Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e39300

ISSN: 0430-5027

doi: 10.18055/Finis39300

Artigo

Published under the terms and conditions of an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

THE IMPACT OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM ON INNOVATION:

A SPATIAL APPROACH FOR BRAZILIAN MUNICIPALITIES

MARCOS AURÉLIO BRAMBILLA

REJANE SARTORI

ABSTRACT – This study aimed to analyse the impact of the entrepreneurial ecosystem on innovation in

Brazilian municipalities. To this end, data from the Brazilian Service of Support for Micro and Small Enterprises

(SEBRAE) were collected, and the Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis (ESDA) technique and spatial regression models

were applied. The results indicate that consumption potential, credit potential, and entrepreneurial education had the

greatest impact on raising the innovation index, including the spatial effect of innovation. Furthermore, it was observed

that the Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDPpc) showed a non-linear U-shaped relationship with innovation, with

a positive impact from a GDPpc value of R$40 048.54. Business conditions also displayed a non-linear U-shaped

relationship with innovation, with a positive impact from a business conditions index of 0.44. It is therefore concluded

that innovation is influenced heterogeneously by elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystem and by spatial factors in

Brazilian municipalities.

Keywords: Innovation; entrepreneurship; spatial analysis.

RESUMO – O IMPACTO DO ECOSSISTEMA EMPREENDEDOR NA INOVAÇÃO: UMA ABORDAGEM ESPACIAL

PARA OS MUNICÍPIOS BRASILEIROS. O presente estudo teve como objectivo analisar o impacto do ecossistema

empreendedor na inovação nos municípios brasileiros. Para tal, foram recolhidos dados do Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio

às Micro e Pequenas Empresas (SEBRAE) e aplicadas a técnica de Análise Exploratória de Dados Espaciais (AEDE) e

modelos de regressão espacial. Os resultados indicaram que o potencial de consumo, o potencial de crédito e a educação

empreendedora apresentaram o maior impacte no aumento do índice de inovação, incluindo o efeito espacial da

inovação. Além disso, verificou-se que o Produto Interno Bruto per capita (PIBpc) apresentou uma relação não linear

em formato de U com a inovação, sendo o impacto positivo a partir do valor de PIBpc de R$40 048,54. As condições

empresariais também evidenciaram uma relação não linear em formato de U com a inovação, com impacto positivo a

partir de um índice de condições empresariais de 0,44. Conclui-se, assim, que a inovação é influenciada de forma

heterogénea pelos elementos do ecossistema empreendedor e por factores espaciais nos municípios brasileiros.

Palavras-chave: Inovação; empreendedorismo; análise espacial.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Consumption, credit, and entrepreneurial education have the greatest influence on

innovation.

• GDP per capita showed a nonlinear U-shaped relationship with innovation.

• Business conditions showed a nonlinear U-shaped relationship with innovation.

• Influence of space on innovation in municipal units.

Recebido: 02/12/2024. Aceite: 01/07/2025. Publicado: 01/10/2025.

Instituto Cesumar de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (ICETI), Universidade Cesumar (Unicesumar), Térreo Do Bloco 07 – Av. Guedner,

N. 1610 – Jardim Aclimação, 87.050-390, Maringá, Brasil. E-mail:

marcos.brambilla@unicesumar.edu.br,

rejane.sartori@unicesumar.edu.br

Brambilla, M. A., Sartori, R. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e39300

1. INTRODUCTION

The pivotal role of entrepreneurship in fostering economic growth is widely recognized.

Regional development depends on dynamic territories and stakeholders that contribute to better

living conditions, an improved business environment, job creation, and enhanced regional

competitiveness. In this context, the entrepreneurial ecosystem has emerged as a potential driver of

entrepreneurship and development at the regional level (Isenberg, 2010; Valente et al., 2019).

An entrepreneurial ecosystem is a recent construct that has been widely employed to synthesize

initiatives aimed at fostering entrepreneurship and regional development (Ferreira & Prestes, 2023).

They are described as complex networks comprising key actors such as investors, academia, and

institutional policies that facilitate value creation and innovation (Felizola et al., 2024); they emphasize

the role of "place" and provide a lens for understanding regional transformation through

entrepreneurial action (Audretsch, 2015). The fundamental ideas behind the entrepreneurial

ecosystem incorporate the roles of social, cultural, and economic forces into the development process

(Spigel & Harrison, 2018; Stam & Van de Ven, 2019).

Recent studies (Cao & Shi, 2021; Wurth et al., 2022) have advanced our understanding of

entrepreneurial ecosystems and how they operate, highlighting locality as a locus for promoting

economic, social, and environmental development. Cho et al. (2022) point to the need for a better

understanding of network dynamics, the role of entrepreneurial education, and the temporal evolution

of ecosystems. Roundy & Bayer (2019) also consider it relevant to understand how local and global

networks shape entrepreneurial behavior and facilitate innovation.

