Regional Influence in Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship “it is process of setting up of business and continuing it expansion” as businesses are prime factor for the economic growth and development. It has become the key resources of economy and therefore for their development and growth, developed and developing nation are putting in substantial resources to motivate entrepreneur and increase the rate of Entrepreneurship within the nation. These Entrepreneurial growth within the nation create new firms, bring in innovation, and help in creating more Jobs which lead employment growth in a location (among others, Baptista and Preto 2011; Fritsch and Mueller 2004; Lee Florida, and Acs 2004; van Stel and Suddle 2008). Therefore, no surprise that academics, other organization and policy maker are keen in understanding region influence in driving the entrepreneurship or as to why entrepreneur are more adaptive to some region. It is seen that countries and localities have different level of economic dynamism which influence the entry and exit of the organization. Numerous have endeavoured to get these Entrepreneurship rate as a result of territorial variety within the basic variables of generation, monetary accessibility and capital comprising of human and intellectual factor (e.g., Florida and Kenney, 1988; Armington and Acs, 2002; Lee et al., 2004; Audretsch and Lehmann, 2005; Drucker, 2016) but they have failed to give the in-depth on the affecting factor. So, what are the factors that influence the growth of entrepreneurship in that particular area.
REGIONAL FACTOR AFFECTING ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITIES
Research Scholar believe that the Regional influence have Two dynamics
Culture- The culture side which include- value, belief and norm held by the residents of the region can be seen the motivation factor of the entrepreneur activity but taking the example of the Boston which now has seen entrepreneur boom was not considered a place founding a firm or joining a start- up lucrative during the period of 1970 and 1980. Even though culture do have some have some effect on the short run the same cannot be considered as a prime factor while considering the development in the long run. Culture explain that the factor for the entrepreneurship and cannot be set aside as it may be driving factor but not it does not show the stable character. For culture to clarify the entrepreneurial growth rate it would ought to have a comparative pliability. Therefore, taking into account the culture factor does not satisfy the requirement as the cultural attitude changes with time.
Ecosystem– The second most influencing factor which are included in my studies is the Entrepreneur ecosystem which can be justified as region where we have both demography of different organization instrument for the Entrepreneur development and infrastructure to support them. Effective places have been characterized as Industrial districts, Territorial innovation system, Territorial production system and learning regions (Storper and Walker, 1989; Becattini, 1990; Porter, 1990; Asheim, 1996; Cooke, 2001). Region certainly have the effect and tend to give the starting edge to a person in the entrepreneurship. It helps in creating the environment to bring in the creativity and produce the result.
Regional influence has been the factor in deciding the setup of the new firm. Whether it is availability of resources, manpower or several other factors. They have influenced the entrepreneur in taking the decision and therefore new entrepreneur always research the region before setting up the start- ups or they consider their home place or work place when entering the market. Environment where entrepreneurial activities exist help in creating the path and are the guiding factor for the new entrepreneur to step in. But these can vary from region to region some can have higher growth and some almost remains stagnant. So, what drive the entrepreneurial activities within the region. We believe organization help in shaping the environment giving the opportunities to entrepreneurs and defining edge for bringing in creativity in the competitive surrounding. The region with high rates of entry and exit of start-ups become common ground for new entrepreneur to entry in as it is easier place to find new venture because of the readily available resources for the entrepreneurs. Region with large population of small and young firm help in producing the entrepreneurs which can justifies with reason that they these regions have more people who have past experience with start- ups therefore they are ready to take the risk because of the learning they have gained in the past experiences and are connected to entrepreneur which help in guiding them through the process. Explaining them in details, person having an experience in small firm develops wide range of aptitudes which help them succeed as an entrepreneur because there they tend to learn variety of function with the organization by engaging in different roles (Baron et al., 1986). These exposure to different organizational activities prepares them better for the challenges that entrepreneur faces while running the start- ups (Lazear, 2005). Past experience serves as a model for structuring the firm—different division, the allocating authority and operational routine design (Freeman, 1986; Phillips, 2002). When as person is working in different small firm, they develop dense social network with former and present colleagues and this social connection plays valuable through the process of entrepreneurship development. Spigel 2015 Model of entrepreneurial ecosystem shows different factors attributing toward entrepreneurship activity.
When large number of setups are particularly concentrated within a particular region, they help in facilitating the specialized service and policies which can support the entrepreneur during the initial stage of formation. Importance of having local legal services for the start- up which was highlighted by Kenny and Patton (2005). A region of successful entrepreneurial exercises comprises of solid bunch of business visionary who act as a well-regarded guide and advisor which offer assistance in giving knowledge to new entrepreneur. In addition, proficient administration (law, accounting, real estate, insurance, consulting) that specialize within the special needs of new companies and scales-ups and appropriately priced. Policies which are supportive are in place in these covering economic development, tax, and investment vehicles encourages nascent entrepreneur to take risk of starting and funding the new venture but what is most important is regionally influencing entrepreneurship in well-connected community of start-ups and entrepreneurs along with visible investors, advisors, mentors and supporters (indicated by high network density). The networks of different people which include of entrepreneurs, financial leaders, talent, knowledge, and support services in region are the elements for the entrepreneurial growth within that region. As each of them plays important role like network of entrepreneur provide an information flow, enabling an effective distribution of knowledge, labour and capital, Leaders direction and are critical in building and maintaining ecosystem. Financial supports by investors with entrepreneurial knowledge is crucial for investments in uncertain entrepreneurial projects with a long-term horizon (see e.g. Kerr & Nanda, 2009). The most important of all for effective entrepreneurial ecosystem is presence of a diverse and skilled group of workers (‘talent’: see e.g. Acs & Armington, 2004; Lee et al., 2004; Qian et al., 2013).
