The Entrepreneurial Potential of the Creative Class: Demography, Human Capital and Space

Abstract

Despite numerous studies examining the validity of Florida's creative class approach in the field of urban and regional development, no research on the entrepreneurial part of this theory has been conducted in Turkey. In this context, this study analyzes the entrepreneurial potential of the creative class working as R&D employees in technoparks and industrial park in Turkey. The study focuses on the creative class's demographic characteristics, human capital capabilities, and spatial featues as entrepreneurial tendencies. Using a mixed research method, a survey was conducted with 1352 R&D employees operating in 14 major provinces of Turkey and 255 R&D employees were interviewed simultaneously. The data obtained were analyzed using MAXQDA and SPSS software. The findings show that R&D employees define entrepreneurship primarily in terms of personal traits and effort; their perception of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial experience influence whether they regard themselves as capable of becoming entrepreneurs in the future. Participants who have prior entrepreneurial experience and receive government support have a more optimistic attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur in the future. Additionally, it is evident that the characteristics of the cities and business regions where the creative class lives and works have an impact on entrepreneurship and that these locations enhance the entrepreneurial potential of R&D professionals. Based on R&D employees' experience, opportunity, human capital, and personality traits, the final results reveal that there is a creative class with a very high potential to be entrepreneurs in the future. This conclusion indicates that R&D employee entrepreneurship, which has a high potential for the Turkish entrepreneurship ecosystem, should be promoted primarily through public policies and practices.

Keywords

• Creative class
• Entrepreneurial potential
• R&D employees
• Economic geography
• Turkey

Yaratıcı Sınıfın Girişimcilik Potansiyeli: Demografi, Beşerî Sermaye ve Mekân

Abstract

Florida'nın yaratıcı sınıf yaklaşımının kentsel ve bölgesel kalkınma alanındaki geçerliliğini çeşitli ülkelerde analiz eden birçok araştırma bulunmasına rağmen, teorinin girişimcilik boyutunu Türkiye bağlamında inceleyen herhangi bir araştırma bulunmamaktadır. Bu bağlamda bu çalışma bilgiye dayalı ekonomiye geçiş sürecindeki Türkiye’nin sanayi ve teknoloji bölgelerinde Ar-Ge personeli olarak çalışan yaratıcı sınıfın girişimcilik algısını ve potansiyelini analiz etmektedir. Bu kapsamda çalışma yaratıcı sınıfın girişimcilik eğilimi olarak demografik özelliklerine, beşerî sermaye niteliklerine ve mekân boyutuna odaklanmaktadır. Karma araştırma yöntemi kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen araştırmada, veriler Türkiye’nin 14 büyük ilinde faaliyet gösteren 1352 Ar-Ge çalışanı ile anket, bunların içinden 255 Ar-Ge çalışanı ile de eş zamanlı mülakat yapılarak toplanmıştır. Elde edilen nicel veriler SPSS programıyla nitel veriler de MAXQDA yazılımıyla analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmanın bulguları Ar-Ge çalışanı yaratıcı sınıfın girişimciliği ağırlıklı olarak kişilik özellikler ve bireysel çaba üzerinden tanımladığını, bu doğrultuda girişimcilik algısının ve girişimcilik deneyimlerinin kendilerini gelecekte girişimci olabilecek yeterlilikte görüp görmedikleri üzerinde etkili olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Geçmişte girişimcilik deneyimi bulunan ve devlet desteğinden faydalanan katılımcıların gelecekte girişimci olmaya olumlu yaklaştıkları söylenebilir. Ayrıca yaratıcı sınıfın çalıştıkları iş bölgeleri ile yaşadıkları kentlerin sahip olduğu olanakların girişimcilik üzerinde etkili olduğu ve söz konusu mekânların Ar-Ge çalışanlarının girişimcilik potansiyelini desteklediği görülmektedir. Çalışmanın sonuçları, Ar-Ge çalışanlarının sahip oldukları deneyim, olanaklar, beşerî sermaye ve kişilik özellikleri doğrultusunda, gelecekte girişimci olma potansiyeli çok yüksek bir yaratıcı sınıf olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu bulgu, Türkiye girişimcilik ekosistemi için büyük potansiyel teşkil eden Ar-Ge çalışanlarının girişimciliğinin kamu politika ve uygulamaları tarafından öncelikle teşvik edilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Yaratıcı sınıf
• Girişimcilik potansiyeli
• Ar-Ge çalışanları
• Ekonomik coğrafya
• Türkiye

