The communal roots of entrepreneurial–technological growth – social fragmentation and stagnation: reflection on Atlanta's technology cluster

Abstract

Why do some entrepreneurial high-technology industrial clusters grow and prosper, while others stagnate? Even after several decades of research, we have yet to find a definitive answer. One of the main debates in the literature revolves around the importance of societal variables, such as the growth of a cohesive community, versus the importance of factor availability, such as the supply of highly educated labour. Employing a critical case study design to analyse the technology industry in metropolitan Atlanta, this article shows that although the availability of certain factors might be necessary, it is not sufficient without the crystallization of a cohesive social structure. More specifically, we argue that unless a local high-technology industry develops rich multiple, locally centred social networks, which embed companies in the region, cluster development will stagnate. This is true even if the region is extremely rich in all the factors identified as growth-inducing in the literature.

From resource munificence to ecosystem integration: the case of government sponsorship in St. Louis

“…The state of St. Louis during this time was similar to Atlanta, Georgia, as described by Breznitz and Taylor (2014) -there were some entrepreneurs, a few entrepreneurial resources, including venture capital, but the social structures needed to create a vibrant community were absent. There were a few disconnected entrepreneurial support organizations which appeared in the 2000s, including CORTEX (a technology district), the Coalition for plant and Life Sciences (later renamed BioSTL, a leader in spearheading the infrastructure needed for bioscience entrepreneurship) and Innovate VMS (a mentoring service modelled after Venture Mentoring Service at MIT).…”

Do we Lead Together? Leadership Behavioral Integration and Coordination in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

“…Ecosystem components create an environment that assists entrepreneurs and increases the likelihood of venture success (Roundy & Fayard, ). However, the mere presence of EE components is not indicative of a vibrant ecosystem (Breznitz & Taylor, ). An additional characteristic—ecosystem leadership—is needed to coordinate EE components (e.g., Colombo et al, ; Cunningham et al, ; Harper‐Anderson, ).…”

“…Mack and Mayer () argued that the lack of EE leadership working together suggested that the ecosystem needed more coordinated efforts. Similarly, in a study of the Atlanta, USA, EE, Breznitz and Taylor () found that social fragmentation, the opposite of coordination, was an obstacle to growth in the city's ecosystem and that EE leadership should strive to promote learning, information sharing, access to resources, and community building.…”

O ecossistema de inovação da cidade de Salvador: um diagnóstico do nível de maturidade

“…Nesse sentido, para disseminar uma cultura inovadora, a conectividade é essencial e a interação entre os atores pode ser um parâmetro de medição do grau de desenvolvimento de um ecossistema (STEPHENSON, 2008). Para Breznitz (2014), os diversos ecossistemas que se desenvolveram ao redor do mundo, passaram pelas mesmas fases de desenvolvimento e podem ser classificados como nascentes, em evolução, maduro, autossustentável. Research, Society and Development, v. 9, n. 3, e143932536, 2020 (CC BY 4.0 Quadro 1 -Níveis ou estágio de Maturidade Research, Society and Development, v. 9, n. 3, e143932536, 2020 (CC BY 4.…”