The perception that innovation is a key factor for development is shared by several scholars in

the field, who emphasize that it is a crucial element for the competitiveness of regions. It is a decisive

element in ensuring economic dynamism, greater competitiveness and, consequently, the prosperity

of regional economies (Garcia et al., 2022). In this context, regions play a vital role, as innovations often

emerge at this level through networks of innovators, local clusters, and inter-institutional cooperation

(Asheim & Gertler, 2005). Therefore, regions are the places where innovative capacity is shaped.

Innovative regions tend to strengthen their competitive potential, promote sustainable economic

growth and, consequently, be more resilient to future economic shocks (Bristow & Healy, 2018; Garcia

et al., 2022; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2013a).

In the Brazilian scenario, the country still has a lot to do to improve its innovative capacity.

According to the 2024 Global Innovation Index (GII), prepared by Cornell University, the European

Institute of Business Administration and the World Intellectual Property Organization, and considered

the main indicator of the world's innovation ecosystem, Brazil is in 50

place out of a total of 133

countries participating in the ranking. Switzerland, Sweden and the United States are in the top spots.

Among the five BRICS countries, Brazil is in third place, ahead of Russia (51

place) and South Africa

(59

). China is in 12

place and India is in 40

place. However, Brazil is still the leader among the

economies of Latin America and the Caribbean.

In terms of innovation in more localized contexts, the Brazil Innovation and Development Index

(IBID), prepared by the National Institute of Industrial Property, indicates the innovation scenario in

the five regions and 27 federative units of the country. The IBID results highlight national inequalities

and diversities, indicating that the South and Southeast regions are the locus of innovation in Brazil.

Of the top eight positions in the general ranking, seven are occupied by states from these two regions.

States from the North and Northeast regions occupy the last 15 positions. Of these, the last six are

occupied by states that belong to the so-called Legal Amazon, which indicates the challenges and the

need for strategic actions for the development of this region that is so important for Brazil and the

world, especially from the perspective of the bioeconomy. Brazil’s continental size and profound

territorial diversity shape its innovation landscape. Ventura (2024) assesses that the IBID is a

territorial portrait of innovation in Brazil, a country of continental dimensions. In this sense, the

biggest bottleneck highlighted by the study is precisely this spatial concentration of innovative

activities. According to the IBID, the key national strategic challenge is strengthening local science,

technology, and innovation (ST&I) ecosystems to extend the regional reach of innovation and promote

territorially integrated economic development.

Therefore, the objective of this article is to analyze the impact of the entrepreneurial ecosystem

on innovation in Brazilian municipalities. To this end, the paper is organized into five sections. After

this introduction, we present general considerations of the entrepreneurial ecosystem and its

Brambilla, M. A., Sartori, R. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e39300

relationship with innovation. Next, we present the methodological process used in the research,

followed by a presentation and discussion of the data. Finally, we present the final considerations.

2. ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM AND INNOVATION

The entrepreneurial ecosystem is a concept that has been receiving attention both in academia

and in the government sphere. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD,

2013b) suggests that the concept of an entrepreneurial ecosystem is holistic and interactive in nature.

It seeks to demonstrate why some regions can continuously promote the success of their new

businesses, along with high levels of high-growth entrepreneurial activity (Stam & Spigel, 2017).

Wurth et al.'s (2022) study shows that current thinking about entrepreneurial ecosystems can

be viewed from various contexts, including entrepreneurship, high-growth entrepreneurship, clusters,

among others.

The term "entrepreneurial ecosystem" was initially coined by Prahalad (2005) and Cohen

(2006) to describe conditions where individuals, companies, governments, civil society, and other

partners come together, regionally, to support business activities aimed at generating economic

wealth and prosperity. In an article commissioned by the OECD, Mason and Brown (2014, p. 5) define

an entrepreneurial ecosystem as a set of interconnected entrepreneurial actors, entrepreneurial

organizations, institutions, and business processes that "merge to connect, mediate, and govern

performance within the local business environment". Similarly, Stam and Spigel (2017, p. 1) consider

it to be "a set of interdependent actors and factors coordinated in a way that allows productive

entrepreneurship within a given territory". Isenberg (2010) adds that it is a network of relationships

that enables interactions between a wide range of institutional and individual actors to promote

entrepreneurship, innovation, and regional economic growth.

Despite diverse approaches, every ecosystem involves several interconnected key elements that

interact and reinforce each other, encompassing components that must cooperate to facilitate

innovation and growth. As Valente et al. (2019) teach, entrepreneurship develops in ecosystems where

stakeholders have essential synergistic roles, which demand the collaboration of multiple actors and

the exchange of information, with the aim of carrying out joint activities and allowing the coordination

of activities among various stakeholders. Thus, in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, the presence and

action of non-governmental organizations, associations, economic entities, educational institutions,

and research institutions with an interest in entrepreneurship and the existence of local, regional, and

international relationship networks among entrepreneurs are observed (Isenberg, 2011).

