Prof. Michael Fritsch (p), Prof. Michael Wyrwich

Regional entrepreneurial activity can have strong historical roots. Recent research for a number of countries has shown that regional differences of self-employment and new business formation can be rather persistent, but there are also regions that show considerable change. Analyzing the development of regions that experienced a pronounced increase in entrepreneurship, the ‘leapfroggers’, could indicate important policy levers to initiate an increase in regional entrepreneurial activity. Likewise, studying regions with declining levels of entrepreneurial activity, the ‘plungers’, could help policy makers identify the forces that cause deterioration of entrepreneurial activity. In contrast, regions that remain permanently at the top or bottom of the league table offer only relatively limited opportunities to learn how to initiate change.
The paper investigates the development of regional self-employment and new business formation in Germany. The analysis of self-employment spans a period of nearly 130 years, from the late 19th century to the present. The data on new business formation that we analyze are for West Germany from 1978 to 2024, a period of 46 years. The analysis focusses on the following questions:
• How significant are changes in regional entrepreneurial activity?
• What characterizes regions that show a substantial increase in the level of entrepreneurial activity (entrepreneurial leapfroggers)?
• What are the characteristics of those regions that experienced a significant decrease in the level of entrepreneurial activity (plungers)?
Based on these findings we discuss recommendations for a policy that is aimed at fostering regional entrepreneurship.

Mr Zoltán Buzási (p), Dr. Tibor Dőry, Dr. Attila Makai

The purpose of the submission is to explore, on the one hand, the impact of the university-centred entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) that has developed over the past decade and, on the other hand, the impact of a specific R&D grant scheme aimed specifically at university spin-off companies. This is because one of the primary goals of both the university-centred entrepreneurial ecosystem and the related grant programs is to support the creation and growth of academic spin-off companies.
The results obtained from examining the effects of interventions aimed at supporting spin-off companies can also be useful from a policy perspective, for the planning and development of new support programs (Bellucci et al. 2019). We intend for this research to contribute to a better understanding of the formation, operation, and development of USOs, and to provide useful lessons for policymakers involved in the support and development of university-related spin-off companies and university-centred entrepreneurial ecosystems for the planning of future interventions (Szerb et al. 2020).
We use both quantitative and qualitative methods in our ongoing research. The quantitative analysis is largely based on publicly available financial, economic, and industrial property rights data on beneficiary spin-off companies (94 firms), but we also rely on data provided by the grant management office. Databases based on publicly available information are used to assess economic and financial performance and map ownership structures. Our research examines the geographical embeddedness of the spin-off enterprises included in the study on several scales: on the one hand, at the NUTS2 regional level of the European Union, and on the other hand, based on the regional typology of the Hungarian National Smart Specialization Strategy (S3) for 2021-2027, which corresponds to the NUTS3 level.
We expect that, in terms of regional differences, the S3 region types will provide greater explanatory power than the analysis based on NUTS2 categories. On the one hand, S3 denotes smaller territorial units on average than NUTS2 regions, and therefore typifies more homogeneous geographical areas based on certain criteria. On the other hand, S3 territorial units are specifically based on differences in RDI performance, which is the focus of the research, and assign specific objectives to the region types (e.g., strengthening the university-centred innovation ecosystem in knowledge regions; knowledge diffusion in industrial production zones; strengthening openness and adaptation in regions with more moderate RDI intensity).

Dr Éva Komlósi, Dr. Hanga Lilla Bilicz (p), Dr. Erkko Autio, Dr. Donghyun Park, Dr. Shu Tian

This study investigates the impact of digitalization on the entrepreneurial potential of women and men across 78 countries at the national level. Building on an adaptation of the Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEI) methodology, we employed distinct indices for female and male entrepreneurial potential: Female Entrepreneurship Index (FEI) and Male Entrepreneurship Index (MEI). Our findings indicate that digitalization positively influences both FEI and MEI, underscoring its overall role in fostering entrepreneurship. However, in countries where male entrepreneurship potential exceeds female entrepreneurship potential (FEIMEI), digitalization does not significantly affect the MEI-FEI gap. Further analysis reveals that factors such as economic development (GDP per capita) and gender inequality (women’s political empowerment) interact with digitalization to support entrepreneurship for both genders. Notably, digitalization enables women to compete more effectively for resources and access markets in highly competitive environments. These findings highlight the varied effects of digitalization on male and female entrepreneurship across countries, suggesting that policies should adopt a nuanced approach to effectively promote gender-balanced entrepreneurial potential at the national level.

