Content uploaded by Yeşim Sirakaya
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yeşim Sirakaya on Nov 06, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Social Science and Human Research
ISSN (print): 2644-0679, ISSN (online): 2644-0695
Volume 07 Issue 10 October 2024
DOI: 10.47191/ijsshr/v7-i10-96, Impact factor- 7.876
Page No: 8071-8083
IJSSHR, Volume 07 Issue 10 October 2024 www.ijsshr.in Page 8071
The Power of Innovation: Entrepreneurship Ecosystem,
Components, Research and Start-Up Approaches and the
Development Process of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in
Turkey
Assoc. Prof. Yeşim SIRAKAYA1 , İsmail ASLANLAR2
1St. Clements University Psychology Department Faculty Member Orcid ID: 0009-0004-2558-8194
2St. Clements University Business Management PhD Student Orcid ID: 0009-0004-8623-0962
ABSTRACT: This article, under the title "The Power of Innovation: Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, Components, Research and Start-
up Approaches and the Development Process of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Turkey", examines how Turkey's dynamic
entrepreneurship environment is shaped by innovation and the important components in this process. While entrepreneurship has a
critical role in economic development and social transformation, innovation stands out as the main driving force of this process.
First of all, Turkey's young and educated population, increasing digitalization and access to technology strengthen the
entrepreneurial culture and create new business opportunities. In the article, the basic elements of the innovation ecosystem in
Turkey, namely the interactions between universities, public institutions, the private sector and entrepreneurs, are discussed in detail.
Additionally, the difficulties faced by entrepreneurs in Turkey are analyzed through factors such as limited financial resources,
inadequate mentoring and training opportunities. In this context, the effects of the state's innovation strategies, incentive mechanisms
and entrepreneurship support programs are examined. For example, the contributions of the supports provided by organizations such
as KOSGEB and TÜBİTAK to the realization of entrepreneurs' projects are emphasized. In the article, the contribution of
international collaborations and foreign investments to Turkey's innovation ecosystem is discussed, thus focusing on its
competitiveness potential in the global market. Additionally, successful domestic enterprise examples are supported by concrete
data showing how innovation and entrepreneurship create synergy. As a result, the development of the entrepreneurship ecosystem
in Turkey is directly linked to the power of innovation. In order to create a sustainable innovation environment, the need for
continuous support, training and policy development comes to the fore. This article aims to provide readers with a comprehensive
perspective by presenting the paths and strategies to be followed to maximize Turkey's entrepreneurial potential.
KEYWORDS: Entrepreneurship, innovation, Turkey, ecosystem, entrepreneurial culture, public policies, private sector, financial
support programs, technology, university-industry cooperation, competitiveness, social transformation, entrepreneur supports,
foreign investments.
INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurship is considered one of the basic building blocks of modern economies. Entrepreneurs who stimulate economic
growth, create employment and respond to social needs by producing innovative solutions are the most important actors that
determine the competitiveness level of countries. In this context, innovation; It emerges as the driving force of entrepreneurship
through the development of new products, services and processes. Innovation is critical not only for economic development but also
for social transformation and sustainability. Turkey is on the way to having a remarkable entrepreneurship ecosystem with its young
and dynamic population, increasing access to technology and a wide market potential. In recent years, entrepreneurial activities in
Turkey have increased rapidly, and many entrepreneurs have begun to gain a foothold in the market with innovative business models
and technologies. However, the difficulties and obstacles encountered in this process endanger the sustainability of entrepreneurship.
Factors such as insufficient financing, lack of training and market uncertainties make it difficult for entrepreneurs to implement
their innovative projects. The aim of this article is to examine in depth the relationship between innovation and the entrepreneurship
ecosystem in Turkey. It is aimed to understand the dynamics of this ecosystem through components such as Turkey's current
innovation strategies, public and private sector collaborations, and university-industry interaction. Additionally, the steps and
suggestions necessary to increase Turkey's innovation potential will also be discussed. As a result, this study aims to reveal what an
important role innovation plays in the development of Turkey's entrepreneurship ecosystem and to draw attention to the current
The Power of Innovation: Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, Components, Research and Start-Up Approaches and the
Development Process of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Turkey
IJSSHR, Volume 07 Issue 10 October 2024 www.ijsshr.in Page 8072
problems in this field. Supporting entrepreneurs and implementing innovative ideas will increase Turkey's competitiveness in the
international market and make economic development sustainable.
AIM
The main purpose of this article is to examine in depth how the entrepreneurship ecosystem in Turkey interacts with innovation and
the challenges encountered in this process. The determined objectives can be listed as follows:
Analysis of the Relationship between Innovation and Entrepreneurship: To emphasize the decisive role of innovation on
entrepreneurship by examining the innovative approaches of entrepreneurs in Turkey and the economic effects of these approaches.
Evaluation of Ecosystem Components: By analyzing the basic components of the innovation ecosystem in Turkey (universities,
public institutions, private sector and entrepreneurs), understanding how the interactions between these actors work.
Identification of Difficulties Encountered: To identify the main problems that entrepreneurs face in implementing their innovative
projects, such as lack of financing, lack of education and market uncertainties, and develop suggestions to overcome these difficulties.
Role of Public Policies: To examine the state's policies that support entrepreneurship and innovation, evaluate the effectiveness of
these policies and offer improvement suggestions when necessary.
Examining Success Examples: To support the effects of innovation on entrepreneurship with concrete data by analyzing successful
enterprise examples in Turkey and to evaluate the repeatability of these successes.
Strategies for Sustainable Development: To determine the strategies necessary to increase Turkey's innovation potential and to make
suggestions to ensure the sustainability of the entrepreneurship ecosystem.
In line with these aims, the article aims to provide an in-depth analysis of Turkey's entrepreneurship ecosystem's relationship with
innovation, aims to raise readers' awareness on this subject and guide future research.
METHOD
In this study, the literature review method was used to understand the relationship between innovation and the entrepreneurship
ecosystem in Turkey. Literature review is a widely used research method to compile, analyze and interpret existing information and
data on a particular topic. This method was carried out in the following stages in accordance with the purpose of the study:
Identification of Sources: First of all, academic articles, books, reports and other scientific sources covering entrepreneurship and
innovation issues in Turkey were identified. These sources were scanned through university libraries, academic databases (Google
Scholar, JSTOR, Sciencedirect, etc.) and publications of national and international organizations.
Data Collection: Data obtained from specified sources focused on the situation of entrepreneurship and innovation in Turkey,
ecosystem components, current challenges and government policies. Additionally, successful startup examples and relevant
statistics were also collected, contributing to the in-depth analysis of the study.
Data Analysis: The collected data was systematically examined using the content analysis method. In this process, information
obtained from different sources was compared and synthesized. An in-depth evaluation was made on the effects of innovation on
entrepreneurship by determining the similarities and differences between different views, theories and approaches in the literature.
Interpretation of Results: The findings obtained as a result of the literature review provide a comprehensive framework about the
current status, challenges and potential solutions of Turkey's entrepreneurship ecosystem. The data obtained was analyzed and
interpreted for the purpose of the article.
With this method, it is aimed to understand the interaction between entrepreneurship and innovation in Turkey and to identify
existing knowledge gaps in this field. The literature review allowed for an in-depth examination of the topic and laid a solid
foundation for future research.
