\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{1970-01-01 (revised: 01 January 1970)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{1970-01-01}
\title{}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Dave  Williams}

             \affil[1]{  Appalachian State University}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 1 January 1970 Accepted: 1 January 1970 Published: 1 January 1970}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


Abstract- The study seeks to show the life cycle, ranking of actors? roles, and access to actors and other environmental factors effect on various biopharmaceutical entrepreneurial ecosystems in Central Europe from the perspective of the various actors within the ecosystems. The study finds several interesting results. First, the majority of actors view their ecosystem to be in the growth stage of the life cycle. Second, the majority of actors perceive their ecosystem as developing via existing actors. Third, there is some variation among the ecosystems in terms of which actors played the most important roles in developing the ecosystem, with those in academia playing the highest role. Yet, all actors are perceived as playing a role in the development of the ecosystem by most, suggesting the additive nature of ecosystem development.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\begin{textblock*}{10cm}(1.05cm,3cm)
{{\textit{CrossRef DOI of original article:}} \underline{}}
\end{textblock*}\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 \par
The Life Cycle and Actors' Roles in Select Central European Biopharmaceutical Entrepreneurial Ecosystems-Results from a Multi-Perspective Survey 
\section[{By Dave Williams}]{By Dave Williams}\par
Abstract-The study seeks to show the life cycle, ranking of actors' roles, and access to actors and other environmental factors effect on various biopharmaceutical entrepreneurial ecosystems in Central Europe from the perspective of the various actors within the ecosystems. The study finds several interesting results. First, the majority of actors view their ecosystem to be in the growth stage of the life cycle. Second, the majority of actors perceive their ecosystem as developing via existing actors. Third, there is some variation among the ecosystems in terms of which actors played the most important roles in developing the ecosystem, with those in academia playing the highest role. Yet, all actors are perceived as playing a role in the development of the ecosystem by most, suggesting the additive nature of ecosystem development.\par
GJMBR-A Classification: LCC code: QH301-705. \hyperref[b4]{5}  
\section[{TheLifeCycleandActorsRolesinSelectCentralEuropeanBiopharmaceuticalEntrepreneurialEcosystemsResultsfromaMultiPerspectiveSurvey}]{TheLifeCycleandActorsRolesinSelectCentralEuropeanBiopharmaceuticalEntrepreneurialEcosystemsResultsfromaMultiPerspectiveSurvey} 
\section[{Strictly as per the compliance and regulations of:}]{Strictly as per the compliance and regulations of:}\par
The Life Cycle and Actors' Roles in Select Central European Biopharmaceutical Entrepreneurial Ecosystems -Results from a Multi-Perspective Survey 
\section[{Dave Williams}]{Dave Williams}\par
Author: e-mail: willimsdr@appstate.edu\par
Abstract-The study seeks to show the life cycle, ranking of actors' roles, and access to actors and other environmental factors effect on various biopharmaceutical entrepreneurial ecosystems in Central Europe from the perspective of the various actors within the ecosystems. The study finds several interesting results. First, the majority of actors view their ecosystem to be in the growth stage of the life cycle. Second, the majority of actors perceive their ecosystem as developing via existing actors. Third, there is some variation among the ecosystems in terms of which actors played the most important roles in developing the ecosystem, with those in academia playing the highest role. Yet, all actors are perceived as playing a role in the development of the ecosystem by most, suggesting the additive nature of ecosystem development. 
\section[{I. Introduction}]{I. Introduction}\par
t has been said that few things in life occur in isolation. This undoubtedly is the case with the development of new drugs and therapeutics. This process occurs in a highly complex web of interactions among dependent actors and other factors-in what has become known as an entrepreneurial ecosystem. From a historical standpoint, business studies related to drug discovery and development aspects have focused mainly on individuals (e.g., \hyperref[b41]{Zucker \& Darby, 1996)}, firms (e.g., \hyperref[b4]{Audretsch, 2001)}, and costs (e.g., DiMasi, Grabowski, \& Hansen, 2016). More recently in this industry, business, economics, and regional studies have examined the interaction between a limited number of actors, primarily the interaction between academia and venture capital in what is known as cluster or biocluster studies (e.g., \hyperref[b26]{Powell, et al., 2002;}\hyperref[b39]{Williams \& Pouder, 2020)}. Few studies have examined this industry from a wider, ecosystem view  {\ref (Vlaisavljevec, et al., 2020)}.\par
Given this limited perspective, the present study seeks to begin to describe the life cycle, ranking of the various actors, and other environmental aspects of different entrepreneurial ecosystems engaged in drug discovery and development in several regions of Austria, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland. These 4 countries are chosen as they are all top 15 exporters of biopharmaceutical products and within proximity of each other. In addition to the entrepreneurial ecosystem works, literature is borrowed from the cluster, systems of innovation, innovation ecosystem, and open innovation streams, noting that there is a paucity of literature describing the life cycle and other specific attributes of ecosystems \hyperref[b5]{(Audretsch et al., 2021;}\hyperref[b35]{de Vasconcelos Gomes, 2018)}. The literature shows that numerous types of actors are involved with the creation of this technology and regional development \hyperref[b20]{(Lecocq \& Van Looy, 2016)}, and that firms in lesser quality ecosystems are more likely to fail \hyperref[b36]{(Vedula \& Kim, 2019}). Yet we know little about how entrepreneurial ecosystems develop and their stages \hyperref[b8]{(Cantner et al., 2021)}. To address this deficiency, results are presented from a survey given to multiple types of actors or stakeholders. The survey seeks to address 5 basic questions: 1) At what stage of the life cycle is the ecosystem in; 2) How has the region developed to its current life cycle stage; 3) How important are the roles played by the various actors;4) How would one rank order the roles played by the various actors; and 5) How has access to actors and other environmental factors affected the development of the ecosystem. This first step should assist regions, organizations, and scholars in their understanding of the multiple ways to create, maintain, and re-energize entrepreneurial ecosystems and further economic competitiveness. 