These different experiences and different driving factors within the region are influencing factor which influence entrepreneurship with the region.
Regional demography and availability of the resources has somewhere factored the growth of entrepreneurial activities within that region and have attracted many regional policymakers and leaders. With certain public policy, social attitudes, and financing. But regional influence is not alone the driving factor for entrepreneurial development. As these two examples shows the different pictures. As, (Sorenson 2017) mentioned in the paper Detroit had once been the Silicon Valley of its time, the place for entrepreneurs but things have changed there. Spigel 2015 discussion of waterloo, Ontario shows that how waterloo got developed into supportive entrepreneurial ecosystem after the establishment of University of waterloo. Region does smooth the process of entrepreneurial activities resources are already available, but what really matter in the entrepreneurial development is the pool of highly skilled worker who help in creation of the entrepreneurship. Networks of these skilled people are the influencing factor in helping new entrepreneurs learn the formal and informal skills about new markets, technologies, and opportunities to flow through the region. They all helps to reproduce and strengthen the region’s overall cultural orientation towards entrepreneurship, ensuring their growth. This compelling ecosystem was not made overnight nor through a deliberate exertion by the state or an individual. Rather numerous factors have contributed to making an ecosystem that innovative, high-growth entrepreneurship which in turn has created the difference.
- Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E. (2005) Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34: 1191–1202
- Asheim, B. (1996) Industrial districts as ‘learning regions’: a condition for prosperity. European Planning Studies, 4: 379–400.
- Becattini, G. (1990) The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion. In F. Pyke,
- G. Becattini and W. Sengenberger (eds) Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Co-operation in Italy, pp. 37–51. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.
- Dspace.library.uu.nl. (2018). [online] Available at: https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/347982/16_13.pdf [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].
- Dahl,M. S., Østergaard, C. R., Dalum, B. (2010) Emergence of regional clusters. In R. A. Boschma and R. Martin (eds) The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, pp. 205–221. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
- Dahl, M. S., Sorenson, O. (2009) The embedded entrepreneur. European Management Review, 6:172–181.
- Davidsson, P. (1995) Culture, structure and regional levels of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 7: 41–62.
- Freeman, J. (1986) Entrepreneurs as organizational products: semiconductor firms and venture capital firms. In G. Libecap (ed.) Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Economic Growth, Vol. 1, pp. 33–58. Greenwich (CT): JAI Press.
- Kenney, M., Patton, D. (2005) Entrepreneurial geographies: support networks in three hightechnology industries. Economic Geography, 81: 201–228.
- Klepper, S. (2001) Employee startups in high tech industries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10: 171–186.
- Klepper, S. (2010) The origin and growth of industry clusters: the making of Silicon Valley and Detroit. Journal of Urban Economics, 67: 15–32.
- Malmberg, A., Maskell, P. (2002) The elusive concept of localization economies: towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A, 34: 429–449.
- Maskell, P., Malmberg, A. (1999) Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23: 167–185.
- Qian, H., Acs, Z. and Stough, R. (2012). Regional systems of entrepreneurship: the nexus of human capital, knowledge and new firm formation. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(4), pp.559-587.
- Saxenian, A. (1994) Regional Advantage. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
- Sorenson, O. (2017). Regional ecologies of entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Geography, 17(5), pp.959-974.
- Spigel, B. (2015) The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Forthcoming.
- Stam, E. (2015) Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23: 1759–1769.
- Storper, M. (1997) The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. New York (NY): Guilford Press.
- Storper, M., Walker, R. (1989) The Capitalist Imperative: Territory, Technology, and Industrial Growth. New York (NY): Basil Blackwell.
- Stuart, T. E., Ding, W. W. (2006) When do scientists become entrepreneurs? American Journal of Sociology, 112: 97–144.
- Stuart, T. E., Sorenson, O. (2003a) The geography of opportunity: spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy, 32: 229–253.
- Stuart, T. E., Sorenson, O. (2003b) Liquidity events and the geographic distribution of
entrepreneurial activity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 175–201.
- Stuetzer, M., Obshonka, M., Audretsch, D. B., Wyrwich, M., Rentfrow, P. J., Coombes, M., Shaw-Taylor, L., Satchell, M. (2016) Industry structure, entrepreneurship, and culture: an empirical analysis using historical coalfields. European Economic Review, 86: 52–72.
- Vaillant, Y., Lafuente, E. (2007) Do different institutional frameworks condition the influence of local fear of failure and entrepreneurial examples over entrepreneurial activity?
- Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19: 313–337.
- Weber, A. (1928) Theory of the Location of Industries. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
- Weber, M. (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York (NY): Schribners.