Governmental Support
If you build a startup in almost any country, you learn one rule fast: the state is always in the room, even when it is not visible. It shows up in how long registration takes, whether payments work, whether rules stay stable for two years, and whether a grant is real or only a headline. Government support is not “extra help”. It is the floor the ecosystem stands on.
What It Is
Governmental support is the set of public policies, institutions, and programs that shape how startups and SMEs can start, operate, and grow. It includes regulation, public funding, taxation, infrastructure investment, and education reforms. Governments act as regulators and enablers at the same time, influencing access to finance, legitimacy, and long-term confidence.
Research suggests that well-designed support can strengthen firms’ innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness by reducing uncertainty and information gaps[1].
How It Works
From a startup’s perspective, government support comes as a stack of conditions rather than one intervention.
Financing is the most visible layer. Grants, subsidies, and soft loans can bridge the early-stage gap when private capital avoids uncertainty. Public funding is often delivered through three models: state-dominated institutions, state-owned or co-owned investment entities, or delegated bodies managing public resources[2]. When this works, it reduces the “valley of death” problem by keeping startups alive long enough to prove traction.
Regulation is the layer that decides speed or stagnation. Streamlined licensing, clear taxation, online registration systems, and predictable enforcement allow founders to spend time on customers instead of bureaucracy.
Strong states behave less like controllers and more like rule-setters who keep the environment fair and predictable[3]. This includes practical clarity around IP procedures, bankruptcy, and cross-border trade.
Infrastructure and knowledge systems make support usable. Broadband, logistics, technology parks, innovation hubs, and co-working infrastructure create spaces where entrepreneurs and researchers can actually meet and build[4]. Education policy matters here, too.
Integrating entrepreneurship into schools, vocational programs, and universities builds skills and normalizes venture creation rather than treating it as an exception.
Fair competition is the layer that protects smaller actors. Procurement transparency and anti-monopoly enforcement determine whether markets are open or captured by incumbents. Evidence suggests that when competition enforcement is weak, small firms face structural disadvantages even when other support exists[5].
Why It Is Important
Government support provides stability in an environment built on risk. It reduces uncertainty, fills institutional gaps, and builds the baseline trust that lets startups emerge, survive, and scale. Evidence suggests government initiatives can strengthen entrepreneurial orientation and help firms act on opportunities rather than only react to constraints[6].
Public programs also signal credibility. Transparent grants and research funding can function as early validation, making it easier to attract private investors and partners[7]. Over time, strong public frameworks contribute to regional innovation, jobs, and durable growth outcomes, beyond the success of a single startup[8]. When support is inconsistent or opaque, ecosystems fragment, innovation diffuses slowly, and access to opportunity becomes unequal.
Actors and Beneficiaries
Key actors include ministries of economy, innovation, finance, and higher education; public funding agencies; development banks; and regional authorities. Internationally, organizations such as the OECD, World Bank, and European Investment Bank often co-design or finance programs[9]. Coordination matters because fragmented governance duplicates effort and weakens delivery.
Beneficiaries include startups, SMEs, universities, innovation hubs, and indirectly the broader economy through productivity, employment, and regional development. In many contexts, startups that grow through public programs later become partners in future initiatives, creating a feedback loop of learning and institutional capacity. In China, for example, local governments play a decisive role in resource allocation and enforcement, shaping how entrepreneurs interact with public institutions[10].
Where It Fits in the Ecosystem
Governmental support functions as the ecosystem’s coordinating backbone. It links finance, markets, education, and infrastructure into something coherent. Effective governments act as orchestrators, setting stable rules and enabling private initiative, rather than replacing markets[11]. When policy continuity is strong, it turns scattered activity into a system capable of sustained innovation and more inclusive growth.
When It Is Most Critical
Government support becomes most critical during transition, crisis, and reconstruction. In emerging economies, it fills market gaps and starts entrepreneurial activity where private systems are too weak. In developed contexts, it often shows up as competitiveness policy, sovereign innovation funds, industrial strategy, or green-transition programs[12].