There are various models of entrepreneurial ecosystems that differ in terms of their constituent

elements. However, they have in common the interdependence between actors, geographical

proximity, being characteristic of the place to which they belong, and an evolutionary dynamic that

considers the ecosystem as a living organism, thus resulting in constant exchanges and flows of

resources (Isenberg, 2010; Valente et al., 2019).

One of the main models of entrepreneurial ecosystems is that of Isenberg (2011), which is

composed of six categories: public policies, financial capital, culture, support institutions, human

resources, and markets. Spigel (2017) considers these ecosystems as evidence of three main regional

resources that contribute to the increase and growth of entrepreneurship: (a) shared cultural

understandings and institutional environments, which facilitate cooperation between companies and

develop practices such as knowledge sharing and mobility between companies; (b) social networks

within regions, which link entrepreneurs to financiers; and (c) government policies and universities,

which can support the formation of an entrepreneurial culture and networks, removing institutional

barriers, training skilled workers and entrepreneurs, and financing specific support programs. Thus,

according to Spigel (2017, p. 49), entrepreneurial ecosystems comprise "the union of localized cultural

perspectives, social networks, investment capital, universities, and active economic policies that create

environments conducive to innovation-based ventures.

The literature emphasizes that innovation is a central element in the entrepreneurial process.

Schumpeter (1988) highlighted the role of the entrepreneur as an agent of "creative destruction",

introducing innovations that transform markets; existing products or production methods are

destroyed and replaced by new ones.

Innovation plays a significant role in economic activities, not only in countries with developed

economies but also in developing countries; it is one of the main drivers of economic growth. Although

Brambilla, M. A., Sartori, R. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e39300

several factors influence the capacity for innovation and the results of a country's economic growth,

the entrepreneur plays a significant role (Miguez & Lezana, 2018).

Innovation and entrepreneurship are complementary because entrepreneurship thrives in

environments that enable creation, reinvention, and innovation. In the entrepreneurial ecosystem,

innovation and entrepreneurship are seen as dynamic processes in which knowledge is accumulated

through learning and interaction between stakeholders. This approach emphasizes the importance of

transferring and diffusing ideas, experiences, and information (Miguez & Lezana, 2018).

The essence of the relationship between entrepreneurship and innovation lies in the perception

and exploitation of new business opportunities and the creation of new ways of using resources

(Rosenbusch et al., 2011). In addition, entrepreneurship and innovation have been associated with the

concept of entrepreneurial orientation (Turró et al., 2014). An entrepreneurial company engages in

product-market innovation, takes risks, presents proactive innovations, and gains a competitive

advantage over its competitors (Haar & White, 2013). The interaction between entrepreneurship and

innovation in entrepreneurial ecosystems suggests that public policies and private initiatives should

focus on creating environments that stimulate the exchange of knowledge, access to resources, and

reduction of barriers to the development of new businesses (Felizola et al., 2024).

In this context, entrepreneurial education involves a set of practices, methods, and skills that

aim to develop the entrepreneurial capacity of individuals to create and manage new businesses,

innovate, and lead within organizations or in their own lives. It seeks to stimulate creativity, strategic

vision, and the ability to identify business opportunities, in addition to developing skills related to

management, marketing, finance, sales, and leadership. Entrepreneurial education can be applied in

various contexts, from basic education to higher education and professional training programs. In

addition to training entrepreneurs, it can also contribute to developing skills and competencies valued

in the job market, such as creativity, resilience, critical thinking, and interpersonal skills, as well as

encouraging the practice and development of entrepreneurial projects with the aim of preparing

individuals to face market challenges and contribute to economic and social development (SEBRAE,

2023).

In turn, access to financial resources is essential to foster innovation. Investments in innovation

involve risk and uncertainty, and their results are difficult to predict. Several authors point out that

government actions are necessary to build financing instruments for investments in innovation, and

thus, government support appears to be relevant, especially in the initial phases, when uncertainty is

high, and is generally associated with non-reimbursable resources. In Brazil, public financing for

innovation is an important tool to boost the country's scientific and technological development,

encouraging companies and researchers to develop innovative projects. This financing has been

carried out mainly through tax incentives from the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation and

financing operations by the Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos and the Banco Nacional de

Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social. This is a recurring item in Brazilian Industrial and Innovation

Policy, having resulted in the creation of instruments and the review of the legal framework, such as

the creation of the Innovation and Goods laws (Santana et al., 2019). Thus, fiscal management becomes

essential to guarantee public investment in innovation.

