Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie

The German Journal of Economic Geography

Editor-in-Chief: Henn, Sebastian / Thomi, Walter / Bathelt, Harald

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.864
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.955

CiteScore 2018: 0.94

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.565
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.444

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 63, Issue 2-4


Beyond territorial conceptions of entrepreneurial ecosystems: The dynamic spatiality of knowledge brokering in seed accelerators

Andreas Kuebart
  • Leibniz-Institute for Research on Society and Space Flakenstraße 29–31 15537 Erkner Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus-Senftenberg Postfach 101344 03013 Cottbus Erkner Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Oliver Ibert
  • Leibniz-Institute for Research on Society and Space Flakenstraße 29–31 15537 Erkner Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus-Senftenberg Postfach 101344 03013 Cottbus Erkner Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-11-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw-2018-0012


In spatial terms, entrepreneurial ecosystems are mostly conceptualized as confined to a specific territory. At the same time, the growing relevance of entrepreneurship in digital fields is underlined. This paper argues that this is contradictory since territorial thinking underestimates the disruptive qualities of new entrepreneurial practices in the digital economy. Using process-based, qualitative case studies on seed accelerators from four regions: Amsterdam, Berlin, Detroit and Hamburg, this study seeks to explore knowledge brokering in entrepreneurship ecosystems and analyzes the corresponding spatial dynamics. Our findings imply that startups in digital fields share knowledge about business models and technologies in a way that is unattainable in classical knowledge clusters. Moreover, we show that most of the observed entrepreneurial practices in seed accelerators crucially rely on extra-regional resources and thus remain only incompletely embedded into the respective regions. Against the background of these results, we suggest that entrepreneurial ecosystems should not be primarily viewed as territorial phenomena. Instead, we suggest that the territorial view on entrepreneurship ecosystems should be complemented with a topological view that foregrounds entrepreneurship as a trans-locally shared practice that is tangent to different regions in different ways.


  • Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems, in: Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72–95.Google Scholar

  • Acs, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B. O’Connor, A. (2017). The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10.Google Scholar

  • Alvedalen, J. Boschma, R. (2017). A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: towards a future research agenda. European Planning Studies, 25(6), 887–903.Google Scholar

  • Amin, A. Cohendet, P. (2004). Architectures of knowledge – Firms, capabilities and communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Amin, A. Roberts, J. (2008). Knowing in action: Beyond communities of practice. Research Policy, 37(2), 353–369.Google Scholar

  • Audretsch, D. B. Belitski, M. (2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: establishing the framework conditions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5), 1–22.Google Scholar

  • Bathelt, H., Glückler, J. (2011). The Relational Economy – Geographies of Knowing and Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bathelt, H. Cohendet, P. (2014). The creation of knowledge: Local building, global accessing and economic development-toward an agenda. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(5), 1–14.Google Scholar

  • Bliemel, M., Flores, R., De Klerk, S. Miles, M. P. (2018). Accelerators as start-up infrastructure for entrepreneurial clusters. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(1–2), 133–149.Google Scholar

  • Braun, T, Ferreira, A., Schmidt, T. & Sydow, J. (2018). British Journal of Management, 29(4), 652-669.Google Scholar

  • Brown, J. Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.Google Scholar

  • Brown, R. Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 11–30.Google Scholar

  • Burns, J. (2010). Cross-Case Synthesis and Analysis. In Mills, A., Durepos, G., Wiebe, E. (Eds.), Encyclopedia Of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 264–266.Google Scholar

  • Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.Google Scholar

  • Crevoisier, O. & Jeannerat, H. (2009). Territorial knowledge dynamics: From the proximity paradigm to multi-location milieus. European Planning Studies 17(8), 1223–1241.Google Scholar

  • Dowling, R., Lloyd, K. Suchet-Pearson, S. (2016). Qualitative methods 1: Enriching the interview. Progress in Human Geography, 40(5), 679–686.Google Scholar

  • Drori, I. Wright, M. (2018). Accelerators: characteristics, trends and the new entrepreneurial ecosystem. In Wright, M., Drori, I. (Eds.), Accelerators: Successful Venture Creation and Growth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1–20.Google Scholar

  • Elger, T. (2010). Limited-Depth Case Study. In Mills, A., Durepos, G., Wiebe, E. (Eds.), Encyclopedia Of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 530–532.Google Scholar

  • Faulconbridge, J. R. (2010). Global architects: Learning and innovation through communities and constellations of practice. Environment and Planning A, 42(12), 2842–2858.Google Scholar

  • Feld, B. (2012). Startup communities: Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

  • Ferrary, M., Granovetter, M. (2009). The role of venture capital firms in Silicon Valley’s complex innovation network. Economy and Society, 38(2), 326–359.Google Scholar

  • Gauthier, J., Penzel, M. & Marmer, M. (2017). Global Startup Ecosystem Report 2017. San Francisco: Startupgenome.Google Scholar

  • Goswami, K., Mitchell, J. R. Bhagavatula, S. (2018). Accelerator expertise: Understanding the intermediary role of accelerators in the development of the Bangalore entrepreneurial ecosystem. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 117–150.Google Scholar

  • Grabher, G. Ibert, O. (2006). Bad company? The ambiguity of personal knowledge networks. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(3), 251–271.Google Scholar

  • Grabher, G. Ibert, O. (2014). Distance as an asset? Knowledge collaboration in hybrid virtual communities. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(1), 97–123.Google Scholar

  • Herbert, S. (2010). A Taut Rubber Band: Theory and Empirics in Qualitative Geographic Research. In D. DeLyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang L. McDowell (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Geography (69–81). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar

  • Hochberg, Y. V. (2016). Accelerating Entrepreneurs and Ecosystems: The Seed Accelerator Model. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 16(1), 25–51.Google Scholar

