Content uploaded by Endrit Kromidha
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Endrit Kromidha on Mar 13, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
The influence of politics on the governance of an entrepreneurial ecosystem in a 1
developing country: a generative institutional discourse approach 2
Endrit Kromidha, Levent Altinay, Hasan Evrim Arici 3
4
Endrit Kromidha, Associate Professor in Entrepreneurship and Innovation 5
Birmingham Business School 6
University of Birmingham 7
Birmingham, United Kingdom 8
e.kromidha@bham.ac.uk 9
*Corresponding Author 10
11
Levent Altinay, Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship 12
Oxford Brookes Business School 13
Oxford Brookes University 14
Oxford, United Kingdom 15
laltinay@brookes.ac.uk 16
17
Hasan Evrim Arici, Assistant Professor in Tourism 18
Faculty of Tourism 19
Kastamonu University 20
Kastamonu,Turkey 21
hasanarici@kastamonu.edu.tr 22
23
Acknowledgment 24
This paper was made possible with funding from the Creative Spark: Higher Education 25
Enterprise Programme by the British Council, and support from colleagues Olena Bondarenko, 26
Aigerim Raimzhanova, Andrey Shenin and Anastasia Goncharova from Narxoz University, 27
Kazakhstan. 28
29
30
2
Biographies 1
2
Endrit Kromidha, PhD is an Associate Professor in Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the 3
University of Birmingham, UK. His research is uniquely positioned at the intersection of 4
entrepreneurship and innovation in digital environments. Endrit’s work has been published in 5
leading entrepreneurship journals. He is an associate editor of the International Journal of 6
Entrepreneurship and Innovation and serves as an editor in many journals. Endrit is the Vice 7
President for Policy and Practice at the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship; he 8
is a certified Project Management Professional (PMP) by the Project Management Institute 9
and a Fellow of Advance Higher Education Academy in the United Kingdom. 10
11
A researcher of international renown, Professor Levent Altinay enjoys a vast network of 12
international collaborative partnerships, and he is the Editor-in-Chief of the Service Industries 13
Journal. Altinay was a member of the Business and Management Panel in Research 14
Excellence Framework (REF). He sits on the editorial boards of more than twelve journals 15
including Journal of Business Research and Journal of Services Marketing. Altinay has 16
strong record of attracting blue chip external funding, including funding from the ESRC 17
(Economic and Social Research Council) and the British Academy. Altinay has co-authored 18
strategic management, entrepreneurship and research methods textbooks. 19
20
Dr. Hasan Evrim Arici is an Assistant Professor and Vice Dean at the Faculty of Tourism, 21
Kastamonu University, Turkey, and a Lecturer at the EU Business School. His current 22
research interests include leadership and organizational behaviors in the hospitality and 23
tourism industry. His works have been published in international top-tier journals, such as the 24
Journal of Business Research, International Journal of Hospitality Management and 25
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 26
27
3
The influence of politics on the governance of an entrepreneurial ecosystem in a 1
developing country: a generative institutional discourse approach 2
3
Abstract 4
Entrepreneurship is often about the individual drive for innovation and the exploitation of 5
opportunities; however, in an increasingly connected world, entrepreneurial ecosystems have 6
gained considerable research interest. In many developed countries, entrepreneurial 7
ecosystems emerge from organic collaborations between businesses and investors, with little 8
political involvement. However, in a post-communist country like Kazakhstan, different 9
stakeholders have diverse expectations, leading to tensions among them. In this study, we took 10
a qualitative approach and drew from discursive institutionalism theory in entrepreneurship 11
research in order to understand the influence of politics on the governance of an entrepreneurial 12
ecosystem. Our findings reveal tensions between collective aspirations and individual goals, 13
generating multiple institutional logics. The generative institutional discourse that is brought 14
about by politics, their influence on governance, and facilitating factors is a mechanism that 15
helps to turn such tensions into policies and collective action. To gain a better understanding 16
of the influence of politics on the governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems, we propose a 17
generative institutional discourse model. 18
19
Keywords: politics, governance, entrepreneurial ecosystem, generative discourse, institutional 20
theory 21
22
4
1. Introduction 1
The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems has become a hot topic due to a general 2
realisation of their potential for growth in times of change and to the high levels of connectivity 3
found in the global economy (Cavallo, Ghezzi, and Balocco 2019). An entrepreneurial 4
ecosystem is loosely defined as a set of factors and actors that can enable or constrain 5
entrepreneurial activity in a given territory (Stam and Van de Ven 2021). From a policy 6
perspective, an entrepreneurial ecosystem is perceived as a tool for regional development, 7
contextualising markets, research, culture, and social institutional forces (Wei 2022). From an 8
economic perspective, entrepreneurial ecosystems are important for development (Meyers 9
2015; Acs et al. 2018). Although our knowledge of entrepreneurial ecosystems sits on a rich 10
bed of interdisciplinary research (Audretsch et al. 2018), it remains conceptually 11
undertheorized, and the principles that govern their evolution are poorly understood (Wurth, 12
Stam, and Spigel 2022). Previous studies have looked at entrepreneurial ecosystem 13
composition, relationships, and effects, but they have done so by only focussing on one or two 14
dimensions, thus making it difficult to consider the dynamic political and governance forces in 15
them (Daniel et al. 2022). With a lack of holistic approaches, entrepreneurship politics research 16
has remained limited to converging and diverging discourses about agendas and interests. 17
A critical look at politics and governance is needed to gain a better and more holistic 18
understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystems and of how they emerge and operate not as loose-19
tied hubs, but as integrated systems in an economic and social context. The few research 20
endeavours made in this direction have focussed on specific stages of entrepreneurial 21
ecosystems, such as their evolution from academic spin-offs (Abootorabi et al. 2021) or their 22
life-cycle governance (Colombelli, Paolucci, and Ughetto 2019). While we know a lot about 23
the new venture creation process and its affiliation with entrepreneurial ecosystems (Lingens, 24
Böger, and Gassmann 2021; Marcon and Duarte 2021), we know little about the politics that 25
5
affect the governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems in countries transitioning from one 1
economic system to another (Ibrahimova and Moog 2023). Given this research gap, this study 2
was aimed at responding to an important research question: How do politics affect the 3
governance of an entrepreneurial ecosystem? 4
In answering this question and contributing to institutional theory—more specifically, 5
to discursive institutionalism (Schmidt 2008; Kromidha and Córdoba-Pachón 2017)—we make 6
distinct contributions by uncovering the political complexities that characterise the governance 7
of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. First, to address issues related to misaligned institutional 8
logics in entrepreneurial ecosystems, we contextualised and positioned entrepreneurship 9
politics as an important research domain at the intersection of politics and governance (Korber, 10
Swail, and Krishanasamy 2022). Power tensions, conflicting priorities, and lack of vision help 11
not only to justify the existence of politics, but also reveal the inherent institutional tensions 12
that can become enables or inhibitors of governance and its resulting policies. Second, we 13
proposed and developed the concept of generative discursive institutionalism as a mechanism 14
of converging politics with governance in entrepreneurial ecosystems. We explored the 15
influences of politics on governance in an environment of institutional voids, limited 16
implementation, and ideological dysconnectivity, in which governance can be facilitated 17
through strategic alliances, identity alignment, and collective learning. To summarise the 18
abovementioned contributions, we present a conceptual framework of generative institutional 19
discourse. 20
Following the introduction, we present a literature review that builds on the theory of 21
