The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-0705.htm

The present state of The present

state of
entrepreneurship ecosystems entrepreneurship
ecosystems
in selected countries in Africa
Michael Sheriff and Moreno Muffatto 17
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Padua, Padua, Italy Received 17 October 2012
Revised 30 August 2013
Accepted 14 October 2014
Abstract
Purpose – Entrepreneurship ecosystems could be useful road maps for the formulation of
entrepreneurship policies for countries in Africa. The twenty-first century economic development
agenda lay a lot of emphasis on the pivotal role that entrepreneurship plays in the growth of economies,
job creation and poverty alleviation especially in Africa. But without the right entrepreneurial ecosystems
to enhance the formulation of pertinent entrepreneurship policies, achieving entrepreneurial economic
growth will be difficult. The existing frameworks for the development of entrepreneurship ecosystems are
based on research that has been conducted elsewhere. The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – Entrepreneurship research in Africa has rarely focused in
understanding and evaluating the entrepreneurship ecosystems. In this paper, we have attempted to
examine the present state of the entrepreneurship ecosystems in four countries (Botswana, Egypt, Ghana
and Uganda) in Africa. Despite the fact that extant literature on the concept is limited, it has been reviewed
to provide a picture of entrepreneurship ecosystems. Relevant national and international documents were
also examined to evaluate the present state of entrepreneurship ecosystems in these countries.
Findings – The findings from each of the countries though they depict a static situation, justify the
proposition that entrepreneurs are omnipresent, it is only the entrepreneurship environment that
accounts for the differences in entrepreneurial economic growth and the cross-countries comparisons
shows the dissimilarities in national entrepreneurship environments.
Research limitations/implications – In conclusion, a broad process to develop entrepreneurship
ecosystems initiatives is suggested alongside the crucial roles that governments and other stakeholders
should play which implies that a National Entrepreneurship Mission might be necessary.
Originality/value – Multiple case studies that have compared entrepreneurship ecosystems of countries
in Africa are very rare. This study though explorative, is one of the first. The findings and conclusions
could be useful for a detailed study to map out pertinent and self sustaining entrepreneurship ecosystems
that are necessary for the formulation of entrepreneurship policies.
Keywords Africa, Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship ecosystems, Governments
Paper type Case study

1. Background
Existing literature on clusters stressed their advantages in enhancing efficiency and
the creation of knowledge and value but neglect the contribution of entrepreneurs
and entrepreneurial management in the establishment of organizations, markets and
supporting ecosystems (Pitelis, 2012). To fill this gap, we employ the concept of
entrepreneurship ecosystems to highlight the contribution of entrepreneurial management
and entrepreneurs in the creation of clusters especially in Africa. The involvement of
entrepreneurs is necessary to enhance the shift from clusters to entrepreneurship
ecosystems. Similar to the natural ecosystems, which contains different types of
African Journal of Economic and
biological components with varying degrees of arrangements so also do entrepreneurship Management Studies
ecosystems contain different types and levels of entrepreneurship (Voelker, 2012). Vol. 6 No. 1, 2015
pp. 17-54
Examining the entrepreneurship ecosystems of countries therefore offers several © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-0705
insights that range from the modeling of a more accurate map for understanding the DOI 10.1108/AJEMS-10-2012-0064
AJEMS entrepreneurial activities to the development of entrepreneurship policy that takes
6,1 into account several components such as the cultural and economic development of
a given nation.
Given that there are many components and factors involved in the formation of an
entrepreneurship ecosystem and most of these factors are locally based, it is assumed
that each ecosystem should be specific and idiosyncratic. We therefore examine four
18 regionally diverse countries in Africa to identify to which extent their entrepreneurship
ecosystems are similar or dissimilar and to understand what causes the dissimilarities.
The entrepreneurship ecosystem is an evolutionary concept. While different models
of entrepreneurship ecosystems exists, two main examples of these models are those
proposed by Daniel Isenberg a Professor of Management Practices at Babson Global
which identifies six main domains of entrepreneurship ecosystem and that of Steven
Koltai of the Global Entrepreneurship Program of the United States Department of
State which outlines six main pillars and six key participants. (Nadgrodkiewicz, 2013).
For the purpose of this study, the Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project model
has been adopted to compare the state of the entrepreneurship ecosystems of the
selected countries.
Though considerable research has been conducted in the field of entrepreneurship,
the general critique is that most of the research is concentrated in two prominent
regions in the world: North America and Europe (Bruton et al., 2008). This assertion is
buttressed by the research conducted on entrepreneurship policy for the future state by
Stevenson and Lundstrom (2001), which considered only Northern America, European
and Asian economies in their effort to diversify comparisons of countries in different
regions. Naudè and Havenga (2005), mentioned in their article that there is a paucity of
research about entrepreneurship in Africa that has been published especially in main
stream entrepreneurship journals. This position is also supported by Lingelbach et al.
(2005), who in their work, stated that specialist literature has focused more on
the description of entrepreneurship attributes in developing countries rather than the
provision of frameworks where entrepreneurs and policy makers can interact.
The scholars further stressed that even the existing models of entrepreneurship are
based largely on research conducted in developed countries that do not usually reflect
the manner in which entrepreneurship is being practiced both in the least developed
and emerging economies.
Literature about entrepreneurship in Africa therefore needs to be enriched and
extended especially with regards to recent emerging concepts such as national
entrepreneurship ecosystems. These national systems of entrepreneurship involve many
key players, their interconnectedness and their interactions with the entrepreneurship
environment. Understanding these systems could form a solid base for the formulation
of entrepreneurship policies. But, to extend and enrich the literature with regards
to entrepreneurship ecosystems, the first step is to examine the present state of
entrepreneurship ecosystems in Africa which is the purpose of this study. The study
is exploratory in nature and archival data have been used.

2. Introduction
Referring to Section 1, studies conducted about entrepreneurship are focused on certain
regions. The concentration in Africa is very limited. This is one of the main reason,
why in this work, we focus on carrying out research in this geography especially
with regards to entrepreneurship ecosystems which are largely under-researched.
A research of this nature may form the basis on which further detailed studies may be
carried out in an effort to extend the coverage of the body of knowledge on entrepreneurship The present
ecosystems in Africa. With the accelerated globalization being witnessed in the present state of
century, the understanding of a country’s entrepreneurial ecosystem may assist
policymakers in the development of appropriate policies at national level that might
entrepreneurship
unleash different types of productive entrepreneurship at different levels. The gains of ecosystems
productive entrepreneurship are linked to the growth of the economy and the generation
of employment. 19
This study has utilized secondary data from international and national data sources
to understand the interactions between the various stakeholders of entrepreneurship
and the entrepreneurial environments in which they operate. Several international
reports and indices such as the United Nations Development Program, Human
Development Report (2010), the (2011) World Bank Doing Business Report (DBR, 2010),
Ibrahim Index of African Governance (2011), the Heritage Foundation Economic
Freedom Report (2011), the World Economic Forum (2010) Global Competitiveness
Report and the (2010) Legatum Prosperity Index have been used.
Recently, the entrepreneurship ecosystem concept is rapidly attracting the interest
of scholars, practitioners, policymakers and leaders as entrepreneurship is being
considered as playing a pivotal role in national economic growth (Spencer and Gomez,
2004). The reasons are not difficult to discern as governments all over the world are
proposing or formulating policies for the creation of an enabling environment that will
unleash productive entrepreneurship since it is being viewed as an important
contributor to a country’s industrial and economic growth as well as being one of the
critical pillars germane to the commercialization of innovations in the new economic era
(Archibong, 2010).
Since research on this topic in Africa is limited, this paper attempts to fill this chasm
by examining and comparing the interactions between different entrepreneurship
actors and the entrepreneurial environment in the selected countries. To understand
these interactions, the following research questions are proposed:
RQ1. what key roles have institutions and actors played in the creation of a national
entrepreneurship ecosystem?
RQ2. What major challenges do key players in the system and key developers of the
system face in strengthening the ecosystem?
This study is structured as follows: in Section 2, we review the literature of the basic
concepts and in Section 3, we examine the trends and patterns of entrepreneurship
ecosystems. We then present the case studies in Section 4 and we made the
comparisons in Section 5. Finally, the conclusions and implications of the findings are
presented in Section 6.

3. Review of the literature of the main concepts

3.1 Ecosystem
A natural ecosystem is fundamentally a multidimensional and complex ecological
concept. The first basic definition of a natural ecosystem can be traced backed to Sir
Arthur Tansley, who defined an ecosystem as a community of living organisms (biotic)
and its associated physical environment (abiotic) in a particular place (Pickett and
Cadenasso, 2002). This definition is size independent though all instances of an
ecosystem must be specified and bounded (Likens, 1992; Odum, 1993). An ecosystem is
also not limited to equilibrium or complex and stable conditions (Pickett and
AJEMS Cadenasso, 2002). The definition is sometime referred to as the process-functional
6,1 approach. There is also the population-community approach definition which is based
on historical development and is normally appropriate for conceptualizing some
observation sets rather than the most fundamental way to view entire ecosystems
(O’neil et al., 1986). The concept was further developed in terms of energy and material
flows. In this approach, energy and nutrients are exchanged, consumed and transformed
20 within limits and feedback loops help to maintain the system in equilibrium (Bocking,
1994). Ecosystems can be autotrophic or heterotrophic (Odum, 1989).
The three major dimensions (meaning, model and metaphor) of an ecosystem
though they are linked, allow the use of the concept in different ways. It is therefore not
surprising that the concept is used in diverse disciplines such as social science,
economics, policymaking and management. Since the definition above is neutral, the
transformation of the definition into practical use requires the building of models.
An example of such a model is the ecological economics model. The metaphor dimension
is not as technical as the other two dimensions but allows the use of the concept in
various situations where there is a need to link a phenomenon being studied that is
in its embryonic stage to a well-established phenomenon (Pickett and Cadenasso, 2002).
One such phenomenon in its infancy is the entrepreneurship ecosystem which is
appropriate in the new economy since in such an economy, the key factors for survival
and success are learning, adaptability and change (Allen, 2001). Ecosystems may also
be used in the study of social ecology in which the efforts of behavioral scientists is
focused on understanding a complete view of the interaction of individuals and their
physical and social environments (Insel and Moos, 1974).
Broadly speaking, ecosystems being complex adaptive systems are very useful in
consensus building especially for collaborative planning which in essence can be
understood as part of a society’s response to the continuous changes occurring in
increasingly close knitted and networked societies (Innes and Booher, 1999). Consensus
building is critical in changing the direction of complex, evolving situations as the
process can change the players and their actions and as a consequence can also
produce new relationships, practices and ideas (Innes and Booher, 1999) which are
necessary ingredients of an ecosystem.
Complexity science scholars asserted that complex systems imitate organisms in
their behavior in uncertain and changing environments (Capra, 1996). For example,
a machine can only perform the specific task it is designed for whereas an organism
can adapt and change depending on the feedback it gets from the environment.
Systems theory has therefore cause management scholars to consider organizations
as organisms (Morgan, 1986) and that the fluctuations caused by the turbulence of
the environment to be adjusted by organizational change (Lawrence and Dyer, 1983).
According to Dooley (1997), these environments coexist and are created by the
organization to some extent meaning that the organization is playing an active role.
The complexity paradigm utilizes systematic inquire in an effort to build fuzzy,
multivalent and multidisciplinary representation of reality. To understand systems,
patterns within their complexity that can describe potential evolution of the system
have to be identified (Lewin, 1992; Waldrop, 1992). The theory of complex adaptive
systems as observed by Dooley (1997), derived from the discovery of chaotic dynamics
in systems’ behavior. Some of the main characteristics of systems as described by
chaos theory (Dooley et al., 1995) are as follows: first, that systems that are pushed far
from equilibrium can spontaneously self organize into new structures and second,
changes in the essential nature of a system takes place when a control parameter
passes a critical threshold – a bifurcation point. It should be mentioned that while the The present
concepts of chaos and self organization have emerged from the physical sciences, state of
the concept of complex adaptive systems is rooted in the biological sciences (Gell-Mann,
1994). It is important to note that complex adaptive systems allows one to analyze
entrepreneurship
organizations from a holistic point of view as the systems are both self organizing and ecosystems
learning. Examples of complex adaptive systems commonly found are social systems,
ecologies, economies, cultures, politics, technologies and institutions. There is no doubt 21
that most of the entities in the example form the pillars of the entrepreneurship
environments in societies. Such environments consist of a large number of adaptive
agents involved in local interactions. The application of complexity science may form
the foundation of an elegant structure on which to build and empirically test emerging
theories of entrepreneurship ecosystems.

