The effect of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities on the innovative activity in Russian regions
Abstract
EconStor is a publication server for scholarly economic literature, provided as a non-commercial public service by the ZBW.
Full text
Myzrova, Olga A.; Goryacheva, Tatyana V.; Sysoeva, Olga V.; Sysoev, Victor V. Article The effect of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities on the innovative activity in Russian regions Economies Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Myzrova, Olga A.; Goryacheva, Tatyana V.; Sysoeva, Olga V.; Sysoev, Victor V. (2023) : The effect of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities on the innovative activity in Russian regions, Economies, ISSN 2227-7099, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 11, Iss. 7, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11070190 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/328815 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Citation: Myzrova, Olga A., Tatyana V. Goryacheva, Olga V. Sysoeva, and Victor V. Sysoev. 2023. The Effect of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem of Universities on the Innovative Activity in Russian Regions. Economies 11: 190. https:// doi.org/10.3390/economies11070190 Academic Editors: Katarína Vitálišová, Anna Vaˇnová and Jan Nevima Received: 2 May 2023 Revised: 28 June 2023 Accepted: 4 July 2023 Published: 12 July 2023 Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). economies Article The Effect of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem of Universities on the Innovative Activity in Russian Regions Olga A. Myzrova * , Tatyana V. Goryacheva , Olga V. Sysoeva and Victor V. Sysoev * Socio-Economic Institute, Yuri Gagarin State Technical University of Saratov, 410054 Saratov, Russia; [email protected] (T.V.G.); [email protected] (O.V.S.) *Correspondence: [email protected]u (O.A.M.); [email protected] (V.V.S.) Abstract: The entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities is frequently recognized to have a key influence on the innovative activity of the related regions. However, these relationships have not been explored in the scientific literature regarding Russia. Therefore, the current study aims to determine and identify the contours of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of domestic universities in terms of the innovative activity of subjects in Russian regions. The methodological toolkit covers methods for information processing such as monographic desk research, hierarchical cluster and correlation analyses, and comparative analysis. Applying a hierarchical cluster analysis, we grouped universities according to the level of entrepreneurial activity with the allocation of the average value in order to determine the existing correlations and elucidate the problems in involving university innovations in the ratings of innovative activity of regions. The results contribute to the development of existing approaches toward the study of the entrepreneurial ecosystems of universities through a deeper understanding of their role in stimulating the innovative activity of regions and transformation processes. Keywords: innovative activity; entrepreneurial ecosystem; interaction contours; innovative component; hierarchical cluster analysis; rating 1. Introduction Currently, the development of national economies has to deal with fast changes in the external environment. It requires meeting future challenges with the efficient use of the available resource capabilities of the system. It is extremely important to strengthen the impact of university entrepreneurial activity on the innovative activity of regions by building the interactions between education, science, and business. In Russia, there is high competition in the market of educational services, which is combined with reduced direct funding from the state budget. Therefore, the priorities for the functioning of higher education institutions require modification to meet the challenges of the socioeconomic system. The best practices of the world’s leading universities highlight entrepreneurial activity as a key factor in their dynamic and successful development, capable of providing an adequate response to the threats and opportunities of the external environment. In this context, understanding the essence of an entrepreneurial university as a form of “education–science–business” integration within the framework of the creation and development of multilevel entrepreneurial ecosystems is of particular importance for the promotion of innovative activity in regions, among other things. From this viewpoint, all areas of a university’s activities that characterize its major resources and contribute to the transfer of research outputs to objects of intellectual property, commercial products, and economic development together contribute to forming an entrepreneurial university that is a growth point for an ecosystem. So far, the relationship between the evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems and the priorities of universities in terms of creating opportunities for their interaction and Economies 2023,11, 190. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11070190 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/economies
Economies 2023,11, 190 2 of 19 influence on the innovative activity of regions is not studied in detail. Therefore, in this study, we aim to narrow this gap using an approach that consists of analyzing the contours of the influence of the entrepreneurial ecosystems of universities in regions in Russia and identifying their interconnections. As the objects of our study, universities with a technical profile in the Povolgie region of Russia were chosen, which are most equipped to develop innovations and participate in the innovative processes of the domestic regions. Currently, the Russian practice is dominated by studies that consider the innovative activities of the domestic regions and their underlying factors. However, the following problems are not addressed regarding the influence of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities on the innovative activity of regions in Russia: (i) methodological approaches have not been developed for clarifying the indicators of innovative activity of the regions and generating the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities and (ii) domestic universities have low efficiency in terms of innovation activities. This research is based on a complex application of complementary, cluster, and ecosystem approaches to identify the areas for intensifying innovative activity in regions. To this end, the following analyses were performed: (1) A content analysis was carried out regarding the definition of “entrepreneurial university” using two scientific databases, namely Scopus and the Russian Citation Index (RCI). Such an analysis was considered due to the need to (i) quantify the publication activity among Russian and international researchers in terms of this terminology in order to consider the degree of unidirectional/opposite views, (ii) identify the level of elaboration of theoretical and practical issues in scientific research, and (iii) consider approaches and distinctive features in understanding the essence of an entrepreneurial university among domestic and international researchers. (2) The contours of the influence of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities were analyzed in terms of the innovative activity of the Russian regions. (3) The need to increase the innovative activity of the regions was validated based on the ecosystem approach and the development of entrepreneurial activities of universities. These analyses underline the structure of this study. Thus, the approach proposed in this study expands the study of entrepreneurial ecosystems of universities through a deeper understanding of their role in creating and stimulating opportunities for transformational processes in Russian regions. The hypothesis of the study is that one of the major directions toward enhancing the innovative activity of a region should be the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities in that region. As a result, an effective and dynamic “flow” of innovative development, from the sphere of science to the real sector of the economy, could be ensured, which would directly promote the level of innovative activity of regions and their socioeconomic development. The limitation of scientific research is still the insufficiency of analytical, statistical, and empirical data characterizing the efficiency of the entrepreneurial ecosystems of universities. 