\section[{II. The Ecosystem Literature}]{II. The Ecosystem Literature}\par
The biological ecosystem metaphor recently has been borrowed and adapted by scholars in various research settings such as business, entrepreneurship, innovation, knowledge, and strategy (e.g., \hyperref[b1]{Adner, 2006;}\hyperref[b9]{Clarysse et al., 2014;}\hyperref[b19]{Kapoor \& Lee, 2013;}\hyperref[b21]{Mason \& Brown, 2014;}\hyperref[b31]{Spigel, 2017)}. Each of these research settings has related but different scopes and objectives related to ecosystems \hyperref[b24]{(Pilinkien? \& Ma?iulis, 2014)}. The business ecosystem literature is primarily related to examining a single actor, network, or platform \hyperref[b38]{(Weber \& Hine, 2015)}. The purpose of which is to show the interconnectedness among commercial firms and how it I generates customer value \hyperref[b9]{(Clarysse, et al., 2014;}\hyperref[b27]{Radinger-Peer, et al, 2018)}.\par
The ecosystem literature also is associated with the economic geography literature on systems of innovation. This literature includes the national innovation systems (Mercan and Goktas, 2011; Pilinkien?, \& Ma?iulis, 2014) and its regional innovation system counterpart (e.g., Cooke, Uranga, \& Etxebarria, 1997).Both the national and regional innovation system literatures see systems of organizations and actors interacting to shape the innovativeness of an economy (Bramwell, Hepburn, \& Wolfe, 2012). Regional innovation systems, specifically, refer to the networks and institutions linking knowledge producing hubs such as universities and public research labs with innovative firms within a region \hyperref[b0]{(Acs et al., 2017)}. In this regard, it is similar also to research on clusters (e.g., \hyperref[b25]{Porter, 1998)}. Much of the cluster work has focused on the relationship between knowledge and capital.\par
Expanding the work on clusters, the innovation ecosystem literature incorporates the global, networked economy and additional interdependent actors \hyperref[b13]{(Durst \& Poutanen, 2013;}\hyperref[b29]{Rubens et al, 2011)}. Similar to the present study, the innovation ecosystem literature describes the collective, interdependent collaborative efforts of a diverse set of actors whose purpose is innovation \hyperref[b11]{(Dedehayir, Mäkinen, \& Ortt, 2018)}. In this stream, the focus is on the firm and its linkages. Scholars, however, are only now beginning to examine the theoretical tenets and boundaries of innovation ecosystems \hyperref[b23]{(Oh et al., 2016;}\hyperref[b28]{Ritala \& Almpanopoulou, 2017)}, with questions related to innovation ecosystem building and innovation ecosystem life cycle remaing as gaps in the literature (de Vasconcelos Gomes et al., 2018) which is similar to the entrepreneurship ecosystem literature \hyperref[b6]{(Auerswald and Dani, 2017)}.\par
Innovation ecosystem thinking also is closely related to what is considered open innovation \hyperref[b13]{(Durst \& Poutanen, 2013)}. Building upon work in open innovation, scholars have of late used the dimensions of academia, government, industry, and society-in what is known as the quadruple helix-to describe the next generation of ecosystems. The use of helices in the open innovation literature has expanded over time from the double helix (academia and industry-similar to the regional innovation systems and bio-cluster research), to the triple helix (academy, industry, and government), to the now developing quadruple helix literature, with the role or input of society into various aspects of innovation being an emerging dimension. It can be extrapolated from this that an ecosystem perspective views the helices (i.e., actors and other factors) as additive, with each area adding value to development and prosperity of the ecosystem.\par
As innovation has long been associated with entrepreneurship (e.g., \hyperref[b30]{Schumpeter, 1942)}, scholars have recently applied the ecosystem metaphor to the entrepreneurial setting. Stam and Spiegel (2016:1) define an entrepreneurial ecosystem as "a set of interdependent actors and factors coordinated in such a way that they enable productive entrepreneurship within a particular territory." Here, the focus is on networks and linkages to external factors that boost entrepreneurship \hyperref[b6]{(Auerswald and Dani, 2017)}, with the entrepreneurship ecosystem creating environments that nurture and maintain entrepreneurship in all of its forms-from startups to corporate entrepreneurship \hyperref[b15]{(Isenberg, 2010}). Yet, similar to the early general entrepreneurship literature which equates entrepreneurship with start-up firms \hyperref[b17]{(Isenberg, 2016)}, the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature has mainly examined emerging ecosystems driven by start-up entrepreneurial firms \hyperref[b33]{(Stam, 2015)}. The present study examines both emerging and established firms and entrepreneurial ecosystems.\par
The entrepreneurship ecosystem literature also at times seeks to span the gap between the regional systems of innovation approach and entrepreneurial studies  {\ref (Stam and Spiegel, 2016)}, with most studies examining successful ecosystems to identify best practices \hyperref[b32]{(Spigel \& Harrison, 2018)}. We know little about the additive value of the various actors and other factors. The current study expands the ecosystem literature by examining multiple biopharmaceutical entrepreneurial ecosystems' life cycle, actors' ranking and rank ordering, and access to actors and environmental factors via survey responses from triple helix actors seeking to begin to quantify the actors and other factors roles. This is important as entrepreneurial ecosystems differ across regions and countries \hyperref[b16]{(Isenberg, 2011;}\hyperref[b18]{Jung et al., 2017)}, with few studies examining multiple entrepreneurial ecosystems or taking into consideration which formal and informal institutions (actors) matter \hyperref[b3]{(Alvedalen and Boschma, 2017)}. 