Finally, to stimulate business development, there must be incentives and the removal of

bureaucratic barriers, and from this perspective, the government has a fundamental role, creating

conditions for entrepreneurship to progress. These conditions are mainly linked to reforms in the

legal, bureaucratic and regulatory frameworks; however, the role of the government is limited in terms

of its efforts, with the remaining contributions to its development being made by the leaders of the

entrepreneurial ecosystem (Isenberg, 2010).

3. METHODOLOGY

The data used in this study are from 2021 and were extracted from the Brazilian Service for

Supporting Micro and Small Enterprises (SEBRAE) and the Brazilian Institute of Geography and

Statistics (IBGE). The study covered all 5570 Brazilian municipalities. Innovation (INNOV), an

indicator that considers patent deposits, industrial design deposits, and professional education

establishments in the municipality, is used as the dependent variable. INNOV was extracted from

SEBRAE and consists of a sub-dimension of the SEBRAE Local Economic Development Index (ISDEL).

Brambilla, M. A., Sartori, R. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e39300

Regarding the independent variables that affect municipal innovation, variables fundamental to

an entrepreneurial ecosystem were selected. The variables of Entrepreneurship Education

(ENT_EDU), this enables both managers and employees to innovate within the organizations they

work for, an indicator that represents SEBRAE programs, Sebraetec, and Future Entrepreneur;

Consumption Potential and Credit (CONS_CRED), by offering the local market a demand for the goods

and services produced and encouraging companies to invest in product innovation, this indicator is

composed of information related to the wage mass of formal employment, consumption potential,

credit, and banking services; Fiscal Management (FIS_MAN), which offers financial conditions,

supported by the public sector, to foster innovation, this indicator is composed of variables related to

public funding and fiscal autonomy; Gross Domestic Product Per Capita (PIB_PC), which measures the

economic condition of Brazilian municipalities, which consists of the municipality's GDP per capita;

and Business Conditions (BUS_COND), this refers to the number of companies present in the

municipality, measured by the companies per capita indicator. Additionally, Gross Domestic Product

Per Capita squared (PIB_PC_S) and Business Conditions squared (BUS_COND_S) were considered to

test for a non-linear relationship with municipal innovation in Brazil.

To construct the model, all independent variables were evaluated to avoid endogeneity. The

innovation variable from ISDEL represents the conditions and generation of innovative products for

the municipality, while the independent variables correspond to indicators of the entrepreneurial

ecosystem, which considers internal economic agents, consumers, companies, and government

(Vasconcellos & Garcia, 2014).

When evaluating how an entrepreneurial ecosystem can influence innovation in municipalities,

the influence of the region, that is, of neighboring municipalities, must also be considered. In this sense,

the effect of the INNOV of the municipalities in the region was also considered. To achieve the objective

proposed in this study, Exploratory Analysis of Spatial Data (EASD), the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS)

method, and the main spatial regression models were used.

A EASD is a technique for describing and visualizing spatial distributions, identifying outliers,

discovering spatial association patterns (spatial clusters), and suggesting different spatial regimes and

other forms of instability. However, to adequately test spatial effects, it is necessary to consider the

degree of connection between regions through the spatial weight matrix.

In this article, the queen, rook, and k nearest neighbors matrices were tested, using as a selection

criterion the one that presents the highest value of spatial autocorrelation based on Moran's I.

According to the author, Moran's I statistical method is a spatial autocorrelation coefficient that uses

the measure of autocovariance in the form of a cross-product. The investigation at the local level was

carried out using spatial association indicators (LISA).

Spatial econometric models are an extension of classical econometrics, which use location in the

territory as one of the explanatory factors in the models. In the present study, the Spatial Lag Model

(SAR), Spatial Error Model (SEM), Spatial Durbin Model (SDM), Spatial Durbin Error Model (SDEM),

and Spatial Cross-Regressive Model (SLX) were tested (Almeida, 2012).

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this section, an Exploratory Analysis of Spatial Data (EASD) is conducted to assess the

presence of a spatial pattern in the innovation index. Table I shows that Moran's I value was above the

expected value and was significant for all conventions of spatial weight matrices, inferring that there

is a positive spatial autocorrelation of the innovation index. For the analysis, the spatial weight matrix

of the Rook Convention was selected, which presented the highest Moran's I value, according to the

selection criterion.

The positive spatial autocorrelation, evidenced by the sign of Moran's I statistic, indicates that

municipalities with a high innovation index are surrounded by municipalities with a high innovation

index, whereas localities with a low innovation index are surrounded by municipalities with a low

innovation index.

Brambilla, M. A., Sartori, R. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e39300

Table I – Moran's I of innovation in brazilian municipalities, 2021.

Tabela I – I de Moran da inovação nos municípios brasileiros, 2021.

