. (2003). Networks in entrepreneurship: The case of high-technology firms.
Small Business Economics, 21(4), 409–422.
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Fairlie, R. W., Morelix, A., & Tareque, I. (2017). 2017 Kauffman
index of startup activity: National trends. Available at https​://ssrn.com/abstr​act=29744​62.
Fairlie, R. W. (2007). Entrepreneurship among disadvantaged groups: Women, minorities and the less
educated. The Life Cycle of Entrepreneurial Ventures, 1, 437–475.
Feld, B. (2012). Startup communities: Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Fetters, M., Greene, P. G., & Rice, M. P. (2010). The development of university-based entrepreneurship
ecosystems: Global practices. Edward Elgar Publishing. Accessed 28 November 2014
Fletcher, D. E. (2006). Entrepreneurial processes and the social construction of opportunity. Entrepre-
neurship and Regional Development, 18(5), 421–440.
Gatewood, E. J., Brush, C. G., Carter, N. M., Greene, P. G., & Hart, M. M. (2009). Diana: A symbol
of women entrepreneurs’ hunt for knowledge, money, and the rewards of entrepreneurship. Small
Business Economics, 32(2), 129–144.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Prod-
uct Innovation Management, 31(3), 417–433. https​://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12105​.
Gohmann, S. F., & Fernandez, J. M. (2014). Proprietorship and unemployment in the United States.
Journal of Business Venturing, 29(2), 289–309.
Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory,
1(1), 201–233.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 6, 1360–1380.
Greene, P. G., Brush, C. G., Hart, M. M., & Saparito, P. (2001). Patterns of venture capital funding:
is gender a factor? Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 3(1),
63–83.
Hagiu, A., & Wright, J. (2015). Multi-sided platforms. International Journal of Industrial Organization,
43, 162–174.
Harrison, R. T., & Mason, C. M. (2007). Does gender matter? Women business angels and the supply of
entrepreneurial finance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 445–472.
Hayter, C. S., Lubynsky, R., & Maroulis, S. (2017). Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of grad-
uate students in the development of university spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(6),
1237–1254.
Heckathorn, D. D. (1997). Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of hidden popula-
tions. Social Problems, 44, 174–199.
Helms, J. E. (1994). The conceptualization of racial identity and other racial constructs. Accessed 1
December 2014
Hills, G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Singh, R. P. (1997). Opportunity recognition: Perception and behavior
of entrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 203–218). Wellesley, MA: Babson
College.
Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Jour-
nal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165–187.
Holmes, R. M., Jr., Miller, T., Hitt, M. A., & Salmador, M. P. (2013). The interrelationships among
informal institutions, formal institutions, and inward foreign direct investment. Journal of Man-
agement, 39(2), 531–566.

13
 482 X. Neumeyer et al.

Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68–81.
Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6),
40–50.
Isenberg, D. J. (2014). What an entrepreneurship ecosystem actually is. Harvard Business Review, 5,
1–7.
Jack, S. L. (2005). The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: A qualitative analysis*.
Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1233–1259.
Jack, S. L., & Anderson, A. R. (2002). The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process.
Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 467–487.
Johannisson, B. (1987). Beyond process and structure: social exchange networks. International Studies
of Management and Organization, 17, 3–23.
Kenney, M., & Richard Goe, W. (2004). The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneur-
ship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford.
Research Policy, 33(5), 691–707.
Kerr, W., Kerr, S., & Brownell, A. (2017). CIC: catalyzing entrepreneurial ecosystems. Harvard Busi-
ness School Case, 1, 817–826.
Krackhardt, D. (1987). Cognitive social structures. Social Networks, 9(2), 109–134.
Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. Networks
and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action, 216, 239.
Kreiser, P. M. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation and organizational learning: The impact of network
range and network closure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 1025–1050.
Kuratko, D. F., Fisher, G., Bloodgood, J. M., & Hornsby, J. S. (2017). The paradox of new venture legiti-
mation within an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 49, 1–22.
Lamine, W., Mian, S., Fayolle, A., Wright, M., Klofsten, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2016). Technology busi-
ness incubation mechanisms and sustainable regional development. Journal of Technology Trans-
fer. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1096​1-016-9537-9.
Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2001). How blacks use consumption to shape their collective identity evi-
dence from marketing specialists. Journal of Consumer Culture, 1(1), 31–45.
Lazega, E. (2001). The collegial phenomenon: The social mechanisms of cooperation among peers in a
corporate law partnership. Oxford University Press. Accessed 8 December 2015
Ledeneva, A. V. (2006). How Russia really works: The informal practices that shaped post-Soviet poli-
tics and business. Cornell University Press. Accessed 18 November 2015
Light, I. (2010). The religious ethic of the protestant ethnics. In L.-P. Dana (Ed.), Entrepreneurship and
religion (pp. 168–183). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Light, I., & Dana, L.-P. (2013). Boundaries of social capital in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship The-
ory and Practice, 37(3), 603–624.
Locke, E. A., Noorderhaven, N. G., Cannon, J. P., Doney, P. M., & Mullen, M. R. (1999). Some reserva-
tions about social capital. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 8–11.
Malecki, E. J. (2011). Connecting local entrepreneurial ecosystems to global innovation networks: Open
innovation, double networks and knowledge integration. International Journal of Entrepreneur-
ship and Innovation Management, 14(1), 36–59.
Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth-oriented entrepreneurship. In
Final Report to OECD, Paris. Accessed 14 April 2015
Mirchandani, K. (1999). Feminist insight on gendered work: New directions in research on women and
entrepreneurship. Gender, Work and Organization, 6(4), 224–235.
Moliterno, T. P., & Mahony, D. M. (2011). Network theory of organization: A multilevel approach.
Journal of Management, 37(2), 443–467.
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review,
71(3), 75–83.
Morris, M. H., Neumeyer, X., Jang, Y., & Kuratko, D. (2016). Distinguishing types of entrepreneur-
ial ventures: An identity-based perspective. Journal of Small Business Management. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/jsbm.12272​.
Morris, M. H., Neumeyer, X., & Kuratko, D. F. (2015). A portfolio perspective on entrepreneurship and
economic development. Small Business Economics, 45(4), 713–728.
Morris, M., Santos, S., & Neumeyer, X. (2018). Poverty and entrepreneurship in developed economies.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Murtola, T., Bunker, A., Vattulainen, I., Deserno, M., & Karttunen, M. (2009). Multiscale modeling
of emergent materials: Biological and soft matter. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 11(12),
1869–1892.