3.2 Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship is a polysemous and a multidimensional concept whose definition
is still elusive and a consensus has yet to be reached by scholars and practitioners as
to the exact meaning of entrepreneurship and the role of the entrepreneur (Amit et al.,
1983). Anecdotal evidence shows that the disagreement in reaching a common
definition has hindered research progress. Despite the lack of a single definition of
entrepreneurship and a single profile that describe an entrepreneur, it is assumed
that humanity’s progress from caves to space which has been explained in many
ways, has at its core the role of the “agent of change” and this agent is recognized to
be the entrepreneur (Kuratko, 2009, p. 4). As entrepreneurship became more popular
in the past decades, research started to enrich the discipline with increasingly
new findings and the body of literature grew and expanded rapidly as evidenced
by the research efforts being devoted to the discipline (Low and MacMillan, 1988).
One of the main challenges of entrepreneurship research is that it is generally considered
to be stratified, eclectical and divergent with a somewhat ill-defined paradigm (Murphy
et al., 2006) and this explains the emergence of too many scholars with conflicting
research interests and agendas that culminate in the formulation of many theories
and frameworks.
Several definitions of entrepreneurship have been forwarded since the time of the
pioneers in entrepreneurship research. A summary of the main definitions according to
Long (1983), are as follows.
Richard Cantillon (ca. 1730); self employment with additional uncertainties and
activities proportionate to market demand. Jean Baptiste Say (ca. 1810); managerial
talents and many obstacles and uncertainty accompany entrepreneurship. Alfred Marshall
(ca. 1890); abilities for entrepreneurship are different from the abilities for management
though they are complementary. Joseph Schumpeter (ca. 1910); finding and promoting
new combinations of productive factors and a prime creative socio-economic factor.
Frank Knight (ca. 1920); risk prone in the face of uncertainty is an essential aspect
of entrepreneurship. Edith Penrose (ca. 1960); managerial competencies should be
distinguished from entrepreneurial competencies and the identification and exploitation of
opportunistic ideas. Harvey Leibenstein (ca. 1970); entrepreneurship is aimed to minimized
organizational inefficiencies. Isreal Kirzner (ca. 1975); the identification and exploitation of
market arbitrage opportunities.
From the above definitions, three main taxonomy of entrepreneurial theories were
posited by Hébert and Link (1989) and these are linked to three major intellectual
traditions; German ( Joseph Schumpeter and von Thuenen), Chicago (Knight and Schultz)
AJEMS and Austrian (von Mises, Kirzner and Shackle). A brief description of each of the
6,1 schools follows.
3.2.1 Joseph Schumpeter and the concept of creative destruction. Schumpeter
revealed his perspective about the entrepreneur through an economic lens. He emphasized
that economic development is a dynamic process that involves the destruction of the
economic status quo and attributed the destruction to the activities of entrepreneurs
22 (Rocha, 2012). In explaining creative destruction, he stressed that economic development is
due to the disturbance of the stationary equilibrium of the closed circular economic
flow. Such a disturbance occurs through product and process innovations (Hébert
and Link, 2006). According to Khalil (2007) entrepreneurship under Schumpeter, is
the desire of the individual to become creative. But the Schumpeterian entrepreneur
being credited for the perturbation of equilibrium is considered to be a source of
economic upheavals (Rocha, 2012).
3.2.2 Frank Knight and the concept of uncertainty. Frank Knight stressed the
differences between risk and uncertainty in the following discourse; when the outcomes
are uncertain but they can be probably predicted then there is a risk. But when the
outcomes cannot be predicted, then there is uncertainty and true uncertainty occurs
when forecasting the future is impossible but it also occurs when the surrounding
circumstances are unclassifiable and the distribution of the outcomes is non-existent
(Rocha, 2012). The Knightian entrepreneur is an individual that conduct his or her
activities under true uncertainty (Schultz, 1980; Montanye, 2006). In a nut shell, the
Knightain entrepreneur conduct entrepreneurial activities under uninsurable business
hazard (van Praag, 1999) and is quite the opposite of the Schumpeterian entrepreneur
who is never the risk bearer (Kanbur, 1980).
3.2.3 Israel Kirzner and the concept of market arbitrage. The view of this scholar on
entrepreneurship can be described as spontaneous learning (Kirzner, 1979; Cosgel,
1996). He stressed that it is alertness that allows entrepreneurs to indentify arbitrage
opportunities and posited that the market process is driven by entrepreneurs’ alertness to
the unnoticed and unexploited entrepreneurship opportunities. The attainment of market
equilibrium is therefore attributed to the entrepreneur (Casson, 2005). In contrast to the
Schumpeterian entrepreneur, who is assumed to cause disequilibrium, the Kirznerian
entrepreneur instead is the equilibrating individual of the economic system. The role of the
entrepreneur emerged due to the state of disequilibrium in the economy and the activities
of the entrepreneur are mainly concentrated in reestablishing the state of equilibrium
(Hébert and Link, 1989; Khalil, 2007).
3.2.4 Recent studies in the domain of entrepreneurship. Studies on entrepreneurship
have been carried out in different disciplines such as sociology, economics, psychology,
anthropology, management and business since the turn of the century (Swedberg, 2000).
From these studies, a number of theories have emerged. Some of these theories are as
follows: the economic entrepreneurship theory, the psychological entrepreneurship theory,
the sociological entrepreneurship theory, the anthropological entrepreneurship theory,
opportunity-based entrepreneurship theory and the resourced based entrepreneurship
theory (Simpeh, 2011).
To examine these theories, entrepreneurship can be viewed from two major points of
view; the macro and the micro. Each of the view, contains three distinct school of thought
based on the phenomena of the external and the internal locus of control (Kuratko, 2009,
p. 8). These entrepreneurial schools of thought are as follows: (a) the environmental school
of thought, (b) the financial/capital school of thought, (c) the displacement school of
thought, (d) the entrepreneurial trait school of thought, (e) the venture opportunity school The present
of thought and (f) the strategic formulation school of thought. state of
For the purpose of this work, the focus is on the environmental school of thought
which deals with the environment in which the entrepreneurial activities are being
entrepreneurship
carried out as an entrepreneurship environment forms part of an entrepreneurship ecosystems
ecosystem. The external forces which can be negative or positive can influence the
decision of an individual to venture into entrepreneurship (Kuratko, 2009, p. 9). 23
An entrepreneurship environment, can therefore, be defined as the surroundings or
conditions provided by the overall political, economic, socio-cultural, trade, physical
and virtual infrastructure, and institutions that influence an individual’s willingness
and ability to venture in to entrepreneurship (Gnyawali and Fogel, 1994; Abimbola and
Agboola, 2011). It must be stressed that the environment can be either positive or
negative to entrepreneurial activities or a mixture of both. A supportive environment
which is usually positive in nature is a combination of all the components of the
environment that are crucial for the unleashing and fostering of entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial activities. The main theory related to the entrepreneurship environment is
the institutional theory.
Institutions can be formal and informal and they are humanly created constraints
meant to structure political, social and economic interactions (North, 1991). They have
been devised to ensure order and minimize uncertainty in exchanges that involves
individual and groups. The institutional theory based on institutions, has been proven
to be one of the theories that explains how entrepreneurs will overcome hurdles of
newness through the process of legitimizing their enterprises (Ahlstrom and Bruton,
2002). Three main pillars have been identified by this theory; these are: the regulative,
the cognitive and the normative (Scott, 1995; Kostova, 1997; Busenitz et al., 2000)
and these pillars are claimed to be responsible for the provision of stability and
incentives that either promote or hinder social behavior. A behavior that influences
entrepreneurship activities.
3.2.5 The importance of involving the context in entrepreneurship research.
Entrepreneurship is increasingly becoming the domain of organization, regions and
countries and not only individuals. These organizations, regions and countries are
normally environments that have an abundance of entrepreneurial opportunities and
resources that are increasing in quantities and varieties (Thornton and Flynn, 2003).
From the existing literature, entrepreneurship environments studies are generally
classified into three main groups:
(1) general environmental conditions for entrepreneurship;
(2) descriptive studies of the environmental conditions, at the global level or those
of a particular country or region; and
(3) the role of public policy in building a conducive environment according to
Gnyawali and Fogel (1994).
Entrepreneurship contexts also manifest considerable novelty since they are in the
embryonic stage of development with boundaries that are changing continuously due to
the dynamism of the actors and processes involved (Zahra and Wright, 2011). Engaging
the context can facilitate the recognition of the subtle cultural and institutional factors that
influence entrepreneurial activities as shown by the findings of international comparative
studies of societies at different levels of economic development (Welter, 2011).
AJEMS According to Zahra and Wright (2011), entrepreneurship research has been carried
6,1 out in different populations, locales and national cultures. Early studies concentrated
on local entrepreneurship but recently, research has expanded to include indigenous
entrepreneurship, international entrepreneurship, returnee entrepreneurship,
transnational entrepreneurship and eventually entrepreneurship in emerging economies
and less developed countries (Oviatt and McDougall, 2000; Zahra, 2005; Bruton et al., 2008).
24 International research organizations such as the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor,
the Global Competitiveness Report, the World Bank Enterprise Survey, the Legatum
Prosperity Index, the Economic Freedom Report, the Hofstede’s Indicators and the
Global Entrepreneurship Development Index, to name a few, have all contributed in
the understanding of the nature of the entrepreneurship context at a global level.
But the efforts are insufficient for a thorough understanding of the heterogeneity of
the entrepreneurship context (Hjorth et al., 2008). Zahra and Wright (2011) argued that
some researchers are more concerned with the introduction of statistical measurements
and controls for the context rather than directly examining its various dimensions and
how they influence entrepreneurship activities. They further postulated that the lack
for a fine-grained view of the context in research can be attributed to the over reliance
on mail surveys, the dearth of longitudinal data, the restrictive use of field surveys and
difficulties in generalizing the findings.
Entrepreneurship contributes to economic growth and job creation and its
importance is clearly not lost to policymakers (Schumpeter, 1934; Landes, 1998;
Hall and Sobel, 2006; Acs, 2007). In fact some authors have labeled entrepreneurship as
the fourth production factor in the macroeconomic production function (Audretsch and
Keilbach, 2004). Economic growth is a key issue for the development of societies and in
recent years, the reevaluation of the role of small firms in economic in economic
development, has rekindle attention to the role of entrepreneurship (Wennekers and
Thurik, 1999). Entrepreneurship is a conduit to commercialize innovations and small
firms though not synonymous to entrepreneurship, represent the medium by which
entrepreneurship thrives (Wennekers and Thurik, 1999). According to Baumol (1990),
not all types of entrepreneurship contribute to economic growth. He further classifies
entrepreneurship into three main categories:
(1) productive entrepreneurship;
(2) unproductive entrepreneurship; and
(3) destructive entrepreneurship.
A central point in this study is that we have focused on productive entrepreneurship as
the study does not consider the other two types entrepreneurship since their
contribution to economic growth is questionable. Thus, for productive entrepreneurship
to contribute to economic growth, the creation of a conducive environment is of utmost
importance. To create such an environment, there is a need to examine the state of
national systems of entrepreneurship in the selected countries to enhance the mapping out
of entrepreneurship ecosystems which could be useful to policy makers.