References

1. Abbasianchavari, A. ve Moritz, A. (2020). The impact of role models on entrepreneurial intentions and behavior: A review of the literature. Management Review Quarterly,71,1-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00179-0
2. Acs, Z. J. ve Audretsch, D. B. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction. 2. Baskı. New York: Springer.
3. Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M. ve Sarkar, M. B. (2004). Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin-out generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 501-522. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159599
4. Akçomak, İ.S., Beyhan, B., Çetindamar Kozanoglu, D. ve Tandogan, V. S. (Eds.) (2021). Türkiye'de yenilik tabanlı girişimcilik. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
5. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
6. Anton, J. J. ve Yao, D. A. (1995). Start-ups, spin-offs, and internal projects. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 11(2), 362-378. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a036876
7. Antoncic, B. ve Hisrich, R. D. (2003). Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(1), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000310461187.
8. Antoncic, B., Bratkovic Kregar, T., Singh, G. ve De Noble, A. F. (2015). The big five personality–entrepreneurship relationship: Evidence from Slovenia. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(3), 819-841. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12089

9. Aoyama, Y., Murphy, J. T. ve Hanson, S. (2011). Key concepts in economic geography. London: Sage.
10. Audretsch, D. B. ve Belitski, M. (2013). The missing pillar: The creativity theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 819–836. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11187-013-9508-6.
11. Audretsch, D. B. ve Belitski, M. (2021). Towards an entrepreneurial ecosystem typology for regional economic development: The role of creative class and entrepreneurship. Regional Studies, 55(4), 735-756. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1854711
12. Bailetti, T. (2012). Technology entrepreneurship: Overview, definition, and distinctive aspects. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(2), 5-12. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/520
13. Baum, J. R. ve Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (4), 587–98. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.587
14. Bell, D. (1973). The coming of postindustrial society: A venture in a social forecasting. New York: Basic Books.
15. Bhide, A. (1994). How entrepreneurs craft strategies that work. Harvard Business Review, 72, 150-161. https://hbr.org/1994/03/how-entrepreneurs-craft-strategies-that-work
16. Blake, M. ve Hanson, S. (2005). Rethinking innovation: context and gender. Environment and Planning A, 37, 781–701. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3710
17. Boschma, R. A. ve Wenting, R. (2007). The spatial evolution of the British automobile industry: Does location matter?. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(2), 213-238. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm004
18. Boschma, R. ve Fritsch, M. (2009). Creative class and regional growth: Empirical evidence from seven European countries. Economic Geography, 85(4), 391–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2009.01048.x
19. Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. Richardson J.G. (Ed.) The Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education içinde (s.241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.
20. Brown, R. ve Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: A critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 49,11–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9865-7.
21. Campbell, B. A., Kryscynski, D. ve Olson, D. M. (2017). Bridging strategic human capital and employee entrepreneurship research: A labor market frictions approach. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(3), 344-356. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1264
22. Cansız, M., Kurnaz, Z. ve Yavan, N. (2018). Girişimcilik ekosisteminde Türkiye için yeni bir araç: Yenilik merkezleri/ağları. Verimlilik Dergisi, (4), 7-69. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/verimlilik/issue/39530/432725
23. Cansız, M. ve Ulusoy, D. (2017) Yenilik kümelerinde girişimciliğin kaynakları olarak 77 yerleşik firmaların rolünün sosyolojik analizi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, Bahar (26), 69-92. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/turkiyat/issue/30359/487710
24. Castells, M. (2005). Enformasyon çağı: Ekonomi, toplum ve kültür: Ağ toplumunun yükselişi. (Kılıç, E. Çev.). İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
25. Cassiman, B. ve Ueda, M. (2006). Optimal project rejection and new firm start-ups. Management Science, 52(2), 262–275. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0458
26. Chatterjee, S. ve Rossi, H. E. (2012). Spinoffs and the market for ideas. International Economic Review, 53(1), 53-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2354.2011.00671.x
27. Cooper, A. (1985). The role of incubator organizations in the founding of growth oriented firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(85)90008-4
28. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Araştırma deseni: Nitel, nicel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları. (Demir, S.B. Çev.). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap.
29. Davidsson, P. ve Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00097-6
30. De Clercq, D. ve Voronov, M. (2009). The role of cultural and symbolic capital in entrepreneurs' ability to meet expectations about conformity and innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3), 398-420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2009.00276.x
31. Díaz-Casero, J. C., Hernández-Mogollón, R., ve Roldán, J. L. (2012). A structural model of the antecedents to entrepreneurial capacity. International Small Business Journal, 30(8), 850–872. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610385263
32. Donaldson, C. (2019). Intentions resurrected: A systematic review of entrepreneurial intention research from 2014 to 2018 and future research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15, 953–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00578-5
33. Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: HarperCollins.
34. Eckhardt, J. T. ve Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630302900304