discursive institutionalism and knowledge on politics and the governance of entrepreneurial 22
ecosystems. We describe the development of a theoretical framework to guide our qualitative 23
research methodology. We then organise our findings around the theoretical framework that 24
captures the interface between politics and the governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The 25
6
conceptual themes emerging from the interviews, observations, and engagement help to build 1
a framework of generative institutional discourse between politics and governance in 2
entrepreneurial ecosystems. The discussion then contributes to institutional discourse theory, 3
and to the creative industries sector. 4
2. Review of theory and literature 5
2.1. A discursive institutionalist approach 6
Discursive institutionalism presents the power of ideas and debates in the creation of 7
institutions as a generative process whereby they are formed or revised (Schmidt 2008, 2010). 8
The theoretical approach can explain how change and stability forces are reconciled using 9
coordinative and communicative discourses of participation, learning, and leadership 10
(Kromidha and Córdoba-Pachón 2017). This helps to understand how, in transition economies 11
and during times of change, governments and their stakeholders exercise power and control 12
over other actors by creating and implementing obligatory passage channels (Kromidha 2017). 13
In this context, politics are considered a discourse process that helps to balance institutional 14
pluralism and the institutionalisation of certain policies and practices (Yu 2013). Such 15
reconciliation is achieved by means of temporal institutions whereby, in times of change, actors 16
construct beliefs and embrace temporality as a means to achieve the desirable changes 17
(Granqvist and Gustafsson 2016). Research shows that the actors in entrepreneurial ecosystems 18
co-construct politics through discursive institutionalism; for instance, in the context of 19
corporate social responsibility (Van den Broek 2022). Consequently, the inception and 20
construction of an entrepreneurial ecosystem present a unique opportunity to examine the 21
generative nature of the discourse in shaping politics and the governance of ecosystems. 22
The concept of discourse, as suggested by discursive institutionalism (Schmidt 2008; 23
Kromidha and Córdoba-Pachón 2017; Carstensen and Schmidt 2016), facilitates the 24
transformation of ideas into a collective framework and their integration into the realm of 25
7
politics. In practice, ideational power—as proposed by Carstensen and Schmidt (Carstensen 1
and Schmidt 2021)—involves a discursive institutionalism mechanism that is manifested in 2
three forms: power through ideas, power over ideas, and power in ideas. This necessitates 3
individuals to actively engage in the exchange of ideas and effectively support their credibility, 4
even when faced with opposing viewpoints (Schmidt 2010). According to Béland (2009), the 5
political change process relies heavily on the existence of one or more players who possess the 6
ability to advocate for and advance novel ideas. In line with Seidl's (2022) argument, players 7
in the political arena take a strategic approach by adopting certain concepts and narratives, and 8
actively participate in the process of framing in order to persuade others to either endorse or 9
reject certain policy solutions based on any perceived benefits or drawbacks associated with 10
them. Despite their considerable importance, our understanding of how ideas are transformed 11
into changes in politics and their possible connections with other aspects is currently 12
constrained (Parsons 2007). The objective of our study was to gain insights into the influence 13
of politics on the governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems by means of a discursive 14
institutionalism framework. 15
2.2. Politics and the governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems 16
In the context of entrepreneurship, politics can be theoretically defined as the process 17
whereby any structural barriers to entrepreneurial agency are removed in order to enable 18
entrepreneurial orientation, intention, cognition, and action to be manifested (McMullen, 19
Brownell, and Adams 2021). The politics of entrepreneurship revolve around a struggle for 20
power, laws, control over decision-making, resource endowments, and legislation at the 21
municipal, national, and global levels (Belitski, Grigore, and Bratu 2021). In this process, in 22
which multiple stakeholders interact to collaborate, the discourse shaping the institutional 23
environment in which entrepreneurial ecosystems are born and grow deserves more attention. 24
8
The entrepreneurial ecosystem approach stresses the fact that entrepreneurship occurs 1
in a network of interconnected players (Cavallo, Ghezzi, and Balocco 2019; Spiegel et al. 2
2016). Research explains that, while entrepreneurship is a socially integrated activity (Smith 3
and Lohrke 2008), physical infrastructure and support is equally important for an 4
entrepreneurial ecosystem to emerge (Neck et al. 2004). This implies synergies between 5
businesses, academic institutions, and the government in environmental and social 6
surroundings (Etzkowitz and Zhou 2017). Such synergies can only be achieved through the 7
effective governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems. For example, in their empirical study of 8
11 industrialized countries, Méndez-Picazo, Galindo-Martín, and Ribeiro-Soriano (2012) 9
uncovered a positive relationship between governance and entrepreneurship. At the same time, 10
ineffective governance can lead to political tensions, power struggles, and the inefficient use 11
of resources (Kromidha 2017). In such cases, politics and governance are related to transitions 12
of power among organizational actors, a process that can be either pluralistic in addressing 13
conflicting goals, or reasonable by prioritizing effectiveness and efficiency through obligatory 14
passage points. 15
In this context, the topic of governance is a recurring issue in the politics of 16
entrepreneurship, with academics increasingly focussing on models of power as they look at 17
relationships among stakeholders (Dannreuther and Perren 2014). Governance generates the 18
policies that play a vital role in establishing a favourable atmosphere for entrepreneurship 19
(Spigel and Harrison 2018). However, as pointed out by Stam (2015), governmental 20
interventions can also impose significant limitations on entrepreneurship policy. This impact 21
is not necessarily advantageous, as it may guide entrepreneurs towards acts that result in dire 22
socioeconomic consequences (Minniti 2008). While various forms of governmental 23
assistance—such as financial backing, educational programmes, and access to specialized 24
expertise—may promote entrepreneurship, it is essential to note that these policies alone are 25
9
insufficient to create a thriving and sustainable ecosystem (McQuaid 2002). Consequently, the 1
focus on policy discussions implies that governance will boost the economy by alleviating 2
restrictions on entrepreneurship (Minniti, Bygrave, and Autio 2005). For this to work in 3
practice, the role of the government has to change from leader to supporter (Feld, 2020), 4
something that can be challenging due to the loss of power that is perceived when transitioning 5
from a post- totalitarian regime to a democratic market economy. 6
Our study’s transitional and emergent economy context is a prime example of the 7
ongoing clashes between the push for governance reforms to bring about transformation and 8
the need to maintain established structures (Holmes Jr et al. 2016). Change and interventions 9
have the potential to enhance the economic prosperity and influence of individual actors but 10
can also lead to inequalities and disrupt the overall ecosystem. More specifically, as evidence 11
from Kazakhstan shows, the central role retained by governments in post-communist societies 12
differs from inherent market economies, where entrepreneurial ecosystems are usually 13
contextualised in research. At the same time, other stakeholders are trying to seize power in 14
entrepreneurial ecosystems by engaging in politics that affect governance. Nevertheless, we 15
still know little about the intersection of politics with governance in those business 16
environments in which entrepreneurial ecosystems are relatively new. Therefore, before the 17
institutionalization of any practices that would make the ecosystem stable and thriving can be 18
achieved, it is crucial to prioritize politics and governance discourses aimed at achieving 19
consensus. The lack of research in this direction led to the following sub-questions and themes 20
used to build our initial first order codes for analysis: 21
1. What are the causes of politics in entrepreneurial ecosystems? Themes: Power 22
