Content uploaded by Charis M. Vlados
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Charis M. Vlados on Nov 28, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of World Policy and Development Studies
ISSN(e): 2415-2331, ISSN(p): 2415-5241
Vol. 6, Issue. 7, pp: 115-126, 2020
URL: https://arpgweb.com/journal/journal/11
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32861/ijwpds.67.115.126
Academic Research Publishing
Group
115
Original Research Open Access
From Growth Poles and Clusters to Business Ecosystems Dynamics: The ILDI
Counterproposal
Charis Vlados
Department of Economics, Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece
School of Business, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus
Dimos Chatzinikolaou (Corresponding Author)
Department of Economics, Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece
Email: dimchat@econ.duth.gr
Article History
Received: 18 October, 2020
Revised: 20 November, 2020
Accepted: 25 November, 2020
Published: 27 November, 2020
Copyright © 2020 ARPG &
Author
This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution
International
CC BY: Creative
Commons Attribution License
4.0
Abstract
The study of spatial socio-economic development constitutes a significant field of analysis of innovation creation and
diffusion. Understanding the spatial evolution of the different socio-economic systems in the age of globalization
requires a synthesizing and integrated theoretical approach to how innovation is generated and replicated. This article
aims to study three significant spatial socio-economic development theories –the growth poles, the clusters, and the
business ecosystems. A literature review reveals that (a) the concept of growth poles concerns mostly the analysis of
spatial polarization between specific territories and regions, (b) the clusters concept addresses the issue of developed
inter-industrial competition and co-operation from a meso-level perspective, and (c) the analytical field of business
ecosystems provides an evolutionary approach that can be valorized for all co-evolving spatial socio-economic
organizations. In this context, an eclectically interventional mechanism to strengthen innovation is suggested. The
Institutes of Local Development and Innovation (ILDI) policy is proposed for all firms and business ecosystems, of every
size, level of spatial development, prior knowledge, specialization, and competitive ability. The ILDI is presented as an
intermediate organization capable of diagnosing and enhancing the firm’s physiology in structural Stra.Tech.Man terms
(strategy-technology-management synthesis).
Keywords: Spatial socio-economic development; Business ecosystems; Clusters; Growth poles; Institutes of local development and
innovation (ILDI); Stra tech man physiology.
1. Introduction
The current phase of crisis and restructuring of globalization is an epoch where all economic and business
networks are heading towards rapid mutations and readjustments in all spatial levels: local, regional, national,
international, and global (Andreou et al., 2017; Laudicina and Peterson, 2016; Vlados, 2020). Especially in the
COVID-19 era, where digitization is accelerated with the possible loss of numerous job positions and professions,
adaptation and innovation are fundamental development dimensions for all socio-economic organizations (United
Nations, 2020). From a neo-Schumpeterian perspective, entrepreneurial innovation introduces and intensifies these
changes as it leads to the emergence of new forms of capitalistic efficiency and profitability and the decay of the
older (Chatzinikolaou and Vlados, 2019).
The current structural crisis of the global economy –which some analysts see as the fourth industrial revolution
(Schwab, 2016) – is, ultimately, an evolutionary phase of capitalism, characterized by a continuous innovative
transformation that readjusts the different correlations of power and the standards for efficiency, survival, and
development (Vlados et al., 2018). In this continually altering context, innovation enhancement policies must
occupy a central role in making the economy and the businesses more competitive and driving the different socio-
economic systems to novel and anti-crisis trajectories (Rinkinen and Harmaakorpi, 2019). This evolutionary
approach to change is also the gravest issue that concerns evolutionary economics, attempting to understand the
constant progress and transformation caused by the continuing innovation in the different socio-economic systems
(Nelson et al., 2018).
One of the best practices recognized by the literature to achieve novelty and higher competitive performance is
to create a fertile innovation environment (Aydalot, 1986; Scott and Storper, 2003). The study of socio-economic
reproduction of space in modern local development theory is gaining increasing interest. It explores the evolution of
the internal and external business environment (Boschma and Frenken, 2006), penetrating at the same time into the
firms’ internal organizational dimensions and to the structured external levels. In this sense, the notion of
“glocalization” –global and local synchronically, which indicates that the process of globalization is not a linear
expansion of the global territorial space– reveals that different local entities are capable of surviving by retaining
their diversity within a context of globalized competition (Cecilia de Burgh-Woodman, 2014). Therefore, the
International Journal of World Policy and Development Studies
116
specific spatial socio-economic configuration creates and amasses (or not) innovative potential, whose enhancement
is critical for the further advancement and sophistication of the co-evolving systems, subsystems, and organizations
within the specific environment hosting their actions (Uyarra and Flanagan, 2010).
The theory of growth concentration in particular geographical areas has deep theoretical roots and, especially, in
Alfred Marshall, one of the prominent ancestors of neoclassical orthodoxy in economic science, even though some
scholars also notice the crucial heterodox sides of his work (Hodgson, 1993). Marshall’s chapter on the
concentration of specialized industries in particular localities generated the notion of industrial districts, which is
determined as the gathering of groups of skilled workers who produce a large aggregate output of the same kind
(Marshall, 1890). Marshall also noticed that a localized industry is not by definition a source of positive effects but
could also be disadvantageous by employing only one type of work, thereby causing the factories to congregate in
the outskirts of large towns and manufacturing districts in their neighborhood. Overall, Marshall identifies with this
concept a fundamental source of generalized socio-economic development of each space. According to Becattini
(1990), who revived later the idea, this industrial district is a socio-territorial entity in a historically bounded area
consisting of a community of people and firms.
Therefore, economic geography has been an issue that has occupied the economic thought since at least the
beginning of the 20th century, with the focus of study being the concentration of productive activities in specific
localities. These polarization phenomena are some of the main conceptual components of the growth poles theory,
whose initiation as local development policy can be found after the mid-20th century (Parr, 1999a). However, today,
a paradigmatic change is underway in the economic geography domain, as argued by leading scholarly communities
on the subject (Baycan et al., 2017; Shearmur and Doloreux, 2015). Nowadays, emerging approaches transect the
boundaries of otherwise distinct scientific fields and shed light on spatial issues by exploring the evolutionary and
dialectical interdependencies between the different socio-economic actors (Koutsopoulos, 2011).
