1) The document analyzes entrepreneurial ecosystems at the macro, meso, and micro levels in the Netherlands. 2) It discusses frameworks for benchmarking conditions that support fast-growth firms, such as income tax rates and access to financing in the short term and attitudes toward entrepreneurship and smaller government in the long term. 3) The document presents a case study of the LED lighting ecosystem in the Netherlands, which involves around 260 SMEs collaborating and competing to develop innovative LED lighting products and share knowledge through a network supported by the government.

1. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
Positive and Normative Insights from
the Netherlands
OECD Workshop, 7 November 2013, The Hague
Meijaard, Brouwer and Van der Veen

2. Overview
• Macro-Meso-Micro: Collecting Data on 3
Levels
• Legitimacy of Policies
• Empirical Study
• Case Study
• Discussion

3. Macro
Benchmarking ‘Framework Conditions’

5. Insight into causalities and leverage
Determinants of
fast-growth firm
levels
Short term:
Income tax
Access to Finance
Long term:
Attitudes towards
entrepreneurship
Smaller government
Determinants of
fast-growth firm
dynamics
Short term:
Exit and Entry
burdens
Flexibility of labour
Long term:
R&D collaboration
Smaller government

6. Meso
Insights into Regional, Sectoral and
Value Chain Ecosystems

10. Micro
Benchmarking on a Local Level
(Survey Stratifications)

11. WEF Stanford Team, 2013

12. But then, if one knows things well:
What to do?
• By and large:
Entrepreneurs should make ‘unbiased’ decisions
• Intervene:
Only if market failure and/or welfare losses
–
–
–
–
–
Externalities & Spill-overs: too low levels of activity
Network effects
Information Asymmetries: Growth barriers
Natural monopolies
Public goods

13. Empirical study
Networks and firm boundaries

14. Empirical study of networks
• What can we say about the relationship
between networks, transaction costs and
business growth?
• What is the role of the government?
• Interviews with different stakeholders:
companies, municipalities, business
networks, triple helix networks, chamber of
commerce etc. Focus on companies.
• Internet survey among business owners

15. Network as public good?
• A network is a semi public good: non-rivalrous, but
excludable
• Network effects themselves are not a public good: Only
participants of network benefit
• Degree of organization of a sector can be low due to
complex externalities (free rider effects)
• Information exchange between actors => knowledge
development, due to learning and inspiration
• Knowledge creation is a positive externality
• Policy: facilitate creation of networks for knowledge
devemopment
• Other topics?

16. Findings empirical research
• Network is our capital (Y = ANLK )
• Business networks evolve with the growth of companies
– Startups -> encouter people (hence, business networks)
– Early growth and market growth -> cooperation much more
important
• Cooperation: to develop knowledge, to innovate. Also, to
increase the market (e.g. hubs for transport). To increase
market power (e.g. FloraHolland)
• Complex externalities, due to many actors, could lead to
underdevelopment of networks
• Clustereffects: due to many ties, many places to encouter
etc. companies work together more often: solve problems,
exploit opportunities

17. Triple Helix
• Triple Helix cooperation:
– Structure and organization important
– Vision should be developed in close cooperation with
companies, bottum up
– Put resonsibilties where they belong
– Qualities of people, experience not neccesarily
good, comes to people
management, inspiration, bringing people together
etc.
– Specific implementation agenda, what are we going to
do?
– This way companies see the real value of cooperation
with govenment and knowledge institutions

18. Policy Recommendations
• Stimulate the creation of networks to create
knowledge development (through networks), the
market should be in the lead
• When there are complex externalities, increase
the level of organization in a sector. It wil also
lead to increased cooperation on different fields
• Simply increase visibility of the government in
networks, this is mutually beneficial
• Trade missions are highly valued to enter foreign
markets, incoming trade mission should be
improved

19. Case Study
Co-evolution

20. LED-ecosystem
In a business ecosystem companies co-evolve capabilities around a new
innovation, work cooperatively and competitively (co-opetition) to support new
products, satisfy customer needs, and eventually incorporate the next round of
innovations*.
The Dutch LED lighting – ecosystem: ± 260 SME’s (hightech/ICT), some large firms, knowledge and public
institutions
• Goal: share knowledge around fast developments in
LED lighting amongst companies that develop, design,
produce and sell innovative products based on LEDtechnology
• Need: a recognizable, independent network where upto-date knowledge about technological en market
developments is available
• Role government/Syntens: connect (potential)
participants, inform (LEDtalks, Q&A), connect initiatives
to boost an internationally recognised cluster
-> Roadmap Lighting Topsector HTSM
*Moore, 1993, Predators and prey: A New Ecology of
Competition, Adner & Kapoor, 2010, Value creation in innovation

21. Discussion
• What are good reasons for the government to
initiate specific business networks?
• Which conditions should be ‘managed’ in
relation to the entrepreneurial ecosystem
– Short run (to correct e.g. deadweight growth barriers)
– Long run (i.e. to correct market failure)
• In which other fields than knowledge
development should governments stimulate
the creation of networks?