Entrepreneurship, complexity and the emergent order in the techno-economic scenario of the twenty-first century. Evidence from a field study in Tuscany

References

• Amesse, F., and P. Cohendet. 2001. “Technology Transfer Revisited from the Perspective of the Knowledge-based Economy.” Research Policy 30 (9): 1459–1478. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00162-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amin, A., and P. Cohendet. 2004. Architectures of Knowledge: Firms, Capabilities, and Communities. Oxford, Oxford University Press
   Google Scholar
• Arthur, W. 2009. The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. New York, Free Press
   Google Scholar
• Arthur, W. 2017. Where Is Technology Taking the Economy, 697. McKinsey Quarterly. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-analytics/our-insights/where-is-technology-taking-the-economy
   Google Scholar
• Bathelt, H., and P. Cohendet. 2014. “The Creation of Knowledge: Local Building, Global Accessing and Economic Development—toward an Agenda.” Journal of Economic Geography 14 (5): 869–882. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbu027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becattini, G. 1990. “The Marshallian Industrial District as a Socio-economic Notion.” In Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Co-operation in Italy, edited by F. Pyke, G. Becattini, and W. Sengenberger, 37–51. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Becattini, G., and E. Rullani. 1993. “Sistemi locali e mercato globale.” Economia e politica industriale, XX(80): 25–48
   Google Scholar
• Bianchi, P., and S. Labory. 2019. “Manufacturing Regimes and Transitional Paths: Lessons for Industrial Policy.” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 48: 24–31. doi:10.1016/j.strueco.2017.10.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Block, J., C. Fisch, and M. Van Praag. 2017. “The Schumpeterian Entrepreneur: A Review of the Empirical Evidence on the Antecedents, Behaviour and Consequences of Innovative Entrepreneurship.” Industry and Innovation 24 (1): 61–95. doi:10.1080/13662716.2016.1216397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bobbink, M., A. Hartmann, and G. Dewulf. 2016. “Sustaining Extended Enterprise Performance: A Value Co-creation Perspective.” Journal of Organization Design 5 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1186/s41469-016-0005-7.
   Google Scholar
• Bygrave, W. 1989. “The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (I): A Philosophical Look at Its Research Methodologies.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 14 (1): 7–26. doi:10.1177/104225878901400102.
   Google Scholar
• Carlsson, B., and G. Eliasson. 2003. “Industrial Dynamics and Endogenous Growth.” Industry and Innovation 10 (4): 435–455. doi:10.1080/1366271032000163676.
   Google Scholar
• Choi, T., K. Dooley, and M. Rungtusanatham. 2001. “Supply Networks and Complex Adaptive Systems: Control versus Emergence.” Journal of Operations Management 19 (3): 351–366. doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(00)00068-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coase, R. 1937. “The Nature of the Firm.” Economica 4 (16): 386–405. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, W., and D. Levinthal. 1990. “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 128–152. doi:10.2307/2393553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cusolito, A., and W. Maloney. 2018. Productivity Revisited: Shifting Paradigms in Analysis and Policy. World Bank Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Davidsson, P. 2003. “The Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: Some Suggestions.” Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth 6 (3): 315–372.
   Google Scholar
• De Brito, S., and J. Leitão. 2020. “Mapping and Defining Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: A Systematic Literature Review.” Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1–22
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jong, J., and E. Von Hippel 2010. “Open, Distributed and User-centered: Towards a Paradigm Shift in Innovation Policy.” No. H201009. EIM Business and Policy Research.
   Google Scholar
• Dooley, K. 1997. “A Complex Adaptive Systems Model of Organization Change.” Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences 1 (1): 69–97. doi:10.1023/A:1022375910940.