Political instability and leadership turnover can shift entrepreneurship toward relationship maintenance instead of innovation, reducing productive effort[13]. Predictable and sustained support stabilizes planning, investment decisions, and recovery after shocks.
Challenges and Limitations
Government support can distort ecosystems when design and integrity fail. Subsidies and grants can create dependency, misallocate resources, or weaken competition[14]. Bureaucratic delay and lack of transparency turn support into friction.
Corruption is the most corrosive risk because it attacks trust. Evidence suggests corruption inhibits entrepreneurship, especially for outsiders, through weakened networks and declining social trust[15].
Where access becomes relationship-based, founders divert resources to political ties instead of building products[16]. Under high corruption, even subsidies lose their signaling value; investors stop reading them as quality indicators unless transparency and procedural fairness are restored[17]. In practice, the line is simple: when the state distributes privilege, the ecosystem becomes extraction-based; when it enforces fair rules, the ecosystem becomes innovation-based.
Legal Support
A startup can look alive on the outside, product, users, press, while being legally fragile inside. One unclear founder agreement, one missing IP assignment, one bad contract, and the company becomes uninvestable overnight. Legal support is the system that prevents that kind of silent collapse.
What It Is
Legal support is the framework of laws, regulations, and institutions that governs how startups form, operate, protect assets, and resolve disputes. It includes incorporation, ownership structures, intellectual property, contracts, employment law, data privacy, taxation, and investor relations. Startup law is increasingly treated as a distinct field because high-growth ventures face shifting business models, changing ownership, and high uncertainty across their life cycle[18]. Startups are not just “small firms.” They are structurally more exposed to early legal mistakes.
How It Works
Legal support functions as a set of layers connecting founders, legal service providers, and regulatory bodies. Its role is to make the rules predictable and reduce legal risk early, before it becomes expensive.
The first layer is formation and ownership clarity. Registration, founder agreements, and equity allocation decide whether the company is stable enough to attract talent and capital. Many founders postpone legal support due to cost or low awareness, creating vulnerabilities that later trigger disputes, IP loss, or investor withdrawal[19].
The second layer is IP and contracts. For startups, IP ownership and enforceable contracts are not administrative tasks; they are the core assets. Without clear assignments and terms, growth becomes legally contested.
The third layer is ecosystem-embedded legal capacity. Accelerators and incubators increasingly integrate legal readiness modules, shareholder structures, employee stock options, compliance basics, so legal foundations become part of startup education rather than an afterthought[20]. Many law firms now run “startup desks” offering standardized packages that match startup speed and budgets.
The fourth layer is investor due diligence and scalability. Investors assess “legal hygiene” before committing: incorporation documents, IP ownership, regulatory compliance, and exit feasibility.
Legal tech platforms can standardize contracts, streamline due diligence, and reduce transaction time, widening access, especially for startups trying to reach investors across borders[21].
The fifth layer is adaptive regulation. Where licensing is fragmented or data protection is weak, uncertainty blocks innovation[22]. Regulatory sandboxes, used in places like Singapore and the UK, offer controlled environments where startups, often in fintech and health tech, can test products under flexible oversight. This balances innovation with accountability.
Legal systems also act as educators. Startup portals, training programs, and “one-stop shops” increase formalization and reduce information inequality[23]. Ecosystems that combine affordable legal services, proactive education, and responsive regulation tend to produce startups that grow faster and fail less often.
Why It Is Important
Legal support is the trust backbone of the ecosystem. It gives startups legitimacy, protection, and predictability, conditions required to turn ideas into investable ventures. Founders often underestimate legal foundations until conflict appears: ownership disputes, equity disagreements, or IP challenges that can end the company[24].
Clear contracts and enforceable rights reduce internal friction and make external partnerships possible. Where regulations are outdated or enforcement is weak, firms stay informal and struggle to scale internationally[25]. For investors, reliable legal systems reduce risk and enable funding.
Startups with clearer ownership and stronger IP protection tend to secure investment faster and at stronger terms because legal transparency signals quality and reduces uncertainty[26].
At the ecosystem level, fair enforcement protects smaller actors from predatory behavior and makes innovation more accessible beyond incumbent circles[27].
Actors and Beneficiaries
Key actors include ministries of justice and commerce, IP and patent offices, regulators, commercial courts, bar associations, legal tech providers, and specialized law firms. Universities, accelerators, and nonprofits also play a role in democratizing access through clinics and low-cost support models[28].
Beneficiaries include startups and SMEs that need credibility and protection, and investors who need enforceable governance to reduce risk.
The wider economy benefits when transparent rules increase trust, attract capital, and support sustainable growth.
Where It Fits in the Ecosystem
Legal support is the connective tissue that makes financing, innovation, and markets function together. It defines how ideas are protected, how conflicts are resolved, and how credibility is maintained across entrepreneurs, investors, and customers.
A sound legal environment is as central to innovation as funding or infrastructure because it turns private action into shared trust[29].
When It Is Most Critical
Legal support is most critical at two points: early formation and scaling. Early-stage legal clarity prevents later disputes that kill momentum. Scaling raises complexity: hiring, equity structures, cross-border expansion, and sector regulation. In regulated fields like fintech or health tech, proactive compliance planning is often the difference between growth and shutdown[30].
During transition or regulatory reform, legal predictability becomes even more important because investor confidence is fragile.
Challenges and Limitations
Access remains unequal. Legal costs create entry barriers and widen inequality among founders, especially women- and minority-led startups with weaker networks and higher relative costs[31]. In developing contexts, overlapping jurisdictions and unclear accountability expose startups to unpredictable enforcement[32].
Even in advanced ecosystems, startups face a regulatory paradox: rules intended to ensure fairness can entrench incumbents and overload smaller entrants[33].
Compliance can consume a large share of operating capacity, pulling resources away from innovation. Emerging responses include legal tech tools, open-source contract repositories (e.g., CommonAccord, Cooley GO), and regulatory sandboxes that balance oversight with agility. Legal systems either become gatekeepers or enablers; the difference is affordability, clarity, and fair enforcement.
Banks
In many ecosystems, the first real sign that a startup is being taken seriously is not a pitch competition or a press feature. It is a bank account that works, a payment rail that clears, and a credit decision that is based on information rather than favoritism. Banks sit under the economy’s trust layer. When they function well, entrepreneurship becomes legible.
What They Are
Banks are institutional pillars of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. They provide capital, safeguard liquidity, and formalize economic activity through regulated credit and payment systems. Their role expands where venture capital is scarce: they lend, advise, and often act as the main bridge between entrepreneurs and formal finance[34].
In developing economies, banks also support stabilization and public trust-building, including through development banking functions[35]. Beyond commercial banks, development banks, microfinance institutions, and digital challenger banks widen access and connect more entrepreneurs to financial networks.
How They Work
Banks interact with startups through credit and infrastructure services: accounts, payments, overdrafts, working-capital lines, guarantees, export finance, and compliance systems. But the operating logic depends on context.
In mature economies, banks use risk-sharing instruments. Startup lending is often supported by government guarantees and specialized schemes that reduce downside risk. This makes it possible to lend without demanding impossible collateral.
In emerging contexts, collateral and enforcement dominate. Weak institutional enforcement and limited credit data keep banks risk-averse and restrict lending to startups without assets[36]. The result is a system that serves established firms more easily than new ventures.
Fintech collaboration has changed the bank–startup relationship. Partnerships now include accelerators, alliances, minority investments, and shared innovation programs[37]. These arrangements let banks access innovation without absorbing full technological or regulatory risk.
In some contexts, regulatory sandboxes allow hybrid models where banks and startups test new products, AI-based credit scoring, blockchain rails, inclusion tools, under supervised conditions[38].
Banks are also shifting from product providers to platforms. Some banks now offer APIs and open infrastructure that lets startups build services on top of regulated systems, positioning banks as ecosystem facilitators rather than only lenders[39]. This widens banks’ role from funding to infrastructure.
Why They Are Important
Banks legitimize entrepreneurship by turning informal activity into formal, verifiable transactions. Access to credit correlates strongly with business growth, job creation, and innovation outcomes, but is often blocked by collateral demands and limited credit histories[40].
Developmental banking policies, credit guarantees, inclusion mandates, green lending, are presented as critical for structural transformation where private capital markets are thin[41].
Fintech collaboration expands inclusion and accelerates innovation by combining startup agility with institutional credibility[42].
Across the ecosystem, banks strengthen the trust infrastructure that connects finance, legal systems, and support institutions.
Actors and Beneficiaries
Central banks set monetary and regulatory frameworks and increasingly integrate inclusion and sustainability objectives[43]. Commercial banks provide lending and transaction infrastructure.
Development and investment banks target strategic sectors and longer-horizon finance. Microfinance institutions and ethical or Islamic banking models serve underbanked segments. Fintech platforms, often partnered with banks, extend access to digital lending and payments[44]. These actors are increasingly interdependent: regulators enable, banks scale and comply, fintech add agility and data[45].
Beneficiaries include startups and SMEs that need liquidity and credibility, and local communities that gain from increased economic activity, inclusion, and employment.
Where They Fit in the Ecosystem
Banks sit at the intersection of finance, policy, and trust. They translate policy instruments, SME schemes, guarantees, and sustainability targets into operational capital flows. They depend on legal frameworks for contract enforceability and collateral, and on support institutions that prepare entrepreneurs to meet formal standards. Open-banking and platform models deepen this connective role by linking banks, fintechs, and regulators through shared data infrastructure[46].
Banks complement venture capital and donor funds by anchoring financial legitimacy in regulated systems.
When They Are Most Critical
Banking becomes most critical during scaling and reconstruction. Scaling ventures need working capital, export finance, and investment loans that informal investors cannot provide. During crises and recovery, banks provide liquidity that stabilizes markets and restores confidence[47].
In emerging ecosystems, developmental central banks can play a central role in rebuilding credit systems and expanding inclusion. During technological transitions, bank–fintech collaboration helps maintain trust while absorbing innovation shocks[48].
Challenges and Limitations
Banks often exclude early-stage entrepreneurs through risk aversion and collateral requirements[49]. Information asymmetry and missing credit histories raise lending costs and tighten screening.
Regulatory constraints can further reduce flexibility, particularly in developing economies. Digital transformation also faces internal friction: legacy systems, cultural inertia, and bias in how innovation is adopted can slow adaptation[50]. Governance fragility and limited financial literacy remain systemic constraints, and evidence suggests only a minority of entrepreneurs secure innovation funding in some contexts[51].
These limitations are shaped by the rest of the ecosystem. Legal enforcement affects collateral value; government policy affects incentives; support institutions affect investment readiness.
Emerging responses, open banking, AI-driven credit assessment, fintech partnerships, and targeted developmental schemes, signal a shift from rigid collateral-based finance toward more data-enabled, inclusive financial architecture[52]
Ecosystem Research Centers (ERCs)
A startup ecosystem can appear energetic, highly visible, and full of movement, yet still remain poorly understood by the institutions trying to support it. New ventures emerge. Incubators launch programs. Investors signal interest. Ministries announce reforms.
Donors finance initiatives. Activity alone does not produce clarity. Without institutions that can systematically map the ecosystem, interpret its dynamics, and connect evidence to action, support becomes fragmented, reactive, and difficult to evaluate. Ecosystem research centers matter because they make entrepreneurial activity legible. They provide a stronger basis for diagnosis and enable support that is coherent rather than improvised[53].
Their relevance becomes sharper in the broader transition from managerial economies to entrepreneurial ones. In that transition, policy must move beyond increasing firm numbers toward identifying and supporting productive entrepreneurship: ventures, capabilities, and institutional conditions that generate durable value rather than statistical activity[54]. This is where ecosystem research centers become essential. They address what the literature defines as a metrics gap: the persistent mismatch between the popularity of ecosystem thinking and the weakness of the tools used to diagnose, compare, and govern ecosystems in practice[55].