Convention

Moran's I

Expected Moran's I

P-value

Queen

0,158

-0,0002

0,000

Tower

0,160

-0,0002

0,000

K 5 neighbors

0,124

-0,0002

0,000

K 7 neighbors

0,110

-0,0002

0,000

K 10 neighbors

0,104

-0,0002

0,000

Source: Authos`elaboration

Therefore, it is possible to indicate that innovation in Brazilian municipalities functions as a

network articulation, with spatial clusters of municipalities with high innovation indicators and

agglomerations of municipalities with low innovation indicators.

This spatial dependence of innovation corroborates the results found by Montenegro and

Betarelli Junior (2008), who verified the existence of a positive spatial autocorrelation of innovation

among the municipalities of the state of São Paulo, and by Araújo (2014), who identified a positive

spatial dependence of innovation among Brazilian microregions. The cluster map presented in figure

2 allowed us to verify where statistically significant spatial clusters were formed at the 5% level.

Fig. 1 – Cluster map of Brazilian municipalities' innovation index. Colour figure available online.

Fig. 1 – Mapa de Clusters do índice de inovação nos municípios brasileiros. Figura a cores disponível online.

Source: Authos`elaboration

Brambilla, M. A., Sartori, R. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e39300

In the local analysis, the innovation index presented in 13.4% of municipalities (745) as

statistically significant at the 5% level. Among these municipalities, the formation of HH-type clusters

was concentrated in the southeast region. It is possible to verify in this grouping that the southeast

region concentrated more than half (117) of the municipalities. At the state level, the highlight for the

Southeast region was the state of São Paulo, which presented more than a third of the municipalities

in the HH cluster, concentrated mainly in the metropolitan region of the city of São Paulo, favored by

urban infrastructure, which contributes to technological development (Montenegro & Betarelli Junior,

2008).

In contrast, the northeast region presented the highest concentration of BB-type spatial clusters.

It can be observed that the region is concentrated over 44% (93) of the municipalities. At the state

level, the highlight for the Northeast region was the states of Rio Grande do Norte and Paraíba, which

presented more than 8% in the LL cluster. Araújo (2014) verified clusters of microregions with low

innovation, considering the number of patents in the Northeast and North regions, as they are localities

with low national participation in economic and industrial activities, with the exception of some state

capitals (Natal, Recife, and Fortaleza), corroborating the results of this research.

Regarding the effect of the entrepreneurial ecosystem on innovation, estimation was performed

using the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method and spatial regression estimations, the results of

which are presented in table II. In the regression performed by the OLS method, it can be verified by

Moran's I test that the errors presented spatial autocorrelation. The Jarque-Bera test indicates that the

model does not present a normal distribution. Therefore, the estimation should be performed using

the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM). From the estimation of the Spatial Auto-Regressive (SAR),

Spatial Error Model (SEM), Spatial Durbin Model (SDM), Spatial Durbin Error Model (SDEM), and

Spatial Lag of X (SLX), SAR was adopted, the only one that eliminated the heterogeneity of the model.

Table II – Estimates of the impact of the entrepreneurial ecosystem on innovation in brazilian municipalities, 2021.

Tabela II – Estimativas do impacto do ecossistema empreendedor sobre a inovação nos municípios brasileiros, 2021.

Variables

OLS

SAR

SEM

SDM

SDEM

SLX

Intercept

-0,0520**

-0,0510**

-0,0517**

-0,0509**

-0,0582**

-0,0600**

ENT_EDU

0,4271**

0,4286**

0,4213**

0,4023**

0,3982**

0,3963**

CONS_CRED

0,5147**

0,5094**

0,5434**

0,5799**

0,5722**

0,5732**

FIS_MAN

0,1070**

0,0994**

0,0713**

0,0299**

0,0529**

0,0530**

GDP_PC

-2,4733e-07**

-0,0003**

-0,0002**

GDP_PC²

3,4212e-13**

4,12e-07**

3,26e-07**

2,66e-07**

2,84e-07**

2,77e-07**

BUS_COND

-0,3373**

-0,3340**

-0,3431**

-0,3325**

-0,3045**

-0,2998**

BUS_COND²

0,3825**

0,3795**

0,3913**

0,3863**

0,3452**

0,3380**

W_INNOV

0,0533*

0,3286**

W_ERROR

0,3314**

0,2535**

W_ENT_EDU

-0,1277**

0,0403

0,0361

W_CONS_CRED

-0,3634**

-0,2232**

-0,2245**

W_FIS_MAN

0,2608**

0,2542**

0,2715**

W_ GDP_PC

-0,0002**

-0,0003**

-0,0004**

W_ GDP_PC²

6,23e-07**

8,23e-07**

9,95e-07**

W_BUS_COND

-0,2737**

-0,0260

0,0372

W_BUS_COND²

0,3286**

0,2535

0,0334

Sample

5570

Breusch-Pagan test

76702,4770**

Jarque-Bera test

1466432,6886**

R²

0,6249

Pseudo R²

0,6237

0,6236

0,6453

0,6438

0,6440

Moran’s I (error)

