Agata Kapturkiewicz

Abstract This paper contributes to a better understanding of how place matters for the development of nascent Information and Communication Technology (ICT) entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs). This qualitative study adopts a lens of neo-institutional theory, looking at EEs as organisational fields, and focuses on two comparative cases in Japan—Osaka-Kyoto and Fukuoka, which are developing “in the shadow” of the more established Tokyo EE. The data is based on semi-structured interviews and participant observations generated during fieldwork research in 2016–2020, analysed together with a set of archival data. The findings reveal similar gaps in the institutional infrastructure of the nascent EEs of Osaka-Kyoto and Fukuoka (for example, in funding, in the access to information and expertise from successful startups), in response to which their stakeholders engage undertake similar types of actions to obtain the missing/underdeveloped elements, including creating network connections within and between EEs (with particularly important links to Tokyo EE). However, the study shows that the existing and expected outcomes of these actions are moderated by certain elements underlying the EEs’ institutional infrastructure—local resources (stronger in Osaka-Kyoto) and place cohesion (stronger in Fukuoka). The latter concept is newly identified and defined in the paper. The findings of this paper become the basis for a process model of the nascent EEs’ development, have theoretical implications for research about EEs and for the comparative study of organisational fields, and offer insights for policy and practice. Plain English Summary Place continues to be critically important for the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs), even those focused on technology-related startup entrepreneurship that might be expected to be less dependent on place. By comparing the cases of two Information and Communication Technology (ICT) EEs in Japan (Osaka-Kyoto and Fukuoka, developing “in the shadow” of the more established Tokyo), the study shows the significant role of place cohesion (a newly defined concept, consisting of place-based collective identity and locations’ internal centralisation) and local resources in the nascent EEs’ development. The findings also confirm that various developmental pathways and configurations exist but note possible dangers (e.g. brain drain) when some key elements (e.g. funding) are accessed from another EE, even in the same country. Policymakers and practitioners should consider that intentionally working on strengthening place cohesion and local resources could help EEs’ development and that developing at least some locally based funding opportunities seems important for nascent EEs.

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>One of the challenges in existing research on entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) is that it can strongly emphasize either the structure aspect of the EEs or agency—especially that of entrepreneurs. These emphases can sometimes make it difficult to untangle the mechanisms of how various EE actors interact with and co-create their EEs, and understand how such mechanisms might vary across locations and bring about different types of entrepreneurial and socio-economic outcomes. In this chapter, we follow in the footsteps of several pioneering EE studies using the theoretical lens of organizational fields (e.g. Thompson et al., 2018; Auschra et al., 2019). We elaborate on how the focus on fields’ institutional infrastructure (Hinings et al., 2017) can be a useful analytical tool to examine the link between EE actors’ agency and EE elements and structures. Our discussion highlights how the institutional infrastructure concept can help researchers to uncover key EE mechanisms, their variations, and diverse outcomes. We illustrate our conceptual propositions with case vignettes from comparative contexts of Japan, India, and Finland, which are based on in-depth empirical studies conducted by the authors of this chapter. The vignettes from these diverse contexts, coupled with insights from relevant past literature on organizational fields and EEs, highlight a spectrum of possible modes of engagement—and outcomes of such engagement—of EE actors with their EEs’ institutional infrastructure. Overall, this chapter offers a contribution to how researchers can better understand EE processes by using the theoretical lens of organizational fields—especially the institutional infrastructure concept.</jats:p>