\section[{III. Methodology}]{III. Methodology}\par
An electronic survey was sent to 601 actors involved with the biopharmaceutical industry in the Central European regions surrounding the cities of Basel, Graz, Innsbruck, Lausanne, Milan, Munich, Rome, Salzburg, Vienna, and Zurich. The actors were asked questions related to the development of the biopharmaceutical industry within their region, with the biopharmaceutical industry being described as the biotechnology and/or pharmaceutical industries whichever best describes their region. These actors included those who worked in academia, biotechnology firms, consulting firms, contract manufacturing organizations, contract research organizations, financial organizations (both venture capital and non-venture capitalorganizations), government agencies, hospitals, incubators and accelerators, industry trade associations, pharmaceutical firms, regional development agencies, and suppliers. The survey was given between the dates of April 15 and September 30, 2020, with multiple followup email requests to complete the survey sent during this time. It should be noted that this was during the Covid pandemic, which was a hectic time for those involved with this industry. Names and email addresses were obtained via an Internet search, relying heavily upon contact lists provided within regional and national industry trade associations' websites. Additionally, multiple industry trade associations and other individuals posted information about the survey and/or otherwise forwarded the survey to various actors with knowledge of the industry and regions. Individuals in regions not solicited provided responses and these responses are included herein. The email recipients were given the option of taking the survey in either the English, German or Italian language, with the emails themselves sent in these languages at times. Anonymous summary results were sent to the participants at its completion. Communications were had with several actors before, during, and after the survey to discuss the survey's purpose, questions, and results, with suggestions incorporated herein. 
\section[{IV. Results}]{IV. Results}\par
who in turn completed the survey, (limited) results from these regions are provided as well. Overall, the results represent individuals from academia (16 percent); biopharmaceutical firms (8 percent); biotechnology firms (23 percent); consulting firms (5 percent); contract research organizations (14 percent); government agencies (5 percent); industry trade associations (4 percent); pharmaceutical firms (3 percent); suppliers (3 percent) and others (19 percent). Fifty-seven percent of the respondents replied that they had worked in their region for more than 10 years.\par
The results below are shown in the aggregate (i.e., all regions combined) and separated into the various ecosystems. This is done to enable to reader to quickly grasp the similarities and differences of the regions compared to the whole. 
\section[{a) Life Cycle}]{a) Life Cycle}\par
The Table \hyperref[tab_0]{1} shows the results as a percentage of respondents by region. A few areas of note are: 1) The majority view their region as in the growth stage; 2) Contrasted with this, 60 percent of Innsbruck and Milan respondents view their region as in the maturity stage of its life cycle; 3) No respondent's view their region as being in the shake-out stage; and 4) Although, most respondents in Vienna view that the industry is in the growth stage, several respondents also view it in either the maturity or rejuvenation stage.   The survey asked: "Rank the actors' role played in developing the biopharmaceutical industry in your region (1= no role; 5=indispensable role). 
\section[{Embryonic}]{Embryonic}\par
Figure \hyperref[fig_3]{3} shows the overall results of this categorization for all regions combined. Two areas stand out. First, a little over 25 percent say consumers and consumer groups have had no role in the development of the region, with about 19 percent saying that payers have had no role. This is noteworthy as the open innovation literature has been expanded (via the quadruple helix) to include consumers or consumer groups (e.g. society). On the opposite end, over 62 percent of respondents say that academia played an indispensable role in the development of the region, while almost 49 percent say that biotechnology firms have played an indispensable role in the development of the region. Interestingly, when respondents from academia and biotechnology firms are excluded (results not shown), the results do not change dramatically (i.e., about 58 percent view academia and about 47 percent view biotechnology firms as indispensable). 