16,1601**

Wald test (error)

5,73*

416,60**

370,30**

509,03**

298,28**

Note: **p<0,01; *p<0,05

Source: Authos`elaboration

Brambilla, M. A., Sartori, R. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e39300

The SAR model indicates that entrepreneurial education positively influences innovation. This

result presents one of the greatest impacts on innovation and is aligned with the study of Bhatta et al.

(2024), which showed that not only entrepreneurial education but also an entrepreneurial mindset

contributes to executing effective strategies to generate innovation. Entrepreneurial education

promotes the restructuring of the economic and business model, improves the dynamics of

development, and drives development through innovation (Rongpipi & Sharma, 2024).

Regarding consumption potential and credit, it was found that a high level of consumption

potential and credit leads to an increase in innovation, and municipal fiscal management has a positive

impact on innovation. Knowledge of a population's consumption profile is fundamental for the

development of new products, assisting managers and the public sector (Camelo et al., 2020). Together

with knowledge of demand, access to credit increases companies’ investment in innovation (Pacheco,

2019).

On the other hand, Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDPpc) had a negative impact on

innovation. However, GDPpc squared has a positive impact on the innovation index, indicating a non-

linear relationship between GDPpc and the innovation index in a U-shape. The coefficients suggest that

the GDPpc values of the municipality from R$40 048.54 have a positive impact on innovation.

Pylypenko et al. (2023) show a strong positive correlation between an innovative social capital

indicator and the GDPpc of countries at all levels of development. As the authors highlight, this strong

dependence evidences inequality in innovation among countries. Poorer countries have room to

increase their innovation potential, which, in the case of Brazil, the results showed that reaching a

GDPpc level of just over R$40 000 has a positive impact on the innovation index.

Business conditions, which consider the number of companies, had a negative impact and the

business conditions index squared had a positive impact, also indicating a non-linear relationship with

innovation in a U-shape. The results indicate that the values of the business conditions index of the

municipality from 0.44 have a positive impact on innovation. Companies alone are not enough to

generate innovation in the new knowledge-based economy; a fundamental element for producing

innovative products and processes is knowledge (Amaral et al., 2007), which forms the human capital

of the organization (Stewart, 1998). In this sense, startups are fundamental to innovation processes

because of their ability to deal with specific and new knowledge (Freire et al., 2017). Thus, Brazilian

municipalities must travel a long way to reach the level of companies, especially startups, to generate

positive impacts on the innovation process.

The results also allow us to verify that innovation in neighboring municipalities, given by the

spatial lag of innovation, positively influences innovation. The dynamics of innovation are strongly

influenced by geographical proximity, which considers innovation clusters formed by innovative

companies that interact with each other, generating mutual benefits.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This study aimed to analyze the spatial distribution of the innovation index through Spatial

Exploratory Analysis of Spatial Data (EASD) and evaluate the influence of the entrepreneurial

ecosystem on innovation in Brazilian municipalities through spatial regressions. The results show

spatial dependence for innovation. Municipalities with high innovation index rates were concentrated

in the Southeast region, and agglomerations of municipalities with low innovation index rates were

located in the Northeast region.

The estimation of the chosen spatial regression model (SAR) showed that entrepreneurial

education, consumption potential and credit, and fiscal management had a positive impact on

innovation. The variables of Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDPpc) and business conditions

presented a non-linear relationship in a U-shape with innovation. The study showed that innovation

is heterogeneously influenced in Brazilian municipalities by elements of the entrepreneurial

ecosystem. There are factors that had a positive linear impact, and other factors that presented a non-

linear relationship in a U-shape.

As a theoretical contribution, the study indicates that among the factors with a linear

relationship, consumption potential, credit, and entrepreneurial education had the most significant

impact on raising the innovation index. As for the factors with a non-linear relationship in a U-shape,

GDPpc positively influences innovation from R$ 40 048.54, and business conditions tend to contribute

positively to innovation from an index of 0.44.

Brambilla, M. A., Sartori, R. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e39300

As a practical contribution, based on the results found, it is suggested that policies be adopted

to stimulate economic activity, the development of entrepreneurial knowledge, and the

encouragement of business openings, especially startups, to foster innovation in municipalities,

especially in the northeast region.

To advance the literature in the area, further research can delve deeper into the identification

of factors that have regional impacts, both factors of the entrepreneurial ecosystem and factors that

characterize the local units of the region, with a specificity in the role of companies that are classified

as startups and human capital. In addition to research that evaluates the efficiency of innovation from

a global and regional perspective.

