Rooted in the territorial approach, this theoretical paper offers a systematic literature review (SLR) of ecosystems based on a selection of 104 articles and books and their archetypes. First, we identify and discuss the four main types of ecosystems-business, innovation, entrepreneurial, and knowledge ecosystems-and indicate the presence of other transversal concepts. Second, we provide an overview of related and well-established theories from the territorial approach that have been largely omitted although they are ecosystem archetypes. Third, we identify the invariants across the four diverging streams from the ecosystem approach and the seven diverging streams from the territorial approach. Finally, we propose a research framework based on the comparison between key invariants from both approaches and discuss their similarities and differences that could serve as a foundation for future empirical research. This study therefore links the ecosystem and territorial approaches under the complex evolutionary system umbrella by creating a theoretical framework that reflects the complex interconnection between models, theories, and emerging concepts. 1 Introduction Only two decades after the introduction of an ecosystem parallel (Moore, 1993) in the management field, researchers have started to use this term more frequently. According to Web of Science (WoS), until 2015, one could only find 39 articles exclusively related to business, management, and economics that responded to the search string 'ecosystem*' AND 'busines*' AND 'innovat*'. In contrast, in 2015 and 2016 alone, one could find 21 and 26 new publications, respectively. This rapid growth justifies the recent emerging discussions, such as by de Vasconcelos

No abstract

No abstract

Over the past decades, the EU heavily invested in Research Infrastructures (RI). What are the expected returns of such investments? In the present article we address the question of returns on public funds/public infrastructures. We consider the role of RI and universities from an economic, social, and entrepreneurial perspective from various Territorial Innovation Models (TIMs): (1) Italian industrial districts, (2) innovative milieus, (3) regional innovation systems, (4) new industrial spaces, and (5) regional clusters. We conducted our empirical study on Grenoble Isère Alpes Nanotechnologies (GIANT), which is composed of large scientific instruments, universities, and engineering and management schools. Our microeconomic methodology measured the socioeconomic and entrepreneurial effects of GIANT with respect to budget, employment, and spin-off generation. We contribute to the existing body of knowledge on TIMs by (1) comparing the long-term investments to the generation of wealth, the creation of employment, and the development of start-ups; (2) adding new insights to the debate opposing positive and negative impacts empirical studies; and (3) offering recommendations for the use of public resources. In our discussion, we compare the GIANT model as a very localized RI-university club to the Grenoble model as localized cluster.

No abstract