\section[{N=74}]{N=74}\par
The Life Cycle and Actors' Roles in Select Central European Biopharmaceutical Entrepreneurial Ecosystems -Results from a Multi-Perspective Survey  In Table \hyperref[tab_3]{3}, means are used to show the relative importance of the role of each actor (i.e., 1= no role; 5=indispensable). Several areas are noteworthy. In Basel, almost 91 percent thought pharmaceutical firms were indispensible with the remainder viewing them as important ("4"). In Graz, 80 percent thought academia was indispensable, while 60 percent ranked venture capital firms as less important ("2"). In Innsbruck, 100 percent thought consumers or consumer groups played no role. In Lausanne, almost 86 percent thought academia was indispensable. In Milan, 50 percent viewed pharmaceutical firms as indispensable, while 50 percent thought venture capital firms played no role. In Munich, nearly 88 percent thought academia and 50 percent thought biotechnology firms were indispensable. Almost 90 percent thought academia and 61 percent viewed biotechnology firms as indispensable in Vienna. In Zurich, 71 percent viewed biotechnology firms and 57 percent thought academia was indispensable. The survey asked: "Rank order which actors played a role in developing the biopharmaceutical industry in your region (1 = highest role; 10 = lowest role)"\par
Figure \hyperref[fig_5]{4} shows the rank order mean results for all regions combined-smallest bar is top ranking with there being 10 actors. Similar to Figure \hyperref[fig_3]{3}, academia and biotechnology firms are the top organizations overall which have played a role in the development of the ecosystems, with consumers and payers playing the least role. This remains true if we exclude respondents from academia and biotechnology firms (results not shown). For overall respondents, academia was the top category almost 56 percent of the time for all ecosystems' respondents combined. Pharmaceutical firms were ranked in the top category 25 percent of the time with biotechnology firms ranked in the top category only 10 percent of the time. However, biotechnology firms were in the second spot nearly 52 percent of the time. Consumers or consumer groups were in the last category \hyperref[b9]{(10)}   The survey asks: "Rank the importance of the following related to the development of the biopharmaceutical industry within your region (1=Nonimportant; 5=Indispensable)."\par
Figure 5 illustrates the overall importance of access and environmental factors for all ecosystems combined. Of note, nearly 78 percent of all respondents said that access to qualified personnel was an indispensable factor in the development of the ecosystem. Similar to our previous rankings on academia, almost 64 percent perceived that access to research universities were indispensable. Notably, and contrary to our previous findings, about 53 percent of   the respondents stated that access to venture capital was indispensable, with an additional 24 percent finding access to venture capital important. Keeping with this study's previous trends, almost 57 percent of respondents noted that the region's consumer sentiment toward biopharmaceuticals was either slightly or not important.  
\section[{N=72}]{N=72}\par
Table \hyperref[tab_9]{5} shows the ranking related to access and environmental factors by each ecosystem per the means of their respondents. Access to qualified personnel and access to research universities were the top factors leading the individual ecosystems. It should be mentioned that in all areas examining rankings that from an ecosystem perspective even if an actor or other factor played a slight role, this may be considered valuable. This is to say that an actor or other factor may be additive in the sense that it enhances the environment for innovation.       The study seeks to show the life cycle, ranking of actors' roles, and access to actors and other environmental factors effect on various biopharmaceutical entrepreneurial ecosystems in Central Europe from the perspective of the various actors within the ecosystems. The study finds several interesting results. First, the majority of actors view their ecosystem to be in the growth stage of the life cycle. This is noteworthy as several regions (such as Basel) have been engaged in the pharmaceutical industry for one hundred years or more. Second, the majority of actors perceive their ecosystem as developing via existing actors. This is to say that sufficient numbers of outside actors entering the ecosystem are not perceived as generating the growth within the ecosystem. The growth also may be due to existing actors creating firms, selling these firms to existing corporations, and then raising additional funds to start a second (or third, etc.) firm. This may be both a form of serial entrepreneurship and/or creative construction \hyperref[b2]{(Agarwal, et al., 2007)} at work. Third, there is some variation among the ecosystems in terms of which actors played the most important roles in developing the ecosystem. For example, as one might expect, pharmaceutical firms in Basel are perceived as the most important. This contrasts with two-thirds of the other ecosystems which rank order academia as the most important actor. Nevertheless, one should not lose sight that there may be an additive nature for the ecosystem to all actors and factors that have played even the slightest role-reenforcing Isenberg's (2016) implicit view that the focus is not merely on the entrepreneur in an entrepreneurial ecosystem. 