RESULTS
In discussions on the concepts of entrepreneur and entrepreneurship, Schumpeter (1934) defines entrepreneurs as individuals who
implement innovations, focusing on the concept of innovation. Knight (1921), on the other hand, discussed entrepreneurship from
the perspective of motivation and emphasized that not all initiatives will succeed and some will fail. However, since it cannot be
predicted which initiatives will be successful and which will fail, Knight focused on mistakes and uncertainties when explaining
entrepreneurship (Brouwer, 2002). Baumol (1968) defined entrepreneurs as people who are at the highest level of the hierarchy that
shapes the behavior of the firm and bear great responsibility for the dynamism of the enterprise community. Schumpeter (1934) and
Knight (1921) brought the entrepreneur to life and assigned him a certain field of activity. Baumol (1968) defines entrepreneurship
as the discovery of new ideas, their implementation, leadership and inspiration, and states that this is more than Schumpeterian
innovation. While Stough (2016) generally considers entrepreneurship as the process of establishing and developing a business, he
defines entrepreneurs as people who establish and grow a business in this process.
The Power of Innovation: Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, Components, Research and Start-Up Approaches and the
Development Process of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Turkey
IJSSHR, Volume 07 Issue 10 October 2024 www.ijsshr.in Page 8073
In the entrepreneurship literature, entrepreneurial roles and types have been discussed in various ways. Dollinger (2008:7) stated
that the definition of entrepreneurship is as diverse as the number of authors on the subject and stated that this term is of French
origin and means "undertaker".
There is no consensus among researchers about the precise definition of entrepreneurship and the role of entrepreneurs (Amit,
Glosten, Muller, 1993). Shane and Venkataraman (2000) emphasize that entrepreneurship cannot be explained solely based on the
characteristics of certain individuals and by referring to these individuals. Additionally, the authors state that entrepreneurship
studies are nowadays handled with specific aspects such as small businesses or new firms, rather than a conceptual framework.
Therefore, the authors argue that the biggest obstacle to creating a conceptual framework in the field of entrepreneurship comes
from the definition itself.
A. Entrepreneurship Ecosystem
Similar to biological ecosystems, a business ecosystem consists of networks of loosely connected organizations. Every species in
biological systems, regardless of its apparent strength, shares the general fate of the network. Ecosystem components are in constant
interaction; The health and performance of each component and the actors within it depend on the health of the overall system.
Every action of institutions can positively or negatively affect the general situation of this network. Actors are expected to take on
different roles and exhibit a heterogeneous structure, significantly influencing each other in terms of stability and productivity
(Heikkilä, Kuivaniemi 2012; Iansiti, Levien 2004).
Although the term ecosystem is based on the metaphor of biology, at a certain point it has a conscious guiding function.
This represents a transition from a random process, as in biological systems, to a more structured system. Business communities are
social systems, unlike coevolving communities of biological organisms; These social systems consist of people making decisions
and are interconnected by a complex network of choices. Business ecosystems concentrate on the new capital, customer interest and
talent pool created by innovation, just as successful species are nourished by different natural resources (Moore 1993). Stough (2016)
also states that the ecology metaphor is a good concept for describing complex systems, as well as assuming inputs and outputs that
include feedback between humans and nature.
The strategy of the entrepreneurship ecosystem focuses on the components and development processes that make up this
ecosystem. This strategy gains importance due to the need to explain the complex and unique developments of ecosystems (Isenberg
2011). The rapid growth experienced along with technological advances has led many people in the traditional business environment
to question their business networks, and in this process has clearly shown that they jointly share the fate of the network they are in
(Iansiti, Levien 2004). Economic development and growth of the entrepreneurial ecosystem are a result of complex entrepreneurial
processes; Many initiatives develop in interaction with each other and environmental factors (Neck et al. 2004). In the process of
emergence of new organizations, important moments in the process of companies reproducing time and context can have dramatic
effects on the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Audretsch and Belitski (2017) define the entrepreneurial ecosystem as factors that define entrepreneurial opportunities and
influence their commercialization, along with institutional and organizational systems. Gauthier et al. (2018), in a more technical
interpretation, defined the ecosystem around shared resource pools within a 100 km radius, usually around the center point in a
given region, with a few exceptions based on local reality. Bringing together the definitions in the literature, Mason and Brown
(2014) define potential and existing interconnected entrepreneurial actors as entrepreneurial institutions (firms, venture capitalists,
angel investment networks, banks), institutions (universities, public institutions, financial institutions) and entrepreneurial processes.
They put forward their own definitions.
Malecki (2018) stated that there was a transition from entrepreneurship environment and similar concepts to the concept
of entrepreneurship ecosystem, according to research conducted in Web of Science and Scopus databases in October 2017. The
research has shown that the terms entrepreneurial environment or similar terms were widely used from the 1970s to 2015, whereas
entrepreneurial ecosystem emerged in the 2000s and became dominant from 2016 onwards.
Cohen (2005) defines a sustainable entrepreneurship ecosystem as a group of interconnected actors in a local geographical
community that promotes sustainable development through the support and facilitation of new ventures. Mack and Mayer (2016)
define the entrepreneurial ecosystem as interactive components that support new firm formation in a specific regional context.
Additionally, the authors emphasize that regions with high entrepreneurial activities should be considered as a system (Neck et al.
2004; Mack, Mayer 2016). While firms producing new organizations show that time and context can be important in this
reproduction process, they also reveal that certain critical moments can create dramatic effects within the entrepreneurial ecosystem
(Neck et al. 2004).
Isenberg (2010) states that ignoring the interconnections of ecosystem components can have negative consequences.
However, there is still limited understanding of how successful entrepreneurial ecosystems form and develop. “Chicken and Egg ”
questions such as whether businesses arrive at the pre- or post-financing stage, how clusters begin in these regions, and why some
regions successfully adapt to technological changes while others fail are not adequately addressed (Mason, Brown 2014). Iansiti
The Power of Innovation: Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, Components, Research and Start-Up Approaches and the
Development Process of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Turkey
IJSSHR, Volume 07 Issue 10 October 2024 www.ijsshr.in Page 8074
and Levien (2004) propose three critical criteria for assessing a healthy ecosystem: i) productivity, ii) resilience, iii) core
organizational advantage.
B. Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Approaches
One of the most important issues regarding entrepreneurship is the mapping and measurability of the ecosystem. With support from
the UK Department for International Development (DFID) for mapping efforts, the Aspen Network for Development Entrepreneurs
(ANDE) has developed a variety of tools and resources to reveal entrepreneurial ecosystems. ANDE (2013) examined nine different
ecosystem approaches. These are:
1) Babson College - Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project,
2) Council on Competitiveness - Asset Mapping Roadmap,
3) George Mason University - Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index,
4) Hwang, V.H. - Innovation Rain Scheme,
5) Koltai and Company - Six + Six,
6) GSM Association – Information and Communication Technologies Entrepreneurship,
7) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development - Entrepreneurship Measurement Framework,
8) World Bank - Doing Business,
9) World Economic Forum - Entrepreneurship Ecosystem.
Research on entrepreneurship ecosystems in developed and developing countries focuses on calculating the factors that may affect
entrepreneurship and the interactions of these factors with each other with a multidimensional measurement approach.
Entrepreneurship is seen as a tool for socio-economic development goals, which reveals the need to measure the impact of local
entrepreneurial activities. For this purpose, the OECD Entrepreneurship Indicators Program was developed with the support of the
Kauffman Foundation. In this program, three main elements are defined for the evaluation of the ecosystem: determinants,
entrepreneurial performance and impact (ANDE, 2013).
C. Start-up Concept
Before moving on to explanations about the entrepreneurship ecosystem, it is important to make a brief definition of the concept of
"start-up", which constitutes the sample group of the research. Although start-up has several features that differ from general forms
of entrepreneurship, it is not independent of the basic concepts of entrepreneurship.
The European Commission defines SMEs according to the number of staff and turnover or balance sheet total. However,
since start-ups may have more employees and their initial capital and financing sources are different compared to SMEs, measuring
their turnover becomes difficult. For this reason, the European Union states that there is no official definition for start-up; However,
it states that the criteria of age (younger than 5 or 10 years, depending on the sector), innovation (product, service or business model)
and scalability (intention to expand the number of employees and the markets in which it operates) can be used.
Cukier, Kon, and Lyons (2016) state that the term "start-up ecosystem" appeared in the literature around 2005 and has
increased rapidly since 2010, according to Google Scholar. This shows that the start-up ecosystem has become an important element
for innovation by transforming technology and traditional business systems with mobile systems and the internet. Cukier, Kon and
Lyons (2016), Gauthier et al. (2018), defines the start-up ecosystem as a complex system consisting of people, initiatives and various
supporting organizations that interact to create new start-up companies and develop existing ones. This ecosystem covers a limited
area within a 30-mile (or one-hour travel) range.
Tripathi et al. (2018) analyzed articles and internet resources focusing on the start-up ecosystem and found that a start-up
ecosystem operates in the environment of a specific region. This ecosystem, where entrepreneurs and supporting organizations
collaborate to create new ventures and guide existing ones, is a system in which entrepreneurs, investors, and other stakeholders
interact through collaborative networks with government and supporting organizations. Additionally, this ecosystem supports the
creation of an infrastructure aimed at domestic product development and employment creation on a larger scale. Feld (2012: 186-
187) collected the characteristics of successful start-up ecosystems under nine headings.
Leadership: A strong group of entrepreneurs who are visible, accessible and committed to making the region a great place
to start and grow a company.
Intermediaries: The existence of effective, visible, well-integrated accelerators and incubators, as well as many respected
advisors and mentors present across all stages, sectors, demographics and geographies.
Network Density: Deep, well-connected community of start-ups and entrepreneurs, as well as engaged and visible investors,
advisors, mentors and supporters.
Government: Strong government support and understanding for those new to economic growth, as well as the availability
of supportive policies covering economic development, tax and investment instruments.
The Power of Innovation: Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, Components, Research and Start-Up Approaches and the
Development Process of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Turkey
IJSSHR, Volume 07 Issue 10 October 2024 www.ijsshr.in Page 8075
Talent: Broad, deep talent pool for employees at all levels across all industries and specializations.
Support Services: Integrated, accessible, effective and affordable professional services (legal, accounting, real estate,
insurance and consulting).
Corporations: Special departments and programs to encourage collaboration with high-growth startups created by large
corporations.
Capital: Strong, concentrated and supportive venture capitalists, angels, seed investors who are visible and accessible across
industry, demographics and geography.
D. Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, Components and Research Conducted
Entrepreneurship ecosystem studies provide important information about the components of the ecosystem (Cohen, 2006; Isenberg,
2011; Motoyama & Knowlton, 2016). In strategic management, measuring the performance of companies relative to their
competitors is not sufficient when evaluating entrepreneurial performance. Because opportunity costs such as time, capital and
uncertainty arise in entrepreneurship. Therefore, the unique nature of entrepreneurial ecosystems has led previous studies to
investigate their key components and actors (Cohen, 2006; Adly & Khatib, 2014; Neck et al., 2004; Arruda et al., 2013).
Relationships and networks also include flows from sources outside the local ecosystem. This depends on the fact that the basic
structure in the entrepreneurship ecosystem is the system (Malecki, 2018). Mason and Brown (2014) state that there are limitations
in determining the general characteristics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. They also note that ecosystems arise in unique conditions
and the time dimension is ignored. Entrepreneurial ecosystems often develop in areas with local assets (Mason & Brown, 2014).
Reinforcing approaches to bringing ecosystem components together can be an effective strategy; however, the presence of
key ingredients such as entrepreneurs, financing, and mentors may not support growth (Mack & Mayer, 2016). Neck et al. (2004)
identified six major components in the Boulder County ecosystem: incubators, subsidiaries, formal and informal networks, physical
infrastructure, and culture. These components are all interrelated and part of the Boulder County entrepreneurial system. In their
research in the Phoenix ecosystem, Mack and Mayer (2016) focused on documenting the existence of components and argued that
the interdependencies between the evolutionary dynamics of components are poorly understood. They emphasized that job creation
is linked to issues such as market development, human capital, finance, culture and support, as well as the relational aspects of the
economy.
Cohen (2006) examined the potential for developing a sustainable entrepreneurship ecosystem in the Victorian
entrepreneurship ecosystem. In his research, he analyzed the ecosystem within the framework of social networks, formal and
informal networks. In this study, it was found that various challenges were effective in achieving the goal. Heikkilä and Kuivaniemi
(2012) suggest that an expanding ecosystem can be analyzed by considering six different sub-ecosystems: technology, research,
customer demands, competitors, social environment, legal and political environment. Motoyama and Knowlton (2016) examined
the interactions between entrepreneurs and support organizations by considering the entrepreneurship ecosystem with a social
network approach. They emphasized that the components of successful entrepreneurial ecosystems may vary at different stages.
Mack and Mayer (2016) stated the importance of factors such as market opportunities, human and financial capital in the startup
phase. In the Phoenix ecosystem, the scarcity of success stories and the lack of elements such as mentoring stand out as a critical
problem.
Heikkilä and Kuivaniemi (2012) stated that most startups at the seed stage fail, but these startups can be revived with an
ecosystem that supports growth. To create an ecosystem that will support the growth of startups, it is important to identify the
organizations or actors that need to be included in the ecosystem. Otherwise, as researchers such as Iansiti and Levien (2004) point
out, trying to draw the boundaries of an ecosystem will remain only an academic exercise. Shane and Venkataraman (2000) argue
that in equilibrium models, entrepreneurial opportunities either do not exist or are randomly distributed throughout the population.
In this model, since individuals cannot see the opportunities discovered by others, who will become an entrepreneur depends only
on individual characteristics. However, the ecosystem approach emphasizes that the elements that make up a country's
entrepreneurial ecosystem consist of many elements that interact in unique ways. For example, the Israeli entrepreneurial ecosystem
developed based on military needs despite its lack of natural resources. Ireland has strengthened its entrepreneurial ecosystem thanks
to its proximity to the European market with free education and the presence of foreign multinational companies. China's
entrepreneurship ecosystem is developing in line with regional policies shaped by the influence of the totalitarian political system
(Yaribeigi et al., 2014).
