PL EN


2020 | 62 | 47-61
Article title

Network mechanisms for supporting entrepreneurially weak regions

Content
Title variants
PL
Mechanizmy sieciowe wsparciem dla rozwoju regionów o niskiej przedsiębiorczości
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Entrepreneurial network creation can be considered one of the important factors of regional development. The paper focuses on the problem of entrepreneurial network development in entrepreneurially weak regions. It shows that digital technologies are key elements of a modern entrepreneurial ecosystem. Systematization of network effects allowed for the conclusion that the main conditions for their occurrence are trust and ICT-based platforms. The paper draws on quantitative and qualitative data from interviews with owner-managers from a study of SMEs in an entrepreneurially weak region of Belarus to assess the nature of their networking activity. The survey did not identify any formal networks of SMEs in the form of consortia or temporary arrangements in the Vitebsk region, and showed that the problems hindering the development of SME cooperation in the Vitebsk region are lack of information about potential partners, a low level of trust between entrepreneurs, lack of infrastructure and services for business community cooperation support. This article offers a regional system for entrepreneurs networking development using three types of ICTbased platforms: a public-private partnership (PPP) platform, entrepreneur’s partnership groups (EPG) platforms and Living Labs platform. The proposed policy measures for regional authorities would be expected to allow them to contribute to creating an effective entrepreneurial ecosystem in entrepreneurially weak regions.
PL
Tworzenie sieci przedsiębiorczości można uznać za jeden z ważnych czynników rozwoju regionalnego. Artykuł koncentruje się na problemie rozwoju sieci przedsiębiorczości w regionach słabych pod względem przedsiębiorczości. Pokazuje, że technologie cyfrowe są kluczowymi elementami nowoczesnego ekosystemu przedsiębiorczości. Systematyzacja efektów sieciowych pozwoliła stwierdzić, że głównymi warunkami ich występowania są zaufanie i platformy oparte na ICT. W artykule wykorzystano dane ilościowe i jakościowe z wywiadów z właścicielami – menedżerami z badania MŚP w słabo rozwiniętym pod względem przedsiębiorczości regionie Białorusi w celu oceny charakteru ich działalności sieciowej. Badanie nie zidentyfikowało żadnych formalnych sieci MŚP w formie konsorcjów lub tymczasowych porozumień w regionie witebskim i wykazało, że problemami utrudniającymi rozwój współpracy MŚP w regionie witebskim są brak informacji o potencjalnych partnerach, niski poziom zaufania między przedsiębiorcami, brak infrastruktury i usług do wspierania współpracy środowisk biznesowych. W artykule przedstawiono regionalny system rozwoju sieci przedsiębiorców za pomocą trzech rodzajów platform opartych na ICT: platformy partnerstwa publiczno-prywatnego (PPP), platformy grup partnerstwa przedsiębiorców (EPG) i platformy Living Labs. Oczekuje się, że proponowane narzędzia mogą przyczynić się do stworzenia skutecznego ekosystemu przedsiębiorczości w regionach słabych pod względem przedsiębiorczości.
Year
Issue
62
Pages
47-61
Physical description
Contributors
  • Department of Business Accounting and Finance, Logistics and Management Polotsk State University, m.slonimskaya@pdu.by
References
  • Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C., Lehmann, E. E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183511.001.0001.
  • Bejinaru, R. (2018). Assessing students’ entrepreneurial skills needed in the knowledge economy. Management & Marketing, Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 13(3), 1119–1132. DOI: 10.2478/mmcks-2018-0027.
  • Bellandi, M., De Propris, L. (2015). Three Generations of Industrial districts. Journal of Regional Research, 32, 75–87.
  • Braunerhjelm, P., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Carlsson, B. (2010). The missing link: knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business Economic, 34, 105–125. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-009-9235-1.
  • Camagni, R. (1991). Local ‘Milieu’, Uncertainty and Innovation Networks: Towards a New Dynamic Theory of Economic Space. In: R. Camagni (Ed.), Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives (pp. 121–144). London: Belhaven Press.
  • Chen, F.-W., Fu, L.-W., Wang, K., Tsai, S.-B., Su, C.-H. (2018). The Influence of Entrepreneurship and Social Networks on Economic Growth – From a Sustainable Innovation Perspective. Sustainability, 10(7), 1–19. DOI: 10.3390/su10072510.
  • Cremona, L., Lin, T., Ravarini, A. (2014). The role of digital platforms in inter-firm collaboration. Conference Paper: Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS). pp. 1–13. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265397260_The_role_of_digital_platforms_in_inter-firm_collaboration (2019.08.28).
  • Dodd, S. D., Keles, J. (2014). Expanding the networks of disadvantaged entrepreneurs. A background paper for the OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs and Local Development. Paris: OECD.
