Entrepreneurship and Innovation Ecosystem’s Drivers: The Role of Higher Education Organizations

  • Fernando Herrera
  • Maribel GuerreroEmail author
  • David Urbano
Part of the Applying Quality of Life Research book series (BEPR)


Extant empirical entrepreneurship studies recognize that the main challenge of emerging economies is transforming into entrepreneurial societies. Following this perspective, the involvement of several actors (government, universities, entrepreneurs, investors, etc.) is required in this evolutionary process. In this regard, emerging economies’ governments promote the configuration of entrepreneurial ecosystems to achieve this transformation. Even in previous insights, the role of each actor is an interesting attention for academics and policy makers. In this sense, this chapter tries to provide a better understanding about the role of higher education organizations as driver of entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystems in Mexico. Our analysis provides evidence about the relevance of incentives in configuration of triple mission of Mexican higher education organizations as well as their lower participation in the involvement of innovation and entrepreneurial activities.


Entrepreneurship Innovation Higher education organizations Mexico 



The authors acknowledge the support received by the Mexican National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI), National Science and Technology Council (CONACYT), and Ministry of Education (SEP) to access the databases. Fernando Herrera acknowledges the PhD scholarship and support from the Tecnológico de Monterrey (ITESM). Maribel Guerrero acknowledges the financial support from Santander Universidades (Iberoamerica Scholarship for Young Researchers). David Urbano acknowledges the financial support from projects ECO2013-44027-P (Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness) and 2014-SGR-1626 (Economy and Knowledge Department—Catalan government).