3.3 Entrepreneurship ecosystems

A brief overview of the concept of business ecosystems is necessary to provide
a platform that could be useful in understanding entrepreneurship ecosystems.
A business ecosystem which in some ways is related to an entrepreneurship ecosystem,
can be considered as a metaphor of business networks though Moore (1993, 1996), The present
considers the business ecosystem as a perspective for understanding how the economic state of
community works. He mentioned that this term replaces the term industry and that
business ecosystems are more than business networks. Iansiti and Levinin (2004),
entrepreneurship
expressed the notion that business networks are loosely coupled systems but that the ecosystems
functioning of the highly distributed and connected structure of industry today is
similar to a biological ecosystem. Viewing a business ecosystem in the metaphorical 25
lens might assist in understanding the business network concept and can be
instrumental in the application of creative thinking when analyzing such networks
(Anggraeni et al., 2007). Such a concept is similar and applicable to entrepreneurship
since the difference between the two is that business is connected to established firms
while entrepreneurship is mainly concerned with the establishment of new ventures.
An entrepreneurship ecosystem is an interception of two multidiscipline concepts
that are both broad and complex. A precise definition of this combination of complex
concepts can be challenging and elusive. Nevertheless, some definitions from extant
literature include the definition proposed by Temko (2009), that entrepreneurship
ecosystems are responsible for the fostering of formal and informal affiliations and
structures between research institutions, government, public and private institutions
and businesses. These affiliations will then create an “escalator” wherein ideas are
developed into businesses in their early stages of development and many of these
embryonic ventures are expected to evolve into full-fledged firms that may eventually
grow to become large firms with the options of either been incorporated into larger
well-established firms as one option or going public as another option. Another definition
forwarded by other scholars considers an entrepreneurship ecosystem as a means
by which people are linked by vision, commitment, passion and innovation for the
achievement of a common goal (Pistrui et al., 2008). This definition is buttressed by the fact
that a regional industrial system could be considered as an industrial ecosystem because it
is analogous to the natural ecosystem of the same region (Zhang and Qian, 2008).
Though these definitions cannot be considered conclusive, they emphasize
the presence of complex and interdependent linkages that play a critical role for the
cultivation and functioning of entrepreneurship ecosystem in societies.
The concept of entrepreneurship ecosystems has emerged quite recently as a benchmark
for formulating and implementing entrepreneurship policies. As a consequence, various
governments in most countries are attempting to base the design of entrepreneurship
policies on the entrepreneurship ecosystem approach but there is a paucity of research
on this topic (Kantis and Federico, 2012) especially in emerging and less developed
countries. Anecdotal evidence has shown that there are various types of entrepreneurship
ecosystems in existence but the most recognized one is that presented by the Babson
Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project since it has been applied in different regions of the
world (Isenberg, 2010).
From sub-section 2.2.5 above, we mentioned that entrepreneurship acts as a conduit
for the commercialization of innovations. Recently, the nature of innovation model is
changing from a linear model (research, development, commercialization) to an ecosystem
model (governments, entrepreneurs, education, venture capital, research centers,
incubation, associations) ( Johnson, 2010), this calls for a dramatic change in the nature
of entrepreneurship activities from a linear model (opportunity recognition, exploitation
and commercialization) to an ecosystem model (governments, universities, venture
capital, businesses, entrepreneurs, cultural, social, religious and environmental
aspects). In the linear model, policies usually tend to focus on discrete issues with
AJEMS limited scope while in the ecosystem model, a single policy with a broad horizon is
6,1 usually the norm. Eventually, there has been a shift in national innovation systems
which were developed in the early 1990s from a systems approach towards ecosystems
in academic and public debates (Papaioannou et al., 2007). Similarly, this is what is
emerging in the entrepreneurship discipline.

26 4. Patterns and trends in entrepreneurship ecosystems

Before the advent of the entrepreneurship ecosystems paradigm, the extant paradigm
is industrial clusters and over the last three decades, there is a burgeoning growth of
literature on clusters (Pitelis, 2012). The nature of clusters that exist in a society is usually
related to the business activities that are pertinent to that society (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka and
McCormick, 2007). The term cluster can be applied in somewhat two different ways, the
first refers to a group of enterprises engaged in similar activities (Porter, 1990) while
the second refers to geographic and sectoral agglomeration of enterprises (Schmitz, 1992).
Three main models of clusters are as follows:
(1) industrial districts;
(2) industrial clusters; and
(3) competitiveness clusters.
Industrial districts are not only localized production systems but also village communities
to enhance informal linkages, social capital and endogenous local development. Examples
are the leather and footwear industrial district in Vicenza (Italy), the metal work industrial
district ( Jua Kali) in Nairobi (Kenya), the metal work industrial district (Suame Magazine)
in Kumasi (Ghana), the auto spare parts industrial district in Nnewi (Nigeria) and the
surgical industrial district in Sialkot (Pakistan) (Ganne and Lecler, 2009; Mytelka and
Farinelli, 2000; McCormick, 1998).
Industrial clusters became popular in the 1990s as a solution to the challenges posed
by external competition and markets. The emphasis is on groups of firms whether small,
medium or large. The essence is to develop more formal linkages both horizontally
(to harness collective efficiencies) and vertically (to reduce costs) to create specialized and
competitive entities that will boost competitive advantages (Ganne and Lecler, 2009;
Mytelka and Farinelli, 2000). The industrial clusters are structured locally but connected
to internal and external networks. The focus is on competition, specialization and
innovation. Examples are the Bangalore cluster (India), Hochiminih and Hanoi cluster
(Vietnam), the California wine cluster (USA), the footwear cluster in Sinos Valley (Brazil),
the Durban automotive cluster (South Africa).
Competitiveness Clusters (Poles) can be industry, research and development (R&D)
or collaboration driven. They are a gathering of firms, research institutions, training
institutions, specialist management services and other expert support services to
surround specialized activities so as to enhance the setting up of regional development
units of excellence. They are cultivated to respond to the challenges posed by
globalization. The aim is to reach the world production chain of value by setting up
schemas and developments that are attractive and able to use multiple synergies
(Ganne and Lecler, 2009). The focus is on global competitiveness, attractiveness and
governance. Examples are the competitiveness pole in Brittany (France) and the
competitive pole in Wallonia (Belgium) (Rivera Lèone, 2010).
Although recent literature on clusters has shown that, they represent the most
privileged supply side competitiveness policy worldwide (Porter, 2003; Matthews, 2010),
the conceptual foundations have remain weak due to the fact that the theory of The present
clusters is based on absolute advantages instead of a comprehensive comparative state of
governance-based framework (Pitelis, 2012). Another significant flaw is the concentration
on the issues of co-location and social embeddedness neglecting ideas from strategy
entrepreneurship
and entrepreneurship scholarship especially the role of markets and ecosystems ecosystems
co-creation that explains the emergence, evolution and co-evolution of clusters
(Pitelis, 2012). In addition, the role of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial management 27
is downplayed in creating and co-creating clusters.
Entrepreneurship ecosystems emerged to demonstrate the conspicuous role of
entrepreneurs and other stake holders in the cultivation of clusters. With entrepreneurship
ecosystems, it is no longer enough for clusters to be considered without the input of
entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial management. With the involvement of entrepreneurs
and other stake holders such as customers, opinion leaders, role models to name a few,
clusters are transformed to entrepreneurship ecosystems. Examples of renowned startup
ecosystems around the world are as follows: US (Silicon Valley, Los Angeles Hub,
New York Hub and Boston Hub), Canada (Toronto Hub, Vancouver Hub. And Waterloo
Hub), UK (London Hub, Cambridge Research Triangle), France (Paris Hub) Germany
(Berlin Hub) Isreal (Tel Aviv Hub), Australia (Sydney Hub, Melbourne Hub), Russia
(Moscow Hub), Brazil (Sao Paulo Hub), India (Bangalore Hub) and Chile (Santiago Hub)
(Startup Ecosystem Report, 2012). From this report it is clear that Africa is not
represented by any country. Three possible reasons for this absence are: (a) at present,
there is scarcity of knowledge about entrepreneurship ecosystems in Africa or (b) no
country has cultivated its own entrepreneurship ecosystem and (c) both the reasons
given in (a) and (b). At this stage, it is worthwhile to make a distinction between
an entrepreneurship ecosystem and a business ecosystem. In most instances, an
entrepreneurship ecosystem is mainly concerned with the establishment of an enabling
environment for the fostering of entrepreneurship while a business ecosystem is
concerned with the business networks that define relationships among partners though
the formation of such an ecosystem usually requires an entrepreneurial insight
(Zahra and Nambisan, 2012). In the past century, there have been dominant beliefs that
once the functioning of ecosystems has been mastered, it is then possible to design
policies for the control and maintenance of the system at an optimal level. But these
beliefs are now shifting since ecosystems are continuously evolving and changing
(Biggs et al., 2010). In an entrepreneurship ecosystem, multiple stakeholders play
a significant role in facilitating entrepreneurship. This is achieved by the creation of
relationships, involving people, institutions in the public and private sectors as well as
the formal and informal sectors in a series of symbiotic actions towards the goal
of establishing productive entrepreneurial ventures that can contribute to economic
growth. The role of government is paramount in the development of an entrepreneurship
ecosystem. However in many emerging and low income countries, governments are still in
the early stages of developing such ecosystems. Taking into consideration the importance
of entrepreneurship ecosystems in fostering entrepreneurial activities to achieve
entrepreneurial economic growth, it is essential that governments delegate more efforts
in developing such systems (Isenberg, 2010).
It is recognized that entrepreneurship occurs in a systems context. The creation of
new ventures, influences and is in turn influenced by the socio-economic climate of
a society. It follows then that some national entrepreneurship systems are very similar
than others (Voelker, 2012). Observing and measuring the dis(similarities) may help in
benchmarking entrepreneurship ecosystems.
AJEMS 5. The case studies
6,1 The reports/indices mentioned in the introduction above have been combined using the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), to select the countries for this study after the linguistic
filtration process as the study was conducted in English. According to the Saaty (2003),
the AHP consists of a goal cluster, a criteria cluster and an alternatives cluster which are
evaluated as elements in decision making problems. The results of the evaluation are
28 illustrated in Table I. The physical, human, economic and political geography of the
continent have also been utilized for the selection of the countries. Using Collier’s
classification of countries in Africa into; resource rich landlocked, resource rich coastal,
resource scarce landlocked and resource scarce coastal (Venables, 2010). Table II which
show how the countries are categorized was developed. Combining Tables I and II, the
following countries were selected to represent the main regions of Africa; Botswana is a
landlocked resourced based country, Uganda is a land locked resource scarce country.
Ghana is a coastal, resourced based country and Egypt, is a coastal resource scarce
country. These countries were chosen to represent the whole continent since they are
diverse in many aspects and are from different regions of the continent.

5.1 Botswana
A country in the southern region of Africa with a population of 2.1 million, (2012)
estimate (est.). It is one of the few countries that have climbed up the ladder from a low
income in 1966 just after independence to a middle-income country in four decades.
It’s GDP per capita (PPP) of US$ 16,300 with a real GDP growth rate of 6.2 percent
(2011 est.). However, irrespective of the impressive growth, the rates of poverty and
inequalities are still relatively high (African Economic Outlook, 2011).
The over reliance on the export of diamonds which is a primary product might need to be
remedied in the future for the maintenance and improvement of economic gains. One of the
remedies that the government is looking into, is the diversification of the economy from the
export of primary products and to simultaneously encourage a robust private sector (African
Economic Outlook, 2011). In this direction, the government has developed an “Economic

Table I.
AHP ranking of the
countries using
international indices
as the criteria cluster
and the countries as
the alternatives
cluster
Countries Category
The present
state of
Botswana Resource rich landlocked
Cameroon Resource rich coastal entrepreneurship
Egypt Resource scarce coastal ecosystems
Ethiopia Resource scarce landlocked
Ghana Resource rich coastal
Kenya Resource scarce coastal 29
Namibia Resource rich coastal
Nigeria Resource rich coastal
Rwanda Resource scarce landlocked
Sierra Leone Resource rich coastal
Tanzania Resource scarce coastal
Uganda Resource scarce landlocked
South Africa Resource rich coastal Table II.
Zambia Resource rich landlocked Collier’s
Zimbabwe Resource rich landlocked categorization of
Source: Adapted from Venables (2010) countries