tensions, lack of clear vision, diverse interests, conflicting priorities, inexperienced 23
stakeholders, uncertainty, 24
10
2. How do politics affect the governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems in 1
Kazakhstan? Themes: Formulation of policies, implementation, bureaucracy, trust, 2
individualism, corruption, activism, strategic alliances. 3
3. How can governance be facilitated in a politics-dominated entrepreneurial 4
ecosystem? Themes: leadership, norms and values, ideas, coordinative discourse, 5
communicative discourse, negotiating, learning. 6
3. Methodology 7
3.1. Research context: the new creative entrepreneurial ecosystem in Kazakhstan 8
Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic, is located in Central Asia. The diversity of its 9
cultural heritage is represented by the many ethnic groups that make up the 19 million people 10
living in the country, which, besides Kazakhs, comprise Russians, Tatars, Uzbeks, 11
Azerbaijanis, Germans, Ukrainians, Poles, and many others (Kromidha et al. 2022). The unique 12
institutional, cultural and geographic contextual factors related to its central geographic 13
position and multiculturalism make Kazakhstan a representative of the whole Central Asian 14
region. Traditionally, centralised politics have been shaping the transition of Kazakhstan from 15
communism to a market economy with a strong focus on extractive industries and infrastructure 16
(Seilov 2015). Although Kazakhstan has adapted its politics to the market economy, the 17
situation in the region has remained volatile (Isaacs 2010). As a result, Kazakhstan remains a 18
democracy in the making (Ibadildin and Pisareva 2020), despite the positive effects of public 19
participatory consultations (Knox and Janenova 2018) and e-government initiatives (Kuatova, 20
Bekbasarova, and Abdrashev 2020) in this multicultural country. More recently, Kazakhstan 21
has been looking more at entrepreneurship and alternative industries to diversify its economy 22
and to secure jobs for its growing young population. This makes Kazakhstan a representative 23
and unique case of entrepreneurial ecosystem creation, as its economy slowly shifts from 24
11
extractive publicly-owned industries to small businesses and services in a global and digital 1
environment. 2
Due to a need to diversify the economy, create new jobs for the youth, and become 3
more visible in the global landscape, Kazakhstan’s entrepreneurship and creative industries 4
have gained increasing attention (Altinay et al. 2021; Kromidha et al. 2022). The potential of 5
creative industries for entrepreneurial diversification and national development in Kazakhstan 6
is well recognised (Zhuparova, Kaliyeva, and Isatayeva 2020). Yet, as is the case across most 7
former Soviet republics, the transition of creative actors and outputs towards a more global and 8
entrepreneurial approach remains dependent on national and urban cultural policy (Kim and 9
Comunian 2022). This draws attention to opportunities related to creative industries, but also 10
to the needs for better policy and practice coordination. 11
3.2. Methods and data for qualitative research 12
The work for this study was conducted between 2018-2023, building on four 13
consecutive small grants given by the British Council to deliver entrepreneurial capabilities for 14
creative young people, develop the creative industries, and assist entrepreneurial universities 15
in Kazakhstan. The strong relationships developed over the years with local stakeholders from 16
civil society, business, universities and the government in Kazakhstan enabled us to have a 17
very good understanding of the entrepreneurial ecosystem development context and collect rich 18
data. We secured ethical approval from the institutional review boards in the partner institutions 19
in Kazakhstan. 20
By conducting semi-structured interviews with important stakeholders in Kazakhstan's 21
entrepreneurial ecosystem, we aimed to examine the genesis of ideas, the mechanisms by which 22
they gain or lose momentum via discursive exchanges among stakeholders, and the factors that 23
impede or facilitate their progress through the country's governing authorities. Due to our 24
12
study’s exploratory nature and its aim to build a theoretical framework for entrepreneurial 1
ecosystem development, we chose semi-structured interviews (Louise Barriball and While 2
1994) as the most appropriate research method. In May-June 2022, we conducted 25 in-depth 3
interviews with various entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholders in Kazakhstan. When selecting 4
our respondents, we paid particular attention to their involvement with power and politics in 5
the creation of a creative entrepreneurial ecosystem. As shown in Table 1, we divided the 6
representatives of entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholders into three groups: 7
INSERT TABLE 1 HERE 8
The methodological suggestions relating to a combination of aesthetics and politics in 9
research processes require researchers to engage ethnographically in entrepreneurial processes 10
(Steyaert 2011). For this purpose, we developed a semi-structured interview guide based 11
around the three sub-questions and themes of the institutional generative discourse approach 12
introduced earlier. After piloting it with three local project partners in Kazakhstan, two 13
independent colleagues who are not authors in this study revised it for clarity in the local 14
context. 15
3.3. Research analysis and rigor 16
Our study combines deductive and inductive logics for thematic coding (Fereday and 17
Muir-Cochrane 2008), starting with the literature for the initial research framework, and 18
continuing with the analysis of primary qualitative data for conceptual synthesis. Although the 19
deductive logic rigor is often justified from the use of research conventions, the use of such 20
templates only serves to support the reasoning rigor used to formulate the research questions, 21
analyse the data, and present contributions (Harley and Cornelissen 2022). The challenges 22
linked to reconciling multiple logics into generalisations and theory building in interpretivist 23
studies make it important to ensure rigor in qualitative research (Gasson 2004). To address this 24
challenge in practice, we applied the Gioia methodology for rigor in inductive qualitative 25
13
research (Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton 2013), complementing it with a deductive layer as a 1
starting point, as applied in previous research (Kromidha, Gannon, and Taheri 2021). To 2
generate the first order codes and concepts, we used key themes and concepts related to each 3
research sub-question (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2008). We used such deductive codes, 4
originating from the literature review, to inform the questions in the interview guide. During 5
the analysis, new inductive codes emerged, and the original ones evolved into more complex 6
expressions. To illustrate and provide a map of the first order concepts represented by codes, 7
we used a Sankey diagram generated with Atlas.ti to visualise code co-occurrence (Friese 8
2012) and to show the relationships between codes (Figure 1). 9
INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE 10
By applying the Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton (2013) methodology for qualitative 11
research rigor, and an axial coding logic (Scott and Medaugh 2017), we formed second order 12
themes from the first order concepts (codes) as constructs in which deductive and inductive 13
codes converged, enabling the emergence of new meanings and interpretations. Finally, the 14
aggregate theoretical dimensions synthesised our study’s theoretical contributions, which could 15
be generalised and added to the broader body of knowledge through the final conceptual 16
framework proposed in the discussion. 17
4. Findings 18
All stakeholders in Kazakhstan perceive the creative industries as an opportunity to 19
diversify the economy from traditional extractive industries, engage and create opportunities 20
for the youth as the country’s population grows, and connect to the global digital economy and 21
use it to promote cultural heritage, tourism, fashion, and, in doing so, the image of the country 22
worldwide (Kim and Comunian 2022; Zhuparova, Kaliyeva, and Isatayeva 2020). This justifies 23
the common interest in creating a creative entrepreneurial ecosystem, but also the emerging 24
14
conflicts of politics, governance, and power, which require a careful look at discourse to 1
generate sustainable institutional change. Yet, in a transitional democracy like Kazakhstan, the 2
role played by state policies cannot be ignored (Isaacs 2010). Therefore, a hybrid model of a 3
new entrepreneurial ecosystem in which the power discourses held among stakeholders inform 4
policy and vice versa presents a unique research context. 5
4.1. Causes of entrepreneurial ecosystem politics 6