These examples show that entrepreneurial ecosystems are influenced not only by individual characteristics, but also by
social, economic and political factors. Ecosystems are shaped by a combination of local dynamics and conditions, and each follows
a unique development path.
1. Entrepreneurship Ecosystem and Culture (Success Stories - Social Values)
Success stories and social norms are important components of the entrepreneurship ecosystem. While success stories include
elements such as visible success, wealth creation for founders and international reputation; It includes factors such as social norms,
risk tolerance, innovation, creativity and the social status of the entrepreneur. Cohen (2005) defines culture as the natural state of
The Power of Innovation: Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, Components, Research and Start-Up Approaches and the
Development Process of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Turkey
IJSSHR, Volume 07 Issue 10 October 2024 www.ijsshr.in Page 8076
the region and the soul of the community, which includes the common interests and knowledge of the citizens. Community culture
plays a critical role in the evolution of the entrepreneurial ecosystem; Pro-innovation cultures can perform well despite adverse
macro conditions, while anti-innovation cultures hinder development (Petrakis et al., 2015).
In the research conducted by Widianto (2019), the negative impact of individualism on national entrepreneurship activities
was observed. Additionally, family support has been found to positively affect entrepreneurial decisions and processes (Chang et
al., 2009). Factors such as family background, gender and work experience also significantly affect entrepreneurial activities
(Mathews and Moser, 1996).
Walsh and Winsor (2019) found that socio-cultural factors can hinder functional entrepreneurial ecosystems that support
regional innovation. Culture is an important factor affecting innovation and competitiveness in the long term (Petrakis et al., 2015).
Additionally, the role of local entrepreneurial support organizations can be decisive in the development of communities' cultural
norms (Motoyama and Knowlton, 2016).
Success stories help overcome institutional deficiencies in the entrepreneurial ecosystem by contributing to the
development of trust and mutually beneficial relationships (Martinsons, 2002). Consequently, success in entrepreneurship depends
not only on individual abilities but also on environmental factors, social norms, and community supports.
2. Entrepreneurship Ecosystem and Financing Processes
Financial capital is a critical component for the sustainability of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Various sources of financing, such
as microloans, angel investors, family and friends, zero-stage venture capital, venture capital funds, and debt, are necessary for
entrepreneurs to grow their businesses. Motoyama and Knowlton (2016) research shows that financial support from an accelerator
or venture capital firm alone is not sufficient; It shows that inception, strategic resource management and connections between
different organizations create important bridges in the financing stages.
The return processes of entrepreneurs are guided by exits. When sufficient financing is not provided, the learning and
ecosystem richness of entrepreneurs is limited to early exits, and this negatively affects the returns of entrepreneurs. This is often
evident in ecosystems where access to venture capital is limited and public stock market transactions are limited (Mason and Brown,
2014).
Florida and Kenney (1988) found that venture capital firms clustered in regions where technology-intensive enterprises
were located. Investors in financial centers generally focus on exports, while investors in technology centers tend to invest in local
startups. Venture capital networks are found in high density in technology regions due to their knowledge-intensive nature, which
enhances local technological innovation and economic development.
Cohen (2005) discussed a “chicken and egg” problem between investors and successful startups in the Victorian
entrepreneurial ecosystem; He stated that investors are cautious in providing capital to startups that do not show a critical growth
trend. Research conducted by Pandey (2018) in India has revealed that the financing of a startup depends on its type, and seed
financing and venture capital play an important role.
As a result, the financial capital required for the growth of entrepreneurs is a fundamental factor in the functioning and
sustainability of the ecosystem.
3. Entrepreneurship Ecosystem and Incentives and Support Mechanisms
This component includes various support elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystem:
Non-Governmental Organizations: Non-profit organizations are important actors that support entrepreneurship. They allow
entrepreneurs to gain knowledge and network through events such as business plan competitions, conferences, and entrepreneur-
friendly associations. Such organizations increase the vitality of the ecosystem by contributing to the development of entrepreneurs.
Supporting Professions: Professional groups such as lawyers, accountants, investment bankers and technical experts play
a critical role in the business processes of entrepreneurs. These professionals help entrepreneurs overcome the legal, financial and
technical challenges they face, enabling them to create more robust and sustainable business models. They tend to provide free
support initially with the expectation of establishing long-term business relationships.
Infrastructure: Infrastructure elements such as telecommunication, transportation, logistics and energy are necessary for
entrepreneurs to continue their business. Additionally, incubators and clusters strengthen the dynamics of the ecosystem by
supporting the development of new ventures.
Neck et al. (2004) investigated the role of incubators in the startup of new ventures by entrepreneurs in the Boulder County
ecosystem. Incubators play both an implicit and explicit role in enabling entrepreneurs to leave their current businesses. Situations
such as employees not being aware that they are planning to start a business reveal the hidden effects of incubators. 67% of the
survey participants stated that informal networks are important for the evolution of the entrepreneurship ecosystem.
Experienced mentor networks contribute to the development of entrepreneurs by providing support (Motoyama and
Knowlton, 2016). Mason and Brown (2014) emphasize that many start-up support programs focus on ventures with high growth
potential. It is clear that such support contributes to the greater success of entrepreneurs and the overall health of the ecosystem.
The Power of Innovation: Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, Components, Research and Start-Up Approaches and the
Development Process of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Turkey
IJSSHR, Volume 07 Issue 10 October 2024 www.ijsshr.in Page 8077
4. Entrepreneurship Ecosystem and Human Resources
Human capital is a critical component of the entrepreneurial ecosystem and consists of the following factors:
Labor: Skilled and unskilled workers are essential to the success of entrepreneurs. Late generation families and serial
entrepreneurs contribute to the ecosystem with their experience and knowledge. These individuals contribute to social and economic
development by increasing the sustainability of entrepreneurship.
Educational Institutions: Universities provide students with entrepreneurial thinking and develop their skills through
entrepreneurship training and curricula (Yaghoubi, 2010). Entrepreneurial intention is directly related to the desire to start a new
venture, and this intention is influenced by perceived barriers and support factors (Lüthje and Franke, 2004).
Learning Process: Motoyama and Knowlton (2016) state that the learning process in the ecosystem is not limited to the
education received from universities, but individuals acquire experiential knowledge through their interactions. Entrepreneurs who
gain experience by working in corporate companies later make positive contributions to the ecosystem by establishing their own
businesses.
University-Related Initiatives: St. In the St. Louis ecosystem, it has been observed that entrepreneurs who are university
graduates or postdoctoral researchers apply the technologies they have studied in commercial environments. Providing mechanisms
to create flow between the student population of universities and local entrepreneurial firms contributes to the development of the
local entrepreneurship ecosystem (Motoyama and Knowlton, 2016).
Technical and Business Skills: Low levels of technical and business skills may hinder motivated entrepreneurs' desire to
start new ventures (Vesper, 1980). Therefore, it is important to shape education policies according to the needs of entrepreneurs.
Policy Design: The research conducted by Akçomak, Doğan and Taşkın (2018) revealed that technology and innovation
policies are linked to industrial policies. In this context, it is emphasized that science and industrial policies should be designed by
taking into account the knowledge creation functions of universities and industrial organizations.
These components are vital for the strengthening and sustainability of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
5. Entrepreneurship Environment and Markets
This component includes two main factors that influence the dynamics and interactions of the entrepreneurial ecosystem:
early customers and networks.