Diversification Drive” (EDD) strategy which includes an entrepreneurship development

thematic area. The aim is to develop and inculcate entrepreneurship culture amongst locals.
Citizens will also be encouraged to learn and adopt existing and new entrepreneurship traits
and skills of globally competitive successful entrepreneurs with the following strategic
objectives: promote entrepreneurship culture for business growth, improve customer
satisfaction, empower business communities, promote safety, health and the environment,
improve business regulatory environment, improve marketing and promotion, promote
entrepreneurship funding, facilitate access to entrepreneurial finance, strengthen business
development service providers and promote business linkages (EDD, 2011).
Another challenge that the country faces is the education and health of the population.
It is posited that economic growth affects the population and that the reverse is also true
with the assumption that the speed of any population feedback will be fairly constant
(Tylecote, 1991, p. 29). In the case of Botswana, human resources development should be a
priority on the agenda backed by an enabling business environment for the nurturing of the
population to venture into the private sector with particular reference to entrepreneurship.
5.1.1 An overview of entrepreneurship in Botswana. Since independence, the priority
on the diversification of the economy has been to enhance the development of small-
scale enterprises. Many policies and programs were therefore designed by the
government but despite these efforts, the outcome is still unsatisfactory and this might
be due to the fact that most of these programs were not well coordinated and integrated
which led to the duplication of efforts (Temtime et al., 2003).
The earliest framework of these programs was introduced in the 1980s. It was the
financial assistance policy (FAP) concerned with the provision of direct financial
assistance to small-scale manufacturers (Ministry of Finance and Development
Planning, 1995). This was followed in the 1980s by the integrated field services (IFS)
program which was intended to train entrepreneurs in accounting, marketing, sales,
procurement and business planning. The small business promotion agency (SBPA)
was set up in 1999, to coordinate all the activities of the small, micro and medium
scale enterprises (SMMEs) support programs. In 2001, the government established
the Citizen Enterprise Development Agency (CEDA) as the implementing agency of the
AJEMS FAP whose mandate has been shifted from offering grants to providing loans for
6,1 indigenous enterprises with the aim of developing sustainable enterprises (Ministry of
Finance and Development Planning, 2001).
The Ministry of Trade and Industry in 2004, created the local enterprise authority
(LEA) whose main mission is to incorporate the functions of the IFS and the SBPA
specializing in providing training and other business support services (LEA, 2012).
30 Despite all of these efforts, a World Bank document on ‘Promoting Entrepreneurship in
Botswana; Constraints to micro Business Development,’ gives an overview of the recent
situation with regards to entrepreneurship in the country and further, summaries the
constraints that micro-enterprises and micro-entrepreneurs are facing. The major findings
of that report are as follows:
(1) The country started to support SMME since almost four decades ago but up till
now there has been no significant improvement for micro-enterprises. This is
blamed partially on the lack of adequate financial schemes and unaffordability
coupled with inappropriate business development services (BDS).
(2) Most micro-enterprises in the country are predominantly informal.
(3) 75 percent of the micro business in the country comprises of survival entrepreneurs.
(4) The promising businesses that might have access to the BDS services are
youth owned enterprises and startups.
(5) That nearly 70 percent of the micro-enterprises are owned and run by women.
(6) The major constraints identified are: access to finance, skills development and
business premise.
(7) In conclusion, the report laid emphasis that business intervention programs
should target first the enterprises of opportunity entrepreneurs to help them
evolved while interventions for the necessity entrepreneurs should be limited to
skills development.
The report shows that the country is still struggling to improve its entrepreneurial
base (World Bank Report No. 59916-BW, 2011). To ameliorate this situation, the
Government of Botswana through the Ministry of Trade and Industry has recently
sought technical assistance from the Commonwealth Secretariat for the development
of a National Entrepreneurship Policy and Strategy for implementation (Commonwealth
Secretariat, 2011).
In summary, Table III illustrates what has been undertaken to create an entrepreneurial
base in Botswana in the past 40 years.
It should be noted that most of the interventions above are government driven, but the
onus should not lie entirely on the government. However a common observation is that all
the institutions operating in the entrepreneurial landscape have an umbilical cord tied to
the government. What seems to be lacking is the effective coordination of all these
interventions. The lack of the private sector active involvement is also an issue that should
be addressed when building entrepreneurship ecosystems. The government seems to be
playing its role and that of the private sector (Neba, 2011).

5.2 Egypt
Located in Northern Africa, with an estimated population of 83.7 million. The most
populous country in the Arab world and the second most populous in Africa. The GDP
Years Program Mandate Remarks
The present
state of
1970 Botswana Development To identify investment opportunities Focuses only on
Corporation for exploitation by both foreign and large firms or entrepreneurship
local investors investments ecosystems
1982 Financial Assistance Policy (FAP) To provide financial assistance in the
form of grants.
1983 Botswana Confederation of To represent the interest of the private 31
Commerce, Industry and sector
Manpower
1984 Tswelelo To identify investment opportunities A Joint Venture
for exploitation by both foreign and
local investors for small and medium
enterprises
1995 Small Business Clinic To promote interactions between
university students and the small
business community
2001 Citizen Entrepreneurial Financial assistance to be in the form Replaces (FAP)
Development Agency (CEDA) of loans
2001 Micro Credit Scheme A Financial scheme for informal micro
businesses
Credit Guarantee Fund Government to guarantee 60% of bank
loans in case of default
Enterprise Botswana To promote and support the creation, A tripartite
growth and expansion of small and initiative
medium enterprises
The Department of Industrial To promote the development of
Affairs industry and the transfer of industrial
technologies through a variety of
public policy
The Botswana Innovation Hub To build a “Silicon- Valley” innovation Based on the
enterprise triple index
2004 Local Enterprise Authority Provide training and other business Table III.
support services Creation of an
Sources: Adapted from Temtime et al. (2003), African Development Bank (2009), Local Enterprise entrepreneurial
Authority (2011), Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (1995, 2001) base in Botswana

per capita (PPP) of US$6,500 with a real growth rate of 1.2 percent. The unemployment
rate is estimated at 12.2 percent and the population below poverty line at 20 percent.
The private sector has accounted for 62 percent of the GDP. But irrespective of
the important role and achievement of the private sector, there is still room for
improvement as there is a mismatch between what labor skills the market is requesting
and what the educational system is offering. For the country to address poverty and
improve living standards priority should be given to high and sustainable growth rates
and attention should also be paid to crucial issues such as unemployment, income
distribution and improving the quality of education and health services (African
Economic Outlook, 2012).
5.2.1 An overview of entrepreneurship in Egypt. There are about 2.5 million private
businesses in Egypt and about 90 percent of these are small and micro-enterprises.
The contribution of SMEs to the private sector is very significant. In 2004, an SME law
(No.84/2004) was promulgated to improve support to the development of SMEs.
The Social Fund for Development through its support programs contributes to enhancing
AJEMS the growth of SMEs. Important changes were made to improve the business climate and
6,1 these changes have been welcomed by the business community (African Development
Bank, 2009).
The country shifted from a centrally planned economy to a market based economy
in the early nineties. Of course there are still remnants of the old system and a strong
opposition to privatization. The manufacturing sector is the main contributor.
32 In 2005/2006, the ICT sector benefited from private new entrants and it is booming.
The technology innovation and entrepreneurship strategy (2011-2014) developed by
the Technology Innovation and Entrepreneurship Centre (TIEC) is divided into three
categories:
(1) establishing the foundation for innovation and entrepreneurship;
(2) empowering businesses; and
(3) recognizing innovation and entrepreneurship (TIEC, 2011).
In 2007, a SME stock market, NILEX was launched with the aim of providing small and
medium cap enterprises, a way to raise capital within a specifically designed regulatory
framework. In 2004, a law to support and enforced the development of SMEs was
enacted. In brief, it focused on providing incentives and facilitating the procedures
necessary to establish these enterprises. It also forms the basis for the implementation
of different programs such as the Economic Development Program under the umbrella
of the Social Fund for Development (African Development Bank, 2009).
The network of BDC is being coordinated by the Industrial Modernization Centre (IMC)
which provides information and business development services to enterprises. The IMC
organizes its activities through the Industrial Modernization Program. The main objective
is to help industrial enterprises modernize their companies to enhance them to compete
internationally and on a sustained basis (African Development Bank, 2009).
The main organizations in the country that participate in fostering entrepreneurship
are shown in Table IV.
As shown most of these organizations are present in the training, networking and
market creation phases, while they exhibit commitment, they demonstrate a duplication
of efforts at the same time. It should be noted that apart from those organizations that
target particular sectors, in general these organizations perform their tasks for nascent
entrepreneurs (Enterprise Business Forum, 2010).
The major constraints for entrepreneurship in general are: administrative barriers,
lack of education, absence of appropriate financing and an unsupportive mindset.
In Table V that follows, these challenges are illustrated at the individual (entrepreneur)
level, the entrepreneurial environment and at the community level.
From Table V, it is clear that much attention has been focused on supporting
entrepreneurship at the individual level. The other two levels are not receiving the same
treatment (Enterprise Business Forum, 2010). This is an indication that there is a lack
of an adequate entrepreneurship ecosystem.
The Science and Technology Development Fund focuses on five main activities in
its support for entrepreneurship; incubation, equipment, mentorship and assistance,
seed funds and startup loans and graduation projects support. The institutions to
support these activities are as follows: Technology and Innovation Centers, Nadhet El
Marousa, Social Fund for Development, Technology Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Centre, Technology Management and Commercialization Office, General Authority for
Organization Fund Train Network Market Admin. Area of Focus
The present
state of
Social Fund for Development X X X X X
Industrial Modernization Centre X X X X Special program for entrepreneurship
(IMC) industrial production ecosystems
ITIDA X X X X IT industries
SME development Unit, Ministry of X X
Finance 33
Middle East Council for Small X Emphasis on
Business and Entrepreneurship networking
Nahdet El Mahrousa X X Social
Entrepreneurship
Ashoka X X X Social
Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurs Business Forum X X Entrepreneurship
(EBF) Development
Endeavor X X X High-growth
innovative ventures
Alashanekya Bala di (AYB-SD) X X X Micro and Small
entrepreneurship
EJB X X X
WEL Program AUC X X Women Entrepreneurs Table IV.
Centre for Entrepreneurship Cairo X X X Students Main organizations
University for fostering
European Training Foundation X X X X entrepreneurship
Source: Enterprise Business Forum, Egypt in Egypt

Level 2
Intervention Level 1 Entrepreneurship Level 3
targeting Entrepreneur environment Community
Administrative and Taxes and Incentives for Cutting the business Improved economic
Institutional Innovative and red-tape environment; better
Reforms Entrepreneurial physical and institutional
ventures infrastructure
Education and Skills Specific training for Graduate level Including entrepreneurial
Development entrepreneurs via education education in elementary
incubators etc. schooling
Financing Strategy Developing seed and Presence of diversified Developing an improved
angel funding from its sources of venture system of equity funding;
current personal “family funding efficient stock markets and
and friends” scheme listing regulations.
Mindset “Failure” is a possible Entrepreneurship is a Better image of business
outcome of a new valuable career choice persons in the community Table V.
business Major constraints
Source: Enterprise Business Forum, Egypt in Egypt

Investment, Agricultural research and Development Fund, Venture Capital, Information

Technology Industry Development Agency and the Research, Development and
Innovation Programmes. A gap analysis carried out by the Science and Technology Fund
revealed that there is a lack of formal education and training in entrepreneurship and
AJEMS startups and SMEs are not encouraged to actively participate in solving problems at
6,1 the national level. There is also a lack of expertise, business models, efficient networks
and venture capital (STDF, 2012).
In conclusion, research has found that an enabling environment conducive for
entrepreneurship is lacking (El Abd, 2012) and entrepreneurs are reluctant to invest in
high-growth companies because of fear of failure as the penalties the government
34 impose in case of default are very heavy. While there are many organizations
actively promoting entrepreneurship, providing startup finance and rendering
business development services, the efforts of these organizations do not match the
demand due to the recent surge of interest in entrepreneurship and furthermore, there
has been little efforts to provide funding for the few small and medium scale enterprises
which are usually termed as the missing middle. A more supportive entrepreneurship
ecosystem is therefore needed (El Abd, 2012).