A degree of spontaneity in collaborations and partnerships—and in the way politics and 7
governance are collaboratively designed—characterizes Kazakhstan’s current creative 8
industries entrepreneurial ecosystem (Zhuparova, Kaliyeva, and Isatayeva 2020). Most of our 9
informants expressed the belief that true leadership and vision have hitherto been missing in 10
the governance of a creative entrepreneurial ecosystem. More importantly, the country’s weak 11
legal and institutional frameworks are perceived as strong signs of a ‘lack of enablers’ or ‘lack 12
of supporting infrastructure’ resulting in politics. Such a “slippery environment” (as one of the 13
informants put it) causes the persistence of tensions between private entities and the state 14
structures involved in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The root causes of the politics and 15
institutional discourses affecting it is shown in Figure 2. 16
INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE 17
When explored further, we found that the first cause of politics is the desire of each 18
stakeholder—such as city councils, entrepreneurship associations, or public sector 19
representatives—to take control of the entrepreneurial ecosystem that is growing around the 20
creative industries in Kazakhstan. When asked about the reasons behind such a strong desire 21
for different stakeholders to wield power, our informants pointed at the absence of a clear 22
institutional framework suited to clarify the roles, responsibilities, and governance rules. In the 23
use of politics, stakeholders see an opportunity to take advantage of this situation or to 24
15
manipulate the existing rules, regulations, and laws according to their own interests. For 1
example, as one of our respondents mentioned, the state structures—although still seen as 2
leading actors—hold on this position by not being “amenable to any understanding, change, 3
dialogue” (19). Moreover, most of our informants expressed the view that the government was 4
intervening too much into the governance of the ecosystem, over-regulating the existing 5
systems and processes to maintain total control. Our respondents conveyed the persistence of 6
a general feeling that policymakers and business actors from traditional industries failed to 7
understand the meaning of the creative economy, creative sectors, creative entrepreneurship, 8
and creative products that they were trying to control. This had led to the emergence of 9
antagonising views and to the stereotyping of power actors, with creative entrepreneurs being 10
portrayed as wild and unreliable as business partners, and the government actors as rigid, 11
corrupt, and controlling. The politics emerging as a result of such polarised views were found 12
to require more institutional discourse to consider power as flowing, rather than as something 13
to hold on to. 14
Second, in the new entrepreneurial ecosystem, conflicting priorities and misalignment 15
of discourse and practice were found to constantly converge. As an interviewee stated, “there 16
is a conflict of priorities and a conflict of interest […] at the level of state policy” (16). One 17
key area of conflicting interests pertained to the spaces, buildings, and infrastructure to be 18
allocated to creative entrepreneurship. While traditional large firms and extractive industries 19
were found to hold comfortable positions, owning properties and infrastructure in collaboration 20
with the government while building the apartments and shopping centres needed for a growing 21
population, our respondents reported a serious shortage, within city boundaries, of indoor 22
spaces, buildings, hubs, and facilities for creative businesses and start-ups. For instance, more 23
than 200 spaces were reported as being left unused or non-purpose used in the city of Almaty; 24
many of these were state-owned but were not allocated to help the entrepreneurial ecosystem 25
16
in need. Those properties that were available were reported to require enormous investment 1
from entrepreneurs and gave no guarantee; besides, they were located in suburbs and far from 2
main routes. The second—but equally important—source of conflicting interests was found to 3
be related to differing values. While creative entrepreneurs would have liked their work to be 4
known and shared, and to make an impact that would give them fame, the state was reported 5
to be more focussed on economic growth and employment. This conflict of priorities escalated 6
beyond reconciliation through discourse in meetings when, as explained in an interview, state 7
officials would steal someone else’s success for their own political gain—for example, by using 8
celebrities to build an attractive image of Kazakhstan and their own achievements. Conflicting 9
priorities became evident as a cause of politics in relation to parties expressing their aims, while 10
remaining unwilling to give what was needed to achieve them collaboratively, as explained in 11
this quote: “we are still talking about what we want to reduce: state participation, but it seems 12
to be right there, and right here. There is a feeling that somewhere all is the same, leading to 13
some kind of conflict” (5). 14
The third cause of political and related institutional discourse was found to originate 15
from a limited central and generally agreed vision. This was well captured in one of the 16
informants’ statements: “everyone proceeds from completely different tasks of their own, their 17
own vision, but this discussion about the ecosystem, by and large, does not sound right now on 18
our market” (3). Besides projecting an appearance of cohesion, short-term targeted 19
programmes were failing to secure any collaborative cohesion suited to deliver long-term 20
outcomes and benefits. This was hindering the ability to work together or cooperate at all. In 21
great part, this was due to the constant government staff turnover, with positions being held, 22
on average, for no more than two years. Consequently, the lack vision and trust was found to 23
originate from a lack of transparency, communication, and constructive institutional discourse 24
among stakeholders, who continued to hold very polarised views about each other. Third-party 25
17
opinions—such as those of international organisations—and a clearer focus on the benefits of 1
the new creative entrepreneurial ecosystem for the people and society, were reported to be often 2
underrepresented in such debates. They could help towards the achievement of a more 3
widespread common vision and understanding through participation in forums and discussions, 4
giving voice to their ideas in institutional discourses, and occasionally making commitments if 5
they perceived a shared interest and engagement. 6
4.2. The influence of politics on entrepreneurial ecosystem governance 7
We found that the inability of many stakeholders to acknowledge and understand each-8
other’s roles and contributions to the ecosystem remained a major issue affecting the translation 9
of politics into the governance of the creative entrepreneurship ecosystem. For example, many 10
creative businesses we reported to claim that the current protocols did not fit the needs of the 11
creative sectors, with officials needing formal papers to be handed down from the related 12
ministries to start any development of specific programmes for the creative economy. Many of 13
them were reported to confuse the creative economy with culture or art. While entrepreneurs 14
were able to identify the significant players for their businesses, they were unable to connect 15
them to each other as actors within a single ecosystem. In fact, we found that the term 16
‘ecosystem’ did not yet belong to the business vocabulary in Kazakhstan. By performing a 17
more in-depth analysis, we identified the institutional voids, limited implementation, and 18
ideological dysconnectivity issues, as shown in Figure 3. 19
INSERT FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE 20
Institutional voids were found to be directly related to the unclear, uncertain, and 21
confusing environment found in Kazakhstan as the country was shifting its focus from the 22
extractive sector to entrepreneurship and the creative industries. Starting with the legal 23
framework, an interviewee explained that “it is very important to ensure that legal regulation 24
18
of this area is in place as soon as possible” (5). Our respondents reported the persistence of 1
difficulties in finding clear information about the ecosystem’s rules, navigating the system to 2
build new ventures, or finding explanations in advance with an opportunity to correct any 3
mistakes. Under such conditions, important non-governmental stakeholders—such as industry 4
associations or financial institutions—were reported to be engaging in opportunistic behaviours 5
in regard to the ecosystem while, at the same time, striving to avoid taking full responsibility 6
