Towards the regional aspects of institutional trust and entrepreneurial ecosystems

Abstract

PurposeInstitutional trust is vital for social and economic activity and crucial in reducing uncertainty for entrepreneurs and society. To shed light on the role of institutional trust on productive entrepreneurial activity, this paper analyses the impact of six urban entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) using the contexts of the transition economies of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. This study aims to pursue the research question: what role does institutional trust play in the relationship between formal institutions and productive entrepreneurship in the EEs of transition economies? This paper aims to posit that the development and enforcement of formal institutions and institutional trust enhance productive entrepreneurship.Design/methodology/approachIn this study, the authors apply a mixed-method approach. The authors’ dataset includes 657 respondents (ecosystem stakeholders) from six city-level entrepreneurial ecosystems in the transition economies of Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, as well as 51 semi-structured interviews from EE representative stakeholders to examine the validity of the findings.FindingsInstitutional trust in many cities has been negatively affected by institutionalised corruption and continuous non-transparent reforms, furthering prior research in developing and transition economies. The authors’ findings suggest that institutional trust can be investigated not as a country phenomenon but as a regional phenomenon extending prior research towards understanding the institutional trust – productive entrepreneurship research domain at the city EE level.Originality/valueThe authors apply the institutional trust perspective to the EEs in cities in order to examine how institutional trust affects productive entrepreneurship in challenging institutional environments. The authors contribute to the literature on institutions and entrepreneurship by using a mixed-method analysis to examine the relationship between formal institutions and institutional trust in the context of EEs in transition economies.

Framing the main patterns of an academic innovation ecosystem. Evidence from a knowledge-intensive case study

“…Those rules, namely regulative, structure economic processes at the national level (property rights, contracts, patent laws, tax structures). Organisations are also influenced by a system of normative rules, covering rules that confer values, norms, role expectation and responsibilities (Hodgson, 1998; Khlystova et al ., 2022; Scott, 1995).…”

“…Formal institutions are represented by the set of regulations in a given context, while informal institutions are guided by rules concerning culture, social norms and values (North, 1990).The adoption of an institutional perspective to analyse the interactions and the dynamics is helpful, since interactions can be considered on the basis of the type of institutions that are involved (Bawnol, 1990;North, 1990;Scott, 2013). To this regard, this work also takes into account recent contributions providing elements to identify institutional trust as a facilitator in the formal institutionproductive entrepreneurship nexus (Khlystova et al, 2022), as well as the introduction of the concept of legitimacy as a necessary condition to be gained for all actors involved in EE (Lechner et al, 2022).…”

“…The conceptualisation of ecosystems in the managerial field embraces diverse categories, namely business, innovation, entrepreneurial and knowledge ecosystems, as described in several contributions from the literature across recent years (Adner, 2017;Beliaeva et al, 2019;Gomes et al, 2021;Granstrand and Holgersson, 2020;Jacobides et al, 2018;Lepore et al, 2019;Nambisan et al, 2019;Ritala and Gustafsson, 2018). Additionally, further transversal concepts are envisaged to link ecosystem and territorial approaches to converge towards a Academic innovation ecosystem theoretical framework that embraces the interconnections among models, theories and emerging concepts (Khlystova et al, 2022;Scaringella and Radziwon, 2018).…”

“…, 2019; Ritala and Gustafsson, 2018). Additionally, further transversal concepts are envisaged to link ecosystem and territorial approaches to converge towards a theoretical framework that embraces the interconnections among models, theories and emerging concepts (Khlystova et al ., 2022; Scaringella and Radziwon, 2018).…”

Unravelling the entrepreneurial ecosystem conditions spurring the global value chains: a configurational approach

“…The institutional environment in EEs, such as the formal and informal institutions, government rules and regulations, and leadership, tends to be the guiding principles for entrepreneurs. EEs with conducive institutional environments enable entrepreneurs to identify opportunities, launch and successfully operate their ventures (Fuentelsaz et al, 2019;Khlystova et al, 2022). Therefore, the quality of the institutional environment will either encourage or discourage entrepreneurial activities.…”