Consequently, contrary to the traditional polarization perspective of growth poles, new strategies appear that
target the creation of localities that allow local firms to draw innovative benefits from a particular industry or other
agglomerations and co-evolving networks of firms (Vlados and Chatzinikolaou, 2019b). In particular, the concepts
of clusters and business ecosystems can be examined and compared to explore contemporary pressing issues of local
development and respective policy articulation. This paper aims to investigate these three analytical classes and
determine which parts adjoin as theories of space that can promote innovation in the different socio-economic
systems and actors.
2. Methodology
This study researches these issues from a qualitative perspective and orientation, venturing on a general
examination of the field by indicating and presenting fundamental theoretical points of contributions in the analytical
frameworks of growth poles, clusters, and business ecosystems. In this context, an “integrative literature review” of
the three analytical frameworks is used. According to Snyder (2019), there are three kinds of literature reviews: the
systematic, the semi-systematic, and the integrative. A typical difference between the semi-systematic and the
integrative with the systematic approach is that the former can qualitatively analyze the topic and set broad research
questions, ending up contributing to a new theoretical framework. One of the elements that differentiate the
integrative from the semi-systematic approach is that it can include other research besides articles, such as books or
other published texts. Accordingly, in the integrative, broad, and qualitative literature review of this research, the
following general questions are explored:
i. What dimensions of these theories of spatial development and inter-firm connectedness can be cross-
fertilized towards reinforcing innovation?
ii. Which of these analytical elements and notions can be used for a specific policy of spatial development?
For the needs of this research, specific scholarly databases were explored. The “Scopus” database was used to
search for the relatively recent growth poles literature (2010 and beyond). The keyword “growth poles” was used by
distinguishing approximately ten research works that have this keyword in their title and are conceptual in their
method. Next, the most cited literature of these recent works was discerned, ending with about another ten
publications that constitute the field’s fundamentals. The “disseminating” literature was examined for the analysis of
clusters according to the terminology provided in Lazzeretti et al. (2014). Approximately ten publications before
2010 were picked and analyzed, together with another ten after 2010 that cite recent bibliometric analyses that focus
on a literature review of the clusters’ theoretical domain. For the study of business ecosystems, specific publications
were located in the Google Scholar database, having in common that they cite Moore's (1993) founding work, they
have a high number of citations and a conceptual character. In sum, approximately 20 articles were chosen to be
presented.
In section 3, a general review of the existing literature is attempted, focused on the main theoretical dimensions
of growth poles, clusters, and business ecosystems. The study aims to distinguish fertile and convergent elements
from these approaches that can be used to articulate a new theoretical and policy framework of local development. In
section 4, the prospects of creating and concretizing such an analytical structure are discussed. Finally, in section 5,
the concluding remarks of the research are presented.
International Journal of World Policy and Development Studies
117
3. Evolution of the Basic Ideas in Growth Poles Clusters and Business
Ecosystems Literature
3.1. Growth Poles
The concept of growth poles introduced around the mid-1950s as an effort to interpret the issue of polarized
development in specific geographical areas. In the theory’s foundations, the main idea is that growth manifests at
poles of growth that combine innovations and investments centered on one leading industry, which dominates the
affected socio-economic space (Perroux, 1955). From this foundational analysis, similar approaches and conceptual
orientations begin, focusing mainly on the positive or negative spillover effects between localities.
Initially, Myrdal (1957) suggests that the positive spillovers from developed geographical areas into less
developed areas do not counterbalance the spillovers of negative growth. At the same time, Hirschman (1958) states
that an advanced territory can exert positive or negative effects on the less developed space if the two economies are
complementary or competitive in structure, respectively. Then, Boudeville (1966) focuses on the idea that the growth
pole is a large city composed of a propulsive industry that dominates all other economic actions and creates an
industrial concentration of oligopolistic form. Subsequently, by following a similar thought pattern, Friedmann
(1967) suggests that some core regions act as dominant centers of growth and economic change, while all the other
areas within a given spatial structure are the peripheral ones. More recently, McKee (1987) perceives this
“polarization dialectic” to induce existing growth poles’ stagnation, whose adverse effects can be reduced by
creating service activities.
By reviewing contemporary approaches, some divergence from the initial ideas that formulated this theory can
be noticed. Christofakis and Papadaskalopoulos (2011), suggest that sectoral policies can attract propulsive activities
that mitigate polar concentration. Smékalová et al. (2014) observe large municipalities as innovation growth poles
that can concentrate economic activity and allocate entrepreneurship support, while Bere (2015) suggests that growth
poles policies follow a top-down design to favor the creation of specific institutions. Godlewska-Majkowska et al.
(2016), introduce the idea that a polarized region’s core can also act as an “anti-growth” pole if it enhances crisis
causes. Pysar (2017) argues that industrial concentration can turn some regional areas into growth poles that can
increase the country’s overall socio-economic competitiveness, and Strat and Stefan (2017) view the enhancement of
the weakest geographical regions and industries to lessen the effects of polarization.
Therefore, growth poles continue as a conventional theory of regional analysis, in which the focus is the
polarized industrial reinforcement of a territory or region, which are contrasted with respective spatial entities. The
prevailing industry and its developmental perspectives in a regional area constitute the analytical epicenter because
they lead to positive or negative spillovers that restructure the entire socio-economic space. In this approach, the
economic system is perceived in terms of region, whose planning is exercised top-down necessarily, while the
weakening of polarization between different territories is the desired result. In any case, one of the analytical virtues
of growth poles is based on recognizing the structural importance of industrial concentration that can lead to the
improvement of the overall developmental results at an extra-regional (national and international) level.
