Researchers have presented empirical evidence questioning the effectiveness of the entrepreneurial ecosystems approach in lagging countries in Africa.

The entrepreneurial ecosystems (EE) approach is often promoted for Africa’s growth, but Africa already has many entrepreneurs. Instead of increasing entrepreneurship, researchers argue for strategies for large firms drawn from East Asia’s development and Schumpeterian growth theory, both of which oppose EE thinking. These approaches suggest that Africa should focus on building large, productive firms and absorbing existing technologies, rather than relying on start-ups, to achieve long-term, sustainable economic development.

Many experts suggest that using the EE approach will help to grow Africa’s economy, especially in poorer countries, saying that EE looks at how things like roads, money, rules, and skilled people can come together to support business growth.

They observed that Africa already had more entrepreneurs than anywhere else, mostly people working for themselves because they had no other choice. This raises an important question: Is encouraging even more entrepreneurship the best path for Africa’s growth?

To gain more insights, a research team, including Prof Alex Coad from Waseda Business School, Waseda University, Japan, critically analysed EE’s relevance for Africa by examining alternative development frameworks and Africa’s current entrepreneurial and economic landscape. The team included Dr Clemens Domnick and Dr. Pietro Santoleri from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and Assistant Prof Stjepan Srhoj from the University of Split, Croatia.

“We were concerned that a number of entrepreneurship scholars seem to be pushing an agenda for Africa’s economic development, based on personal ideology rather than empirical evidence,” says Coad.

To explore whether entrepreneurship is the right path for Africa’s economic growth, researchers reviewed two major development frameworks—East Asia’s successful growth strategies and Schumpeterian growth theory—and compared their insights with the EE approach. They found that the strategies and policies from these frameworks differ significantly from what EE promotes.