2. Literature Review The emergence of new requirements for universities is a natural response to the challenges of the current stage of economic development for universities to be primarily directed toward advancement in their transition to the next technological paradigm. Particularly, this results in emerging universities that are actively involved in rather new entrepreneurial activities. In the mid-1980s, for the first time, publications in the United States (Etzkowitz 1983) followed by other countries (Van Dierdonck and Debackere 1988; Hisrich and Smilor 1988) considered the fundamentals and development of entrepreneurial educational organizations. Furthermore, the concept of an entrepreneurial university has been well articulated and advanced in numerous studies (see, for instance, Golubev 2010; Konstantinov and Filonovich 2007;Röpke 1998;Kauffeld-Monz and Fritsch 2013;Bae et al. 2014; and Nabi et al. 2017). Among others, we should highlight the seminal research dealing with the transformation of classical universities into entrepreneurial ones (Clark 1998;Isenberg 2010,2011;Fernández-Nogueira et al. 2018). In this context, Clark (1998) put forward and elaborated a hypothesis according to which universities can implement
Economies 2023,11, 190 3 of 19 entrepreneurial activities without compromising the “traditional university values” such as an educational process and scientific research. At the same time, a university started to be considered as an ecosystem that includes clusters, platforms, incubators, and networks, thus creating the basis for developing entrepreneurship in different regions (Mazzei 2018). For these reasons, some authors think that the growth of the entrepreneurial potential in the university allows one to identify the university not just within an ecosystem (Adner 2017;Jacobides et al. 2015) but rather within an entrepreneurial ecosystem (Fuster et al. 2019). Interest in entrepreneurial ecosystems has increased enormously in recent years (Spigel and Harrison 2018;Ritala and Gustafsson 2018;Barnard et al. 2019;Colombelli et al. 2022; Corazza and Saluto 2021). This trend is noted both by researchers (Venkataraman 2004; Cohen 2006;Abreu et al. 2016;Hoffman 2020;Uslu et al. 2019;Fischer et al. 2022) and politicians, as well as international and national organizations. For example, Fritsch et al. (2018) investigated Eisenberg’s ideas about the entrepreneurial ecosystem with a research scope focused on highlighting its major components. In general, the World Economic Forum defined the essence of the entrepreneurial system as a set of “inter-related components that determine the opportunities and rates of creation and scaling of new sustainable businesses by entrepreneurs” (World Economic Forum 2014). Stam (2015) went even further and proposed a synthetic model of such a system. However, questions remain that are outside the scope of research performed thus far on the identification of the factors that affect the elaboration of entrepreneurial ecosystems. In some works by domestic authors, the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities in Russia is noted to be mainly focused on increasing the number and survival of startups created by university students (Korotkov and Zobnina 2019). However, this view is rather limited, in our opinion, for the development of entrepreneurial activities of universities. Shapovalov et al. (2020) considered the university ecosystem as a space for a set of subjects attributed to an educational process, where their interaction with an external environment is realized. As a result, the individual personality traits of a social entrepreneur are revealed. Here, an important feature of the environment of socioentrepreneurial education as a system is that the student is considered a subject of the educational process and therefore is also a system. Thus, the student in the ecosystem of socioentrepreneurial education shows the active nature of knowledge, which is ultimately expressed in the mutual influence between the subject and the environment. By 2025, a significant proportion of value chains, according to the forecasts of McKinsey specialists (McKinsey & Company 2022), will unite into several dozen ecosystems, which do not exhibit clearly defined borders among their individual sectors. The developed connections could be revealed only by monitoring the activity of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities and assessing their impact on the rating indicators of regional R&D and the country as a whole. The Russian Ministry of Science and Higher Education annually reviews 1286 higher educational institutions in order to assess the efficiency of their activities. It is ordinarily conducted by evaluating more than 70 indicators in the following areas (Information and Analytical Materials Based on the Results of Monitoring the Activities of Educational Institutions of Higher Education (2022)): - Educational activities (15 indicators); - Research activities (16 indicators); - International collaboration (13 indicators); - Financial and economic activities (8 indicators); - Staffing (5 indicators). The assessment includes two sections: (i) indicators reflecting the role of the university in the system of personnel training for the region and (ii) additional indicators for its extended characteristics. The major target for monitoring is “preparing information and analytical materials about educational institutions of higher education and their branches based on performance indicators” (Portal of Federal State Educational Standards of Higher Education (2023)), which, in our opinion, does not reflect the real efficiency of universities,
Economies 2023,11, 190 4 of 19 their entrepreneurial potential, or market rating but only demonstrates the actual value of university performance indicators. Regarding the concept of entrepreneurial universities, two major approaches could be distinguished, in our opinion, as follows: (1) Entrepreneurial universities are elements of the “triple helix” model that provide interaction for science (universities), business, and the state; universities play a leading role in this model (Etzkowitz et al. 2019;Budyldina 2018;Thursby and Thursby 2002; Ulhøi et al. 2012). (2) Entrepreneurial universities commercialize scientific advances at the international level and transition to an innovative development model (Astebro and Bazzazian 2011;Gianiodis et al. 2016;Meissner 2017). As noted above, the term “entrepreneurial university” was introduced in 1998 by B. Clark, who highlighted its features in his book Creating Entrepreneurial Universities, as summarized in Figure 1. Economies2023,11,xFORPEERREVIEW4of20 analyticalmaterialsabouteducationalinstitutionsofhighereducationandtheirbranches basedonperformanceindicators”(PortalofFederalStateEducationalStandardsofHigher Education(2023)),which,inouropinion,doesnotreflecttherealefficiencyofuniversities, theirentrepreneurialpotential,ormarketratingbutonlydemonstratestheactualvalueof