\section[{Access}]{Access}\par
The perception that most of the growth is coming from existing actors may be of interest to regional developers and policy makers. This is to say that certain government policies (e.g., tax considerations to attract new entrants), which the actors rank toward the middle of all factors, may not be creating the boost as intended. Additionally, big pharmaceutical firms may be continuing to consolidate their innovative activities into a handful of regions  {\ref (Gautam \& Pam, 2016)}. It also may point to  {\ref Isenberg's (2011: 8)} assertion that regions should focus on what they do well or in his words "cultivate their own." The perception related to government policy is true regardless of which of the above tables one examines. Opposite of this may be that funding of research via academia is creating the growth. This may be evidenced by the majority of actors rank ordering of the academy as the top influencer of ecosystem development. Just as biotechnology has been viewed for decades as an opportunity to complement, if not supplant, the more traditional pharmaceutical market, so too are universities seen as a mechanism for regions to "catch up" with other more established biopharmaceutical regions \hyperref[b40]{(Youtie \& Shapira, 2008)}. Much more fined grained research is needed on this area, especially as it relates to research and educational capacity within each ecosystem. For example, we do not know if the indispensable role of academia is not also an expression of a need for more academic research and development.\par
Previous studies on biopharmaceutical ecosystems have somewhat treated the regions in a homogenous manner. Results from this study show that there is variation among the ecosystems. One could extrapolate from the results and loosely group ecosystems around regions that were influenced by pharmaceutical firms (e.g., Basel, Innsbruck, Milan, Rome, and Valais) compared with those that were influenced by the academy and biotechnology firms (e.g., Graz, Lausanne, Munich, Vienna, and Zurich). Yet, even these groupings do not belie the fact that of those ecosystems that rank pharmaceutical firms as the top influencer, 4 of the 5 of these ecosystems also rank order academia and biotechnology firms within the top 3 most important actors.\par
The perception of the role of venture capital is important as it in part varies from other studies. Researchers often speak to venture capital's crucial role in the development of bio-clusters, especially in the United States. Yet, as shown in Table \hyperref[tab_3]{3} for most ecosystems within this study it is viewed as playing a middle of the road role. This may be due to1) a lack of venture capital in some regions; 2) other types of organizations (e.g., pharmaceutical firms, government) taking over part or all of the role of venture capital;3) the region developing due to existing firms using internal monies to fund innovation; or 4) the global nature of venture capital whereby firms rely on funding coming from outside of their region. Figure \hyperref[fig_5]{4} and Table \hyperref[tab_9]{5} findings, which relates to access in the development of the region, seem to suggest that in the future access to venture capital may affect the growth of many of the ecosystems, especially those without access to other forms of capital. More research is needed to understand both the reason for this perception and its effect on the growth and performance of the ecosystem.\par
Consumers and payers were found across the board to have little effect on ecosystem development. This may be due to the global nature of drug discovery and development-meaning that organizations were not merely creating drugs and therapeutics for regional use only. Yet, it is interesting that consumers appear to have little voice into what types of industrial development is occurring in their region. This may be especially noteworthy for regions where pharmaceutical firms have a long history and have played a prominent role in the development of the region overall.\par
The major limitation of the survey is the small number of respondents, with some regions having very few respondents at all. This limitation is lessened to a small degree by seeking feedback of results by respondents which are incorporated into this paper. Another limitation is the study requested input from financial organizations (e.g. venture capital and nonventure firms) but did not receive any responses. Nor did the study seek to include input from consumers or consumer groups. This may have affected the perceived role of venture capital and consumers somewhat. However, it should be noted as reported above that when the responses from those in academia and biotechnology firms were excluded their status did not change.\par
This study examines the life cycle, actors' role, and other factors' contribution to the development of biopharmaceutical entrepreneurial ecosystems in select Central European regions. More research is needed in areas such as what factors are hindering growth, how do resource dependencies such as human and financial capital affect the ecosystem, how has the ecosystem changed over time, how have the actors sought to shape the ecosystem, and how do other industries or ecosystems (e.g., medical technology, electronics) within the region affect the biopharmaceutical entrepreneurial ecosystem. In light of our findings related to the importance of academia, more research is needed related to the research and educational capacities of regions. Nevertheless, it is a first step toward quantifying and answering questions related to the who, what, and how of the development of these ecosystems. The study should be of interest to scholars and all actors involved in the development of biopharmaceutical entrepreneurial ecosystems.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{11}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_1}Figure 1 :Figure 1}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{fig_2}Figure 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png}
\caption{\label{fig_3}Figure 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-5.png}
\caption{\label{fig_4}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4}\includegraphics[]{image-6.png}
\caption{\label{fig_5}Figure 4 :}\end{figure}
  \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3989333333333333\textwidth}P{0.056666666666666664\textwidth}P{0.1088\textwidth}P{0.056666666666666664\textwidth}P{0.09973333333333333\textwidth}P{0.0544\textwidth}P{0.07479999999999999\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Growth\tabcellsep Shake-out\tabcellsep Maturity\tabcellsep Decline\tabcellsep Rejuvenation\\
Basel (11)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 72,7\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 18,2\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 9,1\\
Dortman (1)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Graz (5)\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 60\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Habach (1)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Innsbruck (5)\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 60\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Lausanne (7)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 85,7\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 14,3\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Milan (5)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 60\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 0\\