Early Customers
Early Adopters: People who first use your product contribute to the product development process by providing feedback. These
customers can serve as references for other potential customers.
Experience in Product Variation: Early customers strengthen the entrepreneur's position in the market by gaining experience with
different variations of the product.
Early Reviews: Feedback from this customer group provides important data about the product's market performance and helps
entrepreneurs shape their strategies.
Distribution Channels: Early adopters provide important information on how to distribute and bring new products to market.
Networks
Entrepreneurs' Networks: Relationships established between local entrepreneurs increase the sharing of knowledge and experience.
This contributes to the development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (Mack, Mayer, 2016).
Diaspora Networks: Entrepreneurs and professionals living abroad can support the flow of information and resources by establishing
connections with the local ecosystem.
Multinational Companies: These types of companies strengthen the ecosystem by providing capital and knowledge to local startups.
The development of ecosystems depends on the technology and industry conditions in the region. Technological progress
should create new opportunities, and these opportunities should contribute to the development of the market (Brown, Mason, 2017).
Invisible networks created by entrepreneurs in technology zones can weaken the flow of information and collaborations. While
Shane and Venkataraman (2000) define entrepreneurship as a mechanism that transforms society's technical knowledge into
products and services, they state that opportunities depend on information and belief asymmetries. If there is not enough transaction
flow in an ecosystem, there may be delays in capital deployment. This may reduce the impact of supports provided to entrepreneurs.
Isenberg (2011) emphasizes that capital and credit support offered to entrepreneurs will have limited impact unless large companies
provide support to potential suppliers. Cervantes and Nardi (2012) examined how entrepreneurs in Mexico learned from social
media and foreign experiences. Startup weekend events foster the culture of innovation by creating an environment of trust and
sharing among entrepreneurs. Mason and Brown (2014) state that successful entrepreneurs revitalize local enterprises by returning
to the ecosystem and sharing their experience and wealth. This interaction helps entrepreneurs improve themselves and strengthen
the ecosystem.
These components are critical for the healthy functioning and sustainability of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The Power of Innovation: Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, Components, Research and Start-Up Approaches and the
Development Process of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Turkey
IJSSHR, Volume 07 Issue 10 October 2024 www.ijsshr.in Page 8078
6. Entrepreneurship Ecosystem and Politics
Leadership (firm support, social legitimacy, opportunities for advocates, entrepreneurial strategies, urgency, crisis and challenge)
and the state (institutions, financial support, regulatory framework supports, research institutes, enterprise-friendly legislation) are
among the sub-elements of this component. It is clear that entrepreneurship needs certain policies, unlike self-employment and
SMEs (Isenberg 2011). Support and policy initiatives need to focus on increasing coordination between ecosystem components and
actors (Mack, Mayer 2016). While state mechanisms regulate the intentions and actions of individuals, they also determine social
norms (Griffiths et al. 2016). State structures function as a critical actor in the creation and exploitation of new markets and
opportunities through regulatory policies and practices. In countries where entrepreneurial motivation is high and state mechanisms
operate with the right policies, gaining and maintaining market share and power is considered an attractive and profitable situation
(Griffiths et al. 2016). Governments can influence market mechanisms and ensure their effective functioning by eliminating
conditions that create market imperfections and administrative barriers. They can also create a “corporate culture” that supports
firms taking reasonable risks and making profits (Gnyawali, Fogel 1994).
Entrepreneurial intentions and government policies play a decisive role in the ecosystem. Griffiths et al. (2016) examined
the impact of macro and contextual factors on individual entrepreneurial intentions. Research has shown that low GDP and high
corruption rates reduce the desire to start a new venture, but success indicators of a venture's feasibility are related to intentions. In
this study, the concept of intention is expressed by entrepreneurial motivation, which reflects the willingness of individuals to
establish a business in their region or country. One of the key findings of the research is that the true nature of operational barriers
may be underestimated once the initiative is launched. Another study by Krueger, Reilly, and Carsrud (2000a) focused on
entrepreneurial intentions and government policies. This study indicates that it is not enough to just encourage entrepreneurial
intentions in public, but this can also be implemented by associating them with entrepreneurial intentions. Government policies
influence enterprises and therefore support economic development. Even if the quantity and quality of potential entrepreneurs are
increased, the perception of entrepreneurship in suppliers, financing providers, government policies and society needs to be
encouraged (Krueger, Reilly, Carsrud 2000a).
The sociocultural context is shaped by resources such as habits, attitudes, traditions, tacit knowledge and business acumen
for all actors operating within the economic system. This sociocultural context stands out as an important determining factor in
economic development. Although strategic areas such as sector planning, labor markets, and international trade policy are important,
it becomes clear that policies should be placed in broader institutional frameworks by taking these sociocultural contexts into
consideration (Storper, Scott 1995). Storper and Scott (1995) showed in their research that industrial policy is mandatory in
competition with the world economy, but regional dynamics and geographical factors cannot be considered independently.
Stough, Haynes and Campbell (1998) investigated the cluster effect of companies using high technology. Although the
strong growth of small-scale firms is associated with government sectoral linkages, the pace of product innovation and the high
concentration of a technically knowledgeable population also play an important role. In addition to government policies, another
important element that directs the ecosystem is leadership. Entrepreneurs who have participated in successful entrepreneurial
projects acknowledge that creating a sustainable ecosystem takes time. In this context, mentorship-oriented, inclusive leadership
roles that support other individuals in the start-up community also gain importance. Such entrepreneurs base their leadership on
meritocracy (Brown, Mason 2017). In both developed and developing countries, factors such as cost implementation agreements,
legal rights index, labor tax reveal the critical role of the state in promoting entrepreneurial activities (Widianto 2019).
Entrepreneurs see entrepreneurship as a field that is open to innovation, not dependent on bureaucracy, and facilitates
startup processes, but they state that the government supports provided overlap with classical growth strategies, which negatively
affects the ecosystem (Mack, Mayer 2016). Mason and Brown (2014) stated that policy efforts alone have a limited effect on
increasing the number of new ventures. They emphasized that a two-way effect should be provided for this. The first is that policies
should include not only government levels but also non-governmental actors. The second is the need for various policies different
from general business start-up goals.
The importance of effective policy in the entrepreneurial ecosystem is that it democratizes entry into the ecosystem and
encourages selection and selection mechanisms in resource allocation. Isenberg (2011) argues that entrepreneurs should not be
protected in product or financial markets. Otherwise, entrepreneurial potential and the market will be weakened.
7. Organizational Ecology Theory
Organizational ecology examines the birth, growth and extinction of organizations in the context of demographic processes and
examines the populations of these structures (Carroll, Khessina 2005). Population ecology theory highlights the role of
environmental factors in the survival processes of organizations. In this theory, the most determining factors of survival are defined
as environmental effects (Betton, Dess 1985; Amit, Glosten, Muller 1993). Population ecology accepts the inability of organizations
to adapt to environmental changes as a distinctive feature and argues that organizations that adapt to their environment will survive
(Amit, Glosten, Muller 1993). According to the theory, the selection of new or changed organizational forms occurs as a result of
The Power of Innovation: Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, Components, Research and Start-Up Approaches and the
Development Process of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Turkey
IJSSHR, Volume 07 Issue 10 October 2024 www.ijsshr.in Page 8079
environmental constraints and this situation is defined as inertia (Betton, Dess 1985). Hannan and Freeman (1977) emphasize the
importance of common destiny in terms of environmental diversity of organizational ecology theory.