35. Feldman, M. P. (2001). The entrepreneurial event revisited: Firm formation in a regional context. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 861-891. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/10.4.861
36. Ferreira, J.J., Raposo, M.L., Gouveia Rodrigues, R., Dinis, A. ve do Paço, A. (2012). A model of entrepreneurial intention: An application of the psychological and behavioral approaches. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19 (3), 424-440. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001211250144
37. Florida, R. (2002a). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.
38. Florida, R., (2002b), The economic geograpy of talent. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92(4), 743-755. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.00314
39. Florida, R., (2002c). Bohemia and economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 2, 55-71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26160379
40. Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the creative class. London: Routledge.
41. Florida, R. (2012). The rise of the creative class revisited, New York: Basic Books.
42. Florida, R., Mellander, C. ve Stolarick, K. (2008). Inside the black box of regional development—human capital, the creative class and tolerance. Journal of economic geography, 8(5), 615-649. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbn023
43. Fritsch, M. ve Sorgner, A. (2014) Entrepreneurship and creative professions: A microlevel analysis. R. Sternberg, G. Krauss (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship and Creativity içinde (s.145-174). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
44. Fritsch, M. ve Stuetzer, M. (2009) The geography of creative people in Germany. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 5(1-3), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFIP.2009.022096
45. Gambardella, A., Ganco, M. ve Honoré, F. (2015). Using what you know: Patented knowledge in incumbent firms and employee entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 26(2), 456-474. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0937
46. Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225878801200401
47. Gartner, W. B. (1989). Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(1), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225878901400103
48. Hanson, S. ve Blake, M. (2009). Gender and entrepreneurial networks. Regional Studies, 43(1), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400802251452
49. Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
50. Hayter, R. (1997). The dynamics of industrial location: The factory, the firm and the production system. New York: Wiley.
51. Hellmann, T. (2007). When do employees become entrepreneurs?. Management Science, 53(6), 919-933. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0648
52. Howkins, J. (2001). The creative economy: How people make money from ideas. London: Penguin.
53. Karadeniz, E. (2019). Türkiye’de girişimcilik ve uluslararası karşılaştırma 2018 global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM). İstanbul: Yeditepe Üniversitesi Yayınevi.
54. Karadeniz, E.E. (2021). Türkiye'de girişimcilik faaliyetleri ve girişimcilik ekosistemi. Akcomak, İ.S., Beyhan, B., Cetindamar Kozanoglu, D. ve Tandogan, V.S. (Eds.), Türkiye'de Yenilik Tabanlı Girişimcilik içinde (s.57-85). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
55. Karataş-Özkan, M. (2011). Understanding relational qualities of entrepreneurial learning: Towards a multi-layered approach. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(9-10), 877-906. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2011.577817
56. Klepper, S. (2001). Employee startups in high‐tech industries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(3), 639-674. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/10.3.639
57. Klepper, S. ve Sleeper, S. (2005). Entry by spin-offs. Management Science, 51(8), 1291-1306. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0411
58. Klepper, S. ve Thompson, P. (2010). Disagreements and intra-industry spinoffs. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 28(5), 526-538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2010.01.002
59. Lee, S. Y., Florida, R. ve Acs, Z. (2004). Creativity and entrepreneurship: A regional analysis of new firm formation. Regional studies, 38(8), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340042000280910
60. Lee, R. ve Shaw, E. (2016). Bourdieu’s non-material forms of capital: Implications for start-up policy. Environment and Planning. C, Government & Policy, 34(8), 1734–1758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16638850
61. Liang, J. Wang, H. ve Lazear, E. P. (2018). Demographics and entrepreneurship. Journal of Political Economy, 126(1), 140-196. https://doi.org/10.1086/698750
62. Lihua, D. (2022). An extended model of the theory of planned behavior- an empirical study of entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial behavior in college students. Frontiers in Psychology. 12:627818. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.627818
63. Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J.C. ve Rueda-Cantuche, J.M. (2011). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: A role for education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7, 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-010-0154-z
64. Lyotard, J. F. (2000). Postmodern durum: Postmodern nedir? (Çiğdem, A. Çev.). İstanbul: Vadi Yayınları.
65. Malecki, E. J. (1994). Entrepreneurship in regional and local development. International Regional Science Review, 16, 119–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/016001769401600107
66. Malecki, E. J. (1997). Entrepreneurs, networks, and economic development: A review of recent research. J. A. Katz (Ed.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth içinde (Cilt 3, s. 57–118). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
67. Malecki, E. J. (2018). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography Compass, 12(3), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12359
68. McGranahan, D. ve Wojan, T. (2007). Recasting the creative class to examine growth processes in rural and urban counties. Regional studies, 41(2), 197-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400600928285
69. McGranahan, D. A., Wojan, T. R. ve Lambert, D. M. (2011). The rural growth trifecta: outdoor amenities, creative class and entrepreneurial context. Journal of Economic Geography, 11(3), 529-557. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbq007
70. Müller, S. (2016). A progress review of entrepreneurship and regional development: What are the remaining gaps? European Planning Studies, 24, 1133–1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1154506