Munich (8)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 87,5\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 12,5\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Rome (1)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Salzburg (1)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Solothurn (1)\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Toulouse (1)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Valais (1)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Vienna (18)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 77,8\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 11,1\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 11,1\\
Wurzburg (1)\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Zurich (8)\tabcellsep 12,5\tabcellsep 75\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 12,5\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
N=75;\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3339285714285714\textwidth}P{0.054389880952380946\textwidth}P{0.08601190476190476\textwidth}P{0.07589285714285714\textwidth}P{0.09613095238095237\textwidth}P{0.07336309523809524\textwidth}P{0.07336309523809524\textwidth}P{0.056919642857142856\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Totally Existing Actors\tabcellsep Vast Majority Existing Actors\tabcellsep Slight Majority Existing Actors\tabcellsep 50/50 Existing Actors/Outside Organizations\tabcellsep Slight Majority Outside Organizations\tabcellsep Vast Majority Outside Organizations\tabcellsep Totally Outside Organizations\\
Basel (11)\tabcellsep 9,1\tabcellsep 54,6\tabcellsep 18,2\tabcellsep 9,1\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 9,1\tabcellsep 0\\
Dortman (1)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Graz (5)\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 60\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Habach (1)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Innsbruck (5)\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 60\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Lausanne (7)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 28,6\tabcellsep 14,3\tabcellsep 57,1\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Milan (4)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Munich (8)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Rome (1)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Salzburg (1)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Solothurn (1)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Toulouse (1)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Valais (1)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Vienna (18)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 33,3\tabcellsep 27,8\tabcellsep 27,8\tabcellsep 5,6\tabcellsep 5,6\tabcellsep 0\\
Wurzburg (1)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\\
Zurich (8)\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 57,1\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 28,6\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 14,3\tabcellsep 0\\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{N=74; Number in Parentheses Represents Number of Respondents Per Ecosystem}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{c) Actors Role Rank}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2667241379310345\textwidth}P{0.054712643678160915\textwidth}P{0.05959770114942529\textwidth}P{0.06155172413793104\textwidth}P{0.04689655172413793\textwidth}P{0.07034482758620689\textwidth}P{0.06839080459770115\textwidth}P{0.05275862068965517\textwidth}P{0.05862068965517241\textwidth}P{0.055689655172413796\textwidth}P{0.054712643678160915\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Academia\tabcellsep Biotech Firms\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Con-sumers CROs}\tabcellsep Gov't Agencies/ Policies\tabcellsep Industry Sponsor Assoc\tabcellsep Payers\tabcellsep Pharma Firms\tabcellsep Providers\tabcellsep VC Firms\\
Basel (11)\tabcellsep 3,7\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 2,8\tabcellsep 2,9\tabcellsep 2,8\tabcellsep 2,6\tabcellsep 4,9\tabcellsep 3,3\tabcellsep 3,2\\
Dortman (1)\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 4,0\\
Graz (5)\tabcellsep 4,8\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 2,6\tabcellsep 3,6\tabcellsep 3,8\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 2,5\tabcellsep 2,8\tabcellsep 3,8\tabcellsep 2,4\\
Habach (1)\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 4,0\\
Innsbruck (5)\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 3,4\tabcellsep 1,0\tabcellsep 2,4\tabcellsep 2,8\tabcellsep 1,8\tabcellsep 2,2\tabcellsep 3,8\tabcellsep 3,2\tabcellsep 2,6\\
Lausanne (7)\tabcellsep 4,9\tabcellsep 4,6\tabcellsep 2,4\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 4,1\tabcellsep 3,6\tabcellsep 2,4\tabcellsep 3,9\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 3,7\\
Milan (4)\tabcellsep 3,8\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 3,5\tabcellsep 3,5\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 4,3\tabcellsep 4,3\tabcellsep 2,3\\
Munich (8)\tabcellsep 4,9\tabcellsep 4,4\tabcellsep 2,3\tabcellsep 2,8\tabcellsep 3,6\tabcellsep 3,1\tabcellsep 1,9\tabcellsep 2,9\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 3,6\\
Rome (1)\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 2,0\\
Salzburg (1)\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 3,0\\
Solothurn (1)\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 4,0\\
Toulouse (1)\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 2,0\\
Valais (1)\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 2,0\\
Vienna (18)\tabcellsep 4,7\tabcellsep 4,6\tabcellsep 2,2\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 3,7\tabcellsep 3,1\tabcellsep 2,9\tabcellsep 4,1\tabcellsep 2,7\tabcellsep 3,2\\
Wurzburg (1)\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 3,0\tabcellsep 1,0\tabcellsep 1,0\tabcellsep 4,0\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 1,0\tabcellsep 2,0\tabcellsep 5,0\tabcellsep 2,0\\
Zurich (7)\tabcellsep 4,6\tabcellsep 4,6\tabcellsep 1,9\tabcellsep 2,4\tabcellsep 2,7\tabcellsep 3,1\tabcellsep 1,7\tabcellsep 3,9\tabcellsep 3,7\tabcellsep 4,1\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{N=74; Number in Parentheses Represents Number of Respondents Per Ecosystem}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{d) Rank Order of Actors Role}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
Year 2023\\
Volume XXIII Issue VI Version I\\
( ) A\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_6}Table 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
57\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_9}Table 5 :}\end{figure}
 			\label{foot_0}\footnote{\label{foot_0} The Life Cycle and Actors' Roles in Select Central European Biopharmaceutical Entrepreneurial Ecosystems -Results from a Multi-Perspective Survey} 			\label{foot_1}\footnote{\label{foot_1} © 2023 Global Journals} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Schumpeter ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		\textit{},  		 			J A Schumpeter 		.  		1976. 1942. II. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.  	 