What They Are
Ecosystem research centers are organizations or institutional units that generate, synthesize, interpret, and mobilize knowledge about how startup ecosystems function. They may be housed in universities, public agencies, think tanks, innovation observatories, policy labs, or hybrid public–academic platforms. Their defining feature extends beyond producing research to linking research with decision-making.
In this sense, they resemble evidence intermediary organizations: bodies that not only generate knowledge but also broker, curate, and translate it into forms that policymakers and practitioners can use[56].
This distinguishes them from conventional academic institutes. While university research centers may produce valuable work on entrepreneurship or innovation, ecosystem research centers are more explicitly applied in purpose. They track ecosystem conditions, identify bottlenecks, compare trajectories across sectors and regions, support monitoring and evaluation, and help sustain dialogue among governments, investors, universities, support organizations, and entrepreneurs[57].
They can also be understood as brokering anchors within the ecosystem, organizing the flow of information among institutions. In fragmented governance environments, this role becomes critical. Ministries, local authorities, incubators, donor programs, banks, universities, and founders often operate with partial knowledge of the wider system.
Ecosystem research centers consolidate these fragmented perspectives into a more coherent picture. In that sense, they function as coordinating institutions within the support architecture itself[58].
How They Operate
Ecosystem research centers operate through several connected functions. One core task is the production of ecosystem intelligence. This includes ecosystem mapping, actor identification, analysis of support infrastructures, funding pathways, founder characteristics, sectoral opportunities, and institutional constraints. Beyond describing who is present, they analyze how actors, institutions, and resources relate to one another and how these relationships reinforce or constrain system performance[59].
They also build diagnostics and metrics. Ecosystem policy often suffers from weak measurement. Governments may recognize the importance of entrepreneurship but lack reliable tools to assess whether conditions are improving, where challenges are located, or which elements are lagging.
Diagnostic work addresses this gap by translating ecosystem concepts into measurable indicators and linking conditions such as institutions, talent, knowledge, finance, and infrastructure to outputs such as productive entrepreneurship, survival, and growth[60]. Weak measurement weakens learning; systems that cannot be assessed rigorously are difficult to govern effectively.
A further function is supporting evidence-informed policy. Ecosystem research centers act as structured interfaces between research and policy, helping governments clarify policy questions, assess evidence quality, interpret findings, and adapt interventions to context. Their role is not limited to transmitting knowledge; they mediate between research and action[61].
Their operational logic can also be understood through dynamic capabilities. Strong centers help ecosystems sense, seize, and transform.
They detect emerging patterns and institutional gaps, translate these into actionable reforms and priorities, and feed continuous learning back into the system as conditions evolve especially when ecosystems need to adapt to new technological, economic, or geopolitical realities[62].
They frequently rely on co-production. Effective ecosystem intelligence is rarely produced in isolation and then transferred to policymakers. It emerges through collaboration between researchers, practitioners, and public officials. Co-production improves relevance and allows tacit knowledge, embedded in informal networks, routines, and local constraints, to enter analysis. Much of what matters in entrepreneurship policy is not fully captured in official statistics or formal program documentation. It lives in informal networks, tacit routines, local expectations, and institutional frictions that only become visible through sustained engagement with actors inside the ecosystem[63].
Ecosystem research centers also strengthen coordination and collective learning. Ecosystem policy is typically distributed across ministries, agencies, financial institutions, incubators, universities, and local authorities. Fragmentation leads to duplication, blind spots, and weak accountability. Research centers reduce fragmentation by providing shared baselines, recurring diagnostics, and a common vocabulary.
They may also function as data clearinghouses, aggregating information from multiple sources and turning it into feedback systems for decision-making[64]. Metrics alone are insufficient; data becomes useful when it supports interpretation, comparison, and structured dialogue. In this sense, ecosystem research centers also act as convening institutions[65].