The unit of analysis of organizational ecology theory is the organizational population, and the theory is a preliminary
preparation for modeling organizational structures. The units of analysis used are: i) formal structure, ii) activity patterns, iii)
normative order (Hannan, Freeman 1977). Three fundamental issues of population ecology models: i) the role of structural inertia
in limiting adaptation, ii) the classification of organizational types, iii) the importance of environmental factors in determining
organizational survival (Betton, Dess 1985). The population ecology approach offers an alternative to the dominant adaptation
perspective through the organization-environment relationship. Although there are many ecological perspectives, they all focus on
the selection process in nature (Hannan, Freeman 1977).
Hannan and Freeman (1977) define organizational form as a characteristic structure that explains the process of
transforming inputs into outputs. This formal structure makes it possible to investigate forms and populations through qualitative
differences. Hannan and Freeman (1977) described processes that limit the adaptability of organizations and create structural inertia.
Internal factors determine firms' sunk costs, communication structures, internal policies, and the influence of institutional norms,
while external factors include entry and exit barriers, bounded rationality, and social legitimacy. Strong inertial pressures reduce the
adaptability of the organization and increase its likelihood of being suitable for environmental selection.
Carroll and Khessina (2005) stated that entrepreneurship has been discussed in a limited way in the field of organizational
ecology, and this is due to the perception of entrepreneurship as an individual process. In his studies, he examined the success and
failure of new ventures through rates at two points: the population formation rate (the speed at which organizations launch ventures
and their success rate) and the corporate mortality rate. Salamzadeh and Kesim (2015) emphasized that, in addition to the individual
importance of the entrepreneur, there are many issues that need to be structurally defined and explained about start-ups, and stated
that these populations can be detailed by considering the population ecology theory within the framework of macro theories
(Salamzadeh 2015b).
The environment determines the characteristics of organizational populations and the distribution of resources required for
entrepreneurship through the selection mechanism (Özen et al. 2008). While individual failures clearly indicate the mortality rate
of organizations, the theory at this point focuses on what features of the environment have changed and why organizational
populations cannot adapt to these changes (Betton, Dess 1985). By applying selection logic, structural inertia, species definition and
environmental selection issues, resources and their interdependence emerge (Betton, Dess 1985). In population ecology theory,
inertia generally appears as a phenomenon associated with the complex structures of large companies and is also a concept that
creates a central paradox (Betton, Dess 1985). Some organizational populations have half-lives, implying that these forms are better
suited to survival. Explanations of causality regarding survival can be developed; However, nothing can be said about fitness or
evolution unless it is taken into account in spreading the genotype by simulating natural selection (Betton, Dess 1985).
Organizational populations are defined by characteristics and behaviors found among members of a particular population and not
found in other members, often operating in the same time period and in the same place. Organizational types and populations are
not the phenotype that reflects the general form of organizations, but the genotype that forms the basic set of compositions that all
organizations share. Organizations that do not conform to a common form are not considered members of the population, even if
they comply with the norms. That is, defining organizational populations in terms of their structural similarities does not recognize
significant evolutionarily different differences between populations (Reydon, Scholz 2009).
Through the selection mechanism, the environment determines the characteristics of organizational populations and exerts
the ultimate influence on the allocation of entrepreneurial resources. Entrepreneurship research prior to population ecology theory
adopted strategic adaptation approaches, believing that success depended solely on the decisions of individual entrepreneurs. The
entrepreneurship process can be better understood with population ecology theory. However, the most challenging part of population
ecology theory is predicting the environmental conditions that will lead to greater establishment and growth of entrepreneurial firms
(Amit, Glosten, Muller 1993). At this point, the theory helps determine the organizational and environmental effects on new ventures
with the concepts of innovation weakness and adolescence, which predict that new organizations will be more likely to close than
old organizations (Özen et al. 2008).
Entrepreneurship researchers have addressed this issue at the level of population analysis. Organizational ecology aims to
offer four explanations in the basic framework: i) the various organizational forms that exist, ii) the distribution of these forms
through different environments, iii) the limitations that these environments impose on organizational forms, iv) the rates at which
organizations change (Reydon, Scholz 2009). In response to criticism, the population ecology literature has focused particularly on
issues of legitimation and the spatial effects of competition at the context and level of analysis. Merely examining the individual
characteristics of entrepreneurs and interpreting their actions does not provide sufficient information about the environmental
context. Population ecology is therefore a fruitful paradigm for developing research on the social context of entrepreneurship
(Thornton 1999). However, the theory does not offer any explanation of the role of individual action in influencing the conditions
of establishment (Hannan, Freeman 1977).
The Power of Innovation: Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, Components, Research and Start-Up Approaches and the
Development Process of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Turkey
IJSSHR, Volume 07 Issue 10 October 2024 www.ijsshr.in Page 8080
Kılıç (2020) conducted research on the most demanded pre-incubation centers in Turkey, which are decisive in the life and death of
startups. Research results show that inviting startups to incubation centers and business network and mentor support contribute to
the survival of startups. Before the population ecology approach, most entrepreneurship research focused on strategic adaptation
and the individual structure of the entrepreneur.
E. Historical Perspective of Turkey's Entrepreneurship Ecosystem
a. Ottoman Period
Trade and Craft: The Ottoman Empire was located at the intersection of trade routes. Tradesmen and craftsmen formed the backbone
of the local economy. During this period, entrepreneurship was limited to traditional methods.
Closed Economy: Economic activities were generally carried out within a closed system and there was no structure that encouraged
entrepreneurship.
b. Republic Period (1923-1950)
State Supported Economy: Industrialization was targeted with the establishment of the Republic. The first industrial plans were
made to encourage private sector enterprises.
Ministry of Industry and Trade: Founded in 1923, this ministry began to support entrepreneurship by determining industrialization
and trade policies.
Cooperatives: The establishment of cooperatives for agriculture and rural development was encouraged. This was a step supporting
rural entrepreneurship.
c. 1950-1980 Period
Free Market Economy: Policies implemented in the 1950s paved the way for the private sector. Private entrepreneurs benefited from
state-supported industrialization programs.
Planned Economy: Five-year development plans that started in 1963 targeted growth in industry and agriculture. During this period,
the state tried to direct entrepreneurship by supporting certain sectors.
Loan and Incentives: Loan programs and incentives were provided for entrepreneurs. However, political instability negatively
affected economic growth.
d. Period After 1980
Liberal Economic Reforms: Economic reforms implemented in the early 1980s accelerated private sector initiatives. Privatization
policies encouraged entrepreneurship.
Foreign Investments: Foreign capital inflow started to increase. This was an important step for Turkey to compete in the international
market.
Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs): SMEs have become the locomotive of economic growth. The state has developed various
support and incentive programs for SMEs.
e. 2000s and After
Economic Growth: In the 2000s, Türkiye experienced a rapid economic growth process. During this period, especially technology-
based initiatives and start-up ecosystems began to come to the fore.