Dr. Balázs Páger (p)

This study explores the socioeconomic factors that shape entrepreneurial activity and firm survival in Hungarian subregions. Building on prior research, the study recognises entrepreneurship’s vital role in fostering economic growth, productivity, and innovation. It highlights that both internal business characteristics and external regional factors affect the trajectory of new ventures at each phase of their life cycle. Using frameworks like the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Index and the Regional Entrepreneurship and Development Index (REDI), the study systematically analyses the environment in which Hungarian firms operate.
The empirical analysis uses company-level data from the Hungarian Central Statistical Office for 2011–2019, categorising firms annually as entrants, exits, or operating businesses. This allows calculation of survival rates for various business types at the district level. Additional data on labour markets, education, and transportation are used to capture the broader socioeconomic context. Several regression models are estimated to identify which ecosystem components most influence firm survival, with year-fixed effects included to control for temporal changes.
Preliminary results indicate that survival rates are higher in more urbanised districts. The research points to the need for more refined measurements of the local business environment and acknowledges the challenges of evaluating institutional quality at a fine-grained regional level. By comparing district-level data to national averages and examining patterns beyond simple averages, the study uncovers distinct regional drivers of entrepreneurial success. Ultimately, this research deepens the understanding of how regional socioeconomic environments interact with entrepreneurship and offers a detailed map of Hungary’s entrepreneurial landscape.

Prof. László Szerb (p), Prof. Esteban Lafuente, Dr. Éva Komlósi

Digital entrepreneurship ecosystems (DEEs) are multidimensional systems whose performance depends on the configuration and interaction of complementary actors and resources. Their empirical assessment therefore requires composite indicators, yet alternative weighting and aggregation methods embody different assumptions about component importance, compensability, and ecosystem heterogeneity. This study examines whether these methodological choices lead to different assessments and policy diagnoses of the same ecosystems. Using a balanced panel of 86 countries from 2017 to 2022, we compare four composite-indicator methodologies- Penalty for Bottleneck (PFB), Benefit-of-the-Doubt (BOD), Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) - applied to four components of digital entrepreneurial agency: finance, key employees, support organizations, and digital technology providers. BOD is estimated under two alternative weight restrictions, yielding five specifications. Despite their substantially different weighting principles, the resulting composite scores are remarkably robust, with pairwise correlations exceeding 0.99. Internal ecosystem diagnoses exhibit greater, though still limited, methodological sensitivity: all five Szerbspecifications identify the same weakest component in 69.8% of country-year observations, and at least four agree in 84.3% of country-year observations. Key employees emerge consistently as the most frequent constraint, followed by finance. Importantly, panel regressions with year fixed effects and country-clustered standard errors show that methodological disagreement is systematically associated with significantly smaller gaps between the weakest and second-weakest components. Thus, much of the apparent disagreement reflects ranking reversals among nearly equivalent constraints rather than fundamentally different assessments of ecosystem configuration. The findings distinguish aggregate robustness from diagnostic robustness and demonstrate that bottleneck identification should consider not only the identity of the weakest component but also its separation from competing constraints. For ecosystem policy, this implies moving beyond the mechanical selection of the weakest single component toward a prioritized policy mix: closely ranked constraints should be addressed jointly, with their relative severity providing an ordering of intervention priorities. Such an approach is consistent with the ecosystem perspective, which views entrepreneurial performance as emerging from complementarities and interactions among multiple system components rather than from isolated factors