universityperformanceindicators. Regardingtheconceptofentrepreneurialuniversities,twomajorapproachescould bedistinguished,inouropinion,asfollows: (1) Entrepreneurialuniversitiesareelementsofthe“triplehelix”modelthatprovideinteractionforscience(universities),business,andthestate;universitiesplayaleading roleinthismodel(Etzkowitzetal.2019;Budyldina2018;ThursbyandThursby2002; Ulhøietal.2012). (2) Entrepreneurialuniversitiescommercializescientificadvancesattheinternational levelandtransitiontoaninnovativedevelopmentmodel(AstebroandBazzazian 2011;Gianiodisetal.2016;Meissner2017). Asnotedabove,theterm“entrepreneurialuniversity”wasintroducedin1998byB. Clark,whohighlighteditsfeaturesinhisbookCreatingEntrepreneurialUniversities,as summarizedinFigure1. Figure1.Characteristicsofanentrepreneurialuniversity. AscanbeseenfromFigure1,therearefivebasicfeaturesthatclassifytheuniversity asanentrepreneurialone.Thepresenceofastrongmanaging“core”,capableofindependentlydirectingthedevelopmentoftheuniversityandquicklyandadequatelyrespondingtoemergingchanges,makesitpossibletorespondtoexternalchallenges.The secondindicatorreflectsthepresenceofsubdivisionswithhighlyprofessionalemployees, whichfirstlyleadstothedevelopmentofexternalassociationstotransferknowledge,attractnewsourcesoffinancing,interactwithindustry,anddevelopcontinuingeducation andintellectualproperty;and,secondly,facilitatestheinteractionofinterdisciplinaryproject-orientedresearchcentersinuniversitiesandtheexternalenvironment.Thediversificationofincomesources,asahallmarkofanentrepreneurialuniversity,isimportantin thecontextofdecliningbudgetaryfundingandreflectstheabilityoftheuniversitytoexpanditsfundingbasethroughgrants,legalentities,regionalfunding,charitablefoundations,royaltiesfromtheuseofintellectualpropertylicenses,andincomefromtheprovisionofpaidservices.Stimulatingtheentrepreneurialactivityofdepartmentsenablestheir Figure 1. Characteristics of an entrepreneurial university. As can be seen from Figure 1, there are five basic features that classify the university as an entrepreneurial one. The presence of a strong managing “core”, capable of independently directing the development of the university and quickly and adequately responding to emerging changes, makes it possible to respond to external challenges. The second indicator reflects the presence of subdivisions with highly professional employees, which firstly leads to the development of external associations to transfer knowledge, attract new sources of financing, interact with industry, and develop continuing education and intellectual property; and, secondly, facilitates the interaction of interdisciplinary project-oriented research centers in universities and the external environment. The diversification of income sources, as a hallmark of an entrepreneurial university, is important in the context of declining budgetary funding and reflects the ability of the university to expand its funding base through grants, legal entities, regional funding, charitable foundations, royalties from the use of intellectual property licenses, and income from the provision of paid services. Stimulating the entrepreneurial activity of departments enables their transformation into entrepreneurial units that interact with the external environment, implement the results of
Economies 2023,11, 190 5 of 19 scientific research, attract additional sources of income, and lead to the acceptance of new values by employees. The abovementioned features together form a mechanism for implementing new developments via the integration of an entrepreneurial culture with university-wide activities, as well as the dissemination and sustainable consolidation of ideas. In terms of the characteristics inherent in entrepreneurial universities, their areas of activity are education and research, which are accompanied by a transfer of knowledge that underlies the need for interaction with the external environment. Consequently, the activities of an entrepreneurial university must meet the needs of the market in educational services, high-tech developments, and labor (Lankin et al. 2011). According to some domestic authors (Andryushkevich and Denisova 2014;Buniak 2016;Podborodnikova 2019;Yudkevich 2014), entrepreneurial universities in Russia are characterized by a reduced dependence on state institutions; susceptibility to global trends; flexibility; adaptive management structure; integration of education, science, and business; interaction with investors; the training of competitive specialists for entrepreneurial and innovative thinking; the development of infrastructure adapted for research and entrepreneurial activities (development centers, technology parks, business incubators, etc.); an effective system for the motivation and stimulation of scientific and teaching staff; a focus not only on fundamental science but also on applied research; competitive and selective selection of students; a high degree of information openness; and the organization of scientific communities and business environment in the region (or scientific, technical, and economic realms surrounding the university). Thus, the distinctive function of entrepreneurial universities is highlighted in the literature (Digital/McKinsey 2017) as the commercialization of R&D outputs, which is defined in a sequence as follows: Universities conduct scientific research, the result of which is new knowledge. Then, the commercial attractiveness of the invention is assessed by formalizing an intellectual property to be claimed through patenting. Finally, a business plan is detailed to promote the product and the corresponding licenses. One can agree with the opinion that entrepreneurial universities should function as commercial organizations, while university staff and students should behave and think like entrepreneurs. Moreover, universities should be closely linked to the region and support local businesses. However, the mechanisms of the triple helix used in the development of Russian universities are still in their infancy. In our opinion, to accelerate this process and advance their competitiveness, an effective rating assessment is required. The history of university rankings goes back to 1997, when universities were assessed by the Asia Week magazine. In 2003, the staff of Shanghai University compiled the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) according to 13 criteria, which reflect “the academic mobility of students and teachers, the number of international scholarship programs, the efficiency of scientific research, the citation of scientific articles, the quality of educational services, etc.” (Primina 2018;Lin and Chen 2021). In 2004, Britain began to annually publish a list of the world’s top universities, titled “The Times Higher Education”, and since 2010, they have been reporting the reputation rating of world universities (World Reputation Rankings) and the ranking of the world’s leading universities (World University Rankings) (Velitchenko 2020;Bowman and Bastedo 2011). Currently, one of the commonly recognized rankings is the ranking of 500 leading world universities regarding Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), according to criteria that reflect the volume of research activity calculated by taking the number of published scientific articles. Because many national policies necessitate the presence of universities in such rankings, there is permanent competition between universities according to the criteria involved. Therefore, the indicators that assess the results of scientific activity are extremely important. For example, objective data such as the number of inventions, patent applications, granted patents, active licenses, the number of scientists, etc., could be included in such an analysis.
Economies 2023,11, 190 6 of 19 3. Methodology In the course of this study, a complex analysis was employed to cover a number of aspects related to forming the objective key indicators in order to characterize the scientific and entrepreneurial potential of universities. Furthermore, a system analysis was performed which allowed us to investigate the relationship and interdependence of the indicators and identify the opportunities of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of the university within the international knowledge environment. The concept of the rational behavior of market actors was considered to formulate the indicators of entrepreneurial activity in universities according to best practices. To evaluate the contribution of scientists to the practice in formulating the indicators and criteria for their evaluation, we used the method of monographic desk research. The comparative analysis conducted allowed us to assess the degree to which the problem of entrepreneurship formation can be solved in Russia relative to the international context. The method of hierarchical cluster analysis was employed to obtain a comprehensive assessment and grouping of universities according to the level of their innovative activity in Russian regions, while correlation analysis was carried out to identify the relationship between university rankings and innovative activities in these regions. The experimental case study was the entrepreneurial ecosystem of technical universities in the Povolgie region of Russia. To comprehensively assess the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities, we proposed a methodology taking into account the indicators in the major areas of their activities. In our opinion, this approach could allow one to quantitively determine (i) the efficiency of universities in implementing the opportunities and available resources for entrepreneurial activities, and (ii) their ability to move into the category of an entrepreneurial university. The state-of-the-art concepts indicate that the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities should be considered within the framework of the basic university activities, namely their educational, research, financial, and economic endeavors. Therefore, the indicators in the rating assessment were combined into three blocks according to the functions and areas of activities. These blocks are listed in Table 1, considering the Russian university practice. All the indicators for evaluating the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities were determined using the index method with coefficients, which allowed us to rate universities both in single directions and integrally. For each block, the average indicators were derived by estimating a final output rating as follows: I=3 q0.45Ie·0.35Ir·0.2If r, where Ie , Ir , and Ifr are the final coefficients of the rating related to educational activity, scientific activity, and financial/economic results; and the coefficients of 0.45, 0.35, and 0.2 are weighting coefficients that were revealed using an expert assessment as the major qualitative method. As experts, qualified specialists and university scientists were considered. The overall university’s rank was determined using hierarchical cluster analysis, in which universities were grouped into the following three categories: - Low, if the university rank was less than the average; - Average, if the university rank was equal to the average; - High, if the university rank was greater than the average. The method of hierarchical cluster analysis was chosen for grouping universities because it has no restrictions on the number of selected indicators. Additionally, it allowed us to obtain real results of university classification based on a multivariate assessment of a set of initial data, including situations when the distribution of random variables deviated from a normal (Gaussian) value. The grouping of universities using this method was
Economies 2023,11, 190 7 of 19 carried out by considering a matrix in which the raw values belong to the indicators of the indexes given in Table 1as follows: I=Ie1Ie2. . . Iej Ir1Ir2. . . Irj If r1Ifr2. . . Ifrj Such an approach facilitates the grouping of universities with not only ranking levels but also the identification of the reserves for developing the efficiency of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities in the region. Table 1. Ranking matrix for the estimation of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities. Activity Areas in University Functions Indicators Educational process - Teaching according to entrepreneurial-type programs; - Promoting appearing and developing spin-off companies; - Assisting regional development; - Inter-regional and international cooperation. Ie1=Q1t Q1 Q1t—the number of undergraduate students admitted to the first year of full-time education in higher education programs under sponsorship by companies; Q1—the total number of students admitted to the first year of full-time study in higher education programs. Ie2=Qol Ql Qol—the number of trainees who improved their qualifications or underwent professional retraining from third-party organizations; Ql—the total number of trainees who improved their qualifications or underwent professional retraining. Ie3=Qtt Qt Qtt—the number of students studying under the sponsorship of companies in engineering and technical areas of higher education; Qt—the total number of students enrolled in engineering and technical areas of higher education. Ie4= Qf s Q Qf s—number of foreign students enrolled in higher education programs; Q—the total number of students enrolled in higher education programs. Ie5= Qf g Qg Qf g—the number of foreign students who graduated from the university in higher education programs; Qg—the number of students who graduated from the university in higher education programs. Ie6=Qsa Qs Qsa—the number of full-time students who have studied abroad for at least a semester in higher education programs; Qs—total number of full-time students who completed higher education programs. Ie7= Qf Qt Qf—the number of scientific/teaching staff from abroad; Qt —the total number of scientific/teaching staff. Ie8= Qphd f Qphd Qphd f —the number of PhD students coming from abroad; Qphd—the total number of PhD students.
Economies 2023,11, 190 8 of 19 Table 1. Cont. Activity Areas in University Functions Indicators Research activities - Knowledge generation; - Promoting installing and developing spin-off companies; - Promoting regional development; - International cooperation. Ir1=Voi Vui Voi—the volume of income from in-house R&D; Vui—university income from R&D. Ir2=Viia V Viia—the amount of income generated from using the results of the intellectual activity of the university; V—university income. Financial and economic results - Implementing the educational process according to entrepreneurial-type programs; - Knowledge generation; - Promoting and appearing and developing spin-off companies; - Assisting with regional development; - International cooperation. Ifr1=VR&D V Ifr2= VR&D f VR&D VR&D —the amount of funds received from foreign legal entities and individuals for performing R&D. Ifr3= Vf m Vm Vf m—the amount of funds received from foreign legal entities and individuals for educational activities; Vm—the total amount of funds received from educational activities. Ifr4=Viga Vti Viga—the amount of funds from income-generating activities; Vti—the amount of income from all types of financial support. Ifr5= Ve f V Ve f —the amount of income derived from non-budgetary sources. Ifr6=Viea Vm Viea—the amount of income derived from non-budgetary sources regarding educational activities. Ifr7=Vie Vird Vie —the amount of income from non-budgetary sources regarding R&D; Vird—the total amount of income from R&D. 4. Results 4.1. University Entrepreneurial Ecosystem The literature analysis shows that there is still no unified, generally accepted, approach for defining the essence of the concept of “entrepreneurial university” despite its widespread use. This rather complicates the development of practical recommendations for the transformation of universities into entrepreneurial ones. Many authors also do not consider the fact that the development of entrepreneurial activities of such universities in all areas—educational, scientific, international cooperation, etc.—extends beyond the horizon of research, which highlights the practical need for creating an entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities. However, only the emergence of such ecosystems will make it possible to properly ensure the association of universities with an external environment. Accordingly, there is no unified system of indicators for assessing the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities that could allow one to evaluate their rating and control the pace of development as an economic agent. Thus, in our opinion, an entrepreneurial university as a core of the ecosystem should be understood as a university in which teaching is performed in areas of interest in the labor market, taking into account the prospects for the innovative development of the economy, and scientific/technology research is conducted that has a commercialized output while actively interacting with the environment considering the regional, state, and global economy to gain a profit. Based on this approach, the following major functions of the entrepreneurial university were identified:
Economies 2023,11, 190 15 of 19 Economies2023,11,xFORPEERREVIEW15of20 Thecorrelationdependencebetweentheratingoftheentrepreneurialecosystemand IIARacrosstheregionsofPovolgiealsodidnotexhibitanunambiguousdirection,which isclearlyseeninFigure7.ThelargestimpactoftheentrepreneurialecosystemoninnovationactivitieswasobservedintheSamararegion(0.68)andtheRepublicofBashkortostan (0.29).AnegativecorrelationbetweenthesetwoindicatorswasobservedforthePerm, Penza,Ulyanovsk,andSaratovregions,aswellasfortheUdmurtianRepublic.Inother regionsofPovolgie,therewasapositivedependence,withtheaveragevalueequalto 0.10835.Still,thenegativerelationshipbetweenthedevelopmentoftheentrepreneurial ecosystemofuniversitiesandtheinnovativeactivitiesoftheregionsofPovolgiein2020 isassociated,inouropinion,withadeclineineconomicdevelopmentindicatorsdueto theCOVID-19pandemic,whenuniversitiesoperatedunderaremoteformat,andmany enterprisesweresuspendedoreventerminatedtheiractivities. Figure7.CorrelationdependencebetweentheratingsoftheentrepreneurialecosystemandIIARin Povolgie(Russia)during2017–2021. Asaresult,therewasadecreaseinthevolumeofthegrossregionalproductandthe innovativeactivitiesofenterprisesandorganizations.Thisisreflectedinthecurvesshown inFigure8. Figure8.ThegrossregionalproductindexandIIARinPovolgie(Russia)during2017–2021. 5.Discussion Theresultsoftheconductedresearchindicatearatherlowlevelofdevelopmentof theentrepreneurialecosystemofuniversitiesanditsinsignificantimpactontheinnovativeactivityoftheregionsinPovolgie(Russia).Inouropinion,oneofthereasonsisthe shortcomingsoftheexistingmethodsforassessingtheinnovativeactivitiesofregions, whichaccountonlyfortheinformationprovidedbyenterprisestostatisticalauthorities butdonotutilizetheresultsofresearchandinnovationactivitiesofuniversities.However, manylocaluniversities,asshownhere,carryoutinnovations;introducetheirresultsinto Figure 8. The gross regional product index and IIAR in Povolgie (Russia) during 2017–2021. 5. Discussion The results of the conducted research indicate a rather low level of development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities and its insignificant impact on the innovative activity of the regions in Povolgie (Russia). In our opinion, one of the reasons is the shortcomings of the existing methods for assessing the innovative activities of regions, which account only for the information provided by enterprises to statistical authorities but do not utilize the results of research and innovation activities of universities. However, many local universities, as shown here, carry out innovations; introduce their results into educational, administrative, and managerial activities; successfully develop technology parks; and interact with enterprises. A contradiction is that the indicators taken in the global innovation index (GII) consider the results of universities, while they are not counted when assessing innovative activities in Russian practice. However, the products and services produced by universities play a significant role in the innovative activities of regions and local markets of labor, goods, and services, including educational services, small innovative enterprises, and start-ups. Still, many domestic and foreign experts note the low efficiency of innovation activities of domestic universities in Russia. This is ordinarily explained due to the lack of entrepreneurial thinking among scientists–inventors, the existing gaps in the innovation commercialization chain, and the lack of key elements in the innovation ecosystem of universities (Efremova and Romanova 2020). Therefore, attempts to commercialize technologies have not yet been crowned with tangible success. As rightly noted in another research (Kiseleva et al. 2022), the level of regional development in Russia varies greatly. Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Tatarstan are leaders in the ratings of innovative development of regions, which account for about 57% of the total volume of innovative goods shipped and innovative works and services carried out, while the remaining 76 regions account for only 43% of the results of innovative activities. This indicates a need for further analytical research to identify the factors for the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems in regions as an element of the growth of innovative activities. Many studies agree that innovations are the major instrument for increasing the competitiveness of regions and the country as a whole. Therefore, to advance the level of socioeconomic development and promote innovative activities and competitiveness among regions, it is necessary to develop a reasonable strategy that allows one to achieve a long-term effect. In turn, this necessitates the facilitation of new methods and tools to build regional strategies that take into account quantitative and qualitative assessments of a dynamically changing environment and the current challenges. Despite a growing number of studies regarding the innovative activities of regions and rating assessments of universities, methodological approaches using indicators that properly reflect the innovative activities of regions in Russia and the development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities are still insufficiently developed. Some studies devoted to this problem note that universities should make a significant contribution to the development of regional and local innovations (Cervantes 2017). However, it is not enough only to increase the innovative activities of a region; other components must be also taken into account. These include the investment
Economies 2023,11, 190 16 of 19 climate, a regulatory framework, and an infrastructure for innovations (Cuaresma et al. 2013). The most comprehensive approach involves the assessment of the various aspects of regional innovation systems, which could be carried out by employing the triple helix concept for the analysis and evaluation of the existing strategies (Etzkowitz and Zhou 2017). However, this concept does not sufficiently take into account the impact of demand on the creation and implementation of new knowledge, technologies, and products. To a certain extent, the extrapolation of the three-tier model to a four-tier one could help in eliminating this issue (Volodin et al. 2020) as an integral approach for the assessment of the results obtained at the regional level and the development of effective mechanisms for introducing innovations. Improving the monitoring and evaluation system at the regional level requires employing multilevel methods that consider chronological and spatial dynamics. The current study proposes a comprehensive assessment of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities that is universal in nature because a significant portion of the indicators were considered while taking into account international standards. This method can be used for regions with varying degrees of economic activity in order to identify “bottlenecks” in promoting their innovative activity. The complex nature of the developed methodology involves an assessment in three directions, which reflect the components of the activities of universities from different perspectives. Each block was evaluated from a quantitative and qualitative standpoint by particular criteria, resulting in a complex value for calculation. The weakness of the proposed methodological approach is the absence of a unified scale for assessing the level of development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities for all regions in terms of innovations because it is based on the values of weight coefficients. Weight coefficients are individual for each region and were determined using an expert method. In addition, the results of the study are presented for only 10 out of the 89 regions of Russia, which indicates the need for further analysis and assessment of the association of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities with innovative development in other regions. 6. Conclusions Following the objective of this study, we determined and analyzed the degree of influence of the contours of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities on the innovative activities of subjects of economic development, taking the example of the Povolgie region in Russia. This allowed us to demonstrate the relationship between the degree of development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities and the innovative activities of the corresponding regions in Povolgie. Our study shows that the major features of an entrepreneurial university are the dissemination of knowledge, the generation of knowledge, the promotion of education and development of companies, regional development, and international cooperation in order to adequately commercialize the complex of “education–science–entrepreneurship”. The entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities lies at the core of the region’s innovative activities. Promoting the entrepreneurial potential of universities is impossible without a quality training process, a high level of qualification and competitiveness of graduates, the stimulation of innovations, and the development of new forms of educational and scientific activities covering all levels of management. The rating assessment of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of universities was based on multilevel hierarchical and integrated indicators using quantitative and qualitative methods. The identification of weighted criteria, established for each region accounting for its socioeconomic development, would help to improve the verification of the rating. Their use will allow one to consider regional factors, as well as the individual characteristics of each area of university activities. In our opinion, such an approach facilitates the identification of weaknesses and strengths of a university within the framework of its entrepreneurial and innovative activities and determines the vector of its further development to positively influence the functioning of socioeconomic systems.