and leadership roles, which they were leaving to the government. Expectations about the central 7
role to be played by the state in filling any institutional gaps were being challenged by grassroot 8
entrepreneurial initiatives. While the lack of a comprehensive legal framework for start-ups 9
and small businesses was providing the flexibility needed for the ecosystem to evolve, in 10
practice, the more powerful actors—such as the state and oligarchic traditional businesses—11
were the only ones who could really benefit from it. This situation was found to be discouraging 12
creative entrepreneurs and small investors; in turn, the disengagement from powerful financial 13
providers was found to be negatively affecting the legitimacy of the new creative 14
entrepreneurship ecosystem. 15
We also found that politics among stakeholders were resulting in the poor and 16
ineffective formulation and implementation of policies based on a clear difference between 17
governance discourse and deliverables. While emphasizing the lack of formulation of policies, 18
a respondent explained that “there is not enough implementation. The project managers are 19
the ones who should bring the projects to an end from A to Z. Here there are few of them” (12). 20
When we further investigated the reasons of such ‘limited implementation’, the informants 21
representing the creative businesses made the key claim that the existing resources of the 22
country were not being wisely used and allocated. Any efforts and resources were being spread 23
too thinly, and leadership was often characterised by individualistic short-termism, rather than 24
by a constructive discourse and efforts aimed at implementing a common vision. For example, 25
19
in relation to traditional crafts, clothing and designs, but also music, the country had a 1
comparative advantage in that the media—which remained tied to state and oligarch 2
structures—was able to play an important role in promoting them and implementing any 3
change required by the entrepreneurial ecosystem. For example, when talking about Dimash—4
a talented and well-known musician and creative entrepreneur from Kazakhstan—one of our 5
interviewees said “it is by their living example that they are the best trigger. To show, probably, 6
not to make a standard, but to show some examples all the time. And somehow elevate these 7
people, give them the opportunity to report exactly in the media. These leaders need support” 8
(12). The informants affirmed that the government was focussing on selected projects in 9
random sectors, rather than on developing coherent, cross-sectoral strategies and building 10
ecosystems. Officials were reported to perceive the relationship with entrepreneurs primarily 11
in terms of public procurement, considering them to be suppliers, while our respondents stated 12
that entrepreneurs were viewed being tied to government programmes and money as having 13
the potential for serious risks and reputational damage. 14
We found that the ideological disconnect resulting partly from the polarised views the 15
actors were reported to hold about each other, and partly from their culture, was limiting any 16
discourse that could convert politics into governance. To bridge this gap and facilitate 17
communication and dialogue, the government had created structures like the Atameken, 18
something akin to a chamber of commerce for small businesses that operated as a quasi-19
governmental association, but also as an entrepreneurial one. In regard to the Atameken, an 20
interviewee explained, “they defend different interests and the state creates opportunities for, 21
perhaps, such a dialogue. And, through this dialogue, they also participate, to a certain extent, 22
in the development of entrepreneurship” (16). Yet, the key problem inherent to the perception 23
of ideology in the context of Kazakhstan was expressed in the following quote: “in the hands 24
of the state, ideology has always been culture” (11). The interviewee went on to explain that, 25
20
over the last 30 years, the state—with the help of cultural figures and cultural events—had 1
promoted its own ideology as culture, which had caused confusion between the two concepts. 2
To be heard, stakeholders thus needed their own ideological champions. While some experts 3
mentioned Bagdat Mussin—the Minister of Digital Development who has made Kazakhstan 4
one of the fastest developing digital nations—no such state figure was reported to be promoting 5
an entrepreneurial ecosystem in the creative industries. While waiting for policy change and 6
stronger government commitment, entrepreneurs were reported to only be able to refer to 7
talented singers like Dimash to convey what success in the creative entrepreneurial ecosystem 8
could look like. 9
4.3.Facilitating entrepreneurial ecosystem governance 10
The first two parts of our findings revealed that, regardless of some strong factors 11
justifying their importance, politics remained disjointed from any governance with a clear 12
vision for the management of the creative entrepreneurship ecosystem. This section of the 13
findings presents new insights into the factors suited to facilitate the governance of the 14
entrepreneurial ecosystem in Kazakhstan. In particular, this section highlights the importance 15
of (i) achieving stakeholder collective learning through the creation of knowledge exchange 16
platforms, (ii) creating a national and international sense of identity, and (iii) forming strategic 17
alliances, as shown in Figure 4. 18
INSERT FIGURE 4 ABOUT HERE 19
In the absence of efficient politics, the first facilitator of governance in an evolving 20
creative entrepreneurship ecosystem involves providing stakeholders that share common 21
interests with a stronger joint voice by means of the establishment of strategic alliances among 22
them. Such alliances, while not necessarily formal, were explained by an interviewee: “these 23
are some kind of associations, this seems to be how they unite in some sort of partner holdings, 24
21
not legal, but simple partnerships” (8). In the absence of established institutional norms, 1
stakeholders were relying on using political institutional discourse to build strategic alliances 2
and co-dependencies. International organisations (British Council, US Consulate General, 3
Chevron, Goethe Institute, USAID) were reported to play an important role in the field, helping 4
creative entrepreneurs by trying to provide support to compensate for the infrastructural gaps, 5
or to fill the institutional gaps by introducing foreign practices and know-how. Regardless of 6
such involvement, stakeholders were reported to generally expect the government, especially 7
the mayor’s offices (akimats), to lead regional alliances. In practice, this expectation will 8
remain mostly unmet until the status of the creative industries is clarified and regulated. For 9
the time being, strategic alliances for discourse leadership are the best tool at which most 10
stakeholders can aim in order to impact governance policy-making. 11
The second facilitating factor we identified was the sense of local and international 12
identity alignment that was emerging from groupings established in the creative industries. We 13
found that, regardless of conflicting priorities, power tensions, or the lack of a common vision 14
between the state structures and entrepreneurs, Kazakhstan’s creative industry was going 15
through a self-identification process. As mentioned in one of the interviews, this identity 16
alignment process originated from the people themselves “there is such an initiative coming 17
from below from people, connected with their own self-identification, national identity” (6). 18
We found that the centrality of their regional identity was inspiring in our respondents a sense 19
of pride in their country despite the divisions of interests that seemed to be undermining the 20
process of the creation of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. To establish a representative actor 21
identity suited to engage in politics and governance, the creative industries would need to fight 22
the widely shared stereotype—often still propagated in art schools and academies—that 23
creative people are no good with money and unable to run their own businesses and honour 24
commitments. Another factor contributing to this perception is the limited understanding held 25
22
by stakeholders—such as banks or investment funds—of what the creative economy, creative 1
sectors, creative entrepreneurship, and creative products mean, and of how to deal with them—2
even philanthropically—as suggested in the following quote: “It's not about money, it's about 3
the culture of philanthropy, that no one knows how, in fact, how to spend money on art, culture” 4
(12). 5
Finally, we found collective learning—as an important aspect of institutional generative 6
discourse, as shown in Figure 5—being hindered by a clear lack of experts and professionals 7
