Local Government as Institutional Entrepreneur: Public–Private Collaborative Partnerships in Fostering Regional Entrepreneurship

Abstract

Due to the intertwined nature of private and public interests, local governments tend to use collaborative partnerships involving entrepreneurs to promote regional entrepreneurship. However, there is still a gap in the theory with regard to the mechanisms underpinning these collaborative partnerships. Drawing on the institutional entrepreneurship literature, we identify the enabling conditions and articulate the role played by local government as an institutional entrepreneur in fostering regional entrepreneurship through entrepreneurial public–private collaborative partnerships. This paper explicates two distinct mechanisms – the establishment of new institutional arrangements by the institutional entrepreneur and the advocation of diffusion by other actors – that underpin entrepreneurial public–private collaborative partnerships. Importantly, we underscore the crucial role played by returnee entrepreneurs who interact collaboratively with the institutional entrepreneur in affecting institutional change and fostering regional entrepreneurship. We conduct in‐depth qualitative interviews with local government officials, entrepreneurs and high‐tech park managers, in conjunction with performing content analysis of policy documents in a peripheral region of China – areas that have largely been neglected in scholarly research. This paper concludes with some theoretical and policy implications for public management and entrepreneurship.

How and when matter: Exploring the interaction effects of high‐performance work systems, employee participation, and human capital on organizational innovation

“…To support the innovation‐driven development strategy, the Chinese government proposed “mass entrepreneurship and innovation,” thereby encouraging public participation in the innovation process. According to the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, over 2,500 business incubators and accelerators, 11 national‐level indigenous innovation demonstration districts, and 146 national high‐tech districts have been built (Xing, Liu, & Cooper, ). To stimulate innovation, an increasing proportion of Chinese companies are adopting HPWS to manage human resources and involving employees in the innovation process through various participation avenues (Cooke, ; Kesting et al, ; Zhang & Bartol, ).…”

Contextualising Risk and Building Resilience: Returnees Versus Local Entrepreneurs in China

“…This suggests that, in emerging economies, government policies can significantly affect entrepreneurial ventures and their developmental trajectories. Against the Chinese government’s mass entrepreneurship and innovation policy, an increasing number of enterprise ventures are founded by locals and returnees alongside the vast emergence of business incubation platforms throughout China (Xing, Liu, & Cooper, ). As entrepreneurs are inevitably likely to face various failures, setbacks, and obstacles along their entrepreneurial journeys, our research may offer some useful implications for both existing and aspiring entrepreneurs to deal with risk while building resilience and cultivating resilient organisations (Stephan, ).…”

Challenges for foreign companies in China: implications for research and practice

“…Not only can returnees start their own entrepreneurial and innovative ventures (Liu and Almor 2016), but they can also join research institutions or universities and foreign firms in China to upgrade their research capacities (Zhang et al 2013). Returnees may contribute to innovation and entrepreneurship on organizational-level (Liu 2017) and regionallevel (Xing et al 2018). Notably, returnees can even compensate the lack of university capability in China to foster innovation and regional entrepreneurship (Liu and Huang 2018).…”