5.3 Ghana
Ghana is a Western African country, with a population estimated at 25.3 million.
The GDP per capita is US$ 3,100 with a real growth rate of 13.5 percent. The unemployment
rate is 11 percent and the population below poverty line is 28.5 percent. Economic
growth in the country has been strong and projections indicate that it will maintain this
rhythm and will improve in the not too distant future. The government has made
positive strides towards the support of SMEs. Priority is therefore being given to these
enterprises in the recent times. In 2010, the Ministry of Trade and Industry provided
both financial, training and skills development support (African Economic Outlook, 2012).
Attention has been focused to the survival of SME’s as shown by a number of recent
reports in the country as there is a call for new strategic interventions to enable SME’s to
sustain their competitiveness and financial success in the future (Ohene-Konadu, 2008).
Data from the Registrar General show that 90 percent of the companies registered are in
the realm of micro, small and medium scale enterprises (Mensah, 2004). An advantage that
entrepreneurs in Ghana have over their counterparts in other developing countries in
Africa is the environment of political stability. The country has conducted several
elections and all of them have been generally peaceful, fair and free and transparent
according to national and international observers (Evans, 2012).
5.3.1 An overview of entrepreneurship in Ghana. Entrepreneurship has been part of
the development of the economy of Ghana even before the arrival of the colonialists.
Trade routes had been established and trade was flourishing between the hinterland
and the coast but this entrepreneurial zeal was dampened during the colonial period
(Robson et al., 2009; Austin, 2010). In general, an entrepreneur in Ghana covers all the
roles of managing the firm from being the manager, accountant, to production and
public relations. This centralization of activities at times has a negative impact on the
firm (Robson et al., 2009).
During the first decade after independence, the government focused on the
development of large-scale import substitution industries. There was an absence of
policies for small and medium scale enterprises (Robson et al., 2009).
The present Industrial policy is set within the country’s long-term strategic 2020
vision of reaching the status of a middle-income country. The Industrial policy is
fully aligned with the trade policy. With these two policies, the government hopes
to create an enabling environment for the private sector to effectively contribute to
economic growth.
 The Second Medium Term Private Sector Development Strategy (PSDSII) The present
(2010-2015), aims at supporting entrepreneurs and enterprises are as shown in Table VI. state of
Table VII gives a brief description of the strategy and the key intervention areas.
A survey conducted by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
entrepreneurship
(UNCTAD, 2003), in an investment policy review highlighted the following as some of ecosystems
the weaknesses of foreign direct investment in the country ; unstable macroeconomic
environment, infrastructure weakness, low productivity of labor, lack of clusters, lack 35
of clear regulatory frameworks, lack of networking, lack of entrepreneurship.
The government should therefore double its efforts in reinforcing entrepreneurship
and networking as this will contribute greatly to the attraction of foreign investments
and economic growth. Programs that foster entrepreneurship and small and medium
scale enterprises should be encouraged and promoted. Some of the existing programs
are listed in Table VIII.
Despite the existence of these programs, the country at present cannot boast
of enterprises which can form clusters. To build successful clusters, the country
needs programs that will create an environment conducive for startups and SMEs.
These programs should take a lead in the exercise of creating linkages for the
formation of clusters which can later be expanded to entrepreneurship ecosystems
through the involvement of entrepreneurs who are the key players. The proposed
schemes for the creation of clusters are:
• Small aggregation initiative for SME development; to enable SMEs to expand
and address financial needs, upgrade managerial skills and share production
capacity.
• Incubators for SME Development; ongoing tailor-made assistance for every
aspect of business development and management.
• Micro-enterprises programs; develop a strong base of Micro-enterprises
(UNCTAD, 2003).
But as of now, there is no entrepreneurship ecosystem that will enhance the formation
of better entrepreneurship policies for the country. The need to build such an
ecosystem cannot therefore be over emphasized.

5.4 Uganda
This is an Eastern Africa country commonly referred to as the “Pearl of Africa” with
a population estimated at 35.9 million. The GDP per capita is US$1,300 with a real
growth rate of 6.4 percent. The population below poverty line is 35 percent. No data is

For entrepreneurs For enterprises

A low operating cost environment that support Diversified enterprises able to offer greater
gains in efficiency and competitiveness choice that is accessible to consumers
Access to affordable and appropriate capital Credible and attractive destination for
investment
Access to sustainable domestic and export markets More competitive and efficient market for goods
and services
Sources: Adapted from Government of Ghana; Private Sector Development Strategy (PSDSII) Table VI.
(2010-2015) PSDS II for Ghana
AJEMS PSDSII vision: prosperity for all
6,1 PSDSII overall goal: to transform the Ghanaian economy and widen the economic opportunity
Investment climate Economic transformation Jobs and livelihoods
Establish an Creates a more Foster increased Provide greater Increase economic
investment climate supportive basis productivity incentives for opportunity for
that broadens for transforming especially amongst creating formal the poor especially
36 investment & the economy into small businesses jobs in underdeveloped
encourages greater a diversified regions
enterprise efficiency driven
development and economy
innovation
Key interventions Key interventions Key interventions Key interventions Key interventions
Reduce the cost & Support Support greater Increase labor Improve
risks of doing industries that outsourcing & market efficiency agricultural
business are transforming stronger supply and through policy & productivity and
growth distribution chains institutional value chain
reforms efficiencies
Reduce the decades- Help the private Improve supply & Make tertiary Improve the
long infrastructure sector discover quality of training education & the investment
deficit opportunities & and business technical & climate in
promotes development vocational underdeveloped
innovation services education more regions
responsive to the
private sector
Develop an efficient Work with the Strengthen Promote non-farm
financial sector that private sector to industrial clusters enterprise and
increases private increase the employment
sector access to efficiency of key
affordable credit & goods and
innovates new services markets
Table VII. products
Key interventions for Sources: Adapted from Government of Ghana; Private Sector Development Strategy (PSDSII)
PSDSII for Ghana (2010-2015)

available for the unemployment rate. Macroeconomic policies stress the need to achieve
a strong real GDP growth of at least 7 percent and inflation below 5 percent. The main
hurdles to private sector development in the country have been difficulties in accessing
credit, inadequate physical infrastructure, lack of effective human resources
development and a weak private sector regulatory framework. The National
Development Plan (NDP) is expected to address these obstacles (African Economic
Outlook, 2012). The Uganda Investment Authority which was established in 1991 has
the mandate to engage both the private sector and government to spearhead economic
growth and development by contributing to and advocating for a competitive
environment for doing business. The country might be one of the few that will meet the
millennium goal of halving poverty by 2015 (African Economic Outlook, 2012).
5.4.1 An overview of entrepreneurship in Uganda. Entrepreneurship in Uganda has
not been part of the traditional educational curriculum until recently. Successful
entrepreneurs started as necessity entrepreneurs as they needed to survive after
dropping out of school. Most firms are either family owned or sole proprietorship and
that there is no clear definition of who is an entrepreneur in Uganda (Ocici, 2006).
Program Function
The present
state of
Ghana Investment and Facilitate local and especially inward investment by provision of
Promotion Centre exemption of import taxes on capital goods. Links Ghanaians and entrepreneurship
international investors ecosystems
Ghana Free Zones Board Assist Investors to implement investments with minimal bureaucracy
in the free trade areas
Ministry of Trade and Responsible for granting a range of exemptions from levy’s and in 37
Industry Private Sector providing support for export development.
Development
Exinguaranty Provides credit guarantees via lending financial institutions for bank
loans up to 75% of a bank loan for a fee of 2.5 to 3%
Gratis Foundation Provides modern apprenticeship and technology design services to
SMEs, including repair and maintenance of equipment
MASLOC Micro-finance and small loans centre. Seed funds for grass root
operations
Micro, Small and Medium Access to credit, development services, information, industrial parks
Enterprise Project and linkages programs
NBSSI National Board for Small-Scale Industries established in 1981, to
facilitate the improvement of small-scale enterprise creation and
growth. Facilitate MSE access to business development services.
Contribute to the development of enterprise culture in Ghana.
Empretec Ghana Launched over two decades ago, a leading body for SME development. Table VIII.
Professional management systems to control the quality and efficiency Programs to
of all the services delivered to businesses reinforce
Sources: Ministry of Trade and Industry, Ghana entrepreneurship

An understanding of entrepreneurship in different environments can determine the

effects of entrepreneurial activities on economic growth. Since entrepreneurship is
being considered to be pivotal to the growth of economies (Schumpeter, 1934; Thurik
and Wennekers, 2004; Sanders, 2007), as a result, many countries in the continent are
viewing entrepreneurship as one of the ways of achieving industrialization, economic
growth and hence development (Briggs, 2009). For entrepreneurship to contribute
positively to the industrialization process and to enhance economic growth, pertinent
entrepreneurial ecosystems need to be cultivated that will enable the formulation of
suitable and effective entrepreneurship policies.
Policy makers face the uphill task of formulating policies for the creation of a
favorable environment for entrepreneurship. In relation to Uganda, the government has
put in place regulatory frameworks for microfinance institutions and government
support programs. But these programs should be appropriate and well designed to
produce the desired effect. For example, the “Bonabagagwale” “Prosperity for all”
which is a government empowerment program to succeed and have a positive impact,
needs to be well designed and administered (Ocici, 2006).
The government has been engaged in the diversification of the economy about half
a century ago. In 1971, about 940 industrial enterprises were registered but most of
these industries were in a deplorable state in the 1980s due to many factors such as the
lack of adequately trained and qualified human resources, importation of inputs, and
the civil war that ravaged the country (UNIDO, 2007).
Industrial development in the country is faced with many constraints. Some of these
constraints especially in the manufacturing sector are: first, limited capacities and
AJEMS corresponding capabilities for policy research, policy development, and implementation
6,1 and monitoring; second, inappropriate policies for increased competitiveness and
sustainable industrial development; third, inadequate capabilities for effective governance
including industry and corporate governance and economic management; fourth,
inadequate processing technologies; fifth, lack of entrepreneurship development and SME
support institutions and sixth, inadequate industrial institutional support services for the
38 development of a competitive industrial sector (UNIDO, 2007).
It is estimated that there are more than 800,000 micro and small enterprises in
Uganda employing roughly about 1.5 million workers and that these enterprises
account for about 20 percent of the GDP with an annual growth rate of 20 percent.
Some of the constraints that affect SME development are; lack of savings and limited
access to finance, limited access to training and extension services, inadequate
information, poor organization, inadequate infrastructure, poor business practices,
inappropriate policies and an unfavorable business environment.
Cognizant of these constraints, the government of Uganda through the Ministry of
Financial Planning and Economic Development has responded by formulating a SME
policy framework focusing on the following:
• creating an enabling business environment;
• improving financial service delivery;
• improving training, advise and extension service;
• promoting technology development and transfer; and
• disseminating information.
The micro and small enterprises development is the responsibility of a wide range of
governmental institutions and non-governmental institutions but the onus rests with the
Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry with the support of the Uganda Micro Small
Enterprise Forum, the Uganda Manufacturers Association and the Uganda National
Chambers of Commerce and Industry. The other institutions that are supporting
development of SMEs are the following; The Uganda Industrial Research Institute,
The Uganda Export Promotion Board, The Private Sector Foundation Uganda
and The Uganda Small-Scale Industries Association (UNIDO, 2007).
A notable agency that is promoting entrepreneurship in Uganda is the Enterprise
Uganda Foundation. Established ten years ago, it is a public-private institution whose
main goal is to support the government in its stride to promote small and medium scale
enterprises. Its operations are based on the Empretec model; a one stop shop that
addresses all business support needs. The services offered by this agency are as follows:
• entrepreneurship training workshop; behavioral competencies of role models;
• business health check; diagnostic study of each firm;
• business opportunity identification; idea generation, screening and testing;
• business counseling and advisory service; identify and resolved challenges;
• preparation of business plans; a useful management tool and for capital
mobilization;
• credit facilitation; identification of credit schemes;
• specialized consultancy and extension services; tailor-made support;
 • client accounting and book-keeping; financial management and auditing; The present
• management skills development; strategic, operations and human resources state of
management; and entrepreneurship
• networks and expansion (Enterprise Uganda, 2011). ecosystems
Another agency mandated to improve the operating environment of businesses in
Uganda is the Private Sector Foundation (PSF) which was formed in 1995. Its mission is 39
to improve the business environment in Uganda in areas such as policy research,
advocacy, designing and coordinating development of private sector initiatives,
promotion of dialog, facilitating the transfer of new technologies and training.
The membership of PSF is voluntary (Badagawa, 2002).
According to Ocici (2006), to cultivate an entrepreneurial society which is formal
in Uganda, three areas of intervention should be considered: first, reducing barriers to
business growth and development; second, balancing the risks and rewards of
entrepreneurship; third, building a society that values entrepreneurship.

6. Cross country comparisons

Using the indicators of the entrepreneurship environment as a proxy for
the entrepreneurship ecosystems due to the lack of measured indicators for the
entrepreneurship ecosystems in Africa, the selected countries were compared.
The indicators used were derived from the following reports and indices; the Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM, 2012), the Human Development Index (HDI, 2013), the
Ibrahim African Governance Index (IIAG, 2012), the DBR (2012), the Global
Competitiveness Report (GCR, 2012), the Legatum Prosperity Index (LPI, 2012) and the
Economic Freedom Report (EFR, 2012).
The GEM assessment of the national entrepreneurial environments is shown in
Table IX. The respondents of the survey are national experts and the responses are
measured on a five point Likert scale where a score of 1 means completely false and
a score of 5 means completely true. A score of 4 or 5 means the expert regarded the

Scale: 1 2 3 4 5 Countries
− +
GEM Factors Botswana Egypt Ghana Uganda
Finance −
General Policy −
Regulation − −
Government Programs
Primary &Secondary Education − − −
Post Secondary Education −
R&D Transfer − − − −
Commercial Infrastructure + + +
Internal Market Dynamics + + +
Internal Market Openness Table IX.
Physical Infrastructure + + + Assessment
Culture and Social Norms + + + of national
GEM rank (TEA) (% of adult population) 28 8 37 36 entrepreneurial
Source: Adapted from 2012 GEM report environments
AJEMS factor as positive for entrepreneurship and a score of 1 or 2 means the expert regarded
6,1 the factor as negative for entrepreneurship.
Four entrepreneurship framework conditions (commercial infrastructure, internal
market dynamics, physical infrastructure and cultural and societal norms) are ranked
positive and they stand out of the nine factors. Ghana, has the highest percentage of
early stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA) followed closely by Uganda.
40 The 2013 HDI has been use due to the unavailability of the 2012 report but the
rankings are those of 2012. The components of the index are linked to the human
capital of a nation and this is very important for entrepreneurship ecosystems as it is
the pool of human capital that supply potential entrepreneurs. Table X illustrate the
rankings of the selected countries.
In all the selected countries, it is evident that the issue of education should be should
be given more priority to develop the human capital base which is a necessary
ingredient for the cultivation of entrepreneurship ecosystems.
From the 2012 IIAG, the factors that contribute to a sustainable economic opportunity
which includes public management, business environment and infrastructure have been
used to compare the countries. This is illustrated in Table XI. Botswana has the highest
scores in public management and infrastructure while Egypt scored highest in terms of
the business environment.
From the DBR, the following factors were considered: starting a business, getting
electricity, registering property, getting credit, protection of investors and paying
taxes. Table XII illustrate the comparison.
Botswana and Ghana as illustrated are far better places of doing business when
compared to Egypt and Uganda though it is relatively easy to start a business in Egypt.
The GCR consists of three main sub-indices (basic requirements, efficiency
enhancers, and innovation and sophistication factors) all of which are basic
components of the entrepreneurship ecosystems of countries. The rankings are
shown in Table XIII.

Countries
HDI Factors Botswana Egypt Ghana Uganda
Life expectancy 53.0 73.5 64.6 54.5
Mean years of schooling 8.9 6.4 7.0 4.7
Table X. Expected years of schooling 11.8 12.1 11.4 11.1
HDI rankings of the HDI rank 119 112 135 161
selected countries Source: Adapted from HDI Report (2013)

Countries
IIAG Factors Botswana Egypt Ghana Uganda
Public management 72 57 60 53
Table XI. Business environment 76 80 67 55
IIAG scores and Infrastructure 62 59 29 21
ranking of selected IIAG rank 3rd 14th 7th 19th
countries Source: Adapted from IIAG Report (2013)
Botswana is ranked highest in all the sub-indices of the GCR while the other three The present
countries are ranked closely in the sub-indices. state of
The Legatum Prosperity index which measures the wealth and well being of nations is
also used to compare the countries since it demonstrates that the key factors to fostering
entrepreneurship
entrepreneurship are building a strong infrastructure and creating a conducive ecosystems
entrepreneurship environment. The sub-indices considered for the comparison are;
entrepreneurship &opportunity, safety and security, social capital. The rankings are 41
shown in Table XIV
Botswana tops the list in all of the sub-indices with the exception of the social capital
sub-index where Uganda score better than all the other countries.
The Economic Freedom report measures the degree of economic freedom in five
major areas most of which are fundamental for the creation of entrepreneurship
ecosystems. The most pertinent factors are used to compare the countries as shown in
Table XV.

Countries
DBR Factors Botswana Egypt Ghana Uganda
Starting a business 90 21 104 143
Getting electricity 91 101 68 129
Registering property 50 93 36 127
Getting credit 48 78 48 48
Protecting investors 46 79 46 133
Paying taxes 22 145 90 93 Table XII.
DBR rank 54 110 63 123 DBR ranking of the
Source: Adapted from DB Report (2012) selected countries

Countries
GCR Factors Botswana Egypt Ghana Uganda
Basic requirements 78 110 112 132
Efficiency enhancers 89 101 95 104
Innovation & Business Sophistication 82 96 102 101 Table XIII.
GCR rank 79 107 103 123 GCR ranking of the
Source: Adapted from GC Report (2012) selected countries

Countries
LPI Factors Botswana Egypt Ghana Uganda
Entrepreneurship & Opportunity 68 82 101 112
Governance 32 85 54 94
Safety & Security 63 108 67 133
Social Capital 90 104 94 52 Table XIV.
LPI rank 70 106 87 117 LPI ranking of the
Source: Adapted from LPI Report (2012) selected countries
AJEMS Uganda is ranked highest relative to the other countries especially with regards to the
6,1 freedom to trade internationally. The difference between Botswana and Ghana is not
much in terms of the overall ranking.

6.1 Summary of the comparisons from the reports and indices

The sub-indices represent some of the components that are found in an
42 entrepreneurship ecosystem. It is evident that Botswana is ranked the highest in
almost the sub-indices, followed by Ghana, Egypt and Uganda. Although other
components of the entrepreneurship ecosystem are missing from these reports
(e.g. entrepreneurship training, clusters, special economic zones, entrepreneurship
policy and strategy). The countries have the basic requirements for the creation of
entrepreneurship ecosystems. However, the linkages that connect these basic
components are missing.
The findings from the reports can be used to answer the first question. As shown,
all the countries have some of the institutions necessary for the creation of an
entrepreneurship ecosystem. However, the roles of most of the institutions are
duplicated due to lack of proper coordination. The resources wasted because of this
duplication may hamper the creation of entrepreneurship ecosystems that can be
self sustaining.
The actors can be divided into two main groups: the first group being public
functionaries working in government ministries, departments or agencies mandated to
promote entrepreneurship and SME’s. The roles they play reflect the strategy of the
government at any particular moment. In most cases, these are standardized roles
that have been designed to provide a one cap fit all solution irrespective of the needs of
entrepreneurs with regards to spatial and temporal dimensions. The second group
consists of actors like members of the private sector, entrepreneurs, public opinion leaders
and non-governmental organizations but they are rarely engaged in the process of
creating entrepreneurship ecosystems. The roles of the latter group of actors are therefore
negligible. From the countries documents and the international reports and indices,
analyzed, it can be inferred that at present, key roles in the creation of entrepreneurship
ecosystems are been played only by government actors and institutions.
To answer the second question, the domains of the entrepreneurship ecosystem
model developed by Isenberg (2011), has been used. There are many factors that
make up an entrepreneurship ecosystem but for the purpose of this study, we have
concentrated on the six main factors: policy, finance, culture, supports, human capital
and markets. Each of these domains comprises sub-elements that can be divided into
smaller components that give the details of the entities involved, how they interact and
the roles they play. The smaller component are omitted in this study as the causal paths
among these entities and actors are numerous, indications to show what causes what

Countries
EFR Factors Botswana Egypt Ghana Uganda
Legal system & Property rights 19 76 68 75
Freedom to trade internationally 53 79 48 6
Table XV. Regulation 29 110 48 62
EFR ranking of the EFR rank 67 99 71 50
selected countries Source: Adapted from 2012 Economic Freedom Report
have been omitted in accordance with Hausmann’s high bandwidth nature of policy The present
(Isenberg, 2011). The domains, are illustrated in Table XVI. state of
Combining the national documents and the international indices and reports, the
following ranking was created. A country is ranked as excellent: if it falls between the
entrepreneurship
1 and 49 ranked countries; good: 50-99 ranked countries; satisfactory: 100-149 ranked ecosystems
countries; unsatisfactory: 150-199 ranked countries; and absent when no data is
available on any of the factor necessary for the building of an entrepreneurship 43
ecosystem. For example, Egypt is ranked excellent in the starting a business in the
DBR rankings because it is ranked 21 which fall within the excellent range (1-49).
The rankings of countries for each of the domains are illustrated in Table XVII.
Each of the countries is compared with the Babson ideal entrepreneurship
ecosystem which is assumed to have an excellent performance in all the factors. To
facilitate the graphical comparison, the following assumptions were made: Excellent
performance ¼ 1; Good performance ¼ 0.6; Satisfactory performance ¼ 0.4 and
Unsatisfactory performance ¼ 0.2. Figures 1-4 represent the comparison of the

Domains of the entrepreneurship ecosystem

Policy Finance Culture Supports Human capital Markets
Policies for The capital The value society The physical The health and The
entrepreneurship necessary to attributes to and education of networks Table XVI.
with regards to promote entrepreneurship technological the populace and Main domains
the government entrepreneurship infrastructure clientele of Babson
and leadership entrepreneurship
Source: Adapted from The Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project, Daniel Isenberg (2009) ecosystem model

Countries
Ideal
Domains Babson Bostwana Egypt Ghana Uganda
Policy
Leadership Excellent Excellent Satisfactory Good Satisfactory
Government Excellent Excellent Satisfactory Excellent Satisfactory
Finance
Financial capital Excellent Good Good Good Good
Culture
Success stories Excellent Satisfactory Good Satisfactory Satisfactory
Societal norms Excellent Satisfactory Satisfactory Good Good
Supports
Non-Government Excellent Unsatisfactory Excellent Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Institutions
Support Professions Excellent Good Good Good Good
Infrastructure Excellent Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Human capital
Educational institutions Excellent Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Labor Excellent Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Markets Table XVII.
Networks Excellent Good Good Good Excellent Ranking countries in
Early customers Excellent Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory the different domains
AJEMS Leadership
1
Early Customers Government
6,1 0.8
0.6
Networks Financial capital
0.4
0.2
IDEAL BABSON
Labor 0 Success stories
BOSTWANA
44
Educational
Societal Norms
institutions
Figure 1.
Non-Government
Botswana compared Infrastructure
Institutions
to the ideal Support
Professions

Leadership
1
Early Customers Government
0.8
0.6
Networks Financial capital
0.4
0.2
IDEAL BABSON
Labor 0 Success stories
EGYPT

Educational
Societal Norms
institutions
Figure 2.
Non-Government
Egypt compared Infrastructure
Institutions
to the ideal Support
Professions

Leadership
1
Early Customers Government
0.8
0.6
Networks Financial capital
0.4
0.2
IDEAL BABSON
Labor 0 Success stories
GHANA

Educational
Societal Norms
institutions
Figure 3.
Non-Government
Ghana compared Infrastructure
Institutions
to the ideal Support
Professions

individual countries to the ideal Babson situation while Figure 5 gives a picture of all
the countries superimposed on the ideal situation.
To answer the second question about the challenges of key players and key
developers in strengthening the system, Figures 1 to 5 have been utilized. As shown, all
the countries considered in this study, are still at the early stages of building
entrepreneurship ecosystems. The challenges are therefore enormous for all the key
 Leadership
1
The present
Early Customers Government
0.8 state of
Networks
0.6
Financial capital entrepreneurship
0.4
ecosystems
0.2
IDEAL BABSON
Labor 0 Success stories
UGANDA
45
Educational
Societal Norms
institutions
Figure 4.
Non-Government
Infrastructure
Institutions Uganda compared
Support to the ideal
Professions

Leadership
1
Early Customers Government
0.8
0.6
Networks Financial capital
0.4 IDEAL BABSON

0.2 BOSTWANA
Labor 0 Success stories EGYPT
GHANA

Educational UGANDA
Societal Norms
institutions
Figure 5.
Non-Government
Infrastructure
Institutions All the countries
Support compared to the ideal
Professions

players (entrepreneurs, intrapreneurs, SME managers and the self-employed) and key
developers such as governmental institutions, nongovernmental organizations, civil
society, academic institutions, financial institutions and international agencies
promoting entrepreneurship.
In summary, the major challenges for almost all the countries are as follows:
• lack of coordination of all the government programs that are in place for
fostering of entrepreneurship;
• public priority to entrepreneurship being too low;
• lack of entrepreneurship education;
• absence of entrepreneurship policy and strategy;
• promotion of entrepreneurship in piece meal programs;
• inadequate infrastructure for entrepreneurship;
• lack of engagement of nongovernmental organization, civil society, the private
sector and entrepreneurs in formulating entrepreneurship programs;
• insufficient appropriate financial schemes for entrepreneurship;
• unavailability of mentors and role models;
 •
AJEMS the creation of national competitiveness clusters; and
6,1 • creating an entrepreneurial society.