13
Who is left out: exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial… 483

Neck, H. M., Meyer, G. D., Cohen, B., & Corbett, A. C. (2004). An entrepreneurial system view of new
venture creation. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2), 190–208.
Nee, V. (1998). Norms and networks in economic and organizational performance. The American Economic
Review, 88(2), 85–89.
Neumeyer, X., & Corbett, A. C. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Weak metaphor or genuine concept?.
In The great debates in entrepreneurship (pp. 35–45). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Neumeyer, X., & Santos, S. C. (2018). Sustainable business models, venture typologies, and entrepreneurial
ecosystems: A social network perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172(20), 4565–4579.
Neumeyer, X., Santos, S. C., Caetano, A., & Kalbfleisch, P. (2018). Entrepreneurship ecosystems and
women entrepreneurs: A social capital and network approach. Small Business Economics, 1, 1–15.
Newman, M. E. (2006). Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 103(23), 8577–8582.
Newman, M. E., & Girvan, M. (2003). Mixing patterns and community structure in networks. In Statistical
mechanics of complex networks (pp. 66–87). Springer. Accessed 16 December 2015
Nicotra, M., Romano, M., Del Giudice, M., & Schillaci, C. E. (2018). The causal relation between entrepre-
neurial ecosystem and productive entrepreneurship: A measurement framework. Journal of Technol-
ogy Transfer, 43(3), 640. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1096​1-017-9628-2.
Piketty, T. (2015). About capital in the twenty-first century. American Economic Review, 105(5), 48–53.
Poncela-Casasnovas, J., Spring, B., McClary, D., Moller, A. C., Mukogo, R., Pellegrini, C. A., et al. (2015).
Social embeddedness in an online weight management programme is linked to greater weight loss.
Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 12(104), 20140686.
Rampersad, G. C. (2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: A governance perspective. Journal of Research in
Business, Economics and Management, 7(3), 1122–1134.
Robbins, D. K., Pantuosco, L. J., Parker, D. F., & Fuller, B. K. (2000). An ampirical assessment of the con-
tribution of small business employment to US State economic performance. Small Business Econom-
ics, 15(4), 293–302.
Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structures: An analysis of struc-
tural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management
Journal, 21(3), 369–386.
Sah, R. K., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1985). The architecture of economic systems: Hierarchies and polyarchies. The
American Economic Review, 76(4), 716–727.
Schlesinger, P. (1997). From cultural defence to political culture: Media, politics and collective identity in
the European Union. Media, Culture and Society, 19(3), 369–391.
Shane, S. A. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small
Business Economics, 33(2), 141–149.
Singh, R., Hills, G. E., Hybels, R. C., & Lumpkin, G. T. (1999). Opportunity recognition through social net-
work characteristics of entrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 1, 228–241.
Skvoretz, J., & Agneessens, F. (2007). Reciprocity, multiplexity, and exchange: Measures. Quality and
Quantity, 41(3), 341–357.
Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 41(1), 49–72.
Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Plan-
ning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.
Stam, E., Hartog, C., van Stel, A., & Thurik, R. (2011). Ambitious entrepreneurship, high-growth firms and
macroeconomic growth. In The dynamics of entrepreneurship: evidence from global entrepreneurship
monitor data (pp. 231–249). New York: Oxford University Press.
Stam, W. (2010). Industry event participation and network brokerage among entrepreneurial ventures. Jour-
nal of Management Studies, 47(4), 625–653.
Stangler, D. (2010). High-growth firms and the future of the American economy. Kansas City: Kauffman
Foundation. Accessed 7 January 2016
Starr, J. A., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990). Resource cooptation via social contracting: Resource acquisition
strategies for new ventures. Strategic Management Journal (1986–1998), 11(5), 79–92.
Stuart, T. E., & Sorenson, O. (2007). Strategic networks and entrepreneurial ventures. Strategic Entrepre-
neurship Journal, 1(3–4), 211–227.
Sussan, F., & Acs, Z. J. (2017). The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 49(1),
55–73. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1118​7-017-9867-5.
Tiwana, A. (2013). Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Newnes.
Touraine, A. (1985). An introduction to the study of social movements. Social Research, 52, 749–787.
Valdez, J. (1988). The entrepreneurial ecosystem: Toward a theory of new business formation. Kfar Abida:
Small Business Institute Director’s Association.

13
 484 X. Neumeyer et al.

Vries, M. F., & Florent-Treacy, E. (2003). Roustam Tariko (A): Russian entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 27(3), 299–313.
Warren, L. (2004). Negotiating entrepreneurial identity—Communities of practice and changing discourses.
The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(1), 25–35.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge
University Press. Accessed 12 December 2015
Weeks, M. R., Clair, S., Borgatti, S. P., Radda, K., & Schensul, J. J. (2002). Social networks of drug users in
high-risk sites: Finding the connections. AIDS and Behavior, 6(2), 193–206.
Weiss, C. H., Poncela-Casasnovas, J., Glaser, J. I., Pah, A. R., Persell, S. D., Baker, D. W., et al. (2014).
Adoption of a high-impact innovation in a homogeneous population. Physical Review X, 4(4),
041008.
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship—Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepre-
neurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184.
World Economic Forum. (2013). Entrepreneurial ecosystems around the globe and company growth dynam-
ics. Davos: World Economic Forum.

13