Why They Are Important
Ecosystem research centers improve the strategic quality of policy. The central governance problem in entrepreneurial ecosystems is not a lack of activity but a lack of usable knowledge about what that activity means, where barriers lie, and which interventions matter. Policy often moves faster than understanding. Governments adopt ecosystem language, launch programs, and replicate visible models without a strong basis for diagnosis or prioritization[66].
They also make support more context-sensitive. Ecosystems differ in institutional depth, sectoral structure, and relational dynamics. Their constraints are often highly specific. Ecosystem research centers help identify these differences, enabling governments to ask sharper questions and avoid confusing symptoms with causes. In one place the problem may be finance.
In another, it may be the lack of investment-ready firms, the weakness of knowledge transfer, or the concentration of support in only one major city[67].
They reduce the risk of mechanical policy transfer. Entrepreneurship policy has often relied on importing models from successful ecosystems without accounting for local conditions. What works in one context may depend on structural or historical factors absent elsewhere. Ecosystem research centers counter this tendency by grounding policy in local diagnosis[68].
They contribute to policy continuity. In fragmented or politically fluid environments, entrepreneurship policy is vulnerable to turnover, donor cycles, and institutional memory loss. Research centers provide continuity by maintaining datasets, documenting trends, evaluating interventions, and preserving cumulative learning over time[69].
They also provide a form of evidence quality assurance. Public policy is shaped by political incentives, urgency, and advocacy pressures. Ecosystem research centers do not remove these influences but constrain them by making it harder for short-term narratives or dominant voices to substitute for analysis. That would be unrealistic. But they can make it harder for short-term pressures, fashionable narratives, or the loudest voices in the room to substitute for analysis[70]
Actors and Beneficiaries
Ecosystem research centers may be hosted by universities, public research institutes, ministries, innovation agencies, entrepreneurship support organizations, donor-funded units, or hybrid partnerships. Universities are particularly important due to their research capacity and access to talent[71].
Beneficiaries are distributed across the ecosystem. Governments gain stronger diagnostic capacity, more credible prioritization, and improved monitoring and evaluation.
Public agencies and local authorities gain clearer insight into where intervention is needed. Universities and support organizations benefit from shared evidence on ecosystem performance.
Investors, banks, and donors gain visibility into ecosystem structure and trends. Entrepreneurs benefit indirectly, as more coherent and evidence-based policy creates a more navigable environment[72].
Entrepreneurs also contribute to the knowledge process. They provide real-time insight into regulatory burdens, financing constraints, and market dynamics. Ecosystem research centers do not study founders from a distance; they incorporate their experience into institutional learning[73].
Connectors and dealmakers are another key beneficiary group. These actors rely on ecosystem intelligence to coordinate relationships across founders, investors, and institutions. Research centers enhance their effectiveness by making system-level patterns more visible[74].
Where They Fit in the Ecosystem
Within the pillar of regulations and government support, ecosystem research centers occupy the intelligence and coordination layer. They do not replace regulators, financial institutions, or legal systems. They improve their effectiveness by making the ecosystem visible as a system rather than a collection of disconnected initiatives.
If regulation defines rules, and finance provides capital, ecosystem research centers function as the evidence layer. They strengthen regulatory reform, improve targeting of public support, and provide a more reliable basis for financial inclusion strategies[75].
They sit between formal structures—laws, institutions, infrastructure, education systems—and the everyday interactions through which entrepreneurship occurs. Their role is to connect these layers by translating high-level policy goals into actionable insights. On the other side are the everyday interactions through which entrepreneurship actually happens, including networks, support services, leadership, access to finance, and market opportunities [76].
ERC’s help connect these layers. They are specifically useful when governments are trying to translate high-level missions, such as digital transformation, regional inclusion, or green transition, into more precise and actionable policy instruments[77].
When They Are Most Critical
Their importance increases during formation, transition, crisis, and reconstruction. In early-stage ecosystems, they establish a baseline understanding and identify leverage points. During reform, they assess whether interventions improve conditions. In crisis or post-conflict contexts, where fragmentation is high and data systems are weak, their role becomes more critical.