ORCID ID

Marcos Aurélio Brambilla

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1111-9424

Rejane Sartori https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9116-5860

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Instituto Cesumar de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (ICETI) researcher. ICETI research productivity fellow.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTION

Marcos Aurélio Brambilla: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis,

Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft preparation, Writing – review and editing,

Visualization, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Rejane Sartori: Conceptualization,

Investigation, Writing – original draft preparation, Writing – review and editing.

REFERENCES

Amaral, L. M., Ribeiro, J. F., & Sousa, M. D. (2007). Economia do conhecimento: noção, base de sustentação e tendências

[Knowledge economy: notion, foundation, and trends]. Sociedade Portuguesa de Inovação.

Araújo, V. de C. (2014). Dimensão local da inovação no Brasil: determinantes e efeitos de proximidade [Local dimension

of innovation in Brazil: determinants and effects of proximity] [Tese de doutoramento, Universidade de São

Paulo]. Repositório da Universidade de São Paulo.

https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/3/3136/tde-

21102014-112745/pt-br.php

Asheim, B. T., & Gertler, M. S. (2005). The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, & D.

C. Mowery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 291–317). Oxford University Press.

Audretsch, D. B. (2015). Everything in its place: Entrepreneurship and the strategic management of cities, regions, and

states. Oxford University Press.

Bhatta, D. D., Pi, Y., Sarfraz, M., Jaffri, Z. U. A., Ivascu, L., & Ozturk, I. (2024). What determines the entrepreneurial

intentions of employees? A moderated mediation model of entrepreneurial motivation and innovate work

behavior. Heliyon, 10(2), e24678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24678

Bristow, G., & Healy, A. (2018). Innovation and regional economic resilience: An exploratory analysis. The Annals of

Regional Science, 60(2), 265–284.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-017-0841-6

Camelo, D., Daros, C., & Lucca, A. de S. (2020). Hábitos de consumo e agenda de inovação: contribuições para a

investigação qualitativa por meio da aplicação de um marco preliminar a um caso de estudo [Consumption

habits and innovation agenda: contributions to qualitative research through the application of a preliminary

framework to a case study]. New Trends in Qualitative Research, 4, 330–342.

https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.4.2020.330-342

Cao, Z., & Shi, X. (2021). A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging

economies. Small Business Economics, 57(1), 75–110.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00326-y

Cho, D. S., Ryan, P., & Buciuni, G. (2022). Evolutionary entrepreneurial ecosystems: A research pathway. Small Business

Economics, 58(4), 1865–1883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00487-4

Brambilla, M. A., Sartori, R. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e39300

Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(1), 1–14.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.428

Felizola, M. P. M., Marques, A. A., & Silva, A. L. S. (2024). Mapeamento do ecossistema de empreendedorismo e

inovação da indústria criativa brasileira de impacto socioambiental [Mapping the entrepreneurship and

innovation ecosystem of the Brazilian creative industry with socio-environmental impact]. RGD, 21(2), 217–

247.

https://doi.org/10.25112/rgd.v21i2.3793

Ferreira, F. L. A., & Prestes, J. A. (2023). Ecossistemas empreendedores: uma discussão sobre os aspectos gerais que os

norteiam [Entrepreneurial ecosystems: a discussion on the general aspects that guide them]. Revista Livre de

Sustentabilidade e Empreendedorismo, 8, 11–22.

https://www.relise.eco.br/index.php/relise/article/download/707/787/2299

Freire, C. T., Maruyama, F., & Polli, M. (2017). Inovação e empreendedorismo: políticas públicas e ações privadas

[Innovation and entrepreneurship: public policies and private actions]. Novos estudos CEBRAP, 36, 51–76.

https://doi.org/10.25091/S0101-3300201700030004

Haar, J. M., & White, B. J. (2013). Corporate entrepreneurship and information technology towards employee

retention: a study of New Zealand firms. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(1), 109–125.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2011.00178.x

Isenberg, D. (2010). The big idea: How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–50.

https://hbr.org/2010/06/the-big-idea-how-to-start-an-entrepreneurial-revolution

Isenberg, D. (2011). The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economy policy: Principles for

cultivating entrepreneurship. Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosyst Project, 1(781), 1–13.

https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2787987

Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship. Background paper

prepared for the workshop organised by the OECD LEED Programme and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs

on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship, The Hague, Netherlands OECD.

