The impact of regional entrepreneurial ecosystems quality on the development of the digital economy sector in Russia
Аннотация: Digitalization is the main factor in the countries` international competitiveness. The Russian economic growth can be supported by the digital sector expansion in regions with a large historically determined gap in the level of economic development. The digitalization of regions characterized as resource-abundant, old-industrial, agricultural, and depressed could contribute to the high-tech clusters` development in the manufacturing and service sectors. That can become a growth driver in these territories. The influence of the regional projects implementation on the digital economy is determined by the quality of regional entrepreneurial ecosystems more than by their goals, content, and financing.
The entrepreneurial ecosystem concept is a relatively new scientific area formed at the intersection of cluster theory and the theory of regional innovation systems. It explains the success of the regional industrial clusters’ development through a business-friendly environment.
The basic hypothesis of the study is the influence of the regional entrepreneurial ecosystem quality on the size of its digital economy sector. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the dissemination of the digital economy in the Russian regions depending on the quality of regional entrepreneurial ecosystems. Based on data from 87 Russian regions, we assessed the size of regional digital sectors, constructed, and calculated a regional entrepreneurial ecosystems quality index. The correlation analysis results revealed the determining impact of regional population income level and the quality of human capital on digital economy development. Hierarchical cluster analysis based on the squared Euclidean distance identified four groups of regions characterized by different levels of the digital economy development, entrepreneurial ecosystems, as well as the potential and mechanisms of digital growth.
Digitalization is the main factor in the countries` international competitiveness. The Russian economic growth can be supported by the digital sector expansion in regions with a large historically determined gap in the level of economic development. The digitalization of regions characterized as resource-abundant, old-industrial, agricultural, and depressed could contribute to the high-tech clusters` development in the manufacturing and service sectors. That can become a growth driver in these territories. The influence of the regional projects implementation on the digital economy is determined by the quality of regional entrepreneurial ecosystems more than by their goals, content, and financing.
- Ganichev N.A., Koshovets O.B. (2020). How to calculate the digital economy: between reality and construction, ECO, no. 2, pp. 8–36. DOI: 10.30680/ECO0131-7652-2020-2-8-36.
- Plaksin S., Abdrakhmanova G., Kovaleva G. (2016). Approaches to Defining and Measuring Russia’s Internet Economy, Foresight and STI Governance, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 7–24. DOI: 10.17323/2500-2597.2017.1.55.65.
- Booht R., Hicks R. (2018). Definition, concept and measurement of the digital economy, Bulletin of international organizations, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 143–172. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2018-02-07.
- Kuvayeva Yu.V. (2019). Digital economy: Concepts and Russia’s readiness to transition, Journal of the Ural State University of Economics, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 25–40. DOI: 10.29141/2073-1019-2019-20-1-3.
- Watanabe C., Naveed K., Tou Y., Neittaanmäki P. (2018). Measuring GDP in the digital economy: Increasing dependence on uncaptured GDP, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 137, pp. 226–240. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.053.
- Ferras-Hernandez X., Nylund P. A. (2019). Clusters as Innovation Engines: The Accelerating Strengths of Proximity, European Management Review, vol. 16, iss. 1, pp. 37–53. DOI: 10.1111/emre.12330.
- Spigel B. (2015). The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, no. 41 (1), pp. 49–72. DOI: 10.1111/etap.12167.
- Bloom P. N., Dees J. G. (2008). Cultivate your Ecosystem, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter, pp. 47–53.
- Audretsch D., Mason C., Miles M. P., O’Connor A. (2018). The dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, vol. 30, no. 3-4, pp. 471–474. DOI: 10.1080/08985626.2018.1436035.
- Porter M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York, The Free Press, 396 p.
- Mason C., Brown R. (2013). Creating good public policy to support high growth firms, Small Business Economics, no. 40, pp. 211–225.
- Moore J. (1993) Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition, Harvard Business Review, no. 71 (3), pp. 75–86.
- Saxenian A. (1994). Regional Competitive Advantage: culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 240 p.
- Storper M. (1995). The resurgence of regional economies ten years later: the region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies, European Urban and Regional Studies, no. 2 (3), pp. 191–221.
- Ashheim B. T. (1996). Industrial districts as ‘learning regions’: a condition for prosperity, European Planning Studies, no. 4 (1), pp. 379–400.
- Keeble D., Wilkinson F. (1999). Collective Learning and Knowledge Development in the Evolution of Regional Clusters of High Technology SMEs in Europe, Regional Studies, no. 33 (4), pp. 295–303.
- Lundvall B. A. (2007). National Innovation Systems – Analytical Concept and Development Tool, Industry and Innovation, no. 14, pp. 95–119.
- Bathelt H., Malmberg A., Maskell P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge, local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation, Progress in Human Geography, no. 28 (1), pp. 31–56.
- Harrison R.T., Leitch C. (2010). Voodoo institution or entrepreneurial university? Spin-off companies, the entrepreneurial system and regional development in the UK, Regional Studies, no. 44 (9), pp. 1241–1262.
- Isenberg D. (2010). The Big Idea: How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution, Harvard Business Review, June, pp. 1–12.
- Theodoraki С., Messeghem K., Rice M. P. (2018). A social capital approach to the development of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: an explorative study, Small Business Economics, no. 51 (1), pp. 153–170. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-017-9924-0.
- Cohen B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems, Business Strategy and the Environment, no. 15 (1), pp. 1–14.
- Stam E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique, European Planning Studies, no. 23 (9), pp. 1759–1769.
- Stangler D., Bell-Masterson J. (2015). Measuring an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Kansas City, Kauffman Foundation Research Series on City, Metro, and Regional Entrepreneurship. URL: https://www.kauffman.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Measuring-an-Entrepreneurial-Ecosystem.pdf (accessed 14.09.2020).
- Laumann E. O., Galaskiewicz J., Marsden P. V. (1978). Community structure as interorganizational linkages, Annual Review of Sociology, no. 4 (1), pp. 455–484.
- Klimanova A.R. (2019). Assessment of the impact of social capital on entrepreneurial activity in Russian regions, Actual problems of the economy and law, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 966–980. DOI: 10.21202/1993-047x.13.2019.1.966-980.
- De Carolis D. M., Saparito P. (2006). Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial opportunities: a theoretical framework, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, no. 30 (1), pp. 41–56.
- Vedula S., Kim P. H. (2019). Gimme shelter or fade away: the impact of regional entrepreneurial ecosystem quality on venture survival, Industrial and Corporate Change, no. 28 (4), pp. 1–28. DOI: 10.1093/icc/dtz032.
- Zelyak E.F., Bogdanova M.S., Luchsheva V.V. (2019). “Worthy standard of living” as a component of the human development index, International Journal of Humanitarian and Natural Sciences, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 188–192.
- Koritsky A.V. (2010). Human capital as a factor in the economic growth of the regions of Russia. Novosibirsk, Siberian University of Consumer Cooperation, 368 p.