\bibitem[Alvedalen and Boschma ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: Towards a future research agenda’.  		 			J Alvedalen 		,  		 			R Boschma 		.  	 	 		\textit{European Planning Studies}  		2017. 25  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rubens et al. ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		‘A network analysis of investment firms as resource routers in Chinese innovation ecosystem’.  		 			N Rubens 		,  		 			K Still 		,  		 			J Huhtamäki 		,  		 			M G Russell 		.  	 	 		\textit{JSW}  		2011. 6  (9)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Isenberg ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘Applying the ecosystem metaphor to entrepreneurship: Uses and abuses’.  		 			D J Isenberg 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Antitrust Bulletin}  		2016. 61  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Williams and Pouder ()]{b39}\label{b39} 	 		‘Are explicit knowledge transfers clustered or diffused in the US biopharmaceutical market sector?’.  		 			D R Williams 		,  		 			R W Pouder 		.  	 	 		\textit{Entrepreneurship \& Regional Development}  		2020. 3  (7-8)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Audretsch et al. ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		 			D Audretsch 		,  		 			C Mason 		,  		 			M P Miles 		,  		 			A O'connor 		.  		\textit{Time and the dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems},  		2021.  	 
\bibitem[Youtie and Shapira ()]{b40}\label{b40} 	 		‘Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development’.  		 			J Youtie 		,  		 			P Shapira 		.  	 	 		\textit{Research Policy}  		2008. 37  (8)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Porter ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		‘Clusters and the new economics of competition’.  		 			M E Porter 		.  	 	 		\textit{Harvard Business Review}  		1998. 76  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Pilinkien? and Ma?iulis ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		‘Comparison of different ecosystem analogies: the main economic determinants and levels of impact’.  		 			V Pilinkien? 		,  		 			P Ma?iulis 		.  	 	 		\textit{Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences}  		2014. 156 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mercan and Goktas ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		‘Components of innovation ecosystems: a cross-country study’.  		 			B Mercan 		,  		 			D Goktas 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Research Journal of Finance and Economics}  		2011. 76  (16)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kapoor and Lee ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: how organizational forms shape new technology investments’.  		 			R Kapoor 		,  		 			J M Lee 		.  	 	 		\textit{Strategic Management Journal}  		2013. 34  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Clarysse et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Creating value in ecosystems: crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems’.  		 			B Clarysse 		,  		 			M Wright 		,  		 			J Bruneel 		,  		 			A Mahajan 		.  	 	 		\textit{Research Policy}  		2014. 43  (7)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mason and Brown ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		‘Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship’.  		 			C Mason 		,  		 			R Brown 		.  	 	 		\textit{Final Report to OECD}  		2014. Paris. 30  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Stam ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		‘Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique’.  		 			E Stam 		.  	 	 		\textit{European Planning Studies}  		2015. 23  (9)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Stam and Spigel ()]{b34}\label{b34} 	 		\textit{Entrepreneurial ecosystems. USE Discussion paper series},  		 			F C Stam 		,  		 			B Spigel 		.  		2016. p. 16.  	 
\bibitem[Cantner et al. ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Entrepreneurial ecosystems: a dynamic lifecycle model’.  		 			U Cantner 		,  		 			J A Cunningham 		,  		 			E E Lehmann 		.  	 	 		\textit{Small Business Economics}  		2021. 57 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Jung et al. ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘Exploring competing perspectives on government-driven entrepreneurial ecosystems: lessons from Centres for Creative Economy and Innovation (CCEI) of South Korea’.  		 			K Jung 		,  		 			J H Eun 		,  		 			S H Lee 		.  	 	 		\textit{European Planning Studies}  		2017. 25  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Vedula and Kim ()]{b36}\label{b36} 	 		‘Gimme shelter or fade away: the impact of regional entrepreneurial ecosystem quality on venture survival’.  		 			S Vedula 		,  		 			P H Kim 		.  	 	 		\textit{Industrial and Corporate Change}  		2019. 28  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bramwell et al. ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		\textit{Growing innovation ecosystems: University-industry knowledge transfer and regional economic development in Canada},  		 			A Bramwell 		,  		 			N Hepburn 		,  		 			D A Wolfe 		.  		2012.  	 	 (Knowledge Synthesis Paper on Leveraging Investments in HERD. Final Report to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada) 
\bibitem[Isenberg ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘How to start an entrepreneurial revolution’.  		 			D J Isenberg 		.  	 	 		\textit{Harvard Business Review}  		2010. 88  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ritala and Almpanopoulou ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		\textit{In defense of 'eco' in innovation ecosystem},  		 			P Ritala 		,  		 			A Almpanopoulou 		.  		2017. 60 p. .  	 	 (Technovation) 
\bibitem[Oh et al. ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		‘Innovation ecosystems: a critical examination’.  		 			D S Oh 		,  		 			F Phillips 		,  		 			S Park 		,  		 			E Lee 		.  	 	 		\textit{Technovation}  		2016. 54 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Dimasi et al. ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R \& D costs’.  		 			J A Dimasi 		,  		 			H G Grabowski 		,  		 			R W Hansen 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Health Economics}  		2016. 47 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Isenberg ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		 			D Isenberg 		.  		\textit{The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economic policy: Principles for cultivating entrepreneurship. Presentation at the Institute of International and European Affairs},  		2011. 1 p. 13.  	 