  • Esposito de Falco, S., Renzi, A., Orlando, B., Cucari N. (2017). Open collaborative innovation and digital platforms. Production Planning & Control, 28(16), 1344–1353. DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2017.1375143.
  • Fritsch, M., Wyrwich, M. (2017). The effect of entrepreneurship on economic development – An empirical analysis using regional entrepreneurship culture. Journal of Economic Geography, 17, 157–189. DOI: 10.1093/jeg/lbv049.
  • Gupta, H., Kumar, M. (2018). Modelling cause and effect relationship among enablers of innovation in SMEs. An International Journal, 25(5), 1597–1622. DOI: 10.1108/BIJ-03-2017-0050.
  • Gustafsson, O., Magnusson, J. (2016). Inter-organizational collaboration in theory and practice: Based on a multiple-case study in the automotive industry. Gothenburg: Chalmers Reproservice.
  • Hapenciuc, C. V., Bejinaru, R., Roman, C., Neamtu, D. M. (2016). The role of HES within the evolution of the business sector. EDULEARN – 8th Annual International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Barcelona (Spain). 4th – 6th of July. DOI: 10.21125/edulearn.2016.2269.
  • Harris, R. G. (2011). Models of regional growth: Past, present and future. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(5), 913–951. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2010.00630.x.
  • Huggins, R., Johnston, A. (2009). Knowledge networks in an uncompetitive region: SME innovation and growth. Growth and Change, 40(2), 227–259. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2257.2009.00474.x.
  • Huggins, R., Thompson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: a network theory. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 227–259. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-015-9643-3.
  • Isenberg, D. (2014). What an entrepreneurship ecosystem actually is. Harvard Business Review, 5. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2014/05/what-an-entrepreneurial-ecosystem-actually-is (2020.05.11).
  • Leminen, S., Mika, W., Nyström, A.-G. (2012). Living Labs as Open-Innovation Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2, 6–11. DOI: 10.22215/timreview/602.
  • Malecki, E.L. (2018). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography Compass, 12(3), 1–21. DOI: 10.1111/gec3.12359.
  • Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan and Co.
  • Martins, T. V., Araújo, T., Santos, A. M., St Aubyn, M. (2009). Network Effects in a Human Capital Based Economic Growth Model. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 388(11), 2207–2214. DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2009.02.006.
  • Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.
  • Msanjila, S. S., Afsarmanesh, H. (2008). FETR: a framework to establish trust relationships among organizations in VBEs. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 21(3), 251–265. DOI: 10.1007/s10845-008-0178-1.
  • Nagy, J. (2007). Interfirm relationships – a literature review. Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem: Műhelytanulmányok Sorozat.
  • Polverari, L. (2018). Innovation as a regional development driver: Necessary shift or policy misdirection? European Policy Research Paper, 102, 1–74.
  • Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.
  • Porter, M. E. (2003). The economic performance of regions. Regional Studies, 37(6), 545– 546. DOI: 10.1080/0034340032000108688.
  • Reid, S., Hayes, J. P., Stibbe D. (2014). Platforms for Partnership: Emerging good practice to systematically engage business as a partner in development. Oxford: The Partnering Initiative.
  • Schoonjans, B., Van Cauwenberge, P., Vander Bauwhede, H. (2013). Formal business networking and SME growth. Small Business Economics, 41, 169–181. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-011-9408-6.
  • Slonimska, M., Asheva, G., Dubko, N. (2019). Predprinimatelʹstvovitebskoj oblasti: problemy i perspektivy razvitiâ. Vitebsk: OO “Associaciânanimatelej i predprinimatelej”. Retrieved from: kef.by/publications/research/ konkurentosposobnost-regionov-belarusi/ predprini-matelstvo-vitebskoy-oblasti-problemy-i-perspektivy-razvitiya(2019.08.28).
  • Shamsuzzoha, A., Toscano, C., Carneiro, L., Kumar, V., Helo, P. (2016). ICT-based solution approach for collaborative delivery of customized products. Production Planning & Control, 27(4), 280–298. DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2015.1123322.
  • Stam, E., Spigel, B. (2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. U.S.E. Discussion Paper Series, 16–13. Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute, Utrecht School of Economics, Utrecht University.
  • Strobl, A., Peters, M., Raich, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial Networks: Exploring the Role of Social Capital. International Review of Entrepreneurship, 12, 103–132.
  • Theodoraki, C., Messeghem, K., Rice, M. P. (2018). A social capital approach to the development of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: an explorative study. Small Business Economics, 51(1), 153–170. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-017-9924-0.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-2419eb20-b91b-43ff-9a5e-514d14adf4eb
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.