  • Ibert, O. (2004). Projects and firms as discordant complements: organisational learning in the Munich software ecology. Research Policy, 33(10), 1529–1546.Google Scholar

  • Ibert, O., Hautala, J. Jauhiainen, J. S. (2015). From cluster to process: New economic geographic perspectives on practices of knowledge creation. Geoforum, 65, 323–327.Google Scholar

  • Kujath, H. J., Zillmer, S. (2010) Räume der Wissensökonomie: Implikationen für das Deutscher Städtesystem. Münster: Lit Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Klagge, B. Peter, C. (2009). Wissensmanagement in Netzwerken unterschiedlicher Reichweite Das Beispiel des Private Equity-Sektors in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie 53(1–2), 69–88.Google Scholar

  • Kuebart, A. Ibert, O. (2019). Choreographies of entrepreneurship. How different formats of co-presence are combined to facilitate knowledge creation in seed accelerator programs. Raumforschung und Raumordnung 78(1), 1–17.Google Scholar

  • Langley, P. Leyshon, A. (2016). Platform capitalism: the intermediation and capitalisation of digital economic circulation. Finance and Society, 2(2).Google Scholar

  • Lave, J. Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lundin, R. A. Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437–455.Google Scholar

  • Mack, E. Mayer, H. (2015). The evolutionary dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Urban Studies, 53(10), 1–16.Google Scholar

  • Malecki, E. J. (2018). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography Compass 12(3), 1–21.Google Scholar

  • Malmberg, A. & Maskell, P. (2002). The elusive concept of localization economies: towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 34(3), 429–449Google Scholar

  • Meuser, M. & Nagel, U. (1991). ExpertInneninterviews – vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht: Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In: Garz, D., Kraimer, K. (eds.): Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung: Konzepte, Methoden, Analysen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 441–471.Google Scholar

  • Miller, P. Bound, K. (2011). The Startup Factories – The Rise of Accelerator Programmes to Support New Technology Ventures. London: Nesta Working paper, (40).Google Scholar

  • Moulaert, F. & Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial innovation models: A critical survey. Regional Studies 37(3), 289–302.Google Scholar

  • Motoyama, Y. Knowlton, K. (2016). From resource munificence to ecosystem integration: the case of government sponsorship in St. Louis. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5–6), 448–470.Google Scholar

  • Müller, F. C. Ibert, O. (2015). (Re-)sources of innovation: Understanding and comparing time-spatial innovation dynamics through the lens of communities of practice. Geoforum, 65, 338–350.Google Scholar

  • Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social Networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100–130.Google Scholar

  • Packard, M. D., Clark, B. B. Klein, P. G. (2017). Uncertainty types and transitions in the entrepreneurial process. Organization Science, 28(5), 840–856.Google Scholar

  • Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M. Van Hove, J. (2016). Understanding a new generation incubation model: The accelerator. Technovation, 50–51(3), 13–24.Google Scholar

  • Peck, J. Whiteside, H. (2016). Financializing Detroit. Economic Geography, 95(1), 1–34Google Scholar

  • Rutten, R. (2016). Beyond proximities: The socio-spatial dynamics of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 41(2), 1–19.Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, S. (2015). Balancing the spatial localisation ‘Tilt’: Knowledge spillovers in processes of knowledge-intensive services. Geoforum, 65, 374–386.Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, S., Brinks, V. Brinkhoff, S. (2014). Innovation and creativity labs in Berlin Organizing temporary spatial configurations for innovations. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 58(1), 232–247.Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, S., Müller, F., Ibert, O. Brinks, V. (2018). Open Region: Creating and exploiting opportunities for innovation at the regional scale. European Urban and Regional Studies, 25(2), 187–205.Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, S., Ibert, O., Kuebart, A. & Kühn, J (2016). Open Creative Labs in Deutschland. Typologisierung, Verbreitung und Entwicklungsbedingungen. Erkner: Leibniz Institut für Raumbezogene Sozialforschung.Google Scholar

  • Shearmur, R., Carrincazeaux Doloreux, D. (2016). The geographies of innovations: Beyond one-size-fits-all. In R. Shearmur, C. Carrincazaeux, D. Doloreux (eds.) Handbook on the Geographies of Innovation. Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 1–16.Google Scholar

  • Simmel, G. (1908). Soziologie – Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar

  • Sorenson, O. (2017). Regional ecologies of entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Geography, 17(5), 959–974.Google Scholar

  • Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72.Google Scholar

  • Spigel, B. Harrison, R. (2017). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 1–18.Google Scholar

  • Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt Rhinehart & Watson.Google Scholar

  • Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic Critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.Google Scholar

  • Steyaert, C. (2007). ‘Entrepreneuring’ as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 19(6), 453–477.Google Scholar

  • Tanner, A. N. (2018). Changing locus of innovation: a micro-process approach on the dynamics of proximity. European Planning Studies 26(12), 2304–2322.Google Scholar

  • Van Weele, M. A., Steinz, H. J. Van Rijnsoever, F. J. (2018). Start-up Communities as Communities of Practice: Shining a Light on Geographical Scale and Membership. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 109(2), 173–188.Google Scholar

  • Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Yin, RK (2014) Case Study Research. Design and Methods. 5th Edition. Los Angeles, London, New Dehli, Singapore, Washington DC: SageGoogle Scholar

  • Zook, M. (2004). The knowledge brokers: venture capitalists, tacit knowledge and regional development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(3), 621–641.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-03-27

Accepted: 2019-05-07

Published Online: 2019-11-13

Published in Print: 2019-11-01

Citation Information: Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, Volume 63, Issue 2-4, Pages 118–133, ISSN (Online) 2365-7693, ISSN (Print) 0044-3751, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw-2018-0012.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in