3.2. Clusters
The clusters of firms concern mostly the interactions between innovative socio-economic organizations that
transform the geographical locations that host them. The clusters literature originates in the early 1990s by
frequently citing Marshall’s and Becattini’s works. In this approach, the overall structuration of socio-economic
development dynamics is perceived more accurately. According to the idea that Markusen (1996) introduces, a
locally-targeted development strategy is not enough if it does not encompass a broader institutional analysis across
different industrial districts.
Porter (1998;2000) is the author of two of the most cited scientific articles on the subject, defining the clusters
as comprising a wide array of linked industries and geographical concentrations of interlinked firms and institutions
in a specific field. These local groups constitute aggregations in a nation or region that involve highly specialized
skills and knowledge, institutions, rivals, related businesses, and sophisticated customers.
The perspective of the “diamond” is also utilized in Porter’s approach (Porter, 1990; Vlados, 2019b). This
scheme presents a nation’s competitiveness based on the four determinants of firm strategy, structure and rivalry,
demand conditions, related and supporting industries, and factor conditions influenced by the two external
determinants of chance and governmental intervention. Porter uses the diamond to measure the extent and level of
national development based on a series of industrial clusters covering the entire economic activity. When a nation
succeeds in having sources of competitive advantages in all determinants in specific industries, this fact ranks the
country into the innovation-driven economy position, which corresponds to the highest degree of socio-economic
development.
In the general perspective of clusters, McEvily and Zaheer (1999) explore further the procedures of knowledge
and innovation dynamics by suggesting that the firms within geographical groups have a better position to access
new knowledge if they can sustain network ties with specific regional institutions. Gordon and McCann (2000),
observe different models behind spatial concentrations inside industrial clusters, both contradictory and
complementary. For Malmberg and Maskell (2002), the collocation of firms undertaking similar activities increases
the innovative potential. Bathelt et al. (2004), introduce the idea that a dynamic cluster has many actors with
heterogeneous knowledge (a high quality “buzz”) and extra-local knowledge sources (the “pipelines”) that connect
this spatial aggregation to the rest of the world. Storper and Venables (2004), suggest that geographical co-location
(clustering) in high-cost urban centers generates highly skilled people and companies’ agglomerations.
International Journal of World Policy and Development Studies
118
From a critical perspective, Martin and Sunley (2003) accuse the attitude of many policymakers around the
world who have “seized upon” Porter’s cluster model as a tool for promoting innovation and growth without the
desired results. In recent reviews of the cluster literature, Lazzeretti et al. (2014) distinguish the cluster’s multi-
disciplinary and global dimensions as crucial features. Hervas-Oliver et al. (2015) indicate that the cluster literature
intersects the discipline of management and economic geography by attributing increasing significance to the micro-
foundations, while Caloffi et al. (2018) acknowledge the importance attributed to learning, innovation, and value
generation. García‐Lillo et al. (2018) underline the increasing interest and analysis of the processes connecting the
cluster with global value chains, and Lu et al. (2018) the fact that current relative studies are stressing the
significance of micro- and meso-level phenomena, while scholars and policymakers are gaining more knowledge of
why clusters arise and decline. Chain et al. (2019) observe that the measurement of growth in these industrial
clusters often occurs via analyzing the firms’ geographical concentrations and agglomerations.
Thus, from the cluster’s perspective, the evolutionary relations between industries and firms are of primary
importance, with a particular emphasis attributed simultaneously to the sector’s meso-level and the micro-level of
the strategic, technological, and managerial decisions and actions of the trans-spatial operating firms. Even though
micro-level elements of diagnosis and development of entrepreneurship are introduced over the last years, clusters’
main contribution can be located at the necessity of creating global value chains from sophisticated local networks of
technology, creativity, and knowledge diffusion (Lee et al., 2018). Thus, the clusters concept concerns the co-
evolution between industries and businesses primarily. However, the notion of local development potential and
priority remains relatively underutilized in analytical terms.
3.3. Business Ecosystems
The framework of entrepreneurial or business ecosystems constitutes one of the latest theories of spatial
development. The concept of business ecosystems borrows biological elements to highlight the importance of co-
evolving business ties from a cross-sectoral and global perspective. Initially, Moore's (1993) introduced the concept
and noticed similarities with the respective biological ecosystem, whose primary function is to gather dispersed
elements into a structured community. In the ecosystemic analysis, the business world’s organisms constitute co-
evolving communities that must have specific leaders and shared visions (Moore, 1997).
The ecosystem metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson, 1990; McCloskey, 1998), despite signifying the evolutionary
interdependence between firms, it is also a strategic concept, in the sense that “keystone species” exist that define the
overall progress of the business ecosystem (Iansiti and Levien, 2004). According to Peltoniemi and Vuori (2004), a
business ecosystem is a complex and dynamic environment of interconnected organizations, irrespectively of their
size, reach, and development potential. Fragidis et al. (2007) indicate that business ecosystems concentrate
populations of organizations that do not belong in the same industry or supply chain even though they co-evolve and
compete to attract resources and customers. According to Li (2009), a company can reposition its strategy to
promote its interests and improve the ecosystem’s health.
Subsequently, Williamson and Meyer (2012) introduce the idea that business ecosystems are diverse networks
of organizations that can benefit from building loose ties while retaining their corporate focus. Zahra and Nambisan
(2012) point to the similarities between ecological and business ecosystems, which can both change and evolve
towards unpredictable directions, which take significant time to materialize. Rong and Shi (2015) acknowledge that
the participant organizations co-evolve with their environment in the business ecosystem, which has specific
constructive elements and life cycle.
According to Alvedalen and Boschma (2017), entrepreneurship’s biological and ecological view helps
understand the business ecosystem’s structure, whose literature also seems deficient in defining the evolving nature
and spatial scale of institutions of the ecosystem. Cavallo et al. (2019) point out that entrepreneurship is the
equivalent in the business ecosystem to the living organisms of the biological ecosystem, whose action is at the heart
of the system. Rong et al. (2018) link the business ecosystem’s analysis with strategic management, systems
science, and operational research disciplines. Finally, Rinkinen and Harmaakorpi (2018) set out new
entrepreneurship nurturing as a business ecosystem policy’s policy objective.