Economies 2023,11, 190 17 of 19 Author Contributions: Conceptualization, O.A.M. and T.V.G.; methodology, O.A.M.; formal analysis, O.A.M., T.V.G. and O.V.S.; investigation, O.A.M. and T.V.G.; resources, V.V.S.; data curation, O.A.M. and O.V.S.; writing—original draft preparation, O.A.M., T.V.G., O.V.S. and V.V.S.; writing—review and editing, V.V.S.; visualization, O.A.M., O.V.S. and V.V.S.; supervision, O.A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Abreu, Maria, Pelin Demirel, Vadim Grinevich, and Mine Karata¸s-Özkan. 2016. Entrepreneurial practices in research intensive and teaching-led universities. Small Business Economics 47: 695–717. [CrossRef] Adner, Ron. 2017. Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy. Journal of Management 1: 39–58. [CrossRef] Andryushkevich, Olga A., and Irina M. Denisova. 2014. Formation of Entrepreneurial Universities in the Innovation Economy. Economic Science of Modern Russia 3: 87–104. Astebro, Tom, and Navid Bazzazian. 2011. Universities, Entrepreneurship and Local Economic Development. In Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship and Regional Development: National and Regional Perspectives. Edited by Michael Fritsch. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Pub. Bae, Tae Jun, Shanshan Qian, Chao Miao, and James O. Fiet. 2014. The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta-analytic review. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 38: 217–54. [CrossRef] Barnard, Art, Thomas Pittz, and Jeff Vanevenhoven. 2019. Entrepreneurship education in U.S. community colleges: A review and analysis. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 26: 190–208. [CrossRef] Bowman, Nicholas A., and Michael N. Bastedo. 2011. Anchoring effects in world university rankings: Exploring biases in reputation scores. Higher Education 61: 431–44. [CrossRef] Budyldina, Natalia. 2018. Entrepreneurial universities and regional contribution. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 14: 265–77. [CrossRef] Buniak, Nadezhda M. 2016. Entrepreneurial University: Essence and Features of Formation. Juvenis Scientia 2: 144–47. Cervantes, Mario. 2017. Higher Education Institutions in the Knowledge Triangle. Foresight and STI Governance 2: 27–42. [CrossRef] Clark, Burton R. 1998. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Paris: IUA Press & Pergamon. Cohen, Boyd. 2006. Sustainable Valley Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Business Strategy and the Environment 1: 1–14. [CrossRef] Colombelli, Alessandra, Shiva Loccisano, Andrea Panelli, Orazio Antonino Maria Pennisi, and Francesco Serraino. 2022. Entrepreneurship education: The effects of challenge-based learning on the entrepreneurial mindset of university students. Administrative Sciences 12: 10. [CrossRef] Corazza, Laura, and Paolo Saluto. 2021. Universities and multistakeholder engagement for sustainable development: A research and technology perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 68: 1173–78. [CrossRef] Cuaresma, Jesús Crespo, Harald Oberhofer, and Gallina A. Vincelette. 2013. Firm growth and productivity in Belarus: New empirical evidence from the machine building industry. Journal of Comparative Economics 3: 726–38. [CrossRef] D’Este, Pablo, and Parimal R. Patel. 2007. University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy 36: 1295–313. [CrossRef] Digital/McKinsey. 2017. Digital Russia: New Reality. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/ru/~/media/McKinsey/ Locations/Europe%20and%20Middle%20East/%20Russia/Our%20Insights/Digital%20Russia/Digital-Russia-report.ashx (accessed on 13 March 2023). Efremova, Polina V., and Irina M. Romanova. 2020. Assessment of the level of development of innovative activities of the university. Part 1. Justification and testing of the proposed approach. Issues of Innovation Economy 3: 1737–58. [CrossRef] Etzkowitz, Henry. 1983. Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva 21: 198–233. [CrossRef] Etzkowitz, Henry, and Chunyan Zhou. 2017. The Triple Helix. University-Industry-Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship. London: Routledge. [CrossRef] Etzkowitz, Henry, Eloïse Germain-Alamartine, Jisoo Keel, Caleb Kumar, Kaden Nelson Smith, and Ekaterina Albats. 2019. Entrepreneurial university dynamics: Structured ambivalence, relative deprivation and institution-formation in the Stanford innovation system. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 141: 159–71. [CrossRef] Fernández-Nogueira, Donna, Arantza Arruti, Leire Markuerkiaga, and Nerea Saenz. 2018. The entrepreneurial university: A selection of good practices. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 21: 1–17. Fischer, Sophie, Maximilian Rosilius, Jan Schmitt, and Volker Bräutigam. 2022. A brief review of our agile teaching formats in entrepreneurship education. Sustainability 14: 251. [CrossRef]
Economies 2023,11, 190 18 of 19 Fritsch, Michael, Mirko Titze, and Matthias Piontek. 2018. Knowledge Interactions in Regional Innovation Networks: Comparing Data Sources. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/174380 (accessed on 13 March 2023). Fuster, Elena, Antonio Padilla-Meléndez, Nigel Lockett, and Ana Rosa del Aguila-Obra. 2019. The emerging role of university spin-off companies in developing regional entrepreneurial university ecosystems: The case of Andalusia. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 141: 219–31. [CrossRef] Gianiodis, Peter T., Gideon D. Markman, and Andreas Panagopoulos. 2016. Entrepreneurial universities and overt opportunism. Small Business Economics 3: 609–31. [CrossRef] Golubev, Sergey V. 2010. Socio-entrepreneurial University: The possibility of development for regional universities. Social Sciences. All-Russian Scientific Journal 4: 11–21. Hisrich, Robert D., and Raymond W. Smilor. 1988. The university and business incubation: Technology transfer through entrepreneurial development. The Journal of Technology Transfer 13: 14–19. [CrossRef] Hoffman, Marlin. 2020. Entrepreneurship Education Required in the Future. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 23: 1–9. Information and Analytical Materials Based on the Results of Monitoring the Activities of Educational Institutions of Higher Education. 2022. Characteristics of the Higher Education System in the Russian Federation. Available online: https://monitoring.miccedu. ru/?m=vpo (accessed on 13 March 2023). Isenberg, Daniel. 