\bibitem[Adner ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem’.  		 			R Adner 		.  	 	 		\textit{Harvard Business Review}  		2006. 84  (4)  p. 98.  	 
\bibitem[Cooke et al. ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions’.  		 			P Cooke 		,  		 			M G Uranga 		,  		 			G Etxebarria 		.  	 	 		\textit{Research Policy}  		1997. 26  (4-5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Dedehayir et al. ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: a literature review’.  		 			O Dedehayir 		,  		 			S J Mäkinen 		,  		 			J R Ortt 		.  	 	 		\textit{Technological Forecasting and Social Change}  		2018. 136 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Zucker and Darby ()]{b41}\label{b41} 	 		‘Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry’.  		 			L G Zucker 		,  		 			M R Darby 		.  	 	 		\textit{Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}  		1996. 93  (23)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Durst and Poutanen ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Success factors of innovation ecosystems-initial insights from a literature review’.  		 			S Durst 		,  		 			P Poutanen 		.  	 	 		\textit{Co-create}  		2013. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Auerswald and Dani ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘The adaptive life cycle of entrepreneurial ecosystems: the biotechnology cluster’.  		 			P E Auerswald 		,  		 			L Dani 		.  	 	 		\textit{Small Business Economics}  		2017. 49  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gautam and Pan ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘The changing model of big pharma: impact of key trends’.  		 			A Gautam 		,  		 			X Pan 		.  	 	 		\textit{Drug Discovery Today}  		2016. 21  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Acs et al. ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach’.  		 			Z J Acs 		,  		 			E Stam 		,  		 			D B Audretsch 		,  		 			A O'connor 		.  	 	 		\textit{Small Business Economics}  		2017. 49  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Radinger-Peer et al. ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		‘The path-dependent evolution of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE)-dynamics and region-specific assets of the case of Vienna (Austria)’.  		 			V Radinger-Peer 		,  		 			S Sedlacek 		,  		 			H Goldstein 		.  	 	 		\textit{European Planning Studies}  		2018. 26  (8)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Agarwal et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘The process of creative construction: knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship, and economic growth’.  		 			R Agarwal 		,  		 			D Audretsch 		,  		 			M B Sarkar 		.  	 	 		\textit{Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal}  		2007. 1  (3-4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Spigel ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		‘The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems’.  		 			B Spigel 		.  	 	 		\textit{Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice}  		2017. 41  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Vlaisavljevic et al. ()]{b37}\label{b37} 	 		‘The role of policies and the contribution of cluster agency in the development of biotech open innovation ecosystem’.  		 			V Vlaisavljevic 		,  		 			C C Medina 		,  		 			B Van Looy 		.  	 	 		\textit{Technological Forecasting and Social Change}  		2020. 155 p. 119987.  	 
\bibitem[Audretsch ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘The role of small firms in US biotechnology clusters’.  		 			D B Audretsch 		.  	 	 		\textit{Small Business Economics}  		2001. 17  (1-2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Powell et al. ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		‘The spatial clustering of science and capital: Accounting for biotech firm-venture capital relationships’.  		 			W W Powell 		,  		 			K W Koput 		,  		 			J I Bowie 		,  		 			L Smith-Doerr 		.  	 	 		\textit{Regional Studies}  		2002. 36  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Spigel and Harrison ()]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		‘Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems’.  		 			B Spigel 		,  		 			R Harrison 		.  	 	 		\textit{Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal}  		2018. 12  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[De Vasconcelos Gomes et al. ()]{b35}\label{b35} 	 		‘Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends’.  		 			L A De Vasconcelos Gomes 		,  		 			A L F Facin 		,  		 			M S Salerno 		,  		 			R K Ikenami 		.  	 	 		\textit{Technological Forecasting and Social Change}  		2018. 136 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lecocq and Van Looy ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		‘What differentiates top regions in the field of biotechnology? An empirical study of the texture characteristics of 101 biotech regions in North-America’.  		 			C Lecocq 		,  		 			B Van Looy 		.  	 	 		\textit{Europe and Asia-Pacific. Ind. Corp. Change}  		2016. 25  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Weber and Hine ()]{b38}\label{b38} 	 		‘Who inhabits a business ecosystem? The technospecies as a unifying concept’.  		 			M L Weber 		,  		 			M M Hine 		.  	 	 		\textit{Technology Innovation Management Review}  		2015. 5  (5)  p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