Overall, business ecosystems’ evolutionary perspective concerns all the actors’ co-evolution that can lead the
socio-economic system to continuous innovation. The micro-level interactions are especially noticed because the
participant organizations’ strategy can transform their external environment and, consequently, their surrounding
economic and social systems. Therefore, the specific space in all its manifestations is examined thoroughly in the
integrated business ecosystem concept (local-regional and global configurations).
3.4. Towards a Conceptual Synthesis
Growth poles, clusters, and business ecosystems are spatial development theories that differ in their analytical
center of gravity. Each one varies in scope, the actors it can mobilize, and policy objectives (Table 1). To this end,
the following conclusions from the literature review can be extracted:
I. Growth poles are about the “leading industry” that dominates the rest industries inside specific spatial
agglomerations, while their driving force is local and regional polarization and geographical concentration.
The actors are the firms in this leading industry within the region. The governance of growth poles is top-
down, and the main policy objective is to mitigate or valorize the effects of negative or positive regional
polarization at a national or international level.
II. Clusters are about an array of industries whose actors are collocated firms. Their driving force is the
agglomeration of high-development potential and innovative firms (usually in high-cost urban areas). Their
International Journal of World Policy and Development Studies
119
knowledge is specialized mostly, and their governance can be both top-down and bottom-up because they
also concern their actors’ capacity to innovate and evolve. The cluster approach’s primary policy objective
is to provide the structural links for the competitiveness of entire industries or industrial agglomerations by
improving their surrounding conditions –supplying, customer, competition, and supporting needs– that
cause and assist their continuous developmental mutation.
III. Business ecosystems are about structured communities of co-evolving participant organizations. Innovation
derives from co-evolving firms’ strategies, and their governance comes from their leaders and their shared
visions. Nurturing innovative entrepreneurship can be a policy objective to lead the business ecosystem to
renewal and competitive survival.
Table-1. Theoretical and practical directions of the analytical frameworks of growth poles, clusters, and business ecosystems
Scope
Actors
Policy objective
Growth poles
Leading
industry
Firms in the leading
industry
Mitigate or valorize the
negative or positive polarization
Clusters
Array of
industries
Agglomerations of firms
Specialized knowledge
Business
ecosystems
Cross-
sectoral
Co-evolving socio-
economic organizations
New entrepreneurship and
innovation
It can be pointed out from this literature review that the business ecosystem concept is more comprehensive than
the other spatial development theories in terms of industrial scope; it may contain various industries, irrespectively
of their competitiveness, size, and developmental prospects. In other words, the spatialized socio-economic system is
treated as an ecosystem that shares elements with its biological counterpart, in which a multitude of “living beings”
survive and compete. In contrast, the analysis of clusters is more linear in nature, as it takes shape as a relatively
highly developed value chain in sophisticated spatialized socio-economic systems, in which the “weakest species”
play a minor role until they acquire specific and more competitive capabilities. In the case of the analysis of the
growth poles, this has its roots in older approaches to spatial development where the power of national champions in
their strictly nation-centric contours was taken for granted. A quantitative depiction of the correlation between this
dominant industrial dynamic and the other spatial economic activities is attempted in this analytical context (Figure
1). Figure-1. From growth poles and clusters to business ecosystems dynamics
Therefore, it seems that an overview of the evolution of these analytical frameworks can show how the theory of
spatial development is transformed over time, also expressed as a policy objective. The analytical class of growth
poles was one of the first systematic frameworks of spatial development policy, focusing on the factors that cause
growth and contraction. In this analysis, it is argued that the dominant industry leads to polarization throughout the
region and that optimal policies should reduce this concentration. Later, the clusters approach emerged as a theory
and policy that focuses on the simultaneous development of localized industries, on the one hand, and from a
perspective of seeking specialized knowledge. The central argument to industrial clusters’ analytical framework and
policies is that these socio-economic and spatial aggregations interact with each other within the globalized system.
The most recent business ecosystem approach, which focuses on the co-evolution of all the spatialized socio-
economic system species, requires the multifaceted and “diagonal” strengthening of entrepreneurship as a necessary
policy condition. Only business innovation forces can provide the potential for survival, development, and
regeneration and renewal of the entire business ecosystem.
International Journal of World Policy and Development Studies
120
4. Towards a New Conception for a Business Ecosystems Spatial Policy
Economic growth differs from economic development. This distinction is necessary to understand the analytical
value and perceive some of the fundamental dissimilarities between growth poles, clusters, and business ecosystems.
According to Perroux (1969), the concept of growth signifies the aggregation of the broadly-defined product
quantities, while development means the cumulative transformation of the economic system’s qualitative and
structural features.
The clusters and the business ecosystems constitute theoretical contributions in economic development mostly,
and they continue to be used as policy instruments, as opposed to the view of growth poles, whose usage has been
minimized (Parr, 1999b). Concerning the approach of business ecosystems, this draws elements from the
evolutionary perception of economics, in which the exploitation of biological metaphors has significant analytical
utility (Zeleny, 1980). In this economic analysis paradigm that borrows from biology, the ways of adaptation of the
firms as socio-economic organisms in their external environment are studied (Geus, 1997; Vlados, 2019a). In this
sense, all firms experience a type of natural lifecycle of birth, development, maturation, and decline. A successful
competitive adaptation and innovation can drive the system towards renewal –and this is the difference between the
economic and the biological systems (Figure 2).
Figure-2. A new generation of innovation can lead a socio-economic organization to rebirth
This lifecycle pattern is common to all socio-economic organizations. A new generation of innovation can lead
to the “rebirth” regardless of whether this is an institution or enterprise. From a Veblenian perspective (Veblen,
1898), institutions are also organisms that behave according to their environment’s specific stimuli. To this end,
following the “Stra.Tech.Man approach” (Vlados, 2004; Vlados and Chatzinikolaou, 2020b), the dialectic of three
central forces within each socio-economic organization specifies its competitive survival and adaptability: the
synthesis of strategy, technology, and management. The Stra.Tech.Man synthesis enables organizations to innovate
and articulate their evolutionary physiology, following the environment’s mutation that hosts them.
