The 2008 crash has left all the established economic doctrines - equilibrium models, real business cycles, disequilibria models - in disarray. Part of the problem is due to Smith’s "veil of ignorance": individuals unknowingly pursue society’s interest and, as a result, have no clue as to the macroeconomic effects of their actions: witness the Keynes and Leontief multipliers, the concept of value added, fiat money, Engel’s law and technical progress, to name but a few of the macrofoundations of microeconomics. A good viewpoint to take bearings anew lies in comparing the post-Great Depression institutions with those emerging from Thatcher and Reagan’s economic policies: deregulation, exogenous vs. endoge- nous money, shadow banking vs. Volcker’s Rule. Very simply, the banks, whose lending determined deposits after Roosevelt, and were a public service became private enterprises whose deposits determine lending. These underlay the great moderation preceding 2006, and the subsequent crash.

The Economic Institutions of Capitalism

Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage . Edited by Peter Hall and David Soskice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. xvi + 540 pp. Index, notes, bibliography, figures, tables. Cloth, $74.00; paper, $32.50. ISBN: cloth 0-199-24774-9; paper 0-199-24775-7.


Purpose
This paper aims to investigate how entrepreneurial families (EFs) influence the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) by using the family social capital (FSC) approach.


Design/methodology/approach
For this paper, the authors analyzed the Manizales EE as a case study. The authors used a variety of data collection procedures, including in-depth interviews with 26 entrepreneurs and mentors.


Findings
The authors established how EFs affect EE development, identifying how the FSC bridging mechanisms impact the EE’s social and cultural attributes, boosting entrepreneurial dynamics.


Originality/value
The results indicated the relevance of EFs’ embeddedness and the degree of the FSC institutionalization in promoting of entrepreneurship within the EEs.


The role of entrepreneurial families in entrepreneurial ecosystems: the family social capital approach

PurposeInstitutional trust is vital for social and economic activity and crucial in reducing uncertainty for entrepreneurs and society. To shed light on the role of institutional trust on productive entrepreneurial activity, this paper analyses the impact of six urban entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) using the contexts of the transition economies of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. This study aims to pursue the research question: what role does institutional trust play in the relationship between formal institutions and productive entrepreneurship in the EEs of transition economies? This paper aims to posit that the development and enforcement of formal institutions and institutional trust enhance productive entrepreneurship.Design/methodology/approachIn this study, the authors apply a mixed-method approach. The authors’ dataset includes 657 respondents (ecosystem stakeholders) from six city-level entrepreneurial ecosystems in the transition economies of Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, as well as 51 semi-structured interviews from EE representative stakeholders to examine the validity of the findings.FindingsInstitutional trust in many cities has been negatively affected by institutionalised corruption and continuous non-transparent reforms, furthering prior research in developing and transition economies. The authors’ findings suggest that institutional trust can be investigated not as a country phenomenon but as a regional phenomenon extending prior research towards understanding the institutional trust – productive entrepreneurship research domain at the city EE level.Originality/valueThe authors apply the institutional trust perspective to the EEs in cities in order to examine how institutional trust affects productive entrepreneurship in challenging institutional environments. The authors contribute to the literature on institutions and entrepreneurship by using a mixed-method analysis to examine the relationship between formal institutions and institutional trust in the context of EEs in transition economies.

https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/107483/1/paper%20without%20authors%20final%20manuscript_june%2026.pdf

Towards the regional aspects of institutional trust and entrepreneurial ecosystems

PurposeThe Brittelstand are innovative, family-owned firms that offer national and international opportunities in the United Kingdom (UK). These fast-growing businesses are customer-oriented and proud of family ownership and embeddedness of the businesses within communities. While Brittelstand firms are as likely to deploy open innovation models as non-Brittelstand firms, these firms' engagement with customers in regional and national markets and the ability to benefit from this collaboration contrasts with these firms' willingness to engage in open innovation.Design/methodology/approachUsing longitudinal data and regression analysis on 13,876 firms with 24,286 observations over 2004–2020, the authors develop and test a theoretical framework of open innovation in the Brittelstand. The authors' model explains the willingness and ability of the Brittelstand firms to engage in open innovation and benefit from it.FindingsThe authors' results show that Brittelstand firms are less willing than non-Brittelstand firms to collaborate with customers and universities, contrasting prior research on family firms, and distinguishing the innovation model of the Brittelstand from a family business model. The Brittelstand firms who are able to engage in collaboration with customers in domestic markets will outperform the firms' non-Brittelstand counterparts in innovation outputs.Research limitations/implicationsIn line with other studies, this study is associated with several limitations that open opportunities for further research that replicate and/or extends this study. First, this study is unbalanced panel data and the fact that some firms appear in the model only once from 2004–2020. The longitudinal study will allow to enforce causality of the relationship and examines the dynamics of open innovation in the Brittelstand. Second, the indicator on the extent and mechanisms of collaboration with customers could be better explained and measured, for example, using a scale indicator instead of a binary variable for knowledge collaboration across different types of partners and four geographical dimensions.Practical implicationsFirst, Brittelstand firms who are less likely to employ open innovation models nationally and with customers. However, those Brittelstand firms who decide to collaborate with customers nationally are more likely to increase the innovation sales compared to those firms that do not engage in such collaborations? This is an interesting and unexpected finding, which means that low willingness of cross-country and cross-regional collaboration for Brittelstand firms is not optimal and engagement in collaboration with customers in domestic markets is beneficial for innovation. Managers and policymakers may use this finding to design and re-design open innovation strategies managers and policymakers with customers within and across regions in the UK. Second, managers may benefit from the integrated view on the two drivers of firm innovation – collaboration with customers and the local embeddedness of such collaboration.Social implicationsThe authors' results show that Brittelstand firms outperform the firms' non-Brittelstand counterparts by adopting an open model of innovation with customers in domestic markets. This means that the most dynamic and fast growing Brittelstand firms are those who collaborate with customers for new ideas and innovation.Originality/valueThis study describes the phenomenon of the Brittelstand and investigates the link between open knowledge sourcing across different geographical proximities and partners and innovation outputs. First, the authors contribute to open innovation and resource-based view (RBV) literature in family firms by theorizing and empirically testing the open innovation model for the Brittelstand firms. The authors also debate that the Brittelstand firms should overcome this inertia of willingness to collaborate across heterogeneous external partners and convert regional/national embeddedness of the firms with customers into strengths for greater product innovation. Second, the authors contribute to family business literature by explaining how and why the Brittelstand firms can achieve greater innovation outputs. In doing so, the authors draw on the concept of familiness and local embeddedness.

Innovation in family firms: The Brittelstand

The interaction between institutional settings and Entrepreneurial Families (EFs) is two-fold. Extant literature has attempted to understand how institutional settings can affect Family Businesses’...

Miruna Radu-Lefebvre

Papers

Institutional settings and local embeddedness of European Entrepreneurial Families: An inter-regional comparison