suited to lead and advance any institutional discourse around it. Most learning was reported as 8
being self-taught, and new skills to be needed to develop the entrepreneurial mindset and its 9
related business practices. Yet, the related mentors, facilitators, and experts were found to be 10
widely missing. Universities were reported to be expected to be the main sites of creative and 11
entrepreneurial innovation, and natural bridges between all stakeholders; however, 12
entrepreneurship, as a subject, was found to be quite new, and creative entrepreneurship to be 13
views as rather exotic. It was interesting to find that creative entrepreneurship had been first 14
introduced by the British Council’s Creative Spark programme, which partly funded our study. 15
However, many entrepreneurship courses were found to be still taught primarily by theorists 16
who had never run their own businesses. Practitioners were reported to be avoiding any 17
collaboration with universities because of the related bureaucracy and enormous volume of 18
paperwork. The real learning that was reported to be happening was represented by collective 19
emerging collaborations, discourse, and practice. In this regard, an interviewee explained: “we 20
decided to unite somehow and grow together, as was said at the last Collective learning forum, 21
we created this association of university business incubators and accelerator” (9). In this 22
experiential and generally informal context, learning was found to serve to familiarise 23
stakeholders with entrepreneurship concepts and, more importantly, to make them more 24
receptive towards each other. As explained in one of the interviews, the path to achieving this 25
23
goal should start with the different stakeholders giving greater consideration to each other’s 1
views: “we would like to see each other in general in order to learn to hear each other in the 2
future” (13). Uncovering synergies in the diversity of working together would help the 3
stakeholders to build the creative entrepreneurial ecosystem they all want. 4
5. Discussion 5
5.1. Research implications 6
The existing literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems has mostly involved 7
multidisciplinary research, leaving a gap in conceptual theorisation and in the principles 8
governing the evolution that shapes entrepreneurial ecosystems. Our knowledge remains 9
particularly limited on post-communist market economies, in which entrepreneurial 10
ecosystems are viewed as promising opportunities to provide employment for a growing global 11
youth looking beyond the traditional extractive industries. Our findings confirm that, during 12
such transitions, politics between government actors and institutions used to be in control, with 13
entrepreneurs seeking attention and other stakeholders influencing the governance of 14
entrepreneurial ecosystems, particularly in countries with inadequate institutions and rule of 15
law. 16
As shown in Figure 5, we propose the institutional generative discourse as a mechanism 17
of entrepreneurial ecosystem politics, whereby ideas are aligned through stakeholder 18
commitment and governance collaboration, which evolve through opportunism and learning. 19
INSERT FIGURE 5 HERE 20
24
1
With this study, we offer new insights into the intersection of politics and governance 2
dynamics and into the conception and formation stages of entrepreneurial ecosystems (see 3
Figure 5). We identified power tensions, conflicting priorities, and a lack of vision as the main 4
causes of politics in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. These findings are in line with those of 5
Belitski, Grigore, and Bratu (2021). In our research, we went further and explored the influence 6
of these factors on the governance of entrepreneurial ecosystem. By doing so, we found 7
empirical support to the findings of Kromidha (2017), who stated that the effective governance 8
of entrepreneurial ecosystems could lead to political tensions, power struggles, and the 9
inefficient use of resources. Our research findings go beyond those of Kromidha (2017) by 10
identifying a lack of clear policy formulation and implementation, as well as ideological 11
disconnect, as the main political influences on the governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems. 12
When a balance is warranted between entrepreneurs and governance in resource allocation 13
(power) and collaborations and partnerships (politics), these dynamics can improve an 14
ecosystem’s capability. Success stories can help to remedy any ideological disconnect, 15
enabling more individuals with expertise and professional background to contribute to the 16
development of the dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystem. Yet, a successful ecosystem requires 17
a good degree of discursive and physical centrality. In that regard, cities with an existing 18
ecosystem or expertise, such as Almaty, can become hubs for creative entrepreneurship, 19
25
increasing its political discourse power in relation to requesting and building the necessary 1
infrastructure, and offer a sense of institutional stability to local, international, or digital actors. 2
By drawing attention to collective learning—as a process that involves knowledge, 3
experts, and organisations interacting with each other—our study provides a better 4
understanding of the origin and nature of the ideas that discursive institutionalism takes for 5
granted (Schmidt 2008; Kromidha and Córdoba-Pachón 2017; Carstensen and Schmidt 2016). 6
We showed that collective learning is an important top-down process that occurs between 7
strategic alliances, and that identity alignment is a bottom-up phenomenon. Our study shows 8
how, for these to take place, the role of the government can change from that of leader to that 9
of feeder (Feld, 2020), becoming more receptive and enabling more institutional generative 10
discourse to emerge and be heard from other entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholders. Instead 11
of assuming a dominant role as a discourse leader and decision-maker in the entrepreneurial 12
ecosystem, the government can offer state support for resource allocation in order to create 13
dependencies for inclusion. 14
As depicted in Figure 5, our findings demonstrate that the relationship between politics 15
and governance depends on the alignment of strategic alliances with the identity of the 16
entrepreneurial ecosystem. Our study adds to the literature on the important role played by 17
rules aimed at improving the collaboration between governments and stakeholders when they 18
are used as supportive mechanisms in the ecosystem. While the literature did show that both 19
network connections and business infrastructure are needed (Smith and Lohrke 2008) to create 20
an entrepreneurial ecosystem, where such work should start remained unclear. Examining the 21
political and governance discourses, our findings argue against the ability of an ecosystem to 22
consistently generate high-growth entrepreneurial companies by itself (Spigel & Harrison, 23
2018). We show that commitments to a physical infrastructure and to an agreed long-term 24
vision should be carried out in parallel. In their absence, the tensions between politics and 25
26
governance, as presented in this study, act as a generative discourse between individual short-1
term opportunism and the greater good that can be generated from building something together. 2
By examining the involvement of governments and entrepreneurs in the exchange of 3
ideas and the establishment of procedures, our framework shows how a generative institutional 4
discourse is suited to enable governance to inform politics. This responds to the calls made in 5
regard to redesigning the ‘rules of the game’, whereby entrepreneurs and governments are 6
encouraged to engage in close collaboration (Belitski et al., 2021). In addition, our study also 7
reflects on the consequences of politics and governance for the entrepreneurial ecosystem. 8
Evidence from Kazakhstan highlights a noticeable need for a new form of leadership that is 9
consensual, open, and transparent, but also not afraid to take responsibilities and be consistent 10
in following a jointly agreed vision. Structurally, an entrepreneurial ecosystem should be 11
clearly understood as an institutionalised space in which actors, interests, and ideas connect 12
and converge in a generative process. This does not exclude the acknowledgement of 13
hierarchies, roles, and power, as long as they serve the ecosystem as a separate identity and not 14
as individual interests. In order to foster self-sustaining growth and innovation within an 15
ecosystem, it is imperative to prioritize education, mentoring, knowledge support, and trust 16
among all stakeholders. This is vital in increasing stakeholder knowledge and awareness 17
through a business, governance, and policy discourse that involves higher education 18
institutions. These findings are in line with those of previous research (Etzkowitz and Zhou 19
2017) in arguing the importance of combined perspectives from businesses, the government, 20
and higher education institutions to develop entrepreneurial ecosystems. This approach ensures 21
that ecosystems can advance and flourish collectively. 22
23
27
6. Conclusions and directions for future research 1
Previous entrepreneurship literature neglects the investigation of the interface between 2
politics and the governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Daniel et al. 2022; Wurth, Stam, 3
and Spigel 2022). This is surprising given that politics affects the functioning of organizations, 4
destinations, and countries (Daniel et al. 2022; Wurth, Stam, and Spigel 2022). This study 5
responds to the emergence of this research gap by utilizing discursive institutionalism theory 6
in order to investigate the causes of politics, and the influence of politics on the governance of 7
entrepreneurial ecosystem in a developing country context. The study also presents empirical 8
insights into how different factors facilitate the governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems in a 9
developing country. 10
Drawing on the discursive institutionalism theory, we produced a framework for 11
entrepreneurial ecosystem governance considering aggregated dimensions; namely causes of 12
politics (power tension, conflicting priorities, and lack of vision), the influence of politics on 13
governance (institutional voids, limited formulation and implementation of policies, 14
ideological dysconnectivity), facilitators of governance (strategic alliances, identity alignment 15
and collective learning). This framework brings together two theoretical constructs, namely 16
politics and governance, and offers new insights into our understanding of the political 17
complexities of the governance of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. It also reveals how the 18
conflicting and contrasting expectations and interests of different stakeholders, power tensions, 19
and the lack of a clear vision create political tensions in the governance of the entrepreneurial 20
ecosystem. These all lead to poor functioning of the entrepreneurial ecosystem due to 21
institutional voids, poor formulation and implementation of the policies, and ideological 22
dysconnectivity. Our framework advocates that governance can be facilitated through strategic 23
alliances, identity alignment and collective learning. 24
28
Our results have paved the way for new directions in entrepreneurship research, notably 1
the mechanisms that influence the governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Future research 2
could explore other factors in more depth, including leadership, bureaucracy, lack of trust in 3
the government, the interface between these different factors and their influence on the 4
governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems. In particular, our study holds significant potential 5
in guiding future researchers through the concept of generative institutional discourse. This 6
theory has potential implications for future research in elucidating the pivotal position that 7
stakeholders may assume in the generation, configuration, and dissemination of ideas for the 8
evolution of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. 9
. 10
11
29
References 1
Abootorabi, Hooman, Johan Wiklund, Alan R Johnson, and Cameron D Miller. 2021. "A 2
holistic approach to the evolution of an entrepreneurial ecosystem: An exploratory 3
study of academic spin-offs." Journal of Business Venturing 36 (5):106143. 4
Acs, Zoltan J, Saul Estrin, Tomasz Mickiewicz, and László Szerb. 2018. "Entrepreneurship, 5
institutional economics, and economic growth: an ecosystem perspective." Small 6
Business Economics 51 (2):501-514. 7
Altinay, Levent, Gulsevim Kinali Madanoglu, Endrit Kromidha, Armiyash Nurmagambetova, 8
and Melih Madanoglu. 2021. "Mental aspects of cultural intelligence and self-creativity 9
of nascent entrepreneurs: The mediating role of emotionality." Journal of Business 10
Research 131:793-802. 11
Audretsch, David B, and Antje Fiedler. 2023. "Power and entrepreneurship." Small Business 12
Economics 60 (4):1573-1592. 13
Audretsch, David, Colin Mason, Morgan P Miles, and Allan O’Connor. 2018. "The dynamics 14
of entrepreneurial ecosystems." Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 30 (3-15
4):471–474. 16
Béland, Daniel. 2009. "Ideas, institutions, and policy change." Journal of European Public 17
Policy 16 (5):701-718. 18
Belitski, Maksim, Ana-Maria Grigore, and Anca Bratu. 2021. "Political entrepreneurship: 19
entrepreneurship ecosystem perspective." International Entrepreneurship and 20
Management Journal 17 (4):1973-2004. 21
Biru, Ashenafi, David Gilbert, and Pia Arenius. 2021. "Unhelpful help: the state of support 22
programmes and the dynamics of entrepreneurship ecosystems in Ethiopia." 23
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 33 (1-2):108-130. 24
30
Carstensen, Martin B, and Vivien A Schmidt. 2016. "Power through, over and in ideas: 1
conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism." Journal of European 2
Public Policy 23 (3):318-337. 3
———. 2021. "Between power and powerlessness in the euro zone crisis and thereafter." 4
Journal of European Public Policy 28 (6):922-929. 5
Cavallo, Angelo, Antonio Ghezzi, and Raffaello Balocco. 2019. "Entrepreneurial ecosystem 6
research: Present debates and future directions." International Entrepreneurship and 7
Management Journal 15 (4):1291-1321. 8
Colombelli, Alessandra, Emilio Paolucci, and Elisa Ughetto. 2019. "Hierarchical and relational 9
governance and the life cycle of entrepreneurial ecosystems." Small Business 10
Economics 52 (2):505-521. 11
Daniel, Lisa J, Margarietha J de Villiers Scheepers, Morgan P Miles, and Saskia de Klerk. 12
2022. "Understanding entrepreneurial ecosystems using complex adaptive systems 13
theory: Getting the big picture for economic development, practice, and policy." 14
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 34 (9-10):911-934. 15
Dannreuther, Charles, and Lew Perren. 2014. "The rhetoric of power: entrepreneurship and 16
politics." In The Routledge companion to entrepreneurship, 400-414. London, UK: 17
Routledge. 18
Etzkowitz, Henry, and Chunyan Zhou. 2017. The triple helix: University–industry–government 19
innovation and entrepreneurship. London, UK: Routledge. 20
Fereday, Jennifer, and Eimear Muir-Cochrane. 2008. "Demonstrating rigor using thematic 21
analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme 22
development." International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (1):80-92. 23
Friese, Susanne. 2012. "ATLAS. ti 7 Quick tour." ATLAS. ti Scientific Software, Berlin. 24
31
Gasson, Susan. 2004. "Rigor in grounded theory research: An interpretive perspective on 1
generating theory from qualitative field studies." In The handbook of information 2
systems research, edited by Michael Whitman and Amy Woszczynski, 79-102. 3
Pennsylvania, USA: IGI Global. 4
Gioia, Dennis A., Kevin G. Corley, and Aimee L. Hamilton. 2013. "Seeking qualitative rigor 5
in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology." Organizational Research 6
Methods 16 (1):15-31. 7
Harley, Bill, and Joep Cornelissen. 2022. "Rigor with or without templates? The pursuit of 8
methodological rigor in qualitative research." Organizational Research Methods 25 9
(2):239-261. 10
Holmes Jr, R Michael, Shaker A Zahra, Robert E Hoskisson, Kaitlyn DeGhetto, and Trey 11
Sutton. 2016. "Two-way streets: The role of institutions and technology policy in firms’ 12
corporate entrepreneurship and political strategies." Academy of Management 13
Perspectives 30 (3):247-272. 14
Ibadildin, Nygmet, and Dinara Pisareva. 2020. "Central Asia in Transition: Social Contract 15
Transformation in Nazarbayev and Post-Nazarbayev Kazakhstan." In Transformation 16
and Development, 101-116. Springer, Cham. 17
Ibrahimova, Ganira, and Petra Moog. 2023. "Colonialism versus independence—the role of 18
entrepreneurial ecosystems in Azerbaijan over time." Small Business Economics:1-48. 19
Isaacs, Rico. 2010. "Informal politics and the uncertain context of transition: revisiting early 20
stage non-democratic development in Kazakhstan." Democratization 17 (1):1-25. 21
Kim, Sana, and Roberta Comunian. 2022. "Arts and the city in post-Soviet contexts: Policy 22
pathways and interventions in urban cultural development in Kazakhstan." Journal of 23
Urban Affairs 44 (4-5):640-658. 24
32
Knox, Colin, and Saltanat Janenova. 2018. "Public councils in Kazakhstan: a case of emergent 1
participative democracy?" Central Asian Survey 37 (2):305-321. 2
Korber, Stefan, Janine Swail, and Rishi Krishanasamy. 2022. "Endure, escape or engage: How 3
and when misaligned institutional logics and entrepreneurial agency contribute to the 4
maturing of entrepreneurial ecosystems." Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 5