Miguez, V. B., & Lezana, Á. G. R. (2018). Empreendedorismo e inovação: a evolução dos fatores que influenciam o

empreendedorismo corporativo [Entrepreneurship and innovation: the evolution of factors influencing

corporate entrepreneurship]. Navus: Revista de Gestão e Tecnologia, 8(2), 112–132.

http://dx.doi.org/10.22279/navus.2018.v8n2.p112-132.624

Montenegro, R. L. G., & Betarelli Junior, A. A. (2008). Análise e investigação dos fatores determinantes da inovação nos

municípios de São Paulo [Analysis and investigation of determinants of innovation in São Paulo

municipalities]. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Regionais e Urbanos, 2(2), 7-31.

https://www.revistaaber.org.br/rberu/article/view/19

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013a). Interconnected economies benefiting from global

value chains: Benefiting from global value chains. OECD.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013b). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth-oriented

entrepreneurship: Summary report of an international workshop organised by OECD and Netherlands ministry of

economic affairs the Hague, 7 November 2013. OECD.

Pacheco, L. P. (2019). Acceso al crédito, innovación tecnológica e inserción externa de las empresas argentinas 2010-

2012 [Access to credit, technological innovation, and external insertion of Argentine companies 2010-2012].

Apuntes del CENES, 38(67), 157–190.

https://doi.org/10.19053/01203053.v38.n67.2019.7903

Prahalad, C. (2005). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. School Publishing.

Pylypenko, H. M., Pylypenko, Y. I., Dubiei, Y. V., Solianyk, L. G., Pazynich, Y. M., Buketov, V., ... & Magdziarczyk, M.

(2023). Social capital as a factor of innovative development. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market,

and Complexity, 9(3), 100118.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100118

Rongpipi, P., & Sharma, S. (2024). Factors affecting entrepreneurial growth and significance analysis of

entrepreneurial education in Assam. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15, 20229–20250.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-01891-3

Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the

relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 441–457.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.12.002

Roundy, P. T., & Bayer, M. A. (2019). To bridge or buffer? A resource dependence theory of nascent entrepreneurial

ecosystems. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 11(4), 550–575.

https://doi.org//10.1108/JEEE-06-2018-0064

Schumpeter, J. A. (1988). Capitalismo, sociedade e democracia [Capitalism, society, and democracy]. Abril Cultural.

Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas. (2023). Educação empreendedora: novas tendências

[Entrepreneurial education: new trends]. SEABRE.

Brambilla, M. A., Sartori, R. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e39300

https://sebrae.com.br/sites/PortalSebrae/artigos/educacao-empreendedora-novas-

tendencias,4b0bdb9d683a6810VgnVCM1000001b00320aRCRD#:~:text=Para%20acompanhar%20a%20velo

cidade%20do,e%20a%20gest%C3%A3o%20de%20neg%C3%B3cios.

Santana, J. R., Silva Teixeira, A. L., Rapini, M. S., & Esperidião, F. (2019). Financiamento público à inovação no Brasil:

contribuição para uma distribuição regional mais equilibrada? [Public financing for innovation in Brazil:

contribution to a more balanced regional distribution?]. Planejamento e Políticas Públicas, 52(1), 355–387.

https://www.ipea.gov.br/ppp/index.php/PPP/article/view/796/512

Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

40(1), 49-72.

https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167

Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2018). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship

Journal, 12(1), 151–168.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1268

Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. In R. Blackburn, D. De Clercq, J. Heinonen & Z. Wang (Eds.),

The SAGE handbook of small business and entrepreneurship (pp. 407–423). SAGE.

Stam, E., & Van de Ven, A. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics, 56(2), 809–832.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6

Stewart, T. A. (1998). Capital intelectual: a nova vantagem competitiva das empresas [Intellectual capital: the new

competitive advantage of companies]. Campus.

Turró, A., Urbano, D., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014). Culture and innovation: The moderating effect of cultural values on

corporate entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 360–369.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.004

Valente, F. M., Dantas, J. G. L., & Brito, M. M. D. (2019). Ecossistemas empreendedores: estudo de caso [Entrepreneurial

ecosystems: case study]. In XXIX Jornadas Hispano-Lusas de Gestión Científica [29th Hispano-Lusitanian

Conference on Scientific Management] (pp. 157-168). Universidad de Osuna.

Vasconcellos, M. A. S. D., & Garcia, M. E. (2014). Fundamentos da economia [Foundations of economics]. Edição Saraiva.

Ventura, R. V. (2024). BID, um índice para chamar de nosso [BID, an index to call our own]. Associação Brasileira dos

Agentes de Propriedade Industrial (ABAPI).

https://abapi.org.br/entrevista-rodrigo-vieira-ventura-chefe-de-

assuntos-economicos-do-

inpi/#:~:text=Rodrigo%20Vieira%20Ventura%3A%20O%20IBID,ocupam%20as%2015%20%C3%BAltimas

%20coloca%C3%A7%C3%B5es.

Wurth, B., Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2022). Toward an entrepreneurial ecosystem research program. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 46(3), 729–778.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258721998948