They are also important during systemic reconfiguration. Ecosystems may reach a plateau where activity continues but adaptation slows. In such cases, ecosystem research centers diagnose what has stalled and what requires adjustment. They can help monitor growth and interpret stagnation[78]
Research on ecosystems in emerging economies repeatedly shows that public intervention, institutional design, and diagnostic capacity play central roles in value creation and ecosystem development.
Where private information systems are weak, and market signals are incomplete, research and diagnostic capacity become part of the ecosystem infrastructure itself [79].
In environments where market signals are weak and information systems are underdeveloped, diagnostic capacity becomes part of the infrastructure itself. Ecosystem research centers provide the shared evidence base necessary for coordination, legitimacy, and external confidence[80].
Challenges and Limitations
Ecosystem research centers are not automatically effective. One risk is descriptiveness without consequence, where reports and dashboards remain disconnected from decision-making. Another is donor-driven distortion, where research agendas follow external priorities rather than local needs. Politicization can also compromise evidence integrity[81].
There are methodological risks. Ecosystems are complex and relational. Metrics are necessary but insufficient. Quantitative diagnostics can oversimplify realities if detached from stakeholder dialogue, while overly complex indicators can reduce usability and overwhelm public institutions[82].
The reverse danger should also be noted. Metrics can become too elaborate, too technical, or too detached from the decision environment of the public sector. When that happens, evidence may be methodologically impressive yet practically unusable. Public institutions have limited absorptive capacity. If indicators are over-engineered, they can paralyze decision-making[83]. Strong ecosystem research centers, therefore, need analytical rigor, but also restraint. Useful intelligence is not simply the most complex intelligence.
A further risk concerns institutional precarity. If funding is unstable, staff turnover becomes more likely. That weakens continuity, reduces trust among stakeholders, and undermines one of the key reasons these centers matter in the first place: their ability to preserve policy memory and cumulative learning across time[84].
Finally, to remain credible, they must be sufficiently rigorous to be taken seriously by researchers and sufficiently independent to avoid absorption into day-to-day political messaging.
At the same time, they must remain practically useful to decision-makers. If they become overly academic, they risk policy irrelevance; if overly instrumental, they forfeit credibility as evidence intermediaries. Their value lies in maintaining this difficult middle position[85].
Bibliography
Andhov, A. “Chapter 2: Importance of Start-Up Law for Our Legal Systems.” In Start-Up Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839108457.00010.
Armitage, Alice, Evan Frondorf, Christopher Williams, and Robin Feldman. “Startups and Unmet Legal Needs.” Utah Law Review 2016, no. 4 (2016): Article 1. http://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2016/iss4/1.
Chen, Jian, Qian Lu, C. S. Heng, and Bernard C. Y. Tan. “The Signaling Effect of Entrepreneurship Subsidies on Initial Public Offering Investor Valuation.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 17, no. 3 (2023): 633–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1460.
Dafe, F., and U. Volz. “Financing Global Development: The Role of Central Banks.” German Development Institute, 2015. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2797226.
Dong, Z., X. Wang, T. Zhang, and Y. Zhong. “The Effects of Local Government Leadership Turnover on Entrepreneurial Behavior.” China Economic Review 71 (2022): 101727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2021.101727.
European Commission, ed. Science, Research and Innovation Performance of the EU, 2018: Strengthening the Foundations for Europe’s Future. Luxembourg: Publications Office, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2777/14136.
Guerrero, Maribel, and Donald S. Siegel. “Schumpeter Meets Teece: Proposed Metrics for Assessing Entrepreneurial Innovation and Dynamic Capabilities in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in an Emerging Economy.” Research Policy 53, no. 5 (June 2024): 104984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.104984.
Hess, Sophia, Bernd Wurth, Erik Stam, Ferran Giones, Riccardo Fini, Angelo Cavallo, Andreas Wahl, et al. “The Future of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Research: Toward a Policy-Oriented Research Agenda.” Journal of Business Venturing Insights 23 (June 2025): e00538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2025.e00538.
Hornuf, L., M. F. Klus, T. S. Lohwasser, et al. “How Do Banks Interact with Fintech Startups?” Small Business Economics 57 (2021): 1505–1526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00359-3.
Horváth, D., Á. Kerényi, and R. Z. Szabó. “Intended Benefits and Challenges of Cooperation between FinTechs and Commercial Banks.” Acta Oeconomica 72, no. 3 (2022): 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1556/032.2022.00023.
Islam, M., A. Fremeth, and A. Marcus. “Signaling by Early-Stage Startups: US Government Research Grants and Venture Capital Funding.” Journal of Business Venturing 33, no. 1 (2018): 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.10.001.
Isenberg, Daniel. “The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Strategy as a New Paradigm for Economic Policy.” Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization 6 (2011): 9–23.
Laksmana, I. N. H., and I. P. H. Permana. “Legal Challenges for Digital Startup Development in Indonesia.” Journal of Digital Law and Policy 2, no. 2 (2023): 71–80. https://doi.org/10.58982/jdlp.v2i2.312.
Leendertse, Jip, Mirella Schrijvers, and Erik Stam. “Measure Twice, Cut Once: Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Metrics.” Research Policy 51, no. 9 (November 2022): 104336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104336.
Linna, Daniel W., Jr. “What We Know and Need to Know about Legal Startups.” South Carolina Law Review 67, no. 2 (2016): Article 13. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr/vol67/iss2/13.
Martin, Steve. “Leading Research–Policy Engagement: An Empirical Analysis of the Capabilities and Characteristics of Leaders of Evidence Intermediary Organisations.” Evidence & Policy, September 22, 2025, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000067.
Nave, Edgar, Pedro Torres, Ana Rita Querido, João J. Ferreira, and Gabriela Fernandes. “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Governance: Critical Perspectives and Steps Forward.” Journal of Technology Transfer 50, no. 5 (October 2025): 2135–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-024-10172-9.
Neharika, N., S. K. Yadav, and B. Kadakia. “The Role of Banks in Supporting Entrepreneurship and Innovation.” ShodhKosh 4, no. 2 (2023): 1991–1997. https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v4.i2.2023.2942.
OECD. Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Diagnostics. OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1787/7096961f-en.
———. OECD Public Governance Reviews: Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Policy-Making: Lessons from Country Experiences. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2020.
———. SME and Entrepreneurship Policy in Egypt. OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1787/195d9c43-en.
Pardo-del-Val, M., E. Cerver-Romero, J. F. Martínez-Pérez, et al. “From Startup to Scaleup: Public Policies for Emerging Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.” Journal of the Knowledge Economy 16 (2025): 7874–7907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02175-6.
Prasannath, V., R. P. Adhikari, S. Gronum, et al. “Impact of Government Support Policies on Entrepreneurial Orientation and SME Performance.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 20 (2024): 1533–1595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-024-00993-3.
Schou, P. K. “Unpacking the Myth of the Entrepreneurial State.” Journal of Business Venturing Insights 21 (2024): e00454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2024.e00454.
Schulte, Verena, and Bernd Birkenmeier. “The Role of Public Funding Agencies for Startup Promotion: An International Comparison.” In Start-Up Cultures in Times of Global Crises, edited by A. H. Verkuil. Cham: Springer, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53942-8_9.
Spigel, Ben. “The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 41, no. 1 (January 2017): 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167.
Stam, Erik. “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic Critique.” European Planning Studies 23, no. 9 (September 2015): 1759–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484.
Stefanelli, V., F. Manta, and P. Toma. “Digital Financial Services and Open Banking Innovation: Are Banks Becoming Invisible?” Working paper, 2022. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.01109.
Wadhwani, K. “Startup Ecosystems and Legal Agility: Regulatory Challenges for Scaling New Ventures.” Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Management 10 (2025): 39s. https://doi.org/10.52783/jisem.v10i39s.7189.
Zhu, Y. “The Impact of Corruption on Resident Entrepreneurship Behavior.” PLOS ONE 20, no. 4 (2025): e0317814. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317814.