Entrepreneurship Support Programs: Incubation centers, accelerators and entrepreneur support programs (such as TÜBİTAK,
KOSGEB) were established. These structures made it easier for entrepreneurs to bring their business ideas to life.
Investor Network: Angel investors and venture capital funds began to be included in the entrepreneurship ecosystem. This increased
entrepreneurs' access to finance.
Year
Event
1923
The establishment of the Republic of Türkiye and the foundations of the new economic structure were
laid.
1947
The first steps towards transition to the private sector were the establishment of the Ministry of
Industry and Trade.
1980
Economic liberalization, promotion of private entrepreneurship.
1990
Increase in entrepreneurship in technology and IT sectors.
2000
Internet boom, many new startups being established.
2006
Entrepreneurship support programs were launched by TÜBİTAK.
2011
It is the development of the startup ecosystem that attracts the attention of investors.
2015
Rapid increase in technology-focused startups, increase in the number of angel investors.
2020
The rise of digital startups and e-commerce post-COVID-19.
2023
Greater international recognition of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The Power of Innovation: Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, Components, Research and Start-Up Approaches and the
Development Process of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Turkey
IJSSHR, Volume 07 Issue 10 October 2024 www.ijsshr.in Page 8081
Digital Transformation: Areas such as e-commerce, fintech, health technologies have grown rapidly. Türkiye has become an
important center for digital initiatives.
f. Today
Young Population and Innovation: Turkey's young population plays an active role in entrepreneurship. Educational institutions and
universities support this potential by offering entrepreneurship training.
Social Entrepreneurship: Social enterprises show a tendency to produce solutions to social problems. Various support and funding
opportunities arise in this field.
Challenges and Opportunities: Economic fluctuations, political uncertainties and financial difficulties are among the factors that
negatively affect entrepreneurship. However, digitalization and access to global markets offer new opportunities.
As a result, Turkey's entrepreneurship ecosystem has undergone significant transformations throughout history. Today, it exhibits a
competitive structure both locally and internationally and allows the development of new business models. The future holds great
potential for this dynamic ecosystem to further strengthen and diversify.
CONCLUSION
This study aims to reveal the decisive effects of innovation on entrepreneurship by examining in depth the relationship between
innovation and the entrepreneurship ecosystem in Turkey. The findings show that Turkey's entrepreneurial potential is high, but
significant challenges must be overcome to realize this potential.
First of all, Turkey's young and dynamic population and increasing access to technology provide a positive basis for the development
of innovative initiatives. However, problems faced by entrepreneurs such as lack of financing, lack of education and market
uncertainties negatively affect innovation processes. In particular, strengthening support mechanisms for financing early stage
ventures is of vital importance for entrepreneurs to realize their innovative projects.
Additionally, as a result of the literature review, it was concluded that cooperation between the components of the innovation
ecosystem in Turkey should be increased. Strengthening interactions between universities, public institutions and the private sector
will increase the flow of information and innovation potential. In this context, increasing the effectiveness of public policies and
developing policies that support entrepreneurship are of great importance.
Another important finding of the study is the analysis of successful startup examples. Innovative startups in Turkey attract attention
with their ability to compete in both local and international markets. The experiences of these initiatives constitute a learning
resource for other entrepreneurs and encourage the adoption of innovative approaches.
As a result, in order for the entrepreneurship ecosystem in Turkey to develop sustainably, innovation must be supported and the
needs of entrepreneurs must be met. This is an approach that will support not only economic growth but also social development.
In the future, the field needs more research to more comprehensively examine the effects of innovation on entrepreneurship. This
study is an important step towards increasing Turkey's entrepreneurial potential and offers strategic recommendations for relevant
stakeholders.
REFERENCES
1) Adly, A., Khatib, L. (2014), Reforming the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Post-Revolutionary Egypt and Tunisia. Stanford:
Stanford Publications.
2) Akçomak, İ.S., Doğan, G. ve Taşkın, Z. (2018). Bilim, sanayi, teknoloji ve yenilik politikalarının evrimi: Geleceğin
politikası nasıl olacak?, STS TURKEY 2018, Toplum için Bilim ve Teknoloji Çalışmaları Konferansı, Ankara.
3) Amit, R., Glosten, L., Muller, E. (1993), “Challenges to Theory Development in Entrepreneurship Research”. Journal of
Management Studies, 30/5: 815-834.
4) Arruda, C., V. Nogueira, V. Costa (2013), “The Brazilian Entrepreneurial Ecosystem of Startups: An Analysis of
Entrepreneurship Determinants in Brazil as Seen from the OECD Pillars”, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Management, 2/3:17-57.
5) Audretsch, D. B., Belitski, M. (2017), “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Cities: Establishing the Framework Conditions”,
The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42/5: 1030-1051.
6) Baumol, W. J. (1968), “Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory”, The American Economic Review, 58/2: 64- 71.
7) Betton, J., Dess, G. G. (1985). “The Application of Population Ecology Models to The Study of Organizations”, Academy
of Management Review, 10/4: 750-757.
8) Brouwer, M. T. (2002), “Weber, Schumpeter and Knight on Entrepreneurship And Economic Development”, Journal Of
Evolutionary Economics, 12/1:83-105.
9) 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.
The Power of Innovation: Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, Components, Research and Start-Up Approaches and the
Development Process of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Turkey
IJSSHR, Volume 07 Issue 10 October 2024 www.ijsshr.in Page 8082
10) Carroll, G. R., Khessina, O. M. (2005), “The Ecology of Entrepreneurship”, Alvarez, S.A., Agarwal, R., Sorenson, O. (Ed.),
In Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Boston:Springer: 167-200.
11) Cervantes, R., Nardi, B. (2012), “Building A Mexican Startup Culture Over the Weekends”, In Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference On Intercultural Collaboration, 11-20.
12) Chang, E. P., Memili, E., Chrisman, J. J., Kellermanns, F. W., Chua, J. H. (2009), “Family Social Capital, Venture
Preparedness, And Start-Up Decisions: A Study of Hispanic Entrepreneurs in New England”, Family Business Review,
22/3: 279-292.
13) Cohen, B. (2006), “Sustainable Valley Entrepreneurial Ecosystems”, Business Strategy and The Environment, 15/1:1-14.
14) Cukier, D., F. Kon, T. Lyons (2016), “Software Startup Ecosystems Evolution: The New York City Case Study”, 2nd
International Workshop on Software Startups, IEEE International Technology Management Conference, Trondheim.
15) Dollinger, M. (2008), Entrepreneurship (4. Baskı), Illinois : Marsh Publications.
16) Eroğlu, O., Piçak, M. (2011), “Entrepreneurship, National Culture and Turkey”, International Journal of Business and
Social Science, 2/16: 146-151.
17) Eyidilli, S. (22 Şubat 2019), “Getir’in Girişim Sermayesi Yatırım Fonu İçin Hazırlanan Sunumu” Webrazzi,
https://webrazzi.com/2019/02/22/getirin-girisim-sermayesi-yatirim-fonu-icin-hazirlanan sunumu/ (22.05.2022) (Erişim
tarihi: 22.02.2019) Florida, R., Kenney, M. (1988), “Venture Capital, High Technology and Regional Development”,
Regional Studies, 22/1: 33-48.