The Stra.Tech.Man physiology can provide an analytical spectrum to exploring the business ecosystem’s
operational modalities so that a corresponding policy articulation can effectively nurture the positive evolution of the
entrepreneurial structures. More specifically, internally of each organization that is activated within a spatially-
established socio-economic system, specific questions that concern the strategy, technology, and management are
posed, either implicitly or explicitly, and define the potential for survival and development. The “where am I as an
organization, where do I want to reach, how will I go there, and why” are the dialectical queries of strategy. The
“how do I create, synthesize, diffuse, reproduce the means of my work and expertise, and why” correspond to
technology. Finally, the “how do I make use of my available resources, and why” are the queries that concern the
structuration and restructuration of management (Figure 3).
International Journal of World Policy and Development Studies
121
Figure-3. The Stra.Tech.Man approach
This evolutionary interpretation of innovation means that the way the socio-economic organizations succeed in
answering these profound questions determines, over time, the level of development of the entire socio-economic
system and that its evolutionary adaptation depends ultimately on the innovation that can create and re-create. In this
evolutionary approach, the unfolding of history defines the organization’s physiology dialectically and not just the
will.
Contrary to this physiological perception of the firm’s activity and behavior, in the strategic management
literature and businesses’ daily practice, some simplifying interpretations of the strategic vision and mission are
expressed usually, where, allegedly, a bold and pompous statement can transform the entire organization. This
mishandling can lead to strategic ambiguity or vagueness since there are no leaps of physiology in the lifecycle of
any organism or socio-economic organization (Vlados and Chatzinikolaou, 2019a). In the Stra.Tech.Man approach,
“hybridization” (Sarpong et al., 2017) requires efficient syntheses of the three co-evolving spheres of strategy,
technology, and management, within the readjusted and transformed continuously (and trans-spatially) socio-
economic environment.
The enhancement of “Stra.Tech.Man” physiology, in practice, always necessitates initially the diagnosis of the
level of development of the firms that constitute the business ecosystem. The ecosystem metaphor can be a point of
reference because the practice of clustering is limited to already-developed socio-economic systems, while the
concept of the business ecosystem can be valorized regardless of industry or previous development. The exclusively
top-down perspective of growth poles also does not sufficiently analyze the “cellular” strategy, technology, and
management of the different local actors.
In this direction, the evolutionary interpretation of business ecosystems can be used to introduce a new
perception of boosting local development. The usual practice of local and regional policy, especially in less
developed socio-economic systems, is limited to vertical means to subsidize specific industries and professions. The
strengthening of only national or regional champions can be a myopic approach, which can lead to polarization since
it does not consider all the socio-economic actors and determinants that participate in the creation and re-creation of
innovation (Falck and Heblich, 2007; Hospers, 2005).
The Institutes of Local Development and Innovation (ILDI) can be a policy proposal that places the local
business ecosystems and the firms at the epicenter, at the dynamic micro-level and intermediate meso-level of
different regions and localities (Figure 4). This particular mechanism of boosting the Stra.Tech.Man physiology
could follow a circle of six steps with the ultimate goal of creating innovation and upgrading the action of the local
firm; that is, to operate as a “business clinic” (Aro et al., 2013) that would welcome the “patient” (the firms)
providing consulting based on diagnosing the level of development of the Stra.Tech.Man physiology.
In the first step, the ILDI mechanism could systematically diagnose the external environment in which it is
called to act (A). Next, it could analyze and synthesize the information that collects (B). It could then diffuse the
expertise that it already has acquired through informative local actions towards the firms and the other ecosystem
actors, regardless of whether these entities have direct or indirect investment interest (C). In the fourth and fifth
steps, the ILDI mechanism could be utilized as a carrier for providing consulting and training to implement best
practices and strengthen the firms’ innovative potential in terms of strategy, technology, and management (D and E).
Sixth, it could monitor the complete mechanism’s development results to reintegrate them into the environmental
diagnosis system, restarting the circle of steps (F).
International Journal of World Policy and Development Studies
122
Figure-4. The Institutes of Local Development and Innovation
Different central or regional governments could follow the approach of the ILDI as a development policy
mechanism focusing on the enhancement of the local or regional business ecosystem. In this context, Vlados et al.
(2019) have suggested that this mechanism could work for the case of the less developed Greek region of Eastern
Macedonia and Thrace and its small and medium-sized enterprises. For a comprehensive view of the actors that the
ILDI can interconnect, the triple helix theory of the co-evolution of the institutions of universities, government
policy, and businesses in the regional context can also be useful. Even though it concerns mostly developed regions
where academic institutions exist, the triple helix’s general framework shows that there can be no innovation in the
modern society of knowledge if all three institutions do not communicate and co-evolve. Especially in its regional
context, it is suggested that there must be an intermediating organization to assist the triple helix institutions in
exchanging actors and resources (Altaf et al., 2018; Metcalfe, 2010; Vlados and Chatzinikolaou, 2020a).
In the triple helix, universities are not only involved in their traditional role of conducting and diffusing the
results of scientific research, but they must be “entrepreneurial universities,” in the sense that their output must have
high added value (Etzkowitz and Viale, 2010). On the other hand, the firms must necessarily reinvest a large portion
of their profits in their internal research and development, offering their human resources lifelong education and
learning. The omnipresent government intervention complements the system because it must compose the other
institutional spheres and intervene selectively at all sides, horizontally, vertically, and diagonally (Peneder, 2017;
Torfing et al., 2012).
In conclusion, the proposed ILDI mechanism introduces a perception of policy that could be applied in all kinds
of business ecosystems. It does not distinguish the size of the firm or the ecosystem. It focuses on strengthening the
firm’s physiology and the specific ways the socio-economic organizations manage to synthesize the spheres of
strategy, technology, and management internally.