   Google Scholar
• Doz, Y., J. Santos, and P. Williamson. 2001. From Global to Metanational: How Companies Win in the Global Economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. chapter 1.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–550. doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4308385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elia, G., A. Margherita, and G. Passiante. 2020. “Digital Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: How Digital Technologies and Collective Intelligence are Reshaping the Entrepreneurial Process.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 150: 119791. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119791.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ernst, D., and L. Kim. 2002. “Global Production Networks, Knowledge Diffusion, and Local Capability Formation.” Research Policy 31 (8–9): 1417–1429. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00072-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Floridi, L. 2014. The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere Is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press
   Google Scholar
• Foray, D. 2015. Smart Specialisation, Opportunities and Challenges for Regional Innovation Policy. New York (US): Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fredin, S., and A. Lidén. 2020. “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Towards a Systemic Approach to Entrepreneurship?” Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 120(2): 87–97
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gephardt, R. 2004. “What Is Qualitative Research and Why Is It Important?” Academy of Management Journal 7: 454–462.
   Google Scholar
• Gioia, D., K. Corley, and A. Hamilton. 2012. “Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology.” Organizational Research Methods 16 (1): 15–31. doi:10.1177/1094428112452151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Grillitsch, M. 2019. “Following or Breaking Regional Development Paths: On the Role and Capability of the Innovative Entrepreneur.” Regional Studies 53 (5): 681–691. doi:10.1080/00343404.2018.1463436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayek, F. 1945. “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” The American Economic Review 35 (4): 519–530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland, J. 1997. “Emergence.” Philosophica 59: 11–40.
   Google Scholar
• Holland, J. 2006. “Studying Complex Adaptive Systems.” Journal of Systems Science and Complexity 19: 1–8. doi:10.1007/s11424-006-0001-z.
   Google Scholar
• Iansiti, M., and K. Lakhani. 2014. “Digital Ubiquity: How Connections, Sensors, and Data are Revolutionizing Business.” Harvard Business Review 92 (11): 91–99.
   Google Scholar
• Ireland, R., and J. Webb. 2007. “Strategic Entrepreneurship: Creating Competitive Advantage through Streams of Innovation.” Business Horizons 50 (1): 49–59. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2006.06.002.
   Google Scholar
• Isenberg, D. 2011. The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Strategy as a New Paradigm for Economic Policy: Principles for Cultivating Entrepreneurship. Babson Park, MA: Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project, Babson College.
   Google Scholar
• Kerr, W., R. Nanda, and M. Rhodes-Kropf. 2014. “Entrepreneurship as Experimentation.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 28 (3): 25–48. doi:10.1257/jep.28.3.25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirzner, I. 1973. Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. chapter 2.
   Google Scholar
• Langlois, R. 2002. “Modularity in Technology and Organization.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 49: 19–37. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00056-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazzeretti, L., and F. Capone. 2017. “The Transformation of the Prato Industrial District: An Organisational Ecology Analysis of the Co-evolution of Italian and Chinese Firms.” The Annals of Regional Science 58 (1): 135–158. doi:10.1007/s00168-016-0790-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein, B. 2000. “Emergence as a Process of self‐organizing‐New Assumptions and Insights from the Study of Non‐linear Dynamic Systems.” Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(6):526–544
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein, B. 2011. “Complexity Science Contributions to the Field of Entrepreneurship.” In The SAGE Handbook of Complexity and Management, edited by P. Allen, S. Maguire, and B. McKelvey, 473–495, London, UK, Sage
   Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein, B. 2016. “Emergence and Emergents in Entrepreneurship: Complexity Science Insights into New Venture Creation.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 6 (1): 43–52. doi:10.1515/erj-2015-0052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein, B., and D. Plowman 2009. “The Leadership of Emergence: A Complex Systems Leadership Theory of Emergence at Successive Organisational Levels.” Paper 63. University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Management Department Faculty Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Å., M. Andersson, and B. Carlsson. 2018. “Entrepreneurial Experimentation: A Key Function in Systems of Innovation.” Small Business Economics 53: 91–610.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, J., Y. Zhu, M. G. Serapio, and S. T. Cavusgil. 2019. “The New Generation of Millennial Entrepreneurs: A Review and Call for Research.” International Business Review 28 (5): 101581. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombardi, M. 2011. “The Production Process as a Complex, Dynamic and Ordered World.” In Internationalization, Technological Change and the Theory of the Firm, edited by N. De Liso and R. Leoncini, 31–65, London, UK, New York, USA, Routledge