34 (1-2):158-178. 6
Kromidha, Endrit. 2017. "Transitions of power in multi-actor information system projects." 7
International Journal of Project Management 35 (8):1587-1596. 8
Kromidha, Endrit, Levent Altinay, Gulsevim Kinali Madanoglu, Armiyash Nurmagambetova, 9
and Melih Madanoglu. 2022. "Cultural intelligence, entrepreneurial intentions and the 10
moderating role of the institutional environment." International Journal of 11
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 26 (6):1581-1608. 12
Kromidha, Endrit, and José-Rodrigo Córdoba-Pachón. 2017. "Discursive Institutionalism for 13
reconciling change and stability in digital innovation public sector projects for 14
development." Government Information Quarterly 34 (1):16-25. 15
Kromidha, Endrit, Martin Gannon, and Babak Taheri. 2021. "A profile-based approach to 16
understanding social exchange: authentic tour-guiding in the sharing economy." 17
Journal of Travel Research 62 (2):324–344. 18
Kuatova, Aida, Togzhan Bekbasarova, and Ruslan Abdrashev. 2020. "Introducing E-19
Government in Kazakhstan: The Concept of E-Democracy for the State-Public 20
Interaction." In Toward Sustainability Through Digital Technologies and Practices in 21
the Eurasian Region, 1-16. IGI Global. 22
Lingens, Bernhard, Maximilian Böger, and Oliver Gassmann. 2021. "Even a small conductor 23
can lead a large orchestra: How startups orchestrate ecosystems." California 24
management review 63 (3):118-143. 25
33
Louise Barriball, K., and Alison While. 1994. "Collecting Data using a semi‐structured 1
interview: a discussion paper." Journal of advanced nursing 19 (2):328-335. 2
Marcon, Arthur Ribeiro, and Jose Luis Duarte. 2021. "How do startups manage external 3
resources in innovation ecosystems? A resource perspective of startups’ lifecycle." 4
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 171:120965. 5
McMullen, Jeffery S, Katrina M Brownell, and Joel Adams. 2021. "What makes an 6
entrepreneurship study entrepreneurial? Toward a unified theory of entrepreneurial 7
agency." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 45 (5):1197-1238. 8
McQuaid, Ronald W. 2002. "Entrepreneurship and ICT industries: support from regional and 9
local policies." Regional Studies 36 (8):909-919. 10
Méndez-Picazo, María-Teresa, Miguel-Ángel Galindo-Martín, and Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano. 11
2012. "Governance, entrepreneurship and economic growth." Entrepreneurship & 12
Regional Development 24 (9-10):865-877. 13
Meyers, Maria. 2015. "Making (and measuring) an entrepreneurial ecosystem." Economic 14
Development Journal 14 (3):28. 15
Minniti, Maria. 2008. "The role of government policy on entrepreneurial activity: productive, 16
unproductive, or destructive?" Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 32 (5):779-790. 17
Minniti, Maria, William D Bygrave, and Erkko Autio. 2005. "2005 Executive Report." In 2004 18
report on women and entrepreneurship. Babson Park, MA, US: Babson College. 19
Neck, Heidi M, G Dale Meyer, Boyd Cohen, and Andrew C Corbett. 2004. "An entrepreneurial 20
system view of new venture creation." Journal of Small Business Management 42 21
(2):190-208. 22
Parsons, Jotham. 2007. "Defining the history of ideas." Journal of the History of Ideas 68 23
(4):683-699. 24
34
Schmidt, V. A. 2008. "Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and 1
discourse." Annual Review of Political Science 11:303-326. 2
———. 2010. "Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive 3
institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’." European political science 4
review 2 (1):1-25. 5
Scott, Cliff, and Melissa Medaugh. 2017. "Axial Coding." In The International Encyclopedia 6
of Communication Research Methods. Wiley Online Library. 7
Seidl, Timo. 2022. "The politics of platform capitalism: A case study on the regulation of Uber 8
in New York." Regulation & Governance 16 (2):357-374. 9
Seilov, Galimzhan Aidarkulovich. 2015. "Does the adoption of customer and competitor 10
orientations make small hospitality businesses more entrepreneurial? Evidence from 11
Kazakhstan." International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27 12
(1):71-86. 13
Smith, Delmonize A, and Franz T Lohrke. 2008. "Entrepreneurial network development: 14
Trusting in the process." Journal of Business Research 61 (4):315-322. 15
Spiegel, Olav, Puja Abbassi, Matthäus Paul Zylka, Daniel Schlagwein, Kai Fischbach, and 16
Detlef Schoder. 2016. "Business model development, founders' social capital and the 17
success of early stage internet start‐ups: a mixed‐method study." Information Systems 18
Journal 26 (5):421-449. 19
Spigel, Ben, and Richard Harrison. 2018. "Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial 20
ecosystems." Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 12 (1):151-168. 21
Stam, Erik. 2015. "Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique." 22
European Planning Studies 23 (9):1759-1769. 23
Stam, Erik, and Andrew Van de Ven. 2021. "Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements." Small 24
Business Economics 56 (2):809-832. 25
35
Steyaert, Chris. 2011. "Entrepreneurship as in (ter) vention: Reconsidering the conceptual 1
politics of method in entrepreneurship studies." Entrepreneurship and Regional 2
Development 23 (1-2):77-88. 3
Wei, Yifan. 2022. "Regional governments and opportunity entrepreneurship in underdeveloped 4
institutional environments: An entrepreneurial ecosystem perspective." Research 5
Policy 51 (1):104380. 6
Wurth, Bernd, Erik Stam, and Ben Spigel. 2022. "Toward an entrepreneurial ecosystem 7
research program." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 46 (3):729-778. 8
Zhuparova, A, A Kaliyeva, and G Isatayeva. 2020. Features of the development of the creative 9
economy in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the 10
Conference proceedings SIC Sociosphere. 11
12
13
36
Appendix 1: List of codes and their groundedness in descending order 1
Code
Grounded
1
activism culture
28
2
bureaucracy
20
3
business and politics
16
4
co-dependence
24
5
control and censorship
12
6
corruption and informality
25
7
discourse and debates
24
8
diverse
16
9
ecosystem development
34
10
expertise but lack of practice
15
11
favourable conditions
13
12
generational differences
15
13
ideas
95
14
identity and idealisation
30
15
individualism
36
16
infrastructure needs
15
17
institutional void
20
18
international influences
30
19
international organisations' role
18
20
lack of clear vision
17
21
lack of motivation
15
22
leadership
39
23
market forces
33
24
modernity
13
25
norms and values
25
26
optimism and resilience
17
27
people vs state forces
15
28
power tensions
24
29
risk finance and success
21
30
role of state
51
31
role of universities
25
32
understanding
14
2
3
37
Tables and Figures 1
Table 1: Summary of interviewees 2
Interviewee
Role and organisation
Relationship to creative industries
Gender
10 enablers representing business hubs, marketplace, festivals, creative cluster, professional associations,
educational programme, international NGO
7
Mentor
University's centre of creative industries
Female
20
CEO
University's start-up incubators, IT
Male
3
Manager
Supporting international organisation
Female
2
Coordinator
Supporting local organisation
Female
15
CEO and founder
producing, craft and design
Female
1
Trainer
design, craft, mentoring
Female
4
Trainer
marketing, Creative Spark project
Male
9
Co-founder
music events & production house
Male
17
Co-founder
creative hub
Male
12
Manager
Contemporary culture events
Female
6 experts representing government, quasi-government and supporting local and international non-
governmental organisations
16
Employee
Local government creative industries
Male
22
Former director
Local government creative industries
Male
24
Marketing director
Banking and entrepreneurial finance
Male
25
Employee
Quasi-governmental organisation for
entrepreneurial support
Female
19
Deputy chairman of the board
Quasi-governmental organisation
Male
13
Employee
Quasi-governmental organisation
Male
9 creative entrepreneurs, owners or top-managers, with more than 5 years of experience in business and
project management operating in theatre, events, PR, marketing and communication, film, e-learning,
music and architecture creative industries.
23
Table game developer
Fin-tech start up, Table games development
Male
18
Co-founder
events, music, NFT
Male
21
Serial entrepreneur
film, music
Female
11
Producer
music
Female
6
Actress
independent theatre
Female
14
Founder
architecture
Male
10
Co-founder
e-learning platform
Female
5
Founder
PR, digital, social
Female
8
Manager
marketing, communications
Female
3
38
Figure 1: Sankey diagram of codes’ co-occurrence relationships
39
Figure 2: Causes of entrepreneurial ecosystem politics
Figure 3: Influences of politics on entrepreneurial ecosystem governance
40
Figure 4: Facilitating entrepreneurial ecosystem governance
Figure 5: A generative institutional discourse framework of politics and governance