5. Conclusions and Discussion
In this article, some of the fundamental spatial development theories were examined, focusing on the case of
growth poles, clusters, and business ecosystems. Through the overview of different theoretical perspectives of these
three analytical classes, it was identified that business ecosystems theory contains most of the necessary elements of
the evolutionary approach that can be valorized in making policies for all socio-economic systems, regardless of
their size or stage of development. This finding drove us to combine the biological view of business ecosystems with
the Stra.Tech.Man physiology approach, in which it is suggested that the organizations are entities that synthesize
the spheres of strategy, technology, and management to survive and innovate.
Especially when the mutations of business networks become increasingly fast because of the unfolding fourth
industrial revolution –and the enormous global turmoil in the economic systems brought about by the COVID-19
pandemic– an approach of space that allows the socio-economic organizations to increase their adaptability potential
is crucial. In this context, a policy proposal emerging by the business ecosystem concept was articulated, which can
International Journal of World Policy and Development Studies
123
be open to being exploited for all kinds of spatialized socio-economic formations by utilizing, in tandem, the triple
helix approach.
Overall, the study’s questions were (a) to what extent the analytical frameworks of growth poles, clusters, and
business ecosystems can be cross-fertilized to enhance innovation and (b) how they can be exploited in the context
of a novel policy for local development. To this end, the following notes can be extracted:
a) It was proven that these spatial development theories have converging and complementary elements,
although the ecosystemic perspective can deal with the issue of innovation more thoroughly. While the
policy objectives of growth poles focus on the mitigation of polarization phenomena and while the
respective of clusters on the achievement of specialized knowledge, which requires intensive investment in
capital and R&D, the policies of business ecosystems concern all the actors and determinants that contribute
to innovation and the creation of new entrepreneurship.
b) The co-evolutionary perception of the different participants’ activity in the business ecosystem concept
allows the design of specific policies that could have utility in all socio-economic systems regardless of
their development level. To this end, a composite policy proposal was articulated (the Institutes of Local
Development and Innovation), whose center is the firm’s activity and in which innovation is perceived in
Stra.Tech.Man terms (strategy-technology-management synthesis). This mechanism’s activation could lead
the various spatialized socio-economic formations –and especially the comparatively weaker– towards their
competitiveness strengthening to address their current crisis.
A thorough review of the spatial development theory was not attempted in this analysis, nor the empirical part of
the growth poles, clusters, and business ecosystems approach was examined. Future research could assess the
findings of the best practices of empirical studies on articulating policies based on the theory of growth poles,
clusters, and business ecosystems, therefore testing even more thoroughly their analytical virtues, convergences, and
divergences in the effort to achieve local development and innovation.
Acknowledgment
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Andreas Andrikopoulos, Associate Professor at the
Department of Business Administration of the University of the Aegean, who provided useful comments.
References
Altaf, A., Hassan, I. E. and Batool, S. (2018). The role of ORIC in the evolution of the triple helix culture of
innovation: The case of Pakistan. Technology in Society, 56: 157-66. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.09.014
Alvedalen, J. and Boschma, R. (2017). A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: Towards a future
research agenda. European Planning Studies, 25(6): 887-903. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1299694
Andreou, A., Andrikopoulos, A. and Nastopoulos, C. (2017). Chapter 1 - debt markets, financial crises, and public
finance in the eurozone: Action, structure, and experience in greece. In F. Economou, K. Gavriilidis, G. N.
Gregoriou, and V. Kallinterakis (eds.), handbook of investors’ behavior during financial crises. Academic
Press: London, UK. 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811252-6.00001-3
Aro, P., Heinonen, M., Parkkola, T., Vironmäki, E., Ahola, H., Iso-Aho, J., Järvelä, M.-L., Kerola, R., Reijonen, K.
and Vuorela, T., 2013. "Co-learning service design within the pali project. Servdes." In 2012 Conference
Proceedings Co-Creating Services; The 3rd Service Design and Service Innovation Conference; 8-10
February; Espoo; Finland. pp. 1-7.
Aydalot, P. (1986). Milieux innovateurs en Europe. GREMI: Paris.
Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the
process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1): 31-56 Available:
https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132504ph469oa
Baycan, T., Nijkamp, P. and Stough, R. (2017). Spatial spillovers revisited: Innovation, human capital and local
dynamics. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 41(6): 962-75. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12557
Becattini, G. (1990). The marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion. In F. Pyke, G. Becattini, and W.
Sengenberger (eds.), industrial districts and inter-firm co-operation in Italy. International Institute for
Labour Studies: Switzerland.
Bere, R. C. (2015). Institutional structures in the growth pole policy from Romania, administratie si management
public; Bucharest. 64-86. Available: https://ideas.repec.org/a/rom/rampas/v2015y2015i24p64-86.html
Boschma, R. A. and Frenken, K. (2006). Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an
evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(3): 273-302. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbi022
Boudeville, J.-R. (1966). Problems of regional economic planning. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.
Caloffi, A., Lazzeretti, L. and Sedita, S. R. (2018). The story of cluster as a cross-boundary concept: From local
development to management studies. In F. Belussi and J.-L. Hervas-Oliver (eds.), agglomeration and firm
performance. Springer International Publishing: Cham. 123-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90575-
4_8
International Journal of World Policy and Development Studies
124
Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A. and Balocco, R. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem research: Present debates and future
directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(4): 1291-321. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0526-3
Cecilia de Burgh-Woodman, H. (2014). Homogeneity, “glocalism” or somewhere in between?: A literary
interpretation of identity in the era of globalization. European Journal of Marketing, 48(1/2): 288-313.
Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2011-0132
Chain, C. P., Santos, A. C. d., Castro, L. G. d. and Prado, J. W. d. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of the quantitative
methods applied to the measurement of industrial clusters. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(1): 60-84.
Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12267
Chatzinikolaou, D. and Vlados, C. (2019). Evolutionary economics and the Stra.Tech.Man approach of the firm into
globalization dynamics. Business, Management and Economics Research, 5(10): 146-60. Available:
https://doi.org/10.32861/bmer.510.146.160
Christofakis, M. and Papadaskalopoulos, A. (2011). The growth poles strategy in regional planning: The recent
experience of Greece. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 6(2): 5-20.