   Google Scholar
• Lombardi, M. 2018. Fabbrica 4.0: I processi innovativi nel Multiverso fisicodigitale. Vol. 179. Firenze, Firenze University Press
   Google Scholar
• March, J. 1991. “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning.” Organization Science 2 (1): 71–87. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, C., and R. Brown. 2014. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship. PARIS: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• McClelland, D. 1961. The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
   Google Scholar
• McKelvey, B. 2004. “Toward a Complexity Science of Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Business Venturing 19 (3): 313–341. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00034-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKelvey, B. 2016. “Complexity Ingredients Required for Entrepreneurial Success.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 6 (1): 53–73. doi:10.1515/erj-2015-0053.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulgan, G. 2017. “Big Mind: How Collective Intelligence Can Change Our World.” Princeton, USA, Oxfordshire, UK, Princeton University Press
   Google Scholar
• Nambisan, S. 2017. “Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41 (6): 1029–1055. doi:10.1111/etap.12254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nambisan, S., M. Wright, and M. Feldman. 2019. “The Digital Transformation of Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Progress, Challenges and Key Themes.” Research Policy 48 (8): 103773. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neergaard, H. 2007. “Sampling in Entrepreneurial Settings.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship, edited by H. Neergaard and J. Ulhøi, pp. 253–278, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar Publishing
   Google Scholar
• Ozman, M. (2010). The knowledge base of products: Implications for organizational structures. Organization Studies, 31(8), 1129–1154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton, M. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA, SAGE Publications
   Google Scholar
• Penrose, E. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York, NY, Wiley
   Google Scholar
• Perez, C. 2010. “Technological Revolutions and Techno-economic Paradigms.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 34 (1): 185–202. doi:10.1093/cje/bep051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, M., and J. Heppelmann. 2015. “How Smart, Connected Products are Transforming Companies.” Harvard Business Review 93 (10): 96–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves, M., S. Levin, and D. Ueda 2016. “The Biology of Corporate Survival.” Harvard Business Review.
   Google Scholar
• Roundy, P., M. Bradshaw, and B. Brockman. 2018. “The Emergence of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: A Complex Adaptive Systems Approach.” Journal of Business Research 86: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, J. 1934. Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Selden, P., and D. Fletcher. 2015. “The Entrepreneurial Journey as an Emergent Hierarchical System of Artifact-creating Processes.” Journal of Business Venturing 30 (4): 603–615. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. 1962. “The Architecture of Complexity.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106 (6): 467–482.
   Google Scholar
• Stam, E. 2015. “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic Critique.” European Planning Studies 23 (9): 1759–1769. doi:10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teece, D. 2019. “A Capability Theory of the Firm: An Economics and (Strategic) Management Perspective.” New Zealand Economic Papers 53 (1): 1–43. doi:10.1080/00779954.2017.1371208.
   Google Scholar
• Teece, D. 2020. “Hand in Glove: Open Innovation and the Dynamic Capabilities Framework.” Strategic Management Review 1 (2): 233–253. doi:10.1561/111.00000010.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich, K. 1995. “The Role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm.” Research Policy 24 (3): 419–440. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatraman, V. 2017. The Digital Matrix: New Rules for Business Transformation through Technology. Vancouver, Canada, Greystone Books
   Google Scholar
• Wanzenböck, I., and K. Frenken 2018. “The Subsidiarity Principle: Turning Challenge-oriented Innovation Policy on Its Head (No. 1806).” Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography. Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, P. J.. 2007. From a national to a metanational ecosystem: harnessing the value ofglobal knowledge diversity, in Corallo A., Passiante G. and Prencipe A. (eds) The Digital Business Ecosystem, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. 2018. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Los Angeles: Sage publications.
   Google Scholar
• Yoo, Y., O. Henfridsson, and K. Lyytinen. 2010. “The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research.” Information Systems Research 21 (4): 724–735. doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahra, S., H. Sapienza, and P. Davidsson. 2006. “Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda.” Journal of Management Studies 43 (4): 917–955. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00616.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zittrain, J. 2006. “The Generative Internet.” Harvard Law Review 119 (7): 1975–2040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar