Resumo

Entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) have been defined as a structure capable of fostering entrepreneurial activities, with the entrepreneur at its centre, having his/her actions regulated by the context (Acs, Autio and Szerb, 2014). Some studies have examined EEs applying a configurations perspective (Spigel, 2017). Configurational approaches consider the possibility of equifinality: different combinations of the same attributes may achieve similar performance. Public policies for entrepreneurship is a field that may benefit from the application of a configurational perspective in EEs research.

The potential benefits of a configurational approach to policy formulation and implementation have seldom been discussed, especially regarding the implications of equifinality. In order to address this gap in the literature, we seek to answer the following research question: Can different EE configurations achieve similar results, and, if so, what are the implications of this for public policy? Thus, The purpose of this paper is to add knowledge in the discussion of EEs configurations, their outcomes, and possible implications for entrepreneurship public policies.

The idea of an entrepreneurial ecosystem is related to the articulation of actors, public and private organizations, and the government to create a favourable environment for entrepreneurship, especially one with a high economic and social impact (Stam, 2015; Audretsch and Belitski, 2017; Roundy, Bradshaw and Brockman, 2018). Our study applies the dimensions used in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) surveys, in particular, all 12 variables that measure Entrepreneurship Framework Conditions (EFCs), to assess EEs at the country level.

The study used the principal components and cluster analysis in order to verify how differing configurations of EEs can exist, considering a sample of 79 observations (countries). ANOVA test was applied as a mean to assess the significance of the cluster analysis solution, showing statistically significant differences in the score factors used in the clustering process.

The results indicated the formation of five clusters with different numbers of countries. The five clustes showed significant differences in each of the EFCs, except for condition Internal Market Dynamics where the averages were not significantly different. On the assessment of the entrepreneurial outcomes (performance) of each cluster of economies, it was seen that the five clusters presented similar and different results, depending on the performance indicator chosen. This result is very consistent with the configurations approach.

The study shown is the lack of significant differences among clusters in three outcome indicators – perceived opportunities rate, high job creation expectation rate and innovation rate – that may be considered as most relevant for EEs scholars that consider the main purpose of EEs being generating productive or innovative entrepreneurship (Stam, 2015). In spite of differing EFC evaluations, the five clusters' configurations present a global overall state of conditions that seem to balance strengths and weaknesses leading to similar levels of productive entrepreneurship.

Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759-1769. Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 41(1), 49-72. Roundy, P. T., Bradshaw, M., & Brockman, B. K. (2018). The emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: A complex adaptive systems approach. Journal of Business Research, 86, 1–10.