Smart city rankings and startup ecosystems: An empirical analysis of inverse correlation across 77 smart cities
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.23(2).2025.29
-
Article InfoVolume 23 2025, Issue #2, pp. 409-422
- 11 Views
-
1 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
As cities increasingly adopt smart technologies and seek to foster innovation-driven economies, it is vital to understand how smart city development relates to the strength of local startup ecosystems. This study investigates whether a statistically significant relationship exists between a city’s performance in the smart city ranking and the strength of its startup ecosystem. The study employed available data from the Global Startup Ecosystem Report (by Startup Genome) and the Smart City Index (SCI by the IMD World Competitiveness Center). A balanced panel regression analysis was conducted on a dataset comprising 77 cities across the years 2020, 2021, and 2023 (2022 is excluded as the SCI was not published). The findings reveal that the Random Effects model yielded statistically significant results, indicating a weak (R² = 25.63%) but significant inverse relationship between SCI and startup ecosystem development, which means cities that rank higher on smart city metrics tend to show lower levels of startup ecosystem performance. This counterintuitive result challenges the assumption that technologically advanced cities automatically provide fertile ground for entrepreneurial activity. One possible explanation is that smart cities, dominated by large tech players and rigid governance structures, may present entry barriers for emerging startups. High operational costs, regulatory constraints, and a focus on large-scale infrastructure projects may disincentivize startups from localizing their innovations within these environments. Although the R² suggests that other variables beyond the smart city ranking influence startup development. This study highlights the need for urban policies that actively integrate startup-supportive mechanisms into smart city strategies.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)L26, O33, O18, H76, C33
-
References36
-
Tables5
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. FE regression output for the relationship between City_startup (urban startup ecosystem development) and Smart_City_rank (Smart City Index)
- Table 2. RE Generalized Least Squares (GLS) regression for the relationship between City_startup (urban startup ecosystem development) and Smart_City_rank (Smart City Index)
- Table 3. Fixed-effects regression output for the relationship between Smart_City_rank (Smart City Index) and City_startup (urban startup ecosystem development)
- Table 4. RE Generalized Least Squares (GLS) regression for the impact of Smart_City_rank (Smart City Index) on City_startup (urban startup ecosystem development)
- Table A1. Panel data
-
- Adler, P., & Florida, R. (2021). The rise of urban tech: How innovations for cities come from cities. Regional Studies, 55(10-11), 1787-1800.
- AlAstal, A. Y. (2023). Emerging technological innovation in Gaza Strip municipalities: An entrepreneurial approach. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12, Article 27.
- Artyukhov, A., Havrylenko, O., Churikanova, O., & Mohylna, K. (2024). Overcoming barriers to developing clean and digital energy startups: Access to credit and protection of minority investors’ rights. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 8(4), 226-248.
- Brychko, M., Bilan, Y., Lyeonov, S., & Streimikiene, D. (2023). Do changes in the business environment and sustainable development matter for enhancing enterprise development? Sustainable Development, 31(2), 587-599.
- Catapult Connected Place. (2020, July 8). PlanTech: Can local planning authorities come together?
- Chygryn, O., Bektas, C., & Havrylenko, O. (2023). Innovation and management of smart transformation global energy sector: Systematic literature review. Business Ethics and Leadership, 7(1), 105-112.
- Činčikaitė, R., Čižiūnienė, K., & Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, I. (2023). Assessment of the economic security of Baltic port cities’ competitiveness. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 21(4), 443-453.
- Crowley, F., & Jordan, D. (2021). Do local startups and knowledge spillovers matter for firm-level R&D investment? Urban Studies, 59(5), 1085-1102.
- Davlikanova, O., Yashkina, O., Buchynska, O., & Lylyk, I. (2024). The impact of Russian aggression on ties between Ukrainians and Russians. SocioEconomic Challenges, 8(1), 183-207.
- Devlin, C., & Coaffee, J. (2021). Planning and technological innovation: The governance challenges faced by English local authorities in adopting planning technologies. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 27(sup1), 149-163.
- Dezi, L., Pisano, P., Pironti, M., & Papa, A. (2018). Unpacking open innovation neighbourhoods: Le milieu of the lean smart city. Management Decision, 56(6), 1247-1270.
- Digel, I., Mussabalina, D., Urdabayev, M., Nurmukhametov, N., & Akparova, A. (2022). Evaluating development prospects of smart cities: Cluster analysis of Kazakhstan’s regions. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 20(4), 76-87.