2011. The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Strategy as a New Paradigm for Economy Policy: Principles for Cultivating Entrepreneurship. Available online: http://www.innovationamerica.us/images/stories/2011/The-entrepreneurship-ecosystemstrategy-for-economic-growth-policy-20110620183915.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023). Isenberg, Daniel J. 2010. How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution. Available online: https://institute.coop/sites/default/files/ resources/Isenberg%20-%20How%20to%20Start%20an%20Entrepreneurial%20Revolution.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023). Jacobides, Michael G., Carmelo Cennamo, and Annabelle Gawer. 2015. Industries, Ecosystems, Platforms, and Architectures: Rethinking our Strategy Constructs at the Aggregate Level. Available online: https://www2.uwe.ac.uk/faculties/BBS/BUS/ Research/CENTIENT/ESRC%20seminar%204%20-%20UWE,%20Bristol/Michael%20G%20Jacobides.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023). Kauffeld-Monz, Martina, and Michael Fritsch. 2013. Who Are the Knowledge Brokers in Regional Systems of Innovation? A Multi-Actor Network Analysis. Regional Studies 5: 669–85. [CrossRef] Kiseleva, Oksana N., Olga V. Sysoeva, Anastasia V. Vasina, and Victor V. Sysoev. 2022. Updating the Open Innovation Concept Based on Ecosystem Approach: Regional Aspects. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 8: 103. [CrossRef] Konstantinov, Gennadiy N., and Sergey R. Filonovich. 2007. What is an entrepreneurial university? Education Issues 1: 49–62. Korotkov, Anatoliy V., and Margarita R. Zobnina. 2019. University Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Standards: Guidelines for Developing an Entrepreneurial. Moscow: National Research University “Higher School of Economics”. Lankin, Victor E., Galina V. Gorelova, Victor D. Serbin, Diana V. Arutyunova, Anna V. Tatarova, Galitdin B. Bakanov, and Elena L. Makarova. 2011. Research and Development of Organizational Management Systems in Higher Educational Institutions. Taganrog: TTI JuFU. Lin, Wei-Chao, and Ching Chen. 2021. Novel world university rankings combining academic, environmental and resource indicators. Sustainability 13: 13873. [CrossRef] Mazzei, Matthew J. 2018. Strategic entrepreneurship: Content, process, context, and outcomes. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 14: 657–70. [CrossRef] McKinsey & Company. 2022. Global Management Consulting. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/ (accessed on 13 March 2023). Meissner, Dirk. 2017. Entrepreneurial Universities: Towards a Revised Paradigm. SSRN Electronic Journal 8: 23–40. [CrossRef] Nabi, Ghulam, Francisco Liñán, Alain Fayolle, Norris Krueger, and Andreas Walmsley. 2017. The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning and Education 16: 277–99. [CrossRef] National Research University Higher School of Economics. 2019. Ratings of Regional Development. Available online: https: //region.hse.ru/rankingid19 (accessed on 29 December 2022). Podborodnikova, Irina S. 2019. Features of entrepreneurial universities in Russian universities. Educational Process 7: 28–38. Portal of Federal State Educational Standards of Higher Education. 2023. Available online: https://fgosvo.ru/ (accessed on 13 March 2023). Primina, Oksana M. 2018. Ratings of universities as an image-forming component in the aspect of information space formation. Bulletin of the Adyge State University. Series 2: Philology and Art 2: 234–39. Rating of Innovative Development of Subjects of the Russian Federation. 2021. Moscow: National Research University “Higher School of Economics”. [CrossRef] Ritala, Paavo, and Robin Gustafsson. 2018. Q&A. Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research: Where Are We Now and How Do We Move Forward? Technology Innovation Management Review 8: 52–57. [CrossRef] Röpke, Jochen. 1998. The Entrepreneurial University: Innovation, Academic Knowledge Creation and Regional Development in a Globalized Economy. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a492feccb3714532 9f4c0ce25a671de2f51c1a04 (accessed on 10 March 2023). Salomaa, Maria. 2019. Third mission and regional context: Assessing universities’ entrepreneurial architecture in rural regions. Journal Regional Studies, Regional Science 1: 233–49. [CrossRef]
Economies 2023,11, 190 19 of 19 Shapovalov, Valery, Irina Igropulo, Svetlana Kalyugina, Marianna Arutiunian, and Olga Minkina. 2020. Creation and development of an ecosystem of social and entrepreneurial education at a federal university. Bulletin of the North Caucasian University 4: 173–80. Spigel, Ben, and Richard Harrison. 2018. Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystem. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 12: 151–68. [CrossRef] Stam, Erik. 2015. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic Critique. European Planning Studies 9: 1759–69. [CrossRef] Thursby, Jerry G., and Marie C. Thursby. 2002. Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing. Management Science 1: 90–104. [CrossRef] Ulhøi, John, Helle Neergaard, and Toke Bjerregaard. 2012. Beyond Unidirectional Knowledge Transfer. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 4: 287–99. [CrossRef] Uslu, Baris, Alper Calikoglu, F. Nevra Seggie, and Steven H. Seggie. 2019. The entrepreneurial university and academic discourses: The meta-synthesis of Higher Education articles. Higher Education Quarterly 73: 285–311. [CrossRef] Van Dierdonck, Roland, and Koen Debackere. 1988. Academic entrepreneurship at Belgian universities. R&D Management 18: 341–53. [CrossRef] Velitchenko, Svetlana N. 2020. The role of mass media in promoting the university rating. Actual Scientific Research in the Modern World 5–7: 92–95. Venkataraman, Sankaran. 2004. Regional transformation through technical entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 19: 153–67. [CrossRef] Volodin, Victor M., Vladimir V. Bondarenko, Mariya A. Tanina, and Vera A. Yudina. 2020. The analysis of universities integrative activities on the economy of regional enterprises. University Proceedings. Volga Region 4: 169–85. [CrossRef] World Economic Forum. 2014. The Global Competitiveness Report 2014–2015. Available online: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/ WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2014-15.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2023). Yudkevich, Maria. 2014. The Russian University: Recovery and Rehabilitation. Studies in Higher Education 8: 1463–74. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.