Etzkowitz, H. and Viale, R. (2010). Polyvalent knowledge and the entrepreneurial university: A third academic
revolution? Critical Sociology, 36(4): 595-609. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920510365921
Falck, O. and Heblich, S. (2007). Do we need national champions? If so, do we need a champions-related industrial
policy? An evolutionary perspective. In Jena Economic Research Papers (No. 2007–088; Jena Economic
Research Papers) Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena. Available: https://ideas.repec.org/p/jrp/jrpwrp/2007-
088.html
Fragidis, G., Koumpis, A. and Tarabanis, K. (2007). The impact of customer participation on business ecosystems.
In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, P. Novais, and C. Analide (Eds.), establishing the foundation
of collaborative networks. Springer US: New York. 399-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73798-
0_42
Friedmann, J. (1967). A general theory of polarized development [Urban and regional advisory program in Chile].
Santiago, Chile: The Ford Foundation. https://repositorio.cepal.org//handle/11362/34953
García‐Lillo, F., Claver‐Cortés, E., Marco‐Lajara, B., Úbeda‐García, M. and Seva‐Larrosa, P. (2018). On clusters
and industrial districts: A literature review using bibliometrics methods, 2000-2015. Papers in Regional
Science, 97(4): 835-61. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12291
Geus, A. d. (1997). The living company: Growth, learning and longevity in business. Nicholas Brealey: London.
Godlewska-Majkowska, H., Komor, A. and Typa, M. (2016). Special Economic Zones as growth and anti-growth
poles as exemplified by Polish regions. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 4(4): 189-212.
Available: https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2016.040412
Gordon, I. R. and McCann, P. (2000). Industrial clusters: Complexes, agglomeration and/or social networks? Urban
Studies, 37(3): 513-32. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098002096
Hervas-Oliver, J.-L., Gonzalez, G., Caja, P. and Sempere-Ripoll, F. (2015). Clusters and industrial districts: Where
is the literature going? Identifying emerging sub-fields of research. European Planning Studies, 23(9):
1827-72. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1021300
Hirschman, A. O. (1958). The strategy of economic development. Yale University Press.: New Haven; London.
Hodgson, G. (1993). The mecca of Alfred marshall. The Economic Journal, 103(417): 406-15. Available:
https://doi.org/10.2307/2234779
Hospers, G.-J. (2005). Best practices’ and the dilemma of regional cluster policy in Europe. Tijdschrift Voor
Economische En Sociale Geografie, 96(4): 452-57. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9663.2005.00476.x
Iansiti, M. and Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for
strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
Koutsopoulos, K. (2011). Changing paradigms of geography. European Journal of Geography, 1(1): 54-75.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1990). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Laudicina, P. A. and Peterson, E. R. (2016). From globalization to islandization (global business policy council
(gbpc) /research report, p. 26). Atkearney. Available: https://www.atkearney.com/web/global-business-
policy-council/article?/a/from-globalization-to-islandization
Lazzeretti, L., Sedita, S. R. and Caloffi, A. (2014). Founders and disseminators of cluster research. Journal of
Economic Geography, 14(1): 21-43. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbs053
Lee, K., Szapiro, M. and Mao, Z. (2018). From Global Value Chains (GVC) to innovation systems for local value
chains and knowledge creation. The European Journal of Development Research, 30(3): 424-41. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-017-0111-6
Li, Y.-R. (2009). The technological roadmap of Cisco’s business ecosystem. Technovation, 29(5): 379-86.
Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.01.007
Lu, R., Reve, T., Huang, J., Jian, Z. and Chen, M. (2018). A literature review of cluster theory: Are relations among
clusters important? Journal of Economic Surveys, 32(4): 1201-20. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12255
Malmberg, A. and 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): 429-49. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1068/a3457
International Journal of World Policy and Development Studies
125
Markusen, A. (1996). Sticky places in slippery space: A typology of industrial districts. Economic Geography,
72(3): 293-313. Available: https://doi.org/10.2307/144402
Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics. Macmillan: London.
Martin, R. and Sunley, P. (2003). Deconstructing clusters: Chaotic concept or policy panacea? Journal of Economic
Geography, 3(1): 5-35. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/3.1.5
McCloskey, D. N. (1998). The rhetoric of economics. University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, Wis.
McEvily, B. and Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities.
Strategic Management Journal, 20(12): 1133-56. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0266(199912)20:12<1133::AID-SMJ74>3.0.CO;2-7
McKee, D. L. (1987). On services and growth poles in advanced economies. The Service Industries Journal, 7(2):
165-75. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/02642068700000017
Metcalfe, A. S. (2010). Examining the trilateral networks of the triple helix: Intermediating organizations and
academy-industry-government relations. Critical Sociology, 36(4): 503-19. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920510365920
Moore's, J. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3): 75-86.
Moore, J. (1997). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. Harper
Business: New York, US.
Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic theory and underdeveloped regions. Duckworth: London.
Nelson, R., Dosi, G., Helfat, C., Winter, S., Pyka, A., Saviotti, P., Lee, K., Malerba, F. and Dopfer, K. (2018).
Modern evolutionary economics: An overview. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108661928
Parr, J. B. (1999a). Growth-pole strategies in regional economic planning: A retrospective view: Part 1. Origins and
advocacy. Urban Studies, 36(7): 1195-215. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098993187
Parr, J. B. (1999b). Growth-pole strategies in regional economic planning: A retrospective view: Part 2.
Implementation and outcome. Urban Studies, 36(8): 1247-68. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098992971
Peltoniemi, M. and Vuori, E., 2004. "Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive business
environments." In EBusiness Research Forum. pp. 267-81.
Peneder, M. (2017). Competitiveness and industrial policy: From rationalities of failure towards the ability to evolve.
Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(3): 829-58. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bew025
Perroux, F. (1955). Note sur les notion de pole de croissance [Notes on the growth pole notion]. Economie
Appliquee, 7(1-2): 307-20.
Perroux, F. (1969). L’économie du XXe siècle [The economy of the 20th century]. Presses Universitaires de France:
Paris, France.
Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. 1st edn: Free Press: New York.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11336-1
Porter, M. (1998). Location, clusters, and the “new” microeconomics of competition. Business Economics, 33(1): 7-
13.
Porter, M. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic
Development Quarterly, 14(1): 15-34. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/089124240001400105
Pysar, N. (2017). Application of the methodology for determining the “growth poles” of the region’s industrial
economy in the system of public administration. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 15(4): 72-85.
Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(4).2017.07
Rinkinen, S. and Harmaakorpi, V. (2018). The business ecosystem concept in innovation policy context: Building a
conceptual framework. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 31(3): 333-49
Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2017.1300089
Rinkinen, S. and Harmaakorpi, V. (2019). Business and innovation ecosystems: Innovation policy implications.
International Journal of Public Policy, 15(3-4): 248-65. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPP.2019.103038
Rong, K. and Shi, Y. (2015). Business ecosystems: Constructs, configurations, and the nurturing process. Palgrave
Macmillan: London; New York.
Rong, K., Lin, Y., Li, B., Burström, T., Butel, L. and Yu, J. (2018). Business ecosystem research agenda: More
dynamic, more embedded, and more internationalized. Asian Business and Management, 17(3): 167-82.
Available: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-018-0038-6
Sarpong, D., AbdRazak, A., Alexander, E. and Meissner, D. (2017). Organizing practices of university, industry and
government that facilitate (or impede) the transition to a hybrid triple helix model of innovation.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123: 142-52. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.032
Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution. Crown Business: New York.
Scott, A. and Storper, M. (2003). Regions, globalization, development. Regional Studies, 37(6-7): 579-93. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000108697a
Shearmur, R. and Doloreux, D. (2015). Central places or networks? Paradigms, metaphors, and spatial
configurations of innovation-related service use. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 47(7):
1521-39. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15595770
International Journal of World Policy and Development Studies
126
Smékalová, L., Hrabinová, S. and Habuda, M. (2014). Spatial distribution of competitiveness support in the Slovakia
in relation to growth poles and small and medium enterprises. Scientific Papers of the University of
Pardubice, Series D: Faculty of Economics and Administration, 21(30): 95-106.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business
Research, 104: 333-39. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Storper, M. and Venables, A. J. (2004). Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic
Geography, 4(4): 351-70. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlecg/lbh027
Strat, V. A. and Stefan, C. (2017). The growth poles and the lagging regions of Romania - a county level approach
for 2015. Management and Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 12(3): 456-73. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1515/mmcks-2017-0028
Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J. and Sørensen, E. (2012). Horizontal, vertical, and diagonal governance. Oxford
University Press: Oxford, New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199596751.003.0006
United Nations (2020). Global humanitarian response plan: COVID-19 (united nations coordinated appeal: April –
december 2020). Available: https://www.unocha.org/sites/unocha/files/Global-Humanitarian-Response-
Plan-COVID-19.pdf
Uyarra, E. and Flanagan, K. (2010). From Regional systems of innovation to regions as innovation policy spaces.
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(4): 681-95. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1068/c0961
Veblen, T. (1898). Why is economics not an evolutionary science? . The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12(4):
373-97. Available: https://doi.org/10.2307/1882952
Vlados, C. (2004). La dynamique du triangle stratégie, technologie et management: L’insertion des entreprises
grecques dans la globalisation [The dynamics of the strategy, technology and management triangle: The
integration of Greek enterprises into globalization. Thèse de doctorat de Sciences Économiques,
Université de Paris X-Nanterre. http://www.theses.fr/2004PA100022
Vlados, C. (2019a). Change management and innovation in the “living organization: The Stra.Tech.Man approach.
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 7(2): 229-56. Available:
https://doi.org/10.25019/MDKE/7.2.06
Vlados, C. (2019b). Porter’s diamond approaches and the competitiveness web. International Journal of Business
Administration, 10(5): 33-52. Available: https://doi.org/10.5430/ijba.v10n5p33
Vlados, C. (2020). The dynamics of the current global restructuring and contemporary framework of the US–China
trade war. Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies, 12(1): 4-23. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0974910119896636
Vlados, C. and Chatzinikolaou, D. (2019a). Business ecosystems policy in Stra.Tech.Man terms: The case of the
Eastern Macedonia and Thrace region. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 15(3):
163-97. Available: https://doi.org/10.7341/20191536
Vlados, C. and Chatzinikolaou, D. (2019b). Developments on helix theory: Exploring a micro-evolutionary
repositioning in Stra.Tech.Man terms. International Journal of World Policy and Development Studies,
5(10): 87-99. Available: https://doi.org/10.32861/ijwpds.510.87.99
Vlados, C. and Chatzinikolaou, D. (2020a). Advancements on helix theory and the Stra.Tech.Man approach:
Towards a new synthesis. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 13(2): 136-52.
Available: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMCP.2020.109356
Vlados, C. and Chatzinikolaou, D. (2020b). Stra.Tech.Man innovation, HRM and perception of educational needs in
underdeveloped business ecosystems: The case of retail sector firms in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace.
International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 10(2): 330-54. Available:
https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v10i2.17139
Vlados, C., Deniozos, N. and Chatzinikolaou, D. (2018). Global crisis, innovation and change management:
Towards a new systemic perception of the current globalization restructuring. International Business
Research, 11(8): 9-29. Available: https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v11n8p9
Vlados, C., Katimertzopoulos, F., Chatzinikolaou, D., Deniozos, N. and Koutroukis, T. (2019). Crisis, innovation,
and change management in less developed local business ecosystems: The case of eastern Macedonia and
Thrace. Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business, 19(2): 114-40.
Williamson, P. J. and Meyer, A. D. (2012). Ecosystem advantage: How to successfully harness the power of
partners. California Management Review, 55(1): 24-46. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.55.1.24
Zahra, S. A. and Nambisan, S. (2012). Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business ecosystems. Business
Horizons, 53(3): 219-29. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.12.004
Zeleny, M. (1980). Autopoiesis: A theory of living organizations. N.Y: Elsevier Science Ltd.: New York.