- Faisol, W. H.S., Ramadhani, R.A., & Sumantri, B.A. (2025). The role of eco-digital learning in enhancing the impact of IoT, blockchain, and artificial intelligence on green supply chain for SME internationalization. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 23(1), 76-89.
- Fishman, T. D., & Hamilton, S. (2018). Using public-private partnerships to advance smart cities. Deloitte.
- Graf, D. G., & Burrell, D. N. (2024). Utilising resistance feedback for software implementation in healthcare. Health Economics and Management Review, 5(1), 106-116.
- IMD. (2023). IMD Smart City Index Report 2023.
- Kanellos, N., & Siokas, G. (2021). Business activities in smart cities of Greece: A qualitative study. In D.P. Sakas, D.K. Nasiopoulos, & Y. Taratuhina (Eds.), Business Intelligence and Modelling (pp. 445-452). Cham: Springer.
- Koibichuk, V., Samoilikova, A., Kharchenko, D., & Fritsak, M. (2023). Challenges and opportunities in the ‘business-education-science’ system in the context of innovation development: Cluster analysis. SocioEconomic Challenges, 7(2), 142-151.
- Kozhushko, I. (2023). Transformation of financial services industry in conditions of digitalization of economy. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 7(4), 189-200.
- Kuzior, A., Krawczyk, D., Brożek, P., Pakhnenko, O., Vasylieva, T., & Lyeonov, S. (2022). Resilience of smart cities to the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of sustainable development. Sustainability, 14(19).
- Kuzior, A., Pakhnenko, O., Tiutiunyk, I., & Lyeonov, S. (2023). Е-governance in smart cities: Global trends and key enablers. Smart Cities, 6(4), 1663-1689.
- Lee, C. Y., & Taipei Smart City Project Management Office (TPMO). (2021). Holistic, multifaceted, and citizen-centric smart Taipei strategies. In J.C. Augusto (Ed.), Handbook of Smart Cities (pp. 247-273). Cham: Springer.
- Lozynskyy, R., Hrymak, O., Kushnir, L., Terletska, O., & Vovk, M. (2021). City size and functional specialization as factors of smart management: A case of Lviv Oblast, Ukraine. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19(2), 384-397.
- Mitra, S., Kumar, H., Gupta, M. P., & Bhattacharya, J. (2023). Entrepreneurship in smart cities: Elements of startup ecosystem. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 14(3), 592-611.
- Osowska, М. М. (2023). Smartphone, startup, laboratory – What ambitions and visions do local government officials express by their smart city stories? Case study of Polish cities. Cities, 140, Article 104438.
- Pakhnenko, O., & Pudło, T. (2023). HealthTech in ensuring the resilience of communities in the post-pandemic period. Health Economics and Management Review, 4(2), 31-39.
- Runiewicz-Wardyn, M., & Winogradska, B. (2023). The role of trust in open innovation collaboration: the experience of Polish medium-high-tech SMEs. SocioEconomic Challenges, 7(4), 133-151.
- Shaikh, S. A., Memon, M., & Kim, K-S. A. (2021). Multi-criteria decision-making approach for ideal business location identification. Applied Sciences, 11(11), Article 4983.
- Soumadi, M. M. (2023). Intellectual property and patent rights protection for innovators in Jordan. Business Ethics and Leadership, 7(1), 12-24.
- Sour, O., Maliki, S. B., & Benghalem, A. (2023). Modelling the interconnection between technological leadership and the level of use of information and communication technologies. Business Ethics and Leadership, 7(3), 62-72.
- Springs, D. (2024). Smart city planning focused on the US cities in need of policing innovations and public health safety technologies and strategies. Health Economics and Management Review, 5(1), 117-128.
- Startup Genome. (2023). The Global Startup Ecosystem Report 2023.
- Statista. (n.d.). Leading digital cities index worldwide in 2022.
- Strielkowski, W., Samoilikova, A., Smutka, L., Civín, L., & Lieonov, S. (2022). Dominant trends in intersectoral research on funding innovation in business companies: A bibliometric analysis approach. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(4), Article 100271.
- Wright, J. (2023). Healthcare cybersecurity and cybercrime supply chain risk management. Health Economics and Management Review, 4(4), 17-27.
- Zámek, D., & Zakharkina, Z. (2024). Research trends in the impact of digitization and transparency on national security: Bibliometric analysis. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 8(1), 173-188.