71. Nguyen, C. (2018). Demographic factors, family background and prior self-employment on entrepreneurial intention-Vietnamese business students are different: why?. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 8(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-018-0097-3
72. Nijkamp, P. (2003). Entrepreneurship in a modern network economy. Regional Studies, 37, 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000074424
73. Nikolowa, R., (2014). Developing new ideas: Spin-outs, spinoffs, or internal divisions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 98, 70-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.12.001
74. Ozaralli, N. ve Rivenburgh, N. K. (2016). Entrepreneurial intention: antecedents to entrepreneurial behavior in the U.S.A and Turkey. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 6, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-016-0047-x.
75. Parker, S. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship?. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.003
76. Pret, T., Shaw, E. ve Drakopoulou Dodd, S. (2016). Painting the full picture: The conversion of economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital. International Small Business Journal, 34(8), 1004-1027. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242615595450.
77. Rauch, A. ve Frese, M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology,16(4), 353–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701595438
78. Reynolds, P. D. (1991). Sociology and entrepreneurship: Concepts and contributions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16 (2), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879201600205
79. Reynolds, P., Storey, D. J.ve Westhead, P. (1994). Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates: An editorial overview. Regional Studies, 28(4), 343-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409412331348306
80. Rikalović, G., Josipović, S. ve Molnar, D. (2020). Creative class and entrepreneurial potential of rural areas in Serbia: Concept and measurement. Drezgić, S., Žiković, S. ve Tomljanović, M. (Eds), Smart Governments, Regions and Cities içinde (s.185-206). Rijeka: University of Rijeka.
81. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
82. Saxenian, A. (2006). The new argonauts: Regional advantage in a global economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
83. Scott, A.J. (2003). The Cultural economy of cities. London: Sage.
84. Shane, S. ve Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-48543-8_8
85. Shapero, A. ve Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. C. Kent, D. Sexton ve K. H. Vesper (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship içinde (s.72–90). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
86. Shaver, K. G. ve Scott, L. R. (1991). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Winter, 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879201600204
87. Shaw, E., Lam, W. ve Carter, S. (2008). The role of entrepreneurial capital in building service reputation. Service Industries Journal, 28, 899–917. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060701846820
88. Sivarajah, K ve Achchuthan, S. (2013). Entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates: Review of literature. European Journal of Business and Management, 5 (5), 172-186.
89. Sørensen, J. B. (2007). Bureaucracy and entrepreneurship: Workplace effects on entrepreneurial entry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 387-412. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.3.387
90. Sorenson, O. (2017). Regional ecologies of entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Geography, 17(5), 959-974. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbx031
91. Spigel, B. (2013). Bourdieuian approaches to the geography of entrepreneurial cultures. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 25, 804–818. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2013.862974
92. Spigel, B. (2017). Bourdieu, culture, and the economic geography of practice: Entrepreneurial mentorship in Ottawa and Waterloo, Canada. Journal of Economic Geography, 17(2), 287-310. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbw019
93. Stam, E. (2007). Why butterflies don’t leave: Locational behavior of entrepreneurial firms. Economic Geography, 83(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2007.tb00332.x
94. Stam, E. (2009). Entrepreneurship. R. Kitchin ve N. Thrift (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography içinde (s. 492-498). Elsevier.
95. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759-1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484
96. Sternberg, R. (2009). Regional dimensions of entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 5(4), 211-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0300000024
97. Sternberg, R. (2022). Entrepreneurship and geography—some thoughts about a complex relationship. The Annals of Regional Science, 69(3), 559-584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-021-01091-w
98. Stolarick, K., Lobo, J. ve Strumsky, D. (2011). Are creative metropolitan areas also entrepreneurial?. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 3(3), 271-286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-7802.2011.01041.x
99. Storper, M. (2013). Keys to the city: How economics, ı̇nstitutions, social ı̇nteractions, and politics shape development. Princeton University Press.
100. Tatli, A., Vassilopoulou, J., Özbilgin, M., Forson, C. ve Slutskaya, N. (2014). A Bourdieuan relational perspective for entrepreneurship research. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(4), 615–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12122
101. Thérin, F. (Ed.) (2007). Handbook of research on techno-entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
102. Thornton, P. H. (1999). The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual review of sociology, 25(1), 19-46.
103. Walker, R. ve Storper, M. (1989). The capitalist imperative: Territory, technology, and industrial growth. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
104. Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship: Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x
105. Yavan, N. (2018). KOP bölgesi girişimcilik ve yenilik ı̇htiyaç analizi. Kalkınma Bakanlığı Konya Ovası Projesi (KOP) Bölge Kalkınma İdaresi Başkanlığı, Konya.
106. Yeung, H. (2009). Transnationalizing entrepreneurship: A critical agenda for economic geography. Progress in Human Geography,33, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132508096032