7. Conclusions
One of the approaches to overcome the challenges of developing and strengthening
46 entrepreneurship ecosystems is to apply the cluster initiative developed by the World
Bank since entrepreneurship ecosystems are similar to clusters in most aspects.
An important element of the initiative development is the creation of an opportunity for
meaningful dialog (World Bank, 2009). Developing and implementing pilot projects will
help key developers and players to acquire firsthand knowledge on how to tackle the
challenges. The initiative consists of four (4) stages which are illustrated in Figure 6.
A project of this nature, will assist policymakers, practitioners and researchers to
gain a profound knowledge about the national entrepreneurship ecosystems of
countries. The essence here is that the nations need to double their efforts to usher in
policies that will unleash entrepreneurship. The present policies focused more on
established businesses at the micro, small and medium scale and the emphasis is more
on poverty reduction through employment generation. Supportive and proactive
policies are needed to encourage entrepreneurial activities.
The role that governments play in the cultivation of entrepreneurship ecosystems is
evident, but it is the level and the manner of government involvement that is very
crucial. Form the findings of this study, it is evident that there is an urgent need to
create entrepreneurship ecosystems. Though these systems are not a panacea for the
fostering of entrepreneurship in societies, they will contribute significantly in easing
the problem of employment through the choice of entrepreneurship over careerism
when a conducive entrepreneurship environment is in place.
Creating entrepreneurship ecosystems is not an easy task and it will take time
especially in countries in Africa where the basic requirements are inadequate.
All stakeholders must therefore make a concerted and coordinated efforts and success
will depend on everyone taking ownership. However, large discrepancies between the
objectives and the outcomes of the entrepreneurship ecosystems should be expected.
This might be due to independent exogenous and endogenous factors.

Ecosystem Diagnostics and Implementation Post – project

Mapping and strategy of strategic, sustainability
initial formulation policy and
engagement institutional
initiatives

Nationwide eco- Apply specific Secure ownership Ensure eco system self
system mapping ; ecosystem tools to from key developers sustainability
Figure 6. Identification and ascertain interaction and key players in
A broad process engagement of key and collaboration terms of time , ideas
to develop
stakeholders among stakeholders and cost sharing
entrepreneurship
ecosystems
initiatives Source: Adapted from World Bank (2009)
In summary, emphasis should be placed on how to create entrepreneurship ecosystems The present
that are self-sustaining and conducive to continuous learning, capacity building and state of
innovation as the needs, the opportunities and the conditions are perpetually changing.
entrepreneurship
ecosystems
7.1 Implications
The implication is that entrepreneurship policies should be stand-alone policies if
countries are keen in unleashing and fostering entrepreneurship for sustainable 47
economic growth. These policies should not be mixed with SME policies and the
general private sector development policies. The prerequisite to formulate such policies
is to understand the entrepreneurship ecosystem of the country. As natural ecosystems
are unique to a country, so also are entrepreneurship ecosystem. Policy makers,
practitioners and scholars, should examine thoroughly the elements necessary for
the cultivation of an entrepreneurship ecosystem that will be the foundation for the
formulation of entrepreneurship policies. To accomplish this task, empirical research
should be carried out for each individual country. This comparison is not exhaustive as
secondary data has been used. A detailed and comprehensive study is therefore
recommended. In addition, only one ecosystem has been used for the comparison
(The Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project) but there are other general
entrepreneurship ecosystems frameworks that can be used for the comparison.
From the findings, it is evident that the six domains are present in the countries
though some are passive. The first action might be to make the passive domains
become active and second to strengthen the interactions of the domains by identifying
the weakest links. This may be achieved through discussions between key developers
and key players so as to be able to find effective solutions. An open transparent and
democratic dialog with government, business organizations, individual entrepreneurs,
nongovernmental organizations and other stakeholders can help in the creation of an
ecosystem that is uniquely tailored to the national needs. Adequate and collaborative
forums from time to time might be necessary. The formation of a National
Entrepreneurship Mission might be a way forward.

References
Abimbola, O.H. and Agboola, G.M. (2011), “Environmental factors and entrepreneurship development
in Nigeria”, Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 166-176.
Acs, Z.J. (2007), “How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth?”, The 25th Economic
Conference of Progress Foundation, Great Barrington, MA, October 31, co-sponsored by the
American Institute for Economic Research (AIER).
African Development Bank (2009), “Egypt private sector country profile”, The African
Development Bank Field Office, Egypt.
Africa Economic Outlook (2011), Africa and its emerging partners, The African Development
Bank, Organization fo Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations
Development Program and United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.
Africa Economic Outlook (2012), Promoting Youth Employment, The African Development
Bank, Organization fo Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations
Development Program and United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.
Ahlstrom, D. and Bruton, G.D. (2002), “An institutional perspective on the role of culture in
shaping strategic actions by technology focused entrepreneurial firms in China”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 53-69.
AJEMS Allen, P.M. (2001), “A complex systems approach to learning in adaptive networks”, International
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 149-180.
6,1
Amit, R., Glosten, L. and Muller, E. (1983), “Challenges to theory development in entrepreneurship
research”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 0022-2280.
Anggraeni, E., Hartigh, E. and Zegveld, M. (2007), “Business ecosystem as a perspective for
studying the relations between firms and their business networks”, ECCON 2007, Delft
48 University of Technology, Delft, pp. 1-28.
Archibong, C.A. (2010), “Entrepreneurship as a critical and missing factor in economic
development of poor nations: a systematic analysis of factors of production”, The IUP
Journal of Business Strategies, Vol. 7 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-2.
Audretsch, D.B. and Keilbach, M. (2004), “Entrepreneurship capital and economic performance”,
Regional Studies, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 949-959.
Austin, G. (2010), “African economic development and colonial legacies”, International
Development Policy Series, No. 1, pp. 11-32.
Badagawa, G. (2002), “The role of the PSF in promoting SME’s”, Proceeding of the Symposium on
Modalities for Financing SME’s in Uganda (UNCTAD), New York, NY and Geneva.
Baumol, W.J. (1990), “Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive, and destructive”, Journal of
Political Economy, Vol. 98 No. 5, pp. 893-921.
Biggs, R., Westely, F.R. and Carpenter, S.R. (2010), “Navigating the back loop: fostering
social innovation and transformation in ecosystem management”, Ecology and Society,
Vol. 15 No. 2, available at: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art9/ (accessed
August 13, 2012).
Briggs, R.B. (2009), “Issues affecting Ugandan indigenous entrepreneurship in trade”, African
Journal of Business Management, Vol. 3 No. 12, pp. 786-797.
Bocking, S. (1994), in Nguyen, T.V. 2009, Ecosystem based fishery management: a critical review
of concepts and ecological economic models, University of Southern Denmark.
Bruton, G.D., Ahlstom, D. and Obloj, K. (2008), “Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: where
are we today and where should the research go in the future”, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1042-2587.
Busenitz, L.W., Gòmez., C. and Spencer, J.W. (2000), “Country institutional profiles: unlocking
entrepreneurial phenomena”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5,
pp. 994-1003.
Capra, F. (1996), The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems, Anchor
Books, New York, NY.
Casson, M. (2005), “Entrepreneurship and the theory of the firm”, Journal of Economic Behavior
and Organization, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 327-348.
Commonwealth Secretariat (2011), Entrepreneurship policy and implementation strategy for
Botswana, Project PX/BOT/028, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Government of
Botswana, Gaborone.
Cosgel, M.M. (1996), “Metaphors, stories, and the entrepreneur in economics”, History of Political
Economy, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 57-76.
Doing Business Report (DBR) (2010), “Reforming through difficult times: comparing regulations
for domestic firms in 183 economies”, The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Doing Business Report (DBR) (2012), “Doing Business in a more transparent world: comparing
regulations for domestic firms in 183 economies”, The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Dooley, K.J. (1997), “A complex adaptive systems model of organizational change”, Nonlinear The present
Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
state of
Dooley, K., Johnson, T. and Bush, D. (1995), “TQM, chaos and complexity”, Human Systems entrepreneurship
Management, Vol. 14, pp. 297-302.
El Abd, I. (2012), “Understanding the social entrepreneurship ecosystem in Egypt”, The Alliance
ecosystems
for Social Entrepreneurship.
Enterprise Business Forum (2010), Enabling Entrepreneurship in Egypt: Towards a Sustainable 49
Dynamic Model, EBF-Egypt, Cairo.
Economic Diversification Drive Strategy (EDD) (2011), The Ministry of Trade and Industry,
Government of Bostwana, Gaborone, Botswana.
Economic Freedom Report (EFR) (2010), “The Heritage Foundation”, The Wall Street Journal.
Economic Freedom Report (2011), “The Heritage Foundation”, The Wall Street Journal.
EFR (2012).
Enterprise Uganda (2011), Promoting the Growth and Competitiveness of Enterprises, Enterprise
Uganda Foundation, Kampala.
Evans, D. (2012), Investigating the Small and Medium Enterprise Landscape of Accra, Ghana:
Prospects and Barriers to Economic Development, United States Military Academy
Network Science Center, West Point, NY.
Ganne, B. and Lecler, Y. (2009), “From industrial districts to poles of competitiveness”, in Ganne, B.
and Lecler, Y. (Eds), Asian Industrial Clusters, Global Competitiveness and New Policy
Initiatives, World Scientific, Singapore.
Gell-Mann, M. (1994), The Quark and the Jaguar, Freeman & Co., New York, NY.
Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) (2010), World Economic Forum, Geneva.
Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) (2012), World Economic Forum, Geneva.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) (2012), Global Report, Babson College, Babson Park,
MA: Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile.
Gnyawali, D. and Fogel, D. (1994), “Environments for entrepreneurship development: key
dimensions and research implications”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 43-62.
Hall, J.C. and Sobel, R.S. (2006), Public policy and entrepreneurship. The Center for Applied
Economics, Technical Report No. 06-0717, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Hébert, R.F. and Link, A.N. (1989), “In search of the meaning of entrepreneurship”, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 39-49.
Hébert, R.F. and Link, A.N. (2006), “The entrepreneur as innovator”, Journal of Technology
Transfer, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 589-597.
Hjorth, D., Jones, C. and Gartner, W.B. (2008), “Introduction for ‘Recreating/recontextualising
entrepreneurship’ ”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 81-84.
HDI (2013), “The rise of the south: human progress in a diverse world”, United Nations
Development Program, New York, NY.
Human Development Report (2010), The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development,
20th Anniversary Edition, United Nations Development Program, New York, NY
Iansiti, M. and Levinin, R. (2004), “Business ecosystem as a perspective for studying the relations
between firms and their business networks”, in Anggraeni, E., Hartigh, E. and Zegveld, M.
(Eds), ECCON 2007, Delft University of Technology, Delft.
Ibrahim Index of African Governance (2011), Mo Ibrahim Foundation, London.
Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) (2012), Mo Ibrahim Foundation, London.
AJEMS Ibrahim Index of African Governance (2013), Mo Ibrahim Foundation, London.
6,1 Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (1999), “Consensus building and complex adaptive systems”, Journal
of the American Planning Association, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 412-423.
Insel, P. and Moos, R. (1974), “Psychological environment: expanding the scope of human
ecology”, American Psychologist, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 179-188.
Isenberg, D. (2010), “The big idea: how to start an entrepreneurial revolution”, Harvard Business
50 Review, Vol. 88 No. 6, pp. 40-50.
Isenberg, D. (2011), “The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economic
policy: principles for cultivating entrepreneurship”, The Babson Entrepreneurship
Ecosystem Project, Babson College, Babson Park, MA.
Johnson, R.A. (2010), “Creating innovation policy frameworks to unlock the value of green
growth”, OECD workshop on delivering green growth, Seoul, 5-6 March.
Kanbur, S.M. (1980), “A note on risk taking, entrepreneurship and schumpeter”, History of
Political Economy, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 489-498.
Kantis, H.D. and Federico, J.S. (2012), Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Latin America: the role of
policies Entrepreneurial Development Programme (PRODEM)”, – Institute of Industry,
Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, Los Polvorines, Buenos Aries.
Khalil, E.L. (2007), “Entrepreneurship and economic theory”, in Weber, M. (Ed.), Handbook of
Whiteheadian Process Thought, Verlag, Frankfurt.
Kirzner, I. (1979), Perception, Opprotunity and Profit: Studies in the Theory of Entrepreneurship,
Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL.
Kuratko, D.F. (2009), Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, Practice, 8th ed., South-Western
Cengage Learning, Mason, OH.
Kostova, T. (1997), “Country institutional profile: concept and measurement”, Academy of
Management, Vol. 1, pp. 180-184.
Landes, D.S. (1998), The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So
Poor, W.W. Norton, New York, NY.
Lawrence, P. and Dyer, D. (1983), Renewing American Industry, Free Press, New York, NY.
Legatum Prosperity Index (LPI) (2012), The Legatum Institute Foundation, The Legatum
Institute, London.
Lewin, R. (1992), Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Likens, G.E. (1992), Excellence in Ecology, 3: The Ecosystem Approach: Its Use and Abuse, Ecology
Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe.
Lingelbach, D.C., De La Vina, L. and Asel, P. (2005), What’s Distinctive about Growth-Oriented
Entrepreneurship in Developing Countries. UTSA College of Business Center for
Global Entrepreneurship Working Paper No. 1, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/
abstract¼742605 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.742605 (accessed January 20, 2012).
Local Enterprise Authority (2011), Gaborone, available at: www.lea.co.bw (accesssed 11
July 2012).
Local Enterprise Authority (LEA) (2012), Gaborone, available at: www.lea.co.bw (accessed 11
July 2012).
Long, W. (1983), “The meaning of entrepreneurship”, American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 47-59.
Low, M.B. and MacMillan, I.C. (1988), “Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 139-161.
McCormick, D. (1998), “Enterprise clusters in Africa: on the way to industrialization?” Discussion The present
Paper No. 366, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.
state of
Matthews, J.A. (2010), “The Hsinchu model: collective efficiency, increasing returns and higher- entrepreneurship
order capabilities in the Hsinchu science-based industry park”, Taiwan, Keynote Address,
Chinese Society for Management of Technology (CSMOT) 20th Anniversary Conference, ecosystems
Tsinghua University, Hsinchu.
Mensah, S. (2004), “A review of SME financing in Ghana”, presented at the UNIDO Regional 51
Workshop of Financing Small and Medium Scale Enterprises, Accra (accessed March
15-16, 2004).
Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (1995), Government of Botswana, Gaborone.
Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (2001), Government of Botswana, Gaborone.
Montanye, J.A. (2006), “Entrepreneurship”, The Independent Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 549-571.
Moore, J.F. (1993/2007), “Business ecosystem as a perspective for studying the relations between
firms and their business networks”, in Anggraeni, E., Hartigh, E. and Zegveld, M. (Eds)
ECCON 2007, Delft University of Technology, Delft, pp. 1-28.
Moore, J.F. (1996/2007), “Business ecosystem as a perspective for studying the relations between
firms and their business networks”, in Anggraeni, E., Hartigh, E. and Zegveld, M. (Eds),
ECCON 2007, Delft University of Technology, Delft, pp. 1-28.
Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organizations, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Murphy, P.J., Liao, J. and Welsch, H.P. (2006), “A conceptual history of entrepreneurial thought”,
Journal of management History, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 12-35.
Mytelka, L. and Farinelli, F. (2000), “Local clusters, innovation systems and sustained
competitiveness”, Discussion Paper No. 2005, Institute for New Technologies, United
Nations University, Maastricht.
Nadgrodkiewicz, A. (2013), “Building entrepreneurship ecosystems”, Center for International
Private Enterprise, (CIPE), Washington, DC.
Naudè, W.A. and Havenga, J.J.D. (2005), “An overview of African entrepreneurship and small
business research”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 101-120.
Neba, A. (2011), Towards Overcoming the Innovation Chasm in Botswana: Some Strategic
National and Institutional Interventions, Office of Research & Development (ORD),
University of Botswana, Gaborone.
North, D.C. (1991), “Institutions”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 97-112.
Ocici, C. (2006), “A working paper on entrepreneurship”, National Consultation Conference, Legal
empowerment of the poor, Munyonyo, Kampala.
Odum, E.P. (1989), Our Endangered life Support System, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
Odum, E.P. (1993), Ecology and Our Endangered Life Support Systems, 2nd ed., Sinauer
Associates, Sunderland, MA.
Ohene-Konadu, N. (2008), Northern Region Gets $119m Support for SMEs, Daily Graphic, Accra.
O’Neil, R.V., DeAngelis, D.L., Waide, J.B. and Allen, T.F.H. (1986/2009), “Ecosystem based fishery
management: a critical review of concepts and ecological economic models”, in Nguyen, T.V.
(Ed.), University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg.
Oviatt, B. and McDougall, P. (2000), “International entrepreneurship: the intersection of two
research paths”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 902-906.
Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B. and McCormick, D. (2007), “Industrial clusters and innovation systems in
Africa: institutions, markets, and policy”, in Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B. and McCormick, D.
(Eds), Industrial Clusters and Innovation Systems in Africa: Institutions, Markets, and
Policy, United Nations University Press, New York.
AJEMS Papaioannou, T., Wield, D. and Chataway, J. (2007), “Knowledge ecologies and ecosystems? An
empirically grounded reflection on recent developments in innovation systems theory”, In
6,1 The 6th International Triple helix Conference on University-Government-Industry Relations,
16-18 May, Singapore.
Pickett, S.T.A. and Cadenasso, M.L. (2002), “The ecosystem as a multidimensional concept:
meaning, model and metaphor”, Ecosystems, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-10
52 Pitelis, C. (2012), “Clusters, entrepreneurial ecosystem co-creation, and appropriability: a
conceptual framework”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1359-1388.
Pistrui, D., Blessing, J. and Mekemson, J. (2008), Building an entrepreneurial engineering
ecosystem for future generations: the kern entrepreneurship education network, American
Society of Engineering Educators.
Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (2003), “The economic performance of regions”, Regional Studies, Vol. 37 Nos 6/7,
pp. 549-578.
Rivera Lèone, L. (2010), “A new innovation strategy for regions”, competitive poles and public-
private partnership for innovation, Technopolis group (OECD) – European Union (EU)
Project.
Robson, P.J.A., Haugh, H.M. and Obeng, B.A. (2009), “Entrepreneurship and innovation in Ghana:
enterprising Africa”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 331-350.
Rocha, V.C. (2012), The entrepreneur in economic theory: from an invisible man toward a new
research field, FEP working papers, School of Economics and Management, University of
Porto, Porto.
Saaty, R. (2003), Decision Making in Complex Environments, Creative Decisions Foundation,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Sanders, M. (2007), “Scientific paradigms, entrepreneurial opportunities and cycles in economic
growth”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 339-354.
Spencer, J.W. and Gomez, C. (2004), “The relationship among national institutional structures,
economic factors, and domestic entrepreneurial activity: a multicountry study”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 10, pp. 1098-1107.
Schmitz, H. (1992), “On the clustering of small firms”, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 64-69.
Schumpeter, J. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Schultz, T.W. (1980), “Investment in entrepreneurial ability”, Scandinavian Journal of Economics,
Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 437-448.
Scott, W. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Simpeh, K.N. (2011), “Entrepreneurship theories and empirical research: a summary review of the
literature”, European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 1-8, available
at: www.iiste.org (accessed July 17, 2013).
Startup Ecosystem Report (2012), Startup Genome, Telefonica Digital, London.
Science and Technology Development (STDF) (2012), Egypt’s Innovation Ecosystem, Innovation
Support Department - Science & Technology Development Fund, Cairo.
Stevenson, L. and Lundström, A. (2001), Entrepreneurship policy for the future state, Swedish
Foundation for Small Business Research, Orebro.
Swedberg, R. (2000), “The social science view of entrepreneurship: introduction and practical
applications”, in Swedberg, R. (Ed.), Entrepreneurship – The Social Science View, Oxford
Management Readers, Oxford, pp. 7-44.
Technology Innovation and Entrepreneurship Centre (TIEC) (2011), Technology, Innovation and The present
Entrepreneurship Strategy, Government of Egypt.
state of
Temko, S. (2009), An overview to entrepreneurial ecosystems, Centre for Business Education, entrepreneurship
Innovation and Development, Geneva, IL.
ecosystems
Temtime, Z.T., Chinyoka, S.V. and Shunda, J.P.W. (2003), A decision tree approach for integrating
small business assistance schemes, University of Botswana, Gaborone.
Thornton, P.H. and Flynn, K.H. (2003), “Entrepreneurship, networks, and geographies”, in Acs, Z.
53
J. and Audretsch, D.B. (Eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht, pp. 401-433.
Thurik, R. and Wennekers, S. (2004), “Entrepreneurship, small business and economic growth”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 140-149.
Tylecote, A. (1991), The Long Wave in the World Economy, Routledge, London.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2003), Investment Policy
Review. Ghana.
United Nations Industrial Organization (UNIDO) (2007), Uganda: integrated industrial policy for
sustainable industrial development and competitiveness, Ministry of Tourism, Trade and
Industry, Government of Uganda, Uganda and United Nations Industrial Development
Organization, Vienna.
Van Praag, M. (1999), “Some classic views on entrepreneurship”, De Economist, Vol. 147 No. 3,
pp. 311-335.
Venables, A.J. (2010), “Economic geography and African development”, Papers in Regional
Science, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 469-483.
Voelker, T.A. (2012), “Entrepreneurial ecosystems: evolutionary paths or differentiated
systems?”, Business Studies Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 43-61.
Waldrop, M.M. (1992), Complexity. The Emerging Science at the Edge of Chaos, Simon and
Schuster, New York, NY.
Welter, F. (2011), “Contextualizing entrepreneurship: conceptual challenges and ways forward”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 165-178.
Wennekers, S. and Thurik, R. (1999), “Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth”, Small
Business Economics, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 27-55.
World Bank (2009), Clusters for competitiveness: a practical guide & policy implications for
developing cluster initiatives, International Trade Department, PREM, The World Bank,
BIDPA, Gaborone.
World Bank (2011), “Promoting entrepreneurship in Botswana: constraint to micro business
development”, Report No. 59916-BW, World Bank.
Zahra, S.A. (2005), “Theory on international new ventures: a decade of research”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 20-28.
Zahra, S.A. and Nambisan, S. (2012), “Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business
ecosystems”, Journal of Business Horizon, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 219-229.
Zahra, S.A. and Wright, M. (2011), “Entrepreneurship’s next act”, Academy of Management
perspective, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2010.0149 (accessed February
17, 2012).
Zhang, R. and Qian, X. (2008), “Research in industrial organizations in the regional industrial
ecosystem: interactive co-evolution of enterprises”, 15th International Conference on
Management Science and Engineering, Long beach.
AJEMS Further reading
6,1 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) (2010), Global Report, Babson College, Babson Park,
MA, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Universiti Tun Abdul Razak, Kuala Lumpur.
Human Development Index (HDI) (2011), Mo Ibrahim Foundation, London.
Ibrahim African Governance Index (IIAG) (2011).
Kirzner, I. (1997), “Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian
54 approach”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 60-85.

Corresponding author
Michael Sheriff can be contacted at: michael.sheriff@studenti.unipd.it

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com