18) Gauthier, JF., D. Stangler, M. Penzel, Morelix, A. (2018), “Global Startup Ecosystem Report 2018- Succeeding in the New
Era of Technology” (Startup Genome) Gioia, D. (2021), “A Systematic Methodology for Doing Qualitative Research”,
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57/1: 20-29.
19) Gnyawali, D. R., Fogel, D. S. (1994), “Environments For Entrepreneurship Development: Key Dimensions and Research
Implications”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18/4: 43-62.
20) Griffiths, M. D., Kickul, J., Carsrud, A. L. (2009), “Government Bureaucracy, Transactional Impediments, And
Entrepreneurial Intentions”, International Small Business Journal, 27/5: 626-645.Guba, E. G., Lincoln, Y. S. (1982),
“Epistemological and Methodological Bases of Naturalistic Inquiry”, Ectj, 30/4: 233-252.
21) Hannan, M. T., Freeman, J. (1977), “The Population Ecology of Organizations”, American Journal of Sociology, 82/5:
929-964.
22) Heikkilä, M., Kuivaniemi, L. (2012), “Ecosystem Under Construction: An Action Research Study on Entrepreneurship in
a Business Ecosystem”, Technology Innovation Management Review, 6: 18-24.
23) Iansiti, M., Levien, R. (2004), “Strategy as Ecology”, Harvard Business Review, 82/3: 68-78.
24) Isenberg, D. J. (2010), “How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution”, Harvard Business Review, 88/6: 40- 50.
25) Isenberg, D. (2011), “The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Strategy as A New Paradigm for Economic Policy: Principles for
Cultivating Entrepreneurship”, Presentation At The Institute Of International And European Affairs, 1/781: 1-13.
26) Kılıç, F. (2020), “Örgütsel Ekoloji Teorisi Üzerinden Girişimcilik Ekosisteminin Girişimciler Üzerindeki Etkisi”, Beykoz
Akademi Dergisi, 8/1: 154-173.
27) Knight, F. H. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, New York: Houghton Mifflin Koca, A. A. (16 Ocak 2012). “212 Capital
Partners İlk Yatırımını Butigo.com’a Yaptı”. Webrazzi, https://webrazzi.com/2012/01/16/212-butigo (Erişim tarihi: 22
Mayıs 2022) Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., Carsrud, A. L. (2000a), “Competing Models of Entrepreneurial Intentions”,
Journal of Business Venturing, 15/5-6: 411– 432.
28) Mack, M., Mayer, H. (2016), “The Evolutionary Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems”, Urban Studies, 53/10: 2118-
2133.
29) Malecki, E. J. (2018), “Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems”, Geography Compass, 12/3: e12359.
30) Martinsons, M. G. (2002), “Electronic Commerce in China: Emerging Success Stories”, Information & Management, 39/7:
571-579.
31) Mason, C. M., Harrison, R. T. (2006) “After the Exit: Acquisitions, Entrepreneurial Recycling And Regional Economic
Development”, Regional Studies, 40/1: 55-73.
32) Mason, C., Brown, R. (2014), “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship”, Final Report To
OECD, Paris, 30/1: 77-102.
33) Matthews, C.H., Moser, S.B. (1996), “Family Background and Gender: Implications for Interest in Small Firm Ownership”,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 7/4: 365–377.
34) Moore, J. (1993), “Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition”, Harvard Business Review, 71/3: 75-86.
35) Motoyama, Y., Knowlton, K. (2016), “Examining the Connections within the Startup Ecosystem: A Case Study of St.
Louis”, Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 7/1:1-32.
The Power of Innovation: Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, Components, Research and Start-Up Approaches and the
Development Process of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Turkey
IJSSHR, Volume 07 Issue 10 October 2024 www.ijsshr.in Page 8083
36) Neck, H. M., G. D. Meyer, B. Cohen, Corbett, A. C. (2004), “An Entrepreneurial System View of New Venture Creation”,
Journal of Small Business Management, 42/2: 190-208.
37) Özen, Ş., Sargut, A. S., Varoğlu, A. K., Sözen, H. C., Gönül, Ö. Ö. (2008), “Türkiye'deki Büyük Girişimci Profilindeki
Değişim”, (TÜBİTAK- Proje No: 107K042).
38) Pandey, N. (2018), “An Analysis of Startup Ecosystem in Metropolitan City in India”, International Journal of Engineering
and Management Research Page, 8/2: 237-244.
39) Petrakis, P. E., Kostis, P. C., Valsamis, D. G. (2015), “Innovation and Competitiveness: Culture as A Long Term Strategic
Instrument during the European Great Recession”, Journal of Business Research, 68/7: 1436-1438.
40) Reydon, T. A., Scholz, M. (2009), “Why Organizational Ecology Is Not a Darwinian Research Program”, Philosophy of
the Social Sciences, 39/3: 408-439.
41) Salamzadeh, A. (2015), “New Venture Creation: Controversial Perspectives and Theories”, Economic Analysis, 48/3-4:
101-109.
42) Salamzadeh, A., Kesim, H. K. (2015), “Startup companies: Life cycle and challenges”, In 4th International conference on
employment, education and entrepreneurship (EEE), Belgrad, Sırbistan.
43) Schumpeter, J. A., Nichol, A. J. (1934), “Robinson's Economics of Imperfect Competition”, Journal of Political Economy,
42/2: 249-259.
44) Shane, S., Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research”, Academy of Management
Review, 25/1: 217-226.
45) Sırt, T. (2016, 25 Kasım). “Yatırımcı Geri Adım Atmadı” Sabah,
https://www.sabah.com.tr/yazarlar/sirt/2016/11/25/yatirimci-geri-adim-atmadi (Erişim tarihi: 22 Mayıs 2022).
46) Storper, M., Scott, A. J. (1995), “The Wealth of Regions: Market Forces and Policy Imperatives in Local and Global
Context”, Futures, 27/5: 505-526.
47) Stough, R., K. Haynes, Campbell, H. (1998), “Small Business Entrepreneurship in The High Technology Services Sector:
An Assessment for The Edge Cities Of The U.S. National Capital Region”, Small Business Economics, 10: 61-74.
48) Stough, R. R. (2016), “Entrepreneurship and Regional Economic Development: Some Reflections”, Investigaciones
Regionales= Journal of Regional Research, 36:129-150.
49) Advanced Nursing, 48/4: 388-396. Tripathi, N., P. Seppanen, G. Boominathan, M. Oivo, Liukkunen, K. (2018), “Insights
into Startup Ecosystems through Exploration of Multi-vocal Literature”, Information and Software Technology,105:56-77.
50) Yaribeigi, E., Hosseini, S. J., Lashgarara, F., Mirdamadi, S. M., Najafabadi, M. O. (2014), “Development of
Entrepreneurship Ecosystem”, International Journal of Advanced Biological and Biomedical Research, 2/12: 2905-2908.
51) Walsh, J., Winsor, B. (2019), “Socio-Cultural Barriers to Developing a Regional Entrepreneurial Ecosystem”, Journal of
Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 13/3:263- 282.
52) Widianto, S. (2019), “Determinant Factors of National Entrepreneurial Activity: a Cross-Country Study”, Jurnal Dinamika
Manajemen, 10/1: 58-67.
There is an Open Access article, distributed under the term of the Creative Commons
Attribution – Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting and
building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