  1. Almus, M., & Czarnitzki, D. (2003). The effects of public R&D subsidies on firms’ innovation activities: The case of eastern Germany. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 2(2), 226–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ANUIES. (2015). Higher Education Institutions. México: Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior. Accessed 4 Sept 2015.
  4. Astrom, T., Eriksson, M. L., Niklasson, L., & Arnold, E. (2008). International comparison of five institute systems. Copenhagen: Forsknings-og Innovationsstyrelsen, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D., & Thurik, R. (2004). A model of the entrepreneurial economy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 2(2), 143–166.Google Scholar
  7. Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baumol, W. J. (2002). The free-market innovation machine: Analyzing the growth miracle of capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyd, B. K. (1991). Strategic planning and financial performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management Studies, 28(4), 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37, 1175–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caloghirou, Y., Tsakanikas, A., & Vonortas, N. S. (2001). University-industry cooperation in the context of the European framework programmes. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M., & Rickne, A. (2002). Innovation systems: Analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy, 31(2), 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Castellacci, F., & Natera, J. M. (2013). The dynamics of national innovation systems: A panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 42(3), 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm (pp. 1–27). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. CONACYT. (2015a). Antecedents of the National Council of Science and Technology. México: CONACYT. Accessed 14 Apr 2015.
  19. CONACYT. (2015b). Innovation Incentives Programmes. México: CONACYT. Accessed 9 Sep 2015.
  20. CONACYT. (2015c). National Registry of Scientific and Technological Institutions and Companies-(RENIECYT). Mexico: CONACYT. Accessed 14 Apr 2015.
  21. Cunningham, J. A., & Link, A. N. (2015). Fostering university-industry R&D collaborations in European Union countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 849–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Fuentes, C., & Dutrénit, G. (2012). Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit. Research Policy, 41, 1666–1682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diario Oficial. (2014). National National Council for Science and Technology. México: Presidencia de la República. Accessed 14 Oct 2015.
  24. Education Times Higher. (2015). Times higher education. World university ranking. Accessed 9 Sep 2015.
  25. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  26. Eisenhardt, K. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. El Financiero. (2016). Enterprises and Pyme funds. Accessed 10 Jan 2016.
  28. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Flores, M., Campos, M., Naranjo, E., Lucatero, I., & Lopez, N. (2013). GEM Mexico 2013 report. México: GEM México.Google Scholar
  31. Fondo PYME. (2016). Annual report. México: Secretaría de Economía. Accessed 10 Jan 2016.
  32. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (2015). Country profiles. http// Accessed 29 Oct 2015.
  33. Gobierno de la República. (2015a). National Development Plan 2013–2018. México: Presidencia de la República. Accessed 4 Dec 2015.
  34. Gobierno de la República. (2015b). Official Journal. Second Section. México: Presidencia de la República. codigo=4805999&fecha=31/05/1983. Accessed 7 Dec 2015.
  35. Gobierno de la República. (2015c). Salinas’ Administration. México: Presidencia de la República. Accessed 7 Dec 2015.
  36. Gobierno de la República. (2015d). Zedillo’s Administration. México: Presidencia de la República. Accessed 7 Dec 2015.
  37. Gobierno de la República. (2015e). Fox’s Administration. México: Presidencia de la República. Accessed 7 Dec 2015.
  38. Gobierno de la República. (2015f). Calderon’s Administration. México: Presidencia de la República. Accessed 8 Dec 2015.
  39. Gobierno de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. (2007). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2007–2012. México: Presidencia de la República [], last access October 2015.
  40. Gobierno de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. (2013). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2013–2018. México: Presidencia de la República. [], last access October 2015.
  41. Grant, R. B. (1991). A resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33, 114–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2014). Academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters: An individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J. A., & Urbano, D. (2015). Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), 748–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 29, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hausmann, R., Lozoya, E., & Mia, I. (2009). The Mexico competitiveness report 2009. Geneva: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  48. Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. INADEM. (2014). Incubators. México. Accessed 15 Nov 2014.
  50. INADEM. (2015). Programmes for entrepreneurial development. México. Accessed 4 Sep 2015.
  51. INEGI. (2015). National Statistical Directory of Economic Units. México: INEGI. Accessed 9 Dec 2015.
  52. INEGI. (2016). Science and Technology Statistics. México: INEGI. Accessed 10 Jan 2016.
  53. International Monetary Fund. (2015). Data and statistics. World economic and financial surveys. World economic outlook. Country composition of WEO groups. Accessed 20 Oct 2015.
  54. Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–50.Google Scholar
  55. Kirby, D., Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2011). Making universities more entrepreneurial: Developing a model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28, 302–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship. Paper prepared for a workshop of the OECD LEED Programme and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. The Hague, Netherlands, 7 Nov 2013.Google Scholar
  57. McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481–1512.Google Scholar
  58. Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S., & Peng, M. W. (2009). Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(1), 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mian, S. A. (1997). Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 251–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mueller, P. (2007). Exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities: The impact of entrepreneurship on growth. Small Business Economics, 28, 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. OECD. (2010). High-growth enterprises: What governments can do to make a difference. OECD studies on SMEs and entrepreneurship. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  64. OECD. (2012). Science, technology and industry outlook 2012. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Parker, S. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pérez-Hernández, P., & Calderón-Martínez, G. (2014). Analysis of the technology commercialization process in two Mexican higher education institutions. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 9(3), 196–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University-industry relationship and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Porter, M., & Schwab, K. (2008). Global competitiveness report 2008–2009. Cologny: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  69. Ranking Shanghai. (2015). Academic ranking of world universities (top 500). Shanghai: Universidad Jiao Tong. Accessed 9 Sep 2015.
  70. Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technological change. The Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71–S102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle (trans: Redvers Opie). Cambridge: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  72. Secretaría de Economía. (2016a). Antecedents. México: Fondo PYME. Accessed 10 Jan 2016.
  73. Secretaría de Economía. (2016b). PYME Funds 2006–2012. México: Secretaría de Economía. Accessed 10 Jan 2016.
  74. Secretaría de Economía. (2016c). INADEM. México: Secretaría de Economía. Accessed 10 Jan 2016.
  75. SEP. (2012). Mexican educational system, 2011–2012 indicators. México: Secretaría de Educación Pública.Google Scholar
  76. SEP. (2015a). Normativity. México: Secretaría de Educación. Accessed 9 Sep 2015.
  77. SEP. (2015b). Higher Education Institutions. Mexico: Secretaría de Educación. Accessed 4 Sep 2015.
  78. Silas Casilla, J. C. (2005). Realidades y tendencias en la educación superior privada mexicana. Perfiles Educativos, 27(109–110), 7–37.Google Scholar
  79. Solleiro, J. L., & Castañón, R. (2005). Competitiveness and innovation systems: The challenges for Mexico’s insertion in the global context. Technovation, 25(9), 1059–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Solow, R. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Thompson, J. L. (1999). A strategic perspective of entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 5(6), 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. The Times Higher Education. (2015). World university ranking. London. Accessed 9 Sep 2015.
  83. Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial universities socioeconomic impacts of academic entrepreneurship in a European region. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(1), 40–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J. P., Vanhaverbeke, W., & De Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29(6), 423–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. World Economic Forum. (2013). Entrepreneurial ecosystems around the globe and company growth dynamics. Report summary for the annual meeting of the new champions 2013. Accessed 10 Jan 2016.
  87. World Economic Forum. (2014). Global competitiveness report 2012–2013. Schwab, K.- Full data edition. Accessed 20 Jan 2016.
  88. World Inetellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2016). Statistics. Accessed 10 Jan 2016.
  89. Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. (2005). Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Yin, R. (1984). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  91. Zahra, S., & Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernando Herrera
    • 1
  • Maribel Guerrero
    • 2
    Email author
  • David Urbano
    • 3
  1. 1.Engineering and Science DepartmentTecnologico de MonterreyLeónMexico
  2. 2.Newcastle Business SchoolNorthumbria UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  3. 3.Department of BusinessUniversitat Autónoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations