From the Margins to the Core: Reimagining Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Fragile Regions Through Informality, Finance, and Institutional Innovation

From the Margins to the Core: Reimagining Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Fragile Regions Through Informality, Finance, and Institutional Innovation | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article From the Margins to the Core: Reimagining Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Fragile Regions Through Informality, Finance, and Institutional Innovation Arthur William Fodouop Kouam This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8473722/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Entrepreneurial ecosystem research has mainly been conducted in institutionally stable areas where formal finance, policy support, and market institutions are either well developed or underdeveloped. Much less is known about how entrepreneurial ecosystems arise and operate in fragile settings characterized by institutional weakness, financial exclusion, and rampant informality. This study examines how entrepreneurial ecosystems are created and maintained in a resilient manner in the face of such situations. Drawing on qualitative fieldwork conducted between 2019 and 2024 in Cameroon, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the study comprises 87 semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurs and ecosystem actors, supplemented by participant observation and informal interactions. Using an inductive qualitative approach, the findings identify three interrelated mechanisms that sustain entrepreneurial activity in fragile contexts: informal resource mobilization, relational governance through social networks, and institutional innovation through hybrid organizational practices. Informal financial arrangements such as tontines, kin-based lending, and community funds offer flexible liquidity and allow incremental experimentation. Social networks are informal governance systems that organize collective action, arbitrate disputes, and mediate interactions with formal institutions. Entrepreneurs also create hybrid organizational forms that combine formal registration with informal operational practices, enabling them to retain legitimacy while maintaining flexibility. Building on these insights, the paper proposes the notion of a "resilient informal ecosystem", whereby ecosystem-level resilience arises from distributed financial arrangements, socially embedded governance, and adaptive institutional recombination. The research adds to the literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems by extending to fragile institutional environments and showing how informality and hybrid institutional arrangements are foundational ecosystem infrastructures rather than transitional and peripheral phenomena. The findings also have policy implications, suggesting that development interventions should strengthen existing informal coordination and financial mechanisms rather than replace them with standardized formal models. entrepreneurial ecosystems informal finance informal institutions hybrid organizations resilience fragile contexts Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction The entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) has emerged as a key conceptual framework for studying entrepreneurship and regional development, explaining how entrepreneurship is influenced by the interplay among actors, institutions, resources, and cultural conditions in specific locations (Acs et al., 2014; Stam, 2015; Spigel, 2017). This perspective has been particularly helpful in highlighting why the outcomes of entrepreneurial activity differ across regions and why entrepreneurial activity should be viewed not simply as an individual-level act, but rather as a system-level process embedded in local structures of support, finance, knowledge, and governance. Subsequent work has refined this view by emphasizing the interdependence of ecosystem elements, the role of place, and the need to examine how ecosystems evolve with different contextual conditions (Stam & Van de Ven, 2021). More recent scholarship has further widened the debate by drawing attention to ecosystem variety and context-sensitivity, as well as to the changing spatial boundaries of entrepreneurial activity (Audretsch et al., 2019; Correia et al., 2024). However, there is an important limitation. Much of the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature, therefore, still is drawing disproportionately on institutionally stable environments in which formal market-supporting institutions, clearer regulatory systems, and more accessible financial infrastructures are relatively well established (Acs et al., 2014; Stam, 2015; Spigel, 2017). Even where more recent research has tended towards place-based and context-aware perspectives, ecosystems in fragile environments have so far tended to be under-theorized, particularly where entrepreneurship occurs within the context of weak state capacity, fragmented governance, low financial inclusion, and pervasive informality (Munir & Watts, 2025; Wei et al., 2023). In such environments, entrepreneurship does not die out. Rather, it is reorganized through alternative mechanisms of coordination, finance, and legitimacy that are still not well integrated into the mainstream of ecosystem theory. This omission is important both in an empirical and theoretical sense. Empirically, a large proportion of entrepreneurial activity in the Global South occurs in settings where rules are unevenly applied, bank finance is scarce, and informal institutions structure much of everyday economic life (Naudé, 2010; Welter et al., 2015). The World Bank's governance and financial inclusion datasets also continue to demonstrate major cross-country differences in regulatory quality, state capability, and access to formal financial services, making formalized, high-capacity ecosystems a difficult default point of reference for entrepreneurship everywhere. Theoretically, dominant ecosystem models still tend to view informality as peripheral, transitional, or symptomatic of institutional absence rather than a constitutive feature of how entrepreneurial systems function under constraint. An emerging body of entrepreneurship research has started to question that assumption. Work on context and institutional heterogeneity indicates that entrepreneurial action is influenced by the interaction of formal and informal institutions and by actors' practices of navigating plural, and at times competing, rule systems (Welter, 2011; Helmke & Levitsky, 2012). Research on informal entrepreneurship has also shifted away from deficit perspectives of informality as simply a symptom of underdevelopment, as informal arrangements can deliver flexibility, access to resources, and adaptive capacity in situations where formal institutions lack accessibility or reliability (Webb et al., 2009, 2013; Godfrey, 2011). In parallel, research on SMEs and uncertainty has emphasized that resilience in constrained environments is often rooted in hybrid solutions that blend elements of formal and informal organizations (Belitski et al., 2022; Audretsch & Guenther, 2023; Groh et al., 2025). However, these insights have not yet been systematically integrated into entrepreneurial ecosystem theory in a manner that explains how ecosystems themselves emerge, coordinate, and persist under fragility. This paper addresses that gap by examining entrepreneurial ecosystems in Central African contexts where institutional fragility, financial exclusion, and informality are not exceptional conditions but structuring features of entrepreneurial life. Focusing on Cameroon, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the study asks: How do entrepreneurial ecosystems form and sustain resilience in fragile regions characterized by weak formal institutions, low financial inclusion, and pervasive informality? More specifically, the paper examines how entrepreneurial activity is supported through three interrelated mechanisms: informal resource mobilization, relational governance through social networks, and institutional innovation through hybrid organizational practices. The research is based on qualitative fieldwork undertaken during 2019-24 in major urban and second-class commercial centers across the three countries. The empirical material comprises 87 semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurs and ecosystem-relevant actors, complemented by participant observation and informal interactions. Using an inductive, theory-building qualitative design, the study reveals that informal financial mechanisms such as tontines, kin-based lending, and community funds do more than make up for the absence of formal finance: they function as ecosystem infrastructures for the circulation of liquidity, the distribution of risk, and the capacity to experiment incrementally. Social networks serve governance functions by coordinating collective action, mediating disputes, and managing the flow of information when formal enforcement is fragmented. At the same time, entrepreneurs innovate hybrid organizational forms that, during the process of change, combine compliance with informal operational practices, seeking to achieve flexibility. Based on these findings, this paper develops the concept of the resilient informal ecosystem. This concept describes an entrepreneurial configuration in which ecosystem-level resilience is generated through the interplay of informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation. Resilience is certainly not a matter of only firm-level capabilities. It is an emergent property of social arrangements embedded in financial arrangements, networked coordination, and adaptive institutional recombination. The paper has three contributions. First, it extends entrepreneurial ecosystem theory to fragile institutional contexts, demonstrating that ecosystem protagonization can occur through hybrid and informal infrastructures rather than solely through formal institutional coherence. Second, it adds to the research on informal entrepreneurship and alternative finance by showing that informal financial arrangements are not merely coping devices but fundamental system-level mechanisms of entrepreneurial continuity and experimentation. Third, it contributes to institutional research on entrepreneurship by demonstrating that entrepreneurs do not merely react to institutional weakness; they actively participate in recombining formal and informal rule systems to stabilize exchange, maintain legitimacy, and sustain the ecosystem's functioning over time. Rather than treating fragility, informality, and financial exclusion as realities outside the ecosystem, the paper places them at the heart of ecosystem analysis. In doing so, it provides a more context-sensitive take on how entrepreneurship is organised in places where formal institutions are partial, contested, or unreliable, and where the practical foundations of entrepreneurial resilience are built relationally from below. 2. Entrepreneurial ecosystems, informality, and institutional heterogeneity 2.1. Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Conceptual foundations and limits The concept of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) has become a hot topic to understand the incorporation of entrepreneurship within regional systems of actors, institutions, and resources (Acs et al., 2014; Stam, 2015; Spigel, 2017). Early conceptualizations viewed ecosystems as interconnected environments comprising entrepreneurs, firms, universities, investors, and public institutions that collectively support the creation of opportunities, venture formation, and economic development (Isenberg, 2010; Acs et al., 2014). Subsequent research refined this perspective by identifying core ecosystem elements, including, but not limited to, culture, human capital, finance, markets, leadership, and institutional support (Stam, 2015; Stam & Van de Ven, 2021). Within this framework, entrepreneurial activity is seen not as the result of isolated individual decisions, but rather as an emergent property of the interaction between these components. Despite its growing influence, the EE concept has also been subject to significant criticism. One line of critique concerns conceptual ambiguity and the tendency to blur the boundaries between entrepreneurial ecosystems and related frameworks such as clusters, innovation systems, or regional development models (Brown & Mason, 2017). Another critique highlights a normative bias found in much ecosystem research, which often sets successful ecosystems in advanced economies (such as Silicon Valley) as implicit benchmarks for the development of entrepreneurship elsewhere (Spigel & Harrison, 2018). As a result, ecosystem studies frequently focus on growth-oriented entrepreneurship, formal venture capital markets, and innovation-intensive business organizations and pay less attention to the diversity of entrepreneurial forms operating outside such contexts. More recently, scholars have advocated a more context-sensitive and place-based understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Welter, 2011; Audretsch et al., 2019). This work highlights that ecosystem dynamics differ across institutional environments and that local histories, governance arrangements, and social structures influence entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, empirical work on ecosystems continues to focus heavily on places with relatively stable formal institutions, developed financial systems, and coordinated public-private governance structures (Stam and Van de Ven 2021). As a result, ecosystems of fragile institutional environments, with patchy regulatory enforcement, limited financial inclusion, and deep interconnections between economic life and informal institutions, remain relatively unexplored. This gap is particularly important, as entrepreneurial activity continues to grow in such environments. In many emerging and developing economies, entrepreneurs operate in a context of institutional fragmentation, regulatory uncertainty, and recurrent economic or political shocks. Understanding how entrepreneurial ecosystems operate in these circumstances involves investigating mechanisms of coordination, finance, and governance distinct from those typically highlighted in mainstream ecosystem models. 2.2. Informality and entrepreneurship: From constraint to adaptive infrastructure Informality has been a long-followed theme in the study of development economics and entrepreneurship, especially in the context of emerging and developing economies. Traditional views have tended to interpret informal entrepreneurship as mostly a response to high levels of regulation, low enforcement, and low employment opportunities in the formal sector (La Porta & Shleifer, 2014). Within this view, informal economic activity is often associated with low productivity, limited growth potential, and precarious working conditions. So policy prescriptions are often focused on formalization as a key pathway towards development. More recent scholarship calls this deficit-oriented perspective into question. Studies increasingly highlight the flexible mechanisms that informal arrangements offer for mobilizing resources, coordinating activities, and managing risk in contexts where the formal institutions are inaccessible or unreliable (Webb et al., 2013; Godfrey, 2011). Informal financial practices - such as rotating savings and credit associations, trade credit, and kin-based lending - often play a role as alternatives or complements to formal banking systems, facilitating entrepreneurship and enabling economic activity to be initiated and sustained in contexts of financial exclusion (Beck & Demirguc-Kunt, 2006; Kouam, 2025). Within the field of entrepreneurship research, informality has therefore begun to be conceptualised not as a deviation from formal economic organisation but rather as part of wider institutional systems. Welter et al. (2015) highlight the important role of informal institutions-norms, values, and shared expectations-in shaping the entrepreneurial behaviour in terms of influencing opportunity recognition, legitimacy, and strategic decision-making. Similarly, Webb et al. (2009) propose that entrepreneurs tend to operate at the boundary between formal and informal institutions, strategically navigating institutional incongruence to create and capture value. However, despite growing recognition of the role of informal institutions in entrepreneurship research, the concept of informality remains poorly integrated into the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature. Ecosystem studies often acknowledge the significance of networks, trust, and social capital, but the idea of the ecosystem - these elements are not often explicitly analyzed in terms of manifestations of informal institutional structures. As a result, the processes by which informal practices benefit ecosystem functioning - especially in fragile institutional environments - are under-theorized. 2.3. Institutional heterogeneity and plural logics in entrepreneurship Institutional theory offers an important way of thinking about entrepreneurship in settings with multiple, overlapping institutional logics. According to this perspective, economic behavior is influenced not only by formal rules and regulations but also by informal norms, conventions, and collective cognitive patterns (North, 1990; Scott, 2014). These institutional elements may coexist, complement, substitute for, and even clash with one another in a given environment (Helmke & Levitsky, 2012). Entrepreneurship scholars have been increasingly employing this framework to examine how entrepreneurs operate in plural institutional settings. Research on institutional voids, for instance, highlights that firms create alternative governance arrangements in the absence of, or when formal market-supporting institutions fail to function (Khanna & Palepu, 2010). Similarly, the concept of institutional entrepreneurship focuses on the role of actors in shaping, adapting, and recombining institutional structures to legitimize new practices or organizational forms (Battilana et al., 2009). In the field of small business research, these dynamics have become especially relevant in discussions of SME resilience and alternative finance. Studies show that small firms operating under uncertainty often rely on hybrid arrangements with both formal and informal institutional components to adapt to changing conditions (Belitski et al., 2022; Audretsch & Guenther, 2023). Such hybrid configurations enable entrepreneurs to access resources, secure legitimacy, and respond flexibly to environmental shocks. Nevertheless, within the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature, institutional heterogeneity is often treated as a nuisance, part of the ecosystem context rather than a central organizing principle of ecosystem dynamics. Many ecosystem models implicitly assume institutional coherence and alignment among public institutions, financial systems, and supporting organizations (Stam, 2015; Stam & Van de Ven, 2021). Fragile contexts, however, are defined exactly by the opposite state of affairs: institutional fragmentation, patchy enforcement, and the coexistence of competing rule systems. Understanding ecosystem functioning under such circumstances requires examining how entrepreneurs navigate and recombine multiple institutional logics in practice. 2.4. Entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile and uncertain contexts A small but growing body of research has begun to examine entrepreneurship in fragile or conflict-affected environments. These studies reveal that political instability, regulatory uncertainty, and economic shocks shape entrepreneurial strategies and organisational forms in significant ways (Brück et al., 2013; Williams & Vorley, 2014). Entrepreneurs facing such situations often develop adaptive capacities, such as diversification, high social embeddedness, and reliance on informal governance structures. Some ecosystem-oriented research has also noted the potential for alternative ecosystem configurations to arise in resource-constrained environments. In such contexts, community-based actors, non-governmental organizations, and informal networks are often important in supporting entrepreneurial activity (Spigel & Stam, 2016). However, these studies are still relatively fragmented and have not yet developed a coherent theoretical framework for understanding why and how ecosystems function under institutional fragility. In addition, much ecosystem research is still oriented toward outputs such as high-growth ventures, innovation, or global competitiveness - metrics usually associated with formalized economies. This focus may obscure other forms of ecosystem performance that are more relevant in fragile environments, such as survival, adaptability, and collective problem-solving. As a result, entrepreneurial activity that does not fit the traditional narrative of growth-related entrepreneurial activity may be overlooked or misinterpreted. 2.5. Identifying the research gap Taken together, the literature highlights several interconnected gaps. First, the current theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems is not adequately prepared to describe ecosystem emergence and operation in contexts where the formal institutions are weak and pervasive informality and institutional fragmentation prevail. Second, although research on informal entrepreneurship has shown the functional importance of informal institutions, these findings have not been systematically integrated into ecosystem analysis. Third, while the institutional heterogeneity and plural logic of entrepreneurship are increasingly described in entrepreneurship research, their roles in ecosystem governance and resilience remain under-theorized. This study addresses these lacunae by examining entrepreneurial ecosystems in Central African contexts where informality, financial exclusion, and institutional plurality are structural features rather than glitches. By analyzing entrepreneurs' ability to mobilize resources, coordinate activities, and uphold legitimacy through informal and hybrid arrangements, the paper constructs a conceptual framework for the resilient informal ecosystem. This framework emphasizes the interaction of three mechanisms - informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation - through which entrepreneurial ecosystems persist and adapt in fragile institutional environments. 3. Theoretical and conceptual framework: Resilient informal ecosystems in fragile contexts This section builds a conceptual framework for understanding the emergence and resilience of entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile institutional environments marked by weak formal institutions, pervasive informality, and recurrent shocks. Based on entrepreneurial ecosystem scholarship, institutional theory, and resilience research, the framework frames ecosystems as adaptive systems shaped by institutional plurality and entrepreneurial agency. In addition, the analysis builds on Hybrid Resilience Theory (HRT) (Kouam, 2025) and extends firm-level insights to the ecosystem level. Recent research is increasingly highlighting that entrepreneurial ecosystems are not static configurations but rather dynamic systems that can adapt to environmental disruptions. In this view, ecosystem resilience is the ability of entrepreneurial systems to absorb shocks, reorganize resources, and continue entrepreneurial activity under conditions of uncertainty (Roundy et al., 2017). Contemporary studies indicate that this resilience often relies on relational structures, resource diversity, and network connectivity among ecosystem actors. For example, recent studies have shown that the structure and diversity of ecosystem networks are instrumental in determining how ecosystems respond to external shocks and crises. Building on these insights, the present framework explores how ecosystem resilience may arise not so much through formal institutional coordination as through informal and hybrid mechanisms of resource mobilization, governance, and institutional adaptation. The framework thus focuses on three interconnected mechanisms: informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation. 3.1. Resilience beyond the firm: An ecosystem-level perspective Resilience has generally been studied at the level of individual companies, where it denotes the ability of organizations to withstand shocks, adjust to new circumstances, and continue operations during times of disruption (Williams et al., 2017). In the context of small businesses, however, resilience has often been linked to issues such as resource flexibility, learning capacity, and the embeddedness of business networks (Pal et al., 2014). While these perspectives offer important insights, they tend to focus on firm-level capabilities and overlook the broader relational and institutional environments in which firms operate. Entrepreneurial ecosystem theory is a complementary system-level approach that conceptualizes entrepreneurship as embedded in networks of actors, institutions, and resources within specific territories (Acs et al., 2014; Stam & Van de Ven, 2021). From this perspective, resilience is not only a property of individual firms but also a property of the ecosystem itself. Ecosystem resilience stems from the ability of interconnected actors to reorganize relations, redistribute resources, and sustain coordination in response to disturbances. Recent research has begun to generalize the notion of resilience in entrepreneurial ecosystems by exploring the roles of network structures, institutional arrangements, and resource configurations in ecosystem adaptability during crises. These studies suggest that ecosystems with a variety of actors, strong relations among actors, and flexible coordination mechanisms are more likely to resist economic shocks and sustain entrepreneurial activity. However, much of this research is still based on ecosystems that are embedded in relatively stable institutional environments. Less attention has been given to how ecosystem resilience is achieved in settings with weak formal institutional coordination and where informal institutions dominate economic activity. 3.2. Institutional heterogeneity and hybrid governance Institutional theory is an important lens to understand how entrepreneurial ecosystems function in contexts of institutional plurality. Economic activity is influenced not only by formal regulations and legal frameworks but also by informal norms, social expectations, and culturally embedded practices (North, 1990; Scott, 2014). Such institutional elements often coexist in the same environment and may complement, substitute for, or compete with each other (Helmke and Levitsky, 2012). This plurality is especially acute in fragile institutional contexts. Formal institutions may be weakly enforced or only partially implemented, or may be in conflict with local actors, whilst informal institutions such as kinship obligations, trust-based exchanges, and community norms provide alternative mechanisms of coordination. Entrepreneurs operating in such environments must thus navigate multiple institutional logics simultaneously. Recent research on entrepreneurial ecosystems has begun to emphasize the importance of institutional quality and governance arrangements in shaping ecosystem outcomes. Studies show that differences across the regulatory, normative, and cognitive institutional pillars affect both the formation of entrepreneurial activity and the types of ventures that develop in ecosystems. Hybrid Resilience Theory (Kouam, 2025) builds on these insights by proposing that entrepreneurs in weak institutional environments actively combine formal and informal institutional elements to stabilize economic exchange and maintain legitimacy. Rather than seeing institutions as fixed constraints, HRT sees them as a repertoire of practices that actors selectively mobilize in relation to situational demands. This process of institutional fusion enables entrepreneurs to respond to changing regulatory conditions while retaining operational flexibility. At the ecosystem level, such hybrid governance arrangements can produce redundancy and adaptability. When formal mechanisms break down or become unreliable, informal networks and social norms can step in, providing coordination and maintaining ecosystem functioning. 3.3. Informal resource mobilization as ecosystem infrastructure Access to finance is widely recognized as a key element of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Stam, 2015). In many fragile environments, however, entrepreneurs face serious barriers to formal financial systems due to information asymmetries, high transaction costs, and financial institutions' perceptions of risk (Beck & Demirguc-Kunt, 2006). As a result, informal financial mechanisms such as rotating savings and credit associations, kin-based lending, supplier credit, and community-based funding arrangements are often used by entrepreneurs. Rather than thinking of these mechanisms as substitutes for formal finance, this framework conceptualizes them as core infrastructures of entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile settings. Informal financial arrangements enable entrepreneurs to meet their liquidity needs, pool risk among trusted networks, and try out new economic activities in environments defined by uncertainty. From the perspective of Hybrid Resilience Theory, such arrangements are part of what may be called distributed resilience. Financial risks and responsibilities are distributed across social networks rather than concentrated in individual firms. Obligations are enforced through social norms, reputational mechanisms, and community sanctions rather than formal contracts. These relational mechanisms empower entrepreneurs to mobilize resources on a short and flexible basis in the face of shocks. Importantly, informal finance does not necessarily exclude working with formal financial institutions. Entrepreneurs may strategically combine sources of capital (informal and formal) depending on the structure of opportunities and the need for legitimacy. Such hybrid financial arrangements illustrate how resource mobilization in fragile ecosystems often involves dynamic recombination of institutional logics. 3.4. Relational governance and ecosystem coordination A second mechanism that supports ecosystem resilience in fragile contexts concerns the role of socially embedded networks in coordinating entrepreneurial activity. Social networks often play an important role as infrastructures of information exchange, collective action, and conflict resolution in entrepreneurial ecosystems (Spigel, 2017). In contexts where formal governance mechanisms are weak or unreliable, relational ties, such as kinship, neighborhood, ethnic, and professional associations, can perform functions usually associated with formal institutions. These networks can play roles enforcing the norms of reciprocity, mediating disputes, sharing information about markets, and coordinating collective responses to external shocks. Recent studies of ecosystem resilience emphasize the role of network density and connectivity in enabling ecosystems to reorganize during crises. Strong relational connections between actors enable resources and information to circulate rapidly, thereby facilitating adaptive responses to environmental disruptions. Within fragile ecosystems, relational governance therefore represents a crucial mechanism for maintaining coordination despite institutional fragmentation. Rather than substituting for formal institutions, social networks frequently mediate interaction between entrepreneurs and formal authorities, rendering informal practices in forms recognized within bureaucracies. 3.5. Institutional innovation and hybrid organizational forms A third mechanism by which entrepreneurial ecosystems adapt to fragile environments is the development of hybrid organisational forms. Entrepreneurs often meld formal organizational structures with informal practices to reconcile conflicting institutional demands. Institutional entrepreneurship research holds that actors can actively redesign institutional arrangements by recombining existing rules, norms, and organizational forms through everyday practices (Battilana et al., 2009). In fragile institutional environments, such recombination is often in the form of hybrid organizational strategies combining elements of selective formal compliance with informal labor arrangements, financing practices, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Such hybrid forms enable entrepreneurs to retain legitimacy vis-à-vis their external stakeholders (such as regulators, investors, or international partners) while retaining the flexibility needed to operate in uncertain institutional contexts. In doing so, entrepreneurs are part of the gradual evolution of the ecosystem's institutional arrangements. 3.6. Toward a framework of resilient informal ecosystems Integrating these mechanisms yields the concept of the resilient informal ecosystem. In such ecosystems, resilience does not stem so much from the strength of formal institutional infrastructures as from the interplay of informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation. Informally, through financial networks, entrepreneurs mobilize resources and distribute risk. Through socially embedded networks, they orchestrate activity and sustain governance structures. Through hybrid organizational practices, they recombine institutional logics to maintain legitimacy and operational continuity. Together, these mechanisms allow entrepreneurial ecosystems to persist and adapt in institutionally fragile and uncertain environments. This framework goes beyond the firm level of Hybrid Resilience Theory by conceptualizing resilience as an emergent property of ecosystem-level interactions. It also questions traditional ecosystem models that implicitly link ecosystem effectiveness and institutional formalization or integration into global innovation systems. Instead, the framework proposes that resilience in fragile environments can emerge from distributed, relational, and adaptive processes that are embedded in informal institutional structures. The empirical analysis that follows examines how these mechanisms function in practice and provides the basis for developing theoretical propositions about resilient informal ecosystems. 4. Research design and methodology 4.1. Research design and epistemological positioning In this research, a qualitative, interpretive design is used to examine how entrepreneurial ecosystems form and maintain resilience in fragile institutional environments. Qualitative methods are especially well-suited to the study of phenomena such as informality, institutional hybridity, and socially embedded entrepreneurial practices, which are often challenging to capture with standardized quantitative indicators (Welter, 2011). The research thus deals with entrepreneurial ecosystems not as static institutional configurations but as dynamic systems produced through everyday interactions, informal practices, and shifting institutional arrangements. The research is based on an inductive-abductive strategy in theory building (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). While the analysis is guided by existing theoretical perspectives, including entrepreneurial ecosystem theory, institutional theory, and Hybrid Resilience Theory (Kouam, 2025), the research design does not impose predetermined categories on the data. Instead, empirical data from the field inform the ongoing development of conceptual interpretations. This approach is one in which theoretical constructs can emerge from observed practices while remaining anchored in existing scholarship. Following qualitative theory-building traditions, the study aims at analytical rather than statistical generalization (Yin, 2018). The purpose is not to generate representative estimates of entrepreneurial behavior but to gain conceptual understanding of how entrepreneurial ecosystems operate in the context of institutional fragility and pervasive informality. 4.2. Fieldwork context and site selection The empirical setting comprises three Central African countries: Cameroon, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). These countries were selected using purposive sampling based on three criteria related to the research question. First, the countries are characterised by different levels of institutional fragility (including weak regulatory enforcement, limited state capacity, and regulatory uncertainty). Second, informal economic activity is a significant component of entrepreneurial activity across all three contexts. Third, countries vary in political stability, economic structures, and vulnerability to external shocks, offering comparative insights into the dynamics of the ecosystem across different fragile environments. Fieldwork was carried out mainly in major commercial centres such as Douala and Yaounde in Cameroon, Libreville and Port Gentil in Gabon, and Kinshasa and Matadi in the DRC (Table 1). These locations are significant nodes in national and regional trade networks where informal and semi-formal entrepreneurial activities are especially concentrated. Studying more than one site enabled the research to document both practices specific to a given context and repeated patterns across settings. Table 1. Fieldwork locations and contextual characteristics Country Primary Field Sites Key Contextual Features Cameroon Douala, Yaoundé, Bafoussam Mixed formal–informal economy; strong trading networks; regulatory ambiguity Gabon Libreville, Port-Gentil Resource-dependent economy; high informality despite middle-income status DRC Kinshasa, Matadi Extreme institutional fragility; dense informal markets; political volatility The multi-country design provides variation across institutional environments while maintaining a common regional context. This approach enhances the study's analytical robustness by allowing patterns observed in one setting to be compared with those in others. 4.3. Sampling strategy and interviewees Data collection was primarily conducted through semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurs and ecosystem-relevant actors. A purposive sampling strategy was adopted to achieve variation across actor types, sectors, and degrees of business formality. This strategy ensured that the sample included subjects with diverse views on the functioning of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The final data set contains 87 interviews conducted between 2019 and 2024. The sample comprises entrepreneurs and individuals engaged in supporting or governing entrepreneurial activity, such as informal financiers, leaders of business associations, community authorities, and policymakers. Sampling was done in two stages. First, entrepreneurs were sampled across several sectors (trade, services, manufacturing, and agriculture) to represent the diversity of economic activity in the informal and semi-formal markets. Second, snowball sampling was employed to identify more participants through the referrals of interviewees and local associations. Snowball sampling was particularly important for access to informal financiers and community actors who work outside formal institutional channels. The number of interviews was based on theoretical saturation, meaning that further interviews were conducted until the number no longer produced significantly new conceptual information about ecosystem mechanisms (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The variety of respondents and the recurrence of major patterns across interviews suggested that the analysis's major patterns had stabilized. Table 2. Interview sample composition Actor Category Number of Interviews Entrepreneurs / SME owners 52 Informal financiers (e.g., tontine leaders) 10 Business association leaders 9 Community leaders / customary authorities 8 Policymakers/development actors 8 Total 87 To ensure confidentiality, participants are referred to using anonymized identifiers throughout the analysis. Entrepreneurs in the sample operated across a diverse range of economic sectors, reflecting the heterogeneity of informal and semi-formal economic activity in the region. Including multiple sectors allowed the analysis to capture variation in capital intensity, regulatory exposure, and network dependence across entrepreneurial activities. The sectoral distribution of entrepreneurial activities represented in the sample is summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Sectoral distribution of entrepreneurial activities Sector Examples of Activities Approx. Share Trade and commerce Import/export, retail, cross-border trade 34% Manufacturing and processing Food processing, metalwork, textiles 21% Services Transport, repair services, hospitality 26% Agriculture and agri-business Urban farming, food distribution 12% Other (digital, creative) Mobile services, media, crafts 7% 4.4. Interview protocol and data collection Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured protocol to discuss key dimensions of entrepreneurial ecosystem functioning. The interview guide was informed by key themes in entrepreneurial ecosystem research, such as resource access, networks, institutional interactions, and entrepreneurial adaptation. Participants were asked about topics such as: entrepreneurial trajectories and business development, access to finance and financial strategies, relations to formal and informal institutions, network relations and collaboration practices, dealing with economic shocks and disruptions, and maintaining legitimacy and compliance strategies. Interviews lasted on average 60-120 minutes and were held in French, English, or local languages, with translation provided when needed. With participants' consent, interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed verbatim. To supplement interview data, the research included participant observation in markets, workshops, association meetings, and savings group gatherings. These observations provided insights into everyday coordination practices and informal governance mechanisms that might not always be explicitly expressed in interviews. Field notes were taken after the observation sessions, documenting interactions, negotiation practices, and financial arrangements observed in situ. Informal conversations with entrepreneurs and community members were also used to put interview findings in context and triangulate. 4.5. Data analysis Data analysis involved an iterative qualitative coding process based on the Gioia methodology for inductive theory building, which emphasizes transparency in moving from informant-centered first-order concepts to second-order themes developed by the researcher and, ultimately, to aggregate theoretical dimensions (Gioia et al., 2013). This approach places a strong emphasis on transparency in going from raw empirical data to more complex theoretical constructs. The analysis was carried out in three stages. First-order coding In the first stage, the interview transcripts and field notes were coded using first-order concepts closely aligned with participants' language. These ideas encapsulated recurring expressions and practices concerning finance, trust, social obligations, institutional navigation, and crisis response. Second-order themes In the second stage, first-order concepts were clustered into second-order themes of higher analytical patterns identified across cases. These themes captured recurring mechanisms by which entrepreneurs mobilised resources, coordinated economic activity, and navigated institutional constraints. Aggregate dimensions Finally, the second-order themes were synthesized into three aggregate theoretical dimensions that structure the analysis: Informal mobilization of resources, relational governance via social networks, and institutional innovation via hybrid organizational practices. These aggregate dimensions serve as the basis for the conceptualization of the resilient informal ecosystem presented in the paper. Figure 1 presents the Gioia-inspired data structure used in the research and shows how first-order concepts were synthesized into second-order themes, which were then structured into three aggregate dimensions: informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation. 4.6. Ensuring credibility and research ethics Several strategies were used to increase the credibility and rigor of the analysis. First, data triangulation was applied through combining interviews, participant observation, and informal conversations. Second, cross-case comparisons across countries and sectors revealed recurring patterns and flagged differences in context. Third, negative case analysis was applied to explore instances that were not consistent with emergent interpretations, thereby helping refine the conceptual framework. Reflexive memos were recorded throughout the coding process to record analytical decisions and minimize interpretive bias. Ethical approval was obtained before data collection, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Given the sensitivity of discussing business practices in fragile institutional environments, particular attention was paid to protecting participants' anonymity and ensuring that no identifying information appears in the analysis. 5. Empirical Findings: Informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation This section presents the empirical findings derived from the qualitative analysis of interviews, participant observation, and field notes collected across Cameroon, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Using the inductive coding process described in Section 4, three interrelated mechanisms emerged as central to the functioning and resilience of entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile institutional contexts: informal resource mobilization, relational governance through social networks, and institutional innovation through hybrid organizational practices. These mechanisms were consistently observed across countries, sectors, and actor types. Rather than operating independently, they interact to form a resilient informal ecosystem, in which entrepreneurial activity is sustained through socially embedded financial arrangements, network-based coordination, and adaptive institutional strategies. 5.1. Informal resource mobilization: Financial circulation and adaptive experimentation A first major finding concerns the role of informal financial arrangements in supporting entrepreneurial activity. Across all three countries, entrepreneurs consistently described access to finance not as a transaction with formal financial institutions but as a socially embedded process grounded in relationships of trust, reciprocity, and mutual obligation. First-order coding revealed recurring references to financial practices such as tontines, kin-based lending, supplier credit, and rotating savings arrangements. These mechanisms functioned as key channels for circulating liquidity within entrepreneurial networks. One entrepreneur in Cameroon explained: “The tontine is my bank. It understands my problems and my rhythm.” (Entrepreneur, Cameroon, retail sector) Such statements illustrate how entrepreneurs perceived informal financial groups not merely as substitutes for banks but as institutions adapted to their operational realities. Further analysis revealed that informal finance performed multiple ecosystem functions simultaneously. Beyond providing liquidity, these arrangements enabled risk sharing and collective support during periods of uncertainty. Entrepreneurs frequently described how financial groups adjusted contribution schedules or repayment expectations when members faced economic shocks. A trader in Kinshasa recalled how informal financial groups adapted during the COVID-19 crisis: “When COVID came, nobody could pay normally. We reorganized the tontine instead of closing it.” (Entrepreneur, DRC, trade sector) These adjustments highlight the flexibility of informal financial arrangements compared with formal credit systems, where repayment schedules are typically fixed and contractual. In addition to supporting survival during crises, informal finance also facilitated incremental experimentation. Entrepreneurs described using small amounts of capital from savings groups or family loans to test new products or markets without incurring excessive financial risk. For example, an entrepreneur in Gabon involved in food processing explained: “We try small things. If it fails, the group carries it with you.” (Entrepreneur, Gabon, agri-processing sector) Such practices indicate that informal financial arrangements enable entrepreneurs to experiment with new economic activities while distributing risk across trusted social networks. At the ecosystem level, this circulation of resources contributes to what may be described as distributed resilience, in which financial shocks are absorbed collectively rather than by individual firms. 5.2. Relational governance: Social networks as coordination and enforcement mechanisms A second major finding concerns the role of socially embedded networks in organizing economic coordination and governance. Interviewees repeatedly emphasized the importance of personal relationships, community ties, and professional associations in facilitating everyday business operations. First-order coding revealed frequent references to kinship ties, neighborhood relationships, ethnic affiliations, and association memberships as key sources of support and protection. Entrepreneurs commonly contrasted these relational mechanisms with the perceived unreliability of formal legal systems. One service entrepreneur in Cameroon expressed this contrast clearly: “Here, papers do not protect you. People do.” (Entrepreneur, Cameroon, services sector) Such statements illustrate how trust-based relationships often substitute for formal contracts in regulating transactions and resolving disputes. Further analysis revealed that social networks performed governance functions typically associated with formal institutions. These functions included enforcing behavioral norms, mediating conflicts, sharing market information, and coordinating collective responses to regulatory interventions. For instance, a transport entrepreneur in Libreville described how disputes were resolved through community-based mechanisms rather than formal legal channels: “If there is a problem, we do not go to court. We call elders or association leaders.” (Entrepreneur, Gabon, transport sector) Similarly, entrepreneurs described how associations and informal networks served as information infrastructures, enabling the rapid circulation of information about regulatory inspections, supply disruptions, and changes in market conditions. An association leader in Douala explained: “Information circulates faster among us than through official channels.” (Business association leader, Cameroon) These network-based information flows helped entrepreneurs anticipate regulatory actions or coordinate responses to external pressures. Importantly, relational governance mechanisms did not operate entirely outside the formal institutional environment. In many cases, networks mediated interactions between entrepreneurs and state authorities. Collective representation through associations often allowed entrepreneurs to negotiate regulatory issues more effectively than individual actors could. As one cooperative leader in Kinshasa explained: “Alone, you are invisible. Together, you can speak.” (Cooperative leader, DRC) These observations suggest that relational governance represents a critical coordination mechanism within fragile entrepreneurial ecosystems, enabling economic activity to continue despite institutional fragmentation. 5.3. Institutional innovation: Hybrid organizational forms A third empirical dimension concerns the development of hybrid organizational practices that combine elements of formal and informal institutional systems. Entrepreneurs frequently described maintaining partial engagement with formal regulatory frameworks while simultaneously relying on informal arrangements for everyday operations. First-order coding revealed repeated references to business registration, licenses, and official documentation, alongside informal practices related to labor management, financing, and dispute resolution. Rather than indicating inconsistency, these patterns reflected deliberate strategies for navigating institutional complexity. For example, a manufacturing entrepreneur in Cameroon described the coexistence of formal compliance and informal operational practices: “On paper, we follow the rules. In practice, we follow reality.” (Entrepreneur, Cameroon, manufacturing sector) Such hybrid arrangements were particularly evident in labor relations. Many entrepreneurs employed family members or apprentices through informal agreements while maintaining a smaller number of formally registered employees in order to comply with regulatory requirements. A service-sector entrepreneur in Kinshasa explained: “Some workers are like family, others are employees. You cannot manage everyone with the same law.” (Entrepreneur, DRC, services sector) These practices illustrate how entrepreneurs selectively engage with different institutional frameworks depending on operational needs and legitimacy requirements. From an analytical perspective, these strategies represent institutional innovation rather than institutional avoidance. Entrepreneurs demonstrated high levels of institutional literacy, strategically combining elements of formal and informal governance systems to maintain business continuity while preserving flexibility. Through such hybrid arrangements, entrepreneurs can maintain legitimacy with external stakeholders—including regulators, development agencies, and financial institutions—while operating within locally embedded systems of trust and reciprocity. 5.4. Ecosystem resilience through collective adaptation Across the three mechanisms identified above, the data reveal that resilience in fragile entrepreneurial ecosystems emerges through collective adaptation rather than isolated firm-level responses. During periods of disruption—such as the COVID-19 pandemic, political instability, or supply chain interruptions—entrepreneurs mobilized financial networks, activated social coordination mechanisms, and adapted organizational practices. One trader in Douala summarized this collective dynamic succinctly: “The state was absent. We did not wait. We reorganized ourselves.” (Entrepreneur, Cameroon, trade sector) At the ecosystem level, the interaction of informal finance, relational governance, and hybrid organizational strategies created a system capable of absorbing shocks and maintaining entrepreneurial activity. Informal financial groups redistributed liquidity when individual businesses experienced losses. Social networks coordinated responses to regulatory pressures and market disruptions. Hybrid organizational practices enabled entrepreneurs to maintain legitimacy while adapting operational strategies. Together, these mechanisms form the empirical foundation for the concept of the resilient informal ecosystem, in which ecosystem-level resilience arises from distributed, relational, and adaptive processes embedded within informal institutional structures. 5.5. Cross-context consistency of findings To further test the robustness of the empirical findings, the analysis examined whether the mechanisms identified in the previous sections were consistent across countries, sectors, and time periods. Three observations support the robustness of the analytical results. First, triangulation across data sources confirmed key patterns. Evidence of informal financial arrangements, relational governance mechanisms, and hybrid organizational practices was collectively evident among semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and informal interactions. For example, the importance of informal finance and its role as central to the narratives of the interviews and during direct observation of the tontine meetings and cooperative savings activities. Second, cross-case comparison showed that the mechanisms identified did not relate to a single national or sectoral context. Informal resource mobilizing, network-based governance, and hybrid organizational practices existed in all three countries studied in the project - Cameroon, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo - and in several sectors such as trade, services, manufacturing, and agriculture. While there were local variations - such as the stronger role of community associations in Gabon than the DRC - the basic mechanisms of coordination and resource mobilization were the same. Third, the longitudinal nature of the fieldwork (2019-2024) offered insights into how these mechanisms worked during periods of disruption. Entrepreneurs explained how they adjusted their financial arrangements, labour organizations, and supply channel relationships in response to shocks such as the Covid-19 pandemic, political instability, and supply chain disruptions. These repeated adaptations demonstrate that ecosystem resilience is not a static condition but a dynamic process that unfolds through ongoing institutional adjustment. Finally, negative case analysis was employed to examine situations in which informal arrangements failed to maintain business continuity or in which hybrid organizational strategies led to legitimacy problems. Rather than countering the general conclusions, these instances helped to explain the limits of ecosystem resilience and the circumstances under which coordination mechanisms were strained. Taken together, these observations reinforce the interpretation that informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation are recurring mechanisms that shape entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile institutional environments. Table 4 summarizes the main empirical findings and their related analytical interpretations. Table 4. Summary of empirical findings Theme Empirical Observations Illustrative Participant Quotes Analytical Insight / Theoretical Construct Informal Finance Tontines, kin-based lending, trade credit, flexible repayment, collective risk-sharing "The tontine is my bank. It understands my problems and my rhythm." Distributed resilience; adaptive experimentation Social Networks Kinship ties, neighborhood and ethnic affiliations; informal governance “Here, papers do not protect you. People do” Relational governance; institutional mediation Hybrid Organizational Forms Partial formal registration with informal labor and finance "On paper, we follow the rules. In practice, we follow reality." Institutional fusion Collective Adaptation Coordinated responses to shocks across networks “We did not wait for the state. We reorganized ourselves.” Resilient informal ecosystem The following section builds on these findings to develop theoretical propositions regarding the role of informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation in sustaining entrepreneurial ecosystems under conditions of institutional fragility. 6. Theoretical development and propositions The empirical findings reported in Section 5 identify recurrent mechanisms by which entrepreneurial activity is sustained in fragile institutional environments. Across the three countries considered in this study, entrepreneurs successfully marshalled resources and integrated economic activity. They ensured organizational legitimacy through combinations of informal financial practices, socially embedded networks, and hybrid institutional arrangements. These mechanisms, together, constitute what this study conceptualizes as a resilient informal ecosystem. Building on the inductive insights from the qualitative analysis, this section develops a set of theoretical propositions to extend existing research on entrepreneurial ecosystems, institutional heterogeneity, and resilience. Rather than viewing resilience as an attribute of individual firms, the findings indicate that resilience results from ecosystem-level processes of resource circulation, relational governance, and the recombination of institutions. The propositions presented below, therefore, articulate how these mechanisms contribute to the formation and persistence of entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile institutional contexts. 6.1. Informal resource mobilization and ecosystem liquidity The findings show that informal financial arrangements play a core role in supporting entrepreneurial activity in settings that are characterized by limited access to formal financial institutions. Entrepreneurs in the three countries mobilised financial resources extensively through tontines, kin-based lending, supplier credit, and community-based savings mechanisms. These arrangements did more than give liquidity. They also spread risk across social networks and helped entrepreneurs experiment with new business activities without relying on formal credit systems. Because obligations within these financial groups are governed by trust and social accountability rather than contractual enforcement, they are often more flexible in the face of sudden economic disruptions. Importantly, informal financial mechanisms operated not only at the level of individual firms but also within the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Financial resources circulated among interconnected entrepreneurs, allowing businesses to prop one another up during periods of crisis or market fluctuations. In this manner, unorganized finance served as a collective financial infrastructure for entrepreneurial activity in fragile settings. These observations suggest that informal resource mobilization is a core mechanism by which entrepreneurial ecosystems sustain liquidity and adaptive capacity in environments in which formal financial institutions are weak or inaccessible. Proposition 1 In fragile institutional environments, informal financial arrangements function as core ecosystem infrastructure, circulating liquidity, distributing risk across entrepreneurial networks, and enabling incremental entrepreneurial experimentation. 6.2. Relational governance and ecosystem coordination A second mechanism that emerges from the findings concerns the role of social networks as governance systems in fragile entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurs often stressed the role of trust-based relationships, community relationships, and professional associations in facilitating business transactions and resolving disputes. These relational structures fulfilled governance functions usually attributed to formal institutions, such as enforcing norms of reciprocity, mediating conflicts, and coordinating collective responses to regulatory pressures or economic disruptions. Information regarding market opportunities, regulatory inspections, and supply chain changes often flowed through these networks faster than through formal institutional channels. Relational governance was also important in mediating the interaction between entrepreneurs and formal authorities. Collective representation through associations or community leaders often enabled entrepreneurs to negotiate regulatory matters more successfully than they could on their own. These results suggest that socially embedded networks serve as an informal governance infrastructure that maintains coordination and stability in entrepreneurial ecosystems characterized by institutional fragmentation. Proposition 2 In contexts of institutional fragility, socially embedded networks function as relational governance mechanisms that coordinate entrepreneurial activity, enforce norms of exchange, and mediate interactions between entrepreneurs and formal institutions. 6.3. Institutional innovation and hybrid organizational practices The empirical analysis also showed that entrepreneurs often pursued hybrid organizational strategies that combined formal and informal institutional elements. Many entrepreneurs had formal business registrations or licenses while simultaneously relying on informal labor arrangements, financial networks with kin, and community-based dispute-resolution mechanisms. These hybrid practices enabled entrepreneurs to retain legitimacy with external stakeholders, such as regulators, development organizations, and financial institutions, while maintaining the flexibility needed to operate in uncertain institutional environments. Rather than rejecting formal institutions altogether, entrepreneurs selectively interacted with them while supplementing them with local forms of embedded institutional practice. From a theoretical perspectiveperspective, these strategies are a type of institutional innovation, in which entrepreneurs help recombine elements of formal and informal institutional systems to sustain economic activity in a state of institutional uncertainty. These hybrid organizational forms reflect how entrepreneurs actively constitute the institutional environments in which they operate by developing adaptive governance arrangements to reconcile competing institutional logics. Proposition 3 Entrepreneurs operating in fragile institutional environments sustain organizational legitimacy and operational flexibility through hybrid organizational practices that combine selective formal compliance with informal institutional arrangements. 6.4. Emergence of resilient informal ecosystems Taken together, the mechanisms identified above show how entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile contexts differ from the institutional configurations in the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature. Rather than relying on the dominant policy support, venture capital markets, or coordinated institutional infrastructures, these ecosystems are driven by socially embedded mechanisms of resource mobilization, governance, and institutional adaptation. Informal financial networks circulate resources in the ecosystem. Social networks organise economic activity and provide ideological structures for governance. Hybrid organizational practices enable entrepreneurs to navigate institutional complexity and maintain legitimacy. The way these mechanisms interact gives rise to what this study conceptualizes as a resilient informal ecosystem, in which resilience is an ecosystem-level property generated through distributed, relational, and adaptive processes. Proposition 4 Ecosystem-level resilience in fragile regions emerges from the interaction of informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation, which together enable entrepreneurial ecosystems to adapt and persist under conditions of institutional uncertainty. 7. Discussion: Reframing entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile contexts The empirical results and theoretical postulations developed in this study provide a new way to understand the function of entrepreneurial ecosystems in environments with institutional fragility. While leading models of entrepreneurial ecosystems focus on formal institutional infrastructures - for example, venture capital markets, public policies, and innovation support organizations - the evidence presented here shows that ecosystems can be created and sustained by informal and hybrid mechanisms of coordination, finance, and governance. The study, which examines entrepreneurial activity in Cameroon, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, shows that ecosystem resilience is maintained through three interrelated mechanisms: informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation. Together, these mechanisms form what this study conceptualizes as a resilient informal ecosystem, where entrepreneurial activity is sustained through distributed financial arrangements, socially embedded coordination systems, and hybrid institutional practices. This view addresses several ongoing theoretical debates in entrepreneurship and the study of ecosystems. 7.1. Extending entrepreneurial ecosystem theory to fragile institutional environments The first contribution of this study is to extend entrepreneurial ecosystem theory to settings where formal institutions are weak and informality is pervasive. Much of the existing ecosystem literature has focused on regions where formal institutional infrastructures - such as venture capital markets, university systems, and supportive public policies - play central roles in enabling entrepreneurial growth (Acs et al., 2014; Stam, 2015; Spigel, 2017). While the aforementioned elements are undoubtedly important in many developed economies, this study shows that entrepreneurial ecosystems can also form in environments where such formal infrastructures do not exist or are only partially functional. In these contexts, informal institutions and social networks take on many of the roles normally performed by formal organizations. The concept of the resilient informal ecosystem, therefore, extends the theory of ecosystems by pointing out that they do not necessarily rely on institutional coherence or on the formal alignment of policies. Instead, ecosystems may be expected to evolve through decentralized, socially embedded processes of coordination and resource mobilization. This perspective responds to recent calls for more context-sensitive and place-based approaches to ecosystem research that account for institutional diversity across regions (Welter, 2011; Spigel & Harrison, 2018). 7.2. Informality as an ecosystem infrastructure A second contribution is to the role that informality plays in the formation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Traditional development perspectives have too often placed primary emphasis on informality as a constraint or a symptom of a lack of institutional development (La Porta & Shleifer, 2014). In contrast, the results presented here suggest that informal practices can serve as critical infrastructure supporting entrepreneurial ecosystems. Informal financial arrangements, such as tontines and kin-based lending, provide mechanisms for circulating capital and sharing risk within entrepreneurial networks. Similarly, socially embedded networks organize economic activity and establish norms of exchange, enabling entrepreneurs to operate in areas with weak or absent governance structures. These observations complement new research that informal institutions may complement or replace formal institutional arrangements in influencing entrepreneurial behaviour (Webb et al., 2013; Welter et al., 2015). The combination of these insights within the ecosystem framework allows the present study to point to the role that informality can play not only as a background condition but as a structural organizing principle of ecosystem dynamics. 7.3. Ecosystem resilience as a relational and distributed process A third theoretical contribution is to the conceptualization of resilience in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Much of the existing literature focuses on resilience as a primarily firm-level capability, relating to strategic flexibility, resource diversification, or adaptive management (Pal et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2017). The findings of this research point to a broader outlook in which resilience arises from interactions among entrepreneurs, networks, and institutions at the ecosystem level. Informal financial networks spread risk among multiple actors, social networks help to move information quickly, and hybrid organisational practices help entrepreneurs to navigate institutional complexity. From this perspective, resilience is not so much about the ability of individual firms to survive shocks as an emergent property of the ecosystem as a whole. This distributed type of resilience is based on the ability of interconnected actors to reorganize resources and relationships in response to environmental disruptions. By highlighting the role of relational and network-based forms of adaptation, this work adds to a growing body of scholarship that is conceptualizing entrepreneurial ecosystems as complex adaptive systems that can evolve in the face of changing institutional conditions. 7.4. Institutional innovation and entrepreneurial agency Finally, this study adds to institutional theory in showing the importance of entrepreneurial agency in shaping institutional arrangements. Rather than passively responding to institutional constraints, entrepreneurs act proactively to recombine elements of formal and informal institutions to craft workable governance arrangements. Through hybrid organizational practices - like integrating formal registration with informal labor arrangements or both formal market transactions and community-based financing - entrepreneurs create innovative institutional configurations that keep economic activity going under conditions of uncertain circumstances. These practices illustrate how entrepreneurs are institutional innovators who shape the rules and norms of economic exchange in fragile ecosystems. This view resonates with research on institutional entrepreneurship, which focuses on the roles of actors within the institutional environment and their ability to change it through everyday practices (Battilana et al., 2009). By showing how institutional recombination occurs at the ecosystem level, the research builds on institutional entrepreneurship research to advance the field of entrepreneurial ecosystems analysis. Figure 2 summarises the theoretical relationships identified in the study and shows how informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation interact to produce ecosystem-level resilience in fragile institutional contexts. 8. Conclusion This study examined the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems and their ability to maintain resilience in fragile institutional environments characterised by limited access to formal finance, institutional fragmentation, and widespread informality. Drawing on qualitative fieldwork in Cameroon, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the research produced a conceptual understanding of the resilient informal ecosystem, looking at the mechanisms by which entrepreneurial activity survives and adapts in the face of institutional uncertainty. The study advances entrepreneurial ecosystem scholarship by showing that ecosystem functioning does not necessarily require the presence of strong formal institutions or coordinated policy infrastructures. Instead, entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile contexts may develop through distributed, relational mechanisms of coordination, in which the combination of informal financial systems, socially embedded networks, and hybrid institutional arrangements sustains entrepreneurial activity. By conceptualizing these mechanisms as informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation, the paper extends existing ecosystem theory to institutional contexts that remain underrepresented in the literature. The research also contributes to wider debates on informality and institutional heterogeneity in entrepreneurship. Rather than acknowledging informality as a constraint or a transitional stage toward formalization, the results indicate that informal practices can serve as structural elements in entrepreneurial ecosystems to facilitate the circulation of resources, collective problem-solving, and institutional adaptation. This view complements recent arguments for adopting more context-sensitive approaches to the study of entrepreneurship that reflect the diversity of institutional environments in which entrepreneurial activity occurs. Beyond theoretical contributions, the findings have implications for policy and development practice. Conventional entrepreneurship policies often focus on establishing formal support infrastructure (such as financial markets, incubators, or regulatory reforms) based on models developed in advanced economies. The findings of this study suggest that policy interventions work better in fragile contexts when they acknowledge and work with existing informal mechanisms of coordination rather than trying to replace them. Supporting community-based financial systems, strengthening entrepreneurial associations, and enabling hybrid institutional arrangements are more contextually appropriate strategies for building entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile regions. Several limitations need to be acknowledged. The study is based on qualitative data from three countries in Central Africa, and even though the multi-site design of the research enables generalization in the analysis, the results may not fully reflect the diversity of entrepreneurial ecosystems across different regions or institutional environments. In addition, while the longitudinal fieldwork offered insight into ecosystem responses to shocks, it did not directly measure long-term entrepreneurial performance outcomes, such as firm growth or employment creation. Future research can follow up on these findings in several directions. Comparative studies across different fragile/emerging economies might help identify the generalisability of the resilient informal ecosystem framework. Quantitative or mixed-methods methodologies could be used to investigate further the link between informal ecosystem mechanisms and tangible entrepreneurial outcomes. In addition, sector-specific studies provide deeper insight into how ecosystem dynamics may differ across industries with different regulatory exposures, capital requirements, and supply chain structures. By emphasizing the importance of informal and hybrid institutional mechanisms in maintaining entrepreneurial ecosystems, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of entrepreneurship in fragile contexts. Recognizing the diversity of ecosystem configurations within institutional environments is necessary for the development of entrepreneurship research and policies that support inclusive, context-sensitive forms of entrepreneurial development. Declarations Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process While preparing this work, the author(s) used Grammarly AI to proofread and improve the manuscript's language. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and took full responsibility for the publication's content. Clinical trial number Not applicable Consent to Publish declaration Not applicable Ethical approval and consent to participate The study has been approved by the *** University IRB/ethics committee. Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the qualitative interviews. Informed consent statement Not applicable. Data availability statement The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. Funding This research received no external funding. Conflicts of interest The author(s) declare(s) no conflicts of interest. References Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research policy , 43 (3), 476-494. Audretsch, D. B., & Guenther, C. (2023). SME research: SMEs’ internationalization and collaborative innovation as two central topics in the field. Journal of Business Economics , 93 (6), 1213-1229. Audretsch, D. B., Belitski, M., & Cherkas, N. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: The role of institutions. PloS one , 16 (3), e0247609. Audretsch, D. B., Cunningham, J. A., Kuratko, D. F., Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: economic, technological, and societal impacts. The Journal of technology transfer , 44 (2), 313-325. Audretsch, D. B., Fiedler, A., Fath, B., & Verreynne, M. L. (2024). The dawn of geographically unbounded entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Business Venturing Insights , 22 , e00487. Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). 2 how actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The academy of management annals , 3 (1), 65-107. Beck, T., & Demirguc-Kunt, A. (2006). Small and medium-size enterprises: Access to finance as a growth constraint. Journal of Banking & finance , 30 (11), 2931-2943. Belitski, M., Guenther, C., Kritikos, A. S., & Thurik, R. (2022). Economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on entrepreneurship and small businesses. Small business economics , 58 (2), 593-609. Brown, R., & Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small business economics , 49 (1), 11-30. Brück, T., Naudé, W., & Verwimp, P. (2013). Entrepreneurship and violent conflict in developing countries (No. 2013/028). WIDER Working Paper. Buratti, M., & Menter, M. (2025). The resilience of entrepreneurial ecosystems: an analysis of ecosystem network structures. Review of Managerial Science , 1-33. Correia, M. P., Marques, C. S., Silva, R., & Ramadani, V. (2024). Academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: Systematic literature review and future research directions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy , 15 (4), 17498-17528. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational research methods , 16 (1), 15-31. Godfrey, P. C. (2011). Toward a theory of the informal economy. Academy of management annals , 5 (1), 231-277. Groh, A. P., Guenther, C., Schweizer, D., & Vismara, S. (2025). Entrepreneurial finance in an extended period of crises. Small Business Economics , 1-14. Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2012). Informal institutions and comparative politics: A research agenda . Edward Elgar Publishing. Hess, S., Wurth, B., Stam, E., Giones, F., Fini, R., Cavallo, A., ... & Kuckertz, A. (2025). The future of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: Toward a policy-oriented research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing Insights , 23 , e00538. Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard business review , 88 (6), 40-50. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. (2010). Winning in emerging markets: A road map for strategy and execution . Harvard Business Press. Kouam, A. W. F. (2025). Hybrid Resilience: Institutional Fusion and Entrepreneurial Adaptation in Fragile African Economies. Available at SSRN 5705725 . La Porta, R., & Shleifer, A. (2014). Informality and development. Journal of economic perspectives , 28 (3), 109-126. Munir, T., & Watts, S. (2025). Ecosystems beyond the formal: a systematic literature review of informal entrepreneurship and its ecosystemic dynamics. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy , 19 (5), 1049-1071. Naudé, W. (2010). Entrepreneurship, developing countries, and development economics: new approaches and insights. Small business economics , 34 (1), 1-12. Noak, N. V., Fischer, B., & Roundy, P. T. (2025). “Tough” around the edges: A network-based view of resilience in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Business Venturing Insights , 24 , e00577. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance . Cambridge university press. Pal, R., Torstensson, H., & Mattila, H. (2014). Antecedents of organizational resilience in economic crises—an empirical study of Swedish textile and clothing SMEs. International Journal of Production Economics , 147 , 410-428. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: sage. Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship theory and practice , 41 (1), 49-72. Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2018). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic entrepreneurship journal , 12 (1), 151-168. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique. European planning studies , 23 (9), 1759-1769. Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystems (Vol. 16, No. 13, pp. 1-15). USE Discussion paper series. Stam, E., & Van de Ven, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small business economics , 56 (2), 809-832. Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological theory , 30 (3), 167-186. Webb, J. W., Bruton, G. D., Tihanyi, L., & Ireland, R. D. (2013). Research on entrepreneurship in the informal economy: Framing a research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing , 28 (5), 598-614. Webb, J. W., Tihanyi, L., Ireland, R. D., & Sirmon, D. G. (2009). You say illegal, I say legitimate: Entrepreneurship in the informal economy. Academy of management review , 34 (3), 492-510. Wei, S., Su, Z., Ahlstrom, D., & Wu, Z. (2023). State fragility and informal entrepreneurship: The moderating effects of human capital under varying temporal orientations. Journal of International Management , 29 (1), 100992. Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship theory and Practice , 35 (1), 165-184. Welter, F., Smallbone, D., & Pobol, A. (2015). Entrepreneurial activity in the informal economy: a missing piece of the entrepreneurship jigsaw puzzle. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development , 27 (5-6), 292-306. Williams, N., & Vorley, T. (2014). Economic resilience and entrepreneurship: lessons from the Sheffield City Region. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development , 26 (3-4), 257-281. Williams, T. A., Gruber, D. A., Sutcliffe, K. M., Shepherd, D. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2017). Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Academy of management annals , 11 (2), 733-769. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (Vol. 6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8473722","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":612038472,"identity":"e2680c3e-b53f-4bda-938f-21a08157c7f1","order_by":0,"name":"Arthur William Fodouop Kouam","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sanya University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Arthur","middleName":"William Fodouop","lastName":"Kouam","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-29 14:08:17","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8473722/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8473722/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105907474,"identity":"eaf956fa-3d21-4295-b8ed-ae34bd75e052","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-01 10:32:00","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":263652,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGioia-inspired data structure\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8473722/v1/bcab947400ef643708bce9d7.png"},{"id":105907469,"identity":"4fe7c77b-26f6-4662-864c-435a02c494fc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-01 10:31:56","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":374878,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual framework of the resilient informal ecosystem\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8473722/v1/b0d35ba8003878707c4e6d31.png"},{"id":106093683,"identity":"742822fe-0ad5-4467-a929-16658a0ea027","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-03 11:38:35","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1622822,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8473722/v1/0202055c-3736-4c66-94a6-978a7d66218d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"From the Margins to the Core: Reimagining Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Fragile Regions Through Informality, Finance, and Institutional Innovation","fulltext":[{"header":"1.\tIntroduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) has emerged as a key conceptual framework for studying entrepreneurship and regional development, explaining how entrepreneurship is influenced by the interplay among actors, institutions, resources, and cultural conditions in specific locations (Acs et al., 2014; Stam, 2015; Spigel, 2017). This perspective has been particularly helpful in highlighting why the outcomes of entrepreneurial activity differ across regions and why entrepreneurial activity should be viewed not simply as an individual-level act, but rather as a system-level process embedded in local structures of support, finance, knowledge, and governance. Subsequent work has refined this view by emphasizing the interdependence of ecosystem elements, the role of place, and the need to examine how ecosystems evolve with different contextual conditions (Stam \u0026amp; Van de Ven, 2021). More recent scholarship has further widened the debate by drawing attention to ecosystem variety and context-sensitivity, as well as to the changing spatial boundaries of entrepreneurial activity (Audretsch et al., 2019; Correia et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, there is an important limitation. Much of the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature, therefore, still is drawing disproportionately on institutionally stable environments in which formal market-supporting institutions, clearer regulatory systems, and more accessible financial infrastructures are relatively well established (Acs et al., 2014; Stam, 2015; Spigel, 2017). Even where more recent research has tended towards place-based and context-aware perspectives, ecosystems in fragile environments have so far tended to be under-theorized, particularly where entrepreneurship occurs within the context of weak state capacity, fragmented governance, low financial inclusion, and pervasive informality (Munir \u0026amp; Watts, 2025; Wei et al., 2023). In such environments, entrepreneurship does not die out. Rather, it is reorganized through alternative mechanisms of coordination, finance, and legitimacy that are still not well integrated into the mainstream of ecosystem theory.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis omission is important both in an empirical and theoretical sense. Empirically, a large proportion of entrepreneurial activity in the Global South occurs in settings where rules are unevenly applied, bank finance is scarce, and informal institutions structure much of everyday economic life (Naudé, 2010; Welter et al., 2015). The World Bank's governance and financial inclusion datasets also continue to demonstrate major cross-country differences in regulatory quality, state capability, and access to formal financial services, making formalized, high-capacity ecosystems a difficult default point of reference for entrepreneurship everywhere. Theoretically, dominant ecosystem models still tend to view informality as peripheral, transitional, or symptomatic of institutional absence rather than a constitutive feature of how entrepreneurial systems function under constraint.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn emerging body of entrepreneurship research has started to question that assumption. Work on context and institutional heterogeneity indicates that entrepreneurial action is influenced by the interaction of formal and informal institutions and by actors' practices of navigating plural, and at times competing, rule systems (Welter, 2011; Helmke \u0026amp; Levitsky, 2012). Research on informal entrepreneurship has also shifted away from deficit perspectives of informality as simply a symptom of underdevelopment, as informal arrangements can deliver flexibility, access to resources, and adaptive capacity in situations where formal institutions lack accessibility or reliability (Webb et al., 2009, 2013; Godfrey, 2011). In parallel, research on SMEs and uncertainty has emphasized that resilience in constrained environments is often rooted in hybrid solutions that blend elements of formal and informal organizations (Belitski et al., 2022; Audretsch \u0026amp; Guenther, 2023; Groh et al., 2025). However, these insights have not yet been systematically integrated into entrepreneurial ecosystem theory in a manner that explains how ecosystems themselves emerge, coordinate, and persist under fragility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper addresses that gap by examining entrepreneurial ecosystems in Central African contexts where institutional fragility, financial exclusion, and informality are not exceptional conditions but structuring features of entrepreneurial life. Focusing on Cameroon, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the study asks: \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHow do entrepreneurial ecosystems form and sustain resilience in fragile regions characterized by weak formal institutions, low financial inclusion, and pervasive informality?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e More specifically, the paper examines how entrepreneurial activity is supported through three interrelated mechanisms: informal resource mobilization, relational governance through social networks, and institutional innovation through hybrid organizational practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research is based on qualitative fieldwork undertaken during 2019-24 in major urban and second-class commercial centers across the three countries. The empirical material comprises 87 semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurs and ecosystem-relevant actors, complemented by participant observation and informal interactions. Using an inductive, theory-building qualitative design, the study reveals that informal financial mechanisms such as tontines, kin-based lending, and community funds do more than make up for the absence of formal finance: they function as ecosystem infrastructures for the circulation of liquidity, the distribution of risk, and the capacity to experiment incrementally. Social networks serve governance functions by coordinating collective action, mediating disputes, and managing the flow of information when formal enforcement is fragmented. At the same time, entrepreneurs innovate hybrid organizational forms that, during the process of change, combine compliance with informal operational practices, seeking to achieve flexibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on these findings, this paper develops the concept of the resilient informal ecosystem. This concept describes an entrepreneurial configuration in which ecosystem-level resilience is generated through the interplay of informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation. Resilience is certainly not a matter of only firm-level capabilities. It is an emergent property of social arrangements embedded in financial arrangements, networked coordination, and adaptive institutional recombination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe paper has three contributions. First, it extends entrepreneurial ecosystem theory to fragile institutional contexts, demonstrating that ecosystem protagonization can occur through hybrid and informal infrastructures rather than solely through formal institutional coherence. Second, it adds to the research on informal entrepreneurship and alternative finance by showing that informal financial arrangements are not merely coping devices but fundamental system-level mechanisms of entrepreneurial continuity and experimentation. Third, it contributes to institutional research on entrepreneurship by demonstrating that entrepreneurs do not merely react to institutional weakness; they actively participate in recombining formal and informal rule systems to stabilize exchange, maintain legitimacy, and sustain the ecosystem's functioning over time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRather than treating fragility, informality, and financial exclusion as realities outside the ecosystem, the paper places them at the heart of ecosystem analysis. In doing so, it provides a more context-sensitive take on how entrepreneurship is organised in places where formal institutions are partial, contested, or unreliable, and where the practical foundations of entrepreneurial resilience are built relationally from below.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2.\tEntrepreneurial ecosystems, informality, and institutional heterogeneity","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.1.\u0026nbsp;Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Conceptual foundations and limits\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) has become a hot topic to understand the incorporation of entrepreneurship within regional systems of actors, institutions, and resources (Acs et al., 2014; Stam, 2015; Spigel, 2017). Early conceptualizations viewed ecosystems as interconnected environments comprising entrepreneurs, firms, universities, investors, and public institutions that collectively support the creation of opportunities, venture formation, and economic development (Isenberg, 2010; Acs et al., 2014). Subsequent research refined this perspective by identifying core ecosystem elements, including, but not limited to, culture, human capital, finance, markets, leadership, and institutional support (Stam, 2015; Stam \u0026amp; Van de Ven, 2021). Within this framework, entrepreneurial activity is seen not as the result of isolated individual decisions, but rather as an emergent property of the interaction between these components.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite its growing influence, the EE concept has also been subject to significant criticism. One line of critique concerns conceptual ambiguity and the tendency to blur the boundaries between entrepreneurial ecosystems and related frameworks such as clusters, innovation systems, or regional development models (Brown \u0026amp; Mason, 2017). Another critique highlights a normative bias found in much ecosystem research, which often sets successful ecosystems in advanced economies (such as Silicon Valley) as implicit benchmarks for the development of entrepreneurship elsewhere (Spigel \u0026amp; Harrison, 2018). As a result, ecosystem studies frequently focus on growth-oriented entrepreneurship, formal venture capital markets, and innovation-intensive business organizations and pay less attention to the diversity of entrepreneurial forms operating outside such contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMore recently, scholars have advocated a more context-sensitive and place-based understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Welter, 2011; Audretsch et al., 2019). This work highlights that ecosystem dynamics differ across institutional environments and that local histories, governance arrangements, and social structures influence entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, empirical work on ecosystems continues to focus heavily on places with relatively stable formal institutions, developed financial systems, and coordinated public-private governance structures (Stam and Van de Ven 2021). As a result, ecosystems of fragile institutional environments, with patchy regulatory enforcement, limited financial inclusion, and deep interconnections between economic life and informal institutions, remain relatively unexplored.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis gap is particularly important, as entrepreneurial activity continues to grow in such environments. In many emerging and developing economies, entrepreneurs operate in a context of institutional fragmentation, regulatory uncertainty, and recurrent economic or political shocks. Understanding how entrepreneurial ecosystems operate in these circumstances involves investigating mechanisms of coordination, finance, and governance distinct from those typically highlighted in mainstream ecosystem models.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.2.\u0026nbsp;Informality and entrepreneurship: From constraint to adaptive infrastructure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformality has been a long-followed theme in the study of development economics and entrepreneurship, especially in the context of emerging and developing economies. Traditional views have tended to interpret informal entrepreneurship as mostly a response to high levels of regulation, low enforcement, and low employment opportunities in the formal sector (La Porta \u0026amp; Shleifer, 2014). Within this view, informal economic activity is often associated with low productivity, limited growth potential, and precarious working conditions. So policy prescriptions are often focused on formalization as a key pathway towards development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMore recent scholarship calls this deficit-oriented perspective into question. Studies increasingly highlight the flexible mechanisms that informal arrangements offer for mobilizing resources, coordinating activities, and managing risk in contexts where the formal institutions are inaccessible or unreliable (Webb et al., 2013; Godfrey, 2011). Informal financial practices - such as rotating savings and credit associations, trade credit, and kin-based lending - often play a role as alternatives or complements to formal banking systems, facilitating entrepreneurship and enabling economic activity to be initiated and sustained in contexts of financial exclusion (Beck \u0026amp; Demirguc-Kunt, 2006; Kouam, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the field of entrepreneurship research, informality has therefore begun to be conceptualised not as a deviation from formal economic organisation but rather as part of wider institutional systems. Welter et al. (2015) highlight the important role of informal institutions-norms, values, and shared expectations-in shaping the entrepreneurial behaviour in terms of influencing opportunity recognition, legitimacy, and strategic decision-making. Similarly, Webb et al. (2009) propose that entrepreneurs tend to operate at the boundary between formal and informal institutions, strategically navigating institutional incongruence to create and capture value.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, despite growing recognition of the role of informal institutions in entrepreneurship research, the concept of informality remains poorly integrated into the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature. Ecosystem studies often acknowledge the significance of networks, trust, and social capital, but the idea of the ecosystem - these elements are not often explicitly analyzed in terms of manifestations of informal institutional structures. As a result, the processes by which informal practices benefit ecosystem functioning - especially in fragile institutional environments - are under-theorized.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.3.\u0026nbsp;Institutional heterogeneity and plural logics in entrepreneurship\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstitutional theory offers an important way of thinking about entrepreneurship in settings with multiple, overlapping institutional logics. According to this perspective, economic behavior is influenced not only by formal rules and regulations but also by informal norms, conventions, and collective cognitive patterns (North, 1990; Scott, 2014). These institutional elements may coexist, complement, substitute for, and even clash with one another in a given environment (Helmke \u0026amp; Levitsky, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEntrepreneurship scholars have been increasingly employing this framework to examine how entrepreneurs operate in plural institutional settings. Research on institutional voids, for instance, highlights that firms create alternative governance arrangements in the absence of, or when formal market-supporting institutions fail to function (Khanna \u0026amp; Palepu, 2010). Similarly, the concept of institutional entrepreneurship focuses on the role of actors in shaping, adapting, and recombining institutional structures to legitimize new practices or organizational forms (Battilana et al., 2009).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the field of small business research, these dynamics have become especially relevant in discussions of SME resilience and alternative finance. Studies show that small firms operating under uncertainty often rely on hybrid arrangements with both formal and informal institutional components to adapt to changing conditions (Belitski et al., 2022; Audretsch \u0026amp; Guenther, 2023). Such hybrid configurations enable entrepreneurs to access resources, secure legitimacy, and respond flexibly to environmental shocks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, within the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature, institutional heterogeneity is often treated as a nuisance, part of the ecosystem context rather than a central organizing principle of ecosystem dynamics. Many ecosystem models implicitly assume institutional coherence and alignment among public institutions, financial systems, and supporting organizations (Stam, 2015; Stam \u0026amp; Van de Ven, 2021). Fragile contexts, however, are defined exactly by the opposite state of affairs: institutional fragmentation, patchy enforcement, and the coexistence of competing rule systems. Understanding ecosystem functioning under such circumstances requires examining how entrepreneurs navigate and recombine multiple institutional logics in practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.4.\u0026nbsp;Entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile and uncertain contexts\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA small but growing body of research has begun to examine entrepreneurship in fragile or conflict-affected environments. These studies reveal that political instability, regulatory uncertainty, and economic shocks shape entrepreneurial strategies and organisational forms in significant ways (Brück et al., 2013; Williams \u0026amp; Vorley, 2014). Entrepreneurs facing such situations often develop adaptive capacities, such as diversification, high social embeddedness, and reliance on informal governance structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome ecosystem-oriented research has also noted the potential for alternative ecosystem configurations to arise in resource-constrained environments. In such contexts, community-based actors, non-governmental organizations, and informal networks are often important in supporting entrepreneurial activity (Spigel \u0026amp; Stam, 2016). However, these studies are still relatively fragmented and have not yet developed a coherent theoretical framework for understanding why and how ecosystems function under institutional fragility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, much ecosystem research is still oriented toward outputs such as high-growth ventures, innovation, or global competitiveness - metrics usually associated with formalized economies. This focus may obscure other forms of ecosystem performance that are more relevant in fragile environments, such as survival, adaptability, and collective problem-solving. As a result, entrepreneurial activity that does not fit the traditional narrative of growth-related entrepreneurial activity may be overlooked or misinterpreted.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.5.\u0026nbsp;Identifying the research gap\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, the literature highlights several interconnected gaps. First, the current theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems is not adequately prepared to describe ecosystem emergence and operation in contexts where the formal institutions are weak and pervasive informality and institutional fragmentation prevail. Second, although research on informal entrepreneurship has shown the functional importance of informal institutions, these findings have not been systematically integrated into ecosystem analysis. Third, while the institutional heterogeneity and plural logic of entrepreneurship are increasingly described in entrepreneurship research, their roles in ecosystem governance and resilience remain under-theorized.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study addresses these lacunae by examining entrepreneurial ecosystems in Central African contexts where informality, financial exclusion, and institutional plurality are structural features rather than glitches. By analyzing entrepreneurs' ability to mobilize resources, coordinate activities, and uphold legitimacy through informal and hybrid arrangements, the paper constructs a conceptual framework for the resilient informal ecosystem. This framework emphasizes the interaction of three mechanisms - informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation - through which entrepreneurial ecosystems persist and adapt in fragile institutional environments.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3.\tTheoretical and conceptual framework: Resilient informal ecosystems in fragile contexts","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section builds a conceptual framework for understanding the emergence and resilience of entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile institutional environments marked by weak formal institutions, pervasive informality, and recurrent shocks. Based on entrepreneurial ecosystem scholarship, institutional theory, and resilience research, the framework frames ecosystems as adaptive systems shaped by institutional plurality and entrepreneurial agency. In addition, the analysis builds on Hybrid Resilience Theory (HRT) (Kouam, 2025) and extends firm-level insights to the ecosystem level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent research is increasingly highlighting that entrepreneurial ecosystems are not static configurations but rather dynamic systems that can adapt to environmental disruptions. In this view, ecosystem resilience is the ability of entrepreneurial systems to absorb shocks, reorganize resources, and continue entrepreneurial activity under conditions of uncertainty (Roundy et al., 2017). Contemporary studies indicate that this resilience often relies on relational structures, resource diversity, and network connectivity among ecosystem actors. For example, recent studies have shown that the structure and diversity of ecosystem networks are instrumental in determining how ecosystems respond to external shocks and crises.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on these insights, the present framework explores how ecosystem resilience may arise not so much through formal institutional coordination as through informal and hybrid mechanisms of resource mobilization, governance, and institutional adaptation. The framework thus focuses on three interconnected mechanisms: informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.1.\u0026nbsp;Resilience beyond the firm: An ecosystem-level perspective\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResilience has generally been studied at the level of individual companies, where it denotes the ability of organizations to withstand shocks, adjust to new circumstances, and continue operations during times of disruption (Williams et al., 2017). In the context of small businesses, however, resilience has often been linked to issues such as resource flexibility, learning capacity, and the embeddedness of business networks (Pal et al., 2014). While these perspectives offer important insights, they tend to focus on firm-level capabilities and overlook the broader relational and institutional environments in which firms operate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEntrepreneurial ecosystem theory is a complementary system-level approach that conceptualizes entrepreneurship as embedded in networks of actors, institutions, and resources within specific territories (Acs et al., 2014; Stam \u0026amp; Van de Ven, 2021). From this perspective, resilience is not only a property of individual firms but also a property of the ecosystem itself. Ecosystem resilience stems from the ability of interconnected actors to reorganize relations, redistribute resources, and sustain coordination in response to disturbances.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent research has begun to generalize the notion of resilience in entrepreneurial ecosystems by exploring the roles of network structures, institutional arrangements, and resource configurations in ecosystem adaptability during crises. These studies suggest that ecosystems with a variety of actors, strong relations among actors, and flexible coordination mechanisms are more likely to resist economic shocks and sustain entrepreneurial activity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, much of this research is still based on ecosystems that are embedded in relatively stable institutional environments. Less attention has been given to how ecosystem resilience is achieved in settings with weak formal institutional coordination and where informal institutions dominate economic activity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.\u0026nbsp;Institutional heterogeneity and hybrid governance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstitutional theory is an important lens to understand how entrepreneurial ecosystems function in contexts of institutional plurality. Economic activity is influenced not only by formal regulations and legal frameworks but also by informal norms, social expectations, and culturally embedded practices (North, 1990; Scott, 2014). Such institutional elements often coexist in the same environment and may complement, substitute for, or compete with each other (Helmke and Levitsky, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis plurality is especially acute in fragile institutional contexts. Formal institutions may be weakly enforced or only partially implemented, or may be in conflict with local actors, whilst informal institutions such as kinship obligations, trust-based exchanges, and community norms provide alternative mechanisms of coordination. Entrepreneurs operating in such environments must thus navigate multiple institutional logics simultaneously.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent research on entrepreneurial ecosystems has begun to emphasize the importance of institutional quality and governance arrangements in shaping ecosystem outcomes. Studies show that differences across the regulatory, normative, and cognitive institutional pillars affect both the formation of entrepreneurial activity and the types of ventures that develop in ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHybrid Resilience Theory (Kouam, 2025) builds on these insights by proposing that entrepreneurs in weak institutional environments actively combine formal and informal institutional elements to stabilize economic exchange and maintain legitimacy. Rather than seeing institutions as fixed constraints, HRT sees them as a repertoire of practices that actors selectively mobilize in relation to situational demands. This process of institutional fusion enables entrepreneurs to respond to changing regulatory conditions while retaining operational flexibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the ecosystem level, such hybrid governance arrangements can produce redundancy and adaptability. When formal mechanisms break down or become unreliable, informal networks and social norms can step in, providing coordination and maintaining ecosystem functioning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.3.\u0026nbsp;Informal resource mobilization as ecosystem infrastructure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccess to finance is widely recognized as a key element of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Stam, 2015). In many fragile environments, however, entrepreneurs face serious barriers to formal financial systems due to information asymmetries, high transaction costs, and financial institutions' perceptions of risk (Beck \u0026amp; Demirguc-Kunt, 2006). As a result, informal financial mechanisms such as rotating savings and credit associations, kin-based lending, supplier credit, and community-based funding arrangements are often used by entrepreneurs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRather than thinking of these mechanisms as substitutes for formal finance, this framework conceptualizes them as core infrastructures of entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile settings. Informal financial arrangements enable entrepreneurs to meet their liquidity needs, pool risk among trusted networks, and try out new economic activities in environments defined by uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the perspective of Hybrid Resilience Theory, such arrangements are part of what may be called distributed resilience. Financial risks and responsibilities are distributed across social networks rather than concentrated in individual firms. Obligations are enforced through social norms, reputational mechanisms, and community sanctions rather than formal contracts. These relational mechanisms empower entrepreneurs to mobilize resources on a short and flexible basis in the face of shocks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, informal finance does not necessarily exclude working with formal financial institutions. Entrepreneurs may strategically combine sources of capital (informal and formal) depending on the structure of opportunities and the need for legitimacy. Such hybrid financial arrangements illustrate how resource mobilization in fragile ecosystems often involves dynamic recombination of institutional logics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.4.\u0026nbsp;Relational governance and ecosystem coordination\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA second mechanism that supports ecosystem resilience in fragile contexts concerns the role of socially embedded networks in coordinating entrepreneurial activity. Social networks often play an important role as infrastructures of information exchange, collective action, and conflict resolution in entrepreneurial ecosystems (Spigel, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contexts where formal governance mechanisms are weak or unreliable, relational ties, such as kinship, neighborhood, ethnic, and professional associations, can perform functions usually associated with formal institutions. These networks can play roles enforcing the norms of reciprocity, mediating disputes, sharing information about markets, and coordinating collective responses to external shocks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent studies of ecosystem resilience emphasize the role of network density and connectivity in enabling ecosystems to reorganize during crises. Strong relational connections between actors enable resources and information to circulate rapidly, thereby facilitating adaptive responses to environmental disruptions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin fragile ecosystems, relational governance therefore represents a crucial mechanism for maintaining coordination despite institutional fragmentation. Rather than substituting for formal institutions, social networks frequently mediate interaction between entrepreneurs and formal authorities, rendering informal practices in forms recognized within bureaucracies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.5.\u0026nbsp;Institutional innovation and hybrid organizational forms\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA third mechanism by which entrepreneurial ecosystems adapt to fragile environments is the development of hybrid organisational forms. Entrepreneurs often meld formal organizational structures with informal practices to reconcile conflicting institutional demands.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstitutional entrepreneurship research holds that actors can actively redesign institutional arrangements by recombining existing rules, norms, and organizational forms through everyday practices (Battilana et al., 2009). In fragile institutional environments, such recombination is often in the form of hybrid organizational strategies combining elements of selective formal compliance with informal labor arrangements, financing practices, and dispute resolution mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuch hybrid forms enable entrepreneurs to retain legitimacy vis-à-vis their external stakeholders (such as regulators, investors, or international partners) while retaining the flexibility needed to operate in uncertain institutional contexts. In doing so, entrepreneurs are part of the gradual evolution of the ecosystem's institutional arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.6.\u0026nbsp;Toward a framework of resilient informal ecosystems\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntegrating these mechanisms yields the concept of the resilient informal ecosystem. In such ecosystems, resilience does not stem so much from the strength of formal institutional infrastructures as from the interplay of informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformally, through financial networks, entrepreneurs mobilize resources and distribute risk. Through socially embedded networks, they orchestrate activity and sustain governance structures. Through hybrid organizational practices, they recombine institutional logics to maintain legitimacy and operational continuity. Together, these mechanisms allow entrepreneurial ecosystems to persist and adapt in institutionally fragile and uncertain environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis framework goes beyond the firm level of Hybrid Resilience Theory by conceptualizing resilience as an emergent property of ecosystem-level interactions. It also questions traditional ecosystem models that implicitly link ecosystem effectiveness and institutional formalization or integration into global innovation systems. Instead, the framework proposes that resilience in fragile environments can emerge from distributed, relational, and adaptive processes that are embedded in informal institutional structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe empirical analysis that follows examines how these mechanisms function in practice and provides the basis for developing theoretical propositions about resilient informal ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4.\tResearch design and methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e4.1.\u0026nbsp;Research design and epistemological positioning\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this research, a qualitative, interpretive design is used to examine how entrepreneurial ecosystems form and maintain resilience in fragile institutional environments. Qualitative methods are especially well-suited to the study of phenomena such as informality, institutional hybridity, and socially embedded entrepreneurial practices, which are often challenging to capture with standardized quantitative indicators (Welter, 2011). The research thus deals with entrepreneurial ecosystems not as static institutional configurations but as dynamic systems produced through everyday interactions, informal practices, and shifting institutional arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research is based on an inductive-abductive strategy in theory building (Timmermans \u0026amp; Tavory, 2012). While the analysis is guided by existing theoretical perspectives, including entrepreneurial ecosystem theory, institutional theory, and Hybrid Resilience Theory (Kouam, 2025), the research design does not impose predetermined categories on the data. Instead, empirical data from the field inform the ongoing development of conceptual interpretations. This approach is one in which theoretical constructs can emerge from observed practices while remaining anchored in existing scholarship.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing qualitative theory-building traditions, the study aims at analytical rather than statistical generalization (Yin, 2018). The purpose is not to generate representative estimates of entrepreneurial behavior but to gain conceptual understanding of how entrepreneurial ecosystems operate in the context of institutional fragility and pervasive informality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e4.2.\u0026nbsp;Fieldwork context and site selection\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe empirical setting comprises three Central African countries: Cameroon, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). These countries were selected using purposive sampling based on three criteria related to the research question.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, the countries are characterised by different levels of institutional fragility (including weak regulatory enforcement, limited state capacity, and regulatory uncertainty). Second, informal economic activity is a significant component of entrepreneurial activity across all three contexts. Third, countries vary in political stability, economic structures, and vulnerability to external shocks, offering comparative insights into the dynamics of the ecosystem across different fragile environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFieldwork was carried out mainly in major commercial centres such as Douala and Yaounde in Cameroon, Libreville and Port Gentil in Gabon, and Kinshasa and Matadi in the DRC (Table 1). These locations are significant nodes in national and regional trade networks where informal and semi-formal entrepreneurial activities are especially concentrated. Studying more than one site enabled the research to document both practices specific to a given context and repeated patterns across settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1. Fieldwork locations and contextual characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCountry\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrimary Field Sites\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey Contextual Features\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCameroon\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDouala, Yaound\u0026eacute;, Bafoussam\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMixed formal\u0026ndash;informal economy; strong trading networks; regulatory ambiguity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGabon\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLibreville, Port-Gentil\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResource-dependent economy; high informality despite middle-income status\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDRC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKinshasa, Matadi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExtreme institutional fragility; dense informal markets; political volatility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe multi-country design provides variation across institutional environments while maintaining a common regional context. This approach enhances the study\u0026apos;s analytical robustness by allowing patterns observed in one setting to be compared with those in others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e4.3.\u0026nbsp;Sampling strategy and interviewees\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData collection was primarily conducted through semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurs and ecosystem-relevant actors. A purposive sampling strategy was adopted to achieve variation across actor types, sectors, and degrees of business formality. This strategy ensured that the sample included subjects with diverse views on the functioning of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe final data set contains 87 interviews conducted between 2019 and 2024. The sample comprises entrepreneurs and individuals engaged in supporting or governing entrepreneurial activity, such as informal financiers, leaders of business associations, community authorities, and policymakers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSampling was done in two stages. First, entrepreneurs were sampled across several sectors (trade, services, manufacturing, and agriculture) to represent the diversity of economic activity in the informal and semi-formal markets. Second, snowball sampling was employed to identify more participants through the referrals of interviewees and local associations. Snowball sampling was particularly important for access to informal financiers and community actors who work outside formal institutional channels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe number of interviews was based on theoretical saturation, meaning that further interviews were conducted until the number no longer produced significantly new conceptual information about ecosystem mechanisms (Glaser \u0026amp; Strauss, 1967). The variety of respondents and the recurrence of major patterns across interviews suggested that the analysis\u0026apos;s major patterns had stabilized.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2. Interview sample composition\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 300px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eActor Category\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 300px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNumber of Interviews\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 300px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEntrepreneurs / SME owners\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 300px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 300px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformal financiers (e.g., tontine leaders)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 300px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 300px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBusiness association leaders\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 300px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 300px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommunity leaders / customary authorities\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 300px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 300px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePolicymakers/development actors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 300px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 300px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 300px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure confidentiality, participants are referred to using anonymized identifiers throughout the analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEntrepreneurs in the sample operated across a diverse range of economic sectors, reflecting the heterogeneity of informal and semi-formal economic activity in the region. Including multiple sectors allowed the analysis to capture variation in capital intensity, regulatory exposure, and network dependence across entrepreneurial activities. The sectoral distribution of entrepreneurial activities represented in the sample is summarized in Table 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3. Sectoral distribution of entrepreneurial activities\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSector\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExamples of Activities\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eApprox. Share\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade and commerce\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImport/export, retail, cross-border trade\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eManufacturing and processing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFood processing, metalwork, textiles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eServices\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTransport, repair services, hospitality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAgriculture and agri-business\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUrban farming, food distribution\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther (digital, creative)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMobile services, media, crafts\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e4.4.\u0026nbsp;Interview protocol and data collection\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterviews were conducted using a semi-structured protocol to discuss key dimensions of entrepreneurial ecosystem functioning. The interview guide was informed by key themes in entrepreneurial ecosystem research, such as resource access, networks, institutional interactions, and entrepreneurial adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were asked about topics such as: entrepreneurial trajectories and business development, access to finance and financial strategies, relations to formal and informal institutions, network relations and collaboration practices, dealing with economic shocks and disruptions, and maintaining legitimacy and compliance strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterviews lasted on average 60-120 minutes and were held in French, English, or local languages, with translation provided when needed. With participants\u0026apos; consent, interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed verbatim.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo supplement interview data, the research included participant observation in markets, workshops, association meetings, and savings group gatherings. These observations provided insights into everyday coordination practices and informal governance mechanisms that might not always be explicitly expressed in interviews.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eField notes were taken after the observation sessions, documenting interactions, negotiation practices, and financial arrangements observed in situ. Informal conversations with entrepreneurs and community members were also used to put interview findings in context and triangulate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e4.5.\u0026nbsp;Data analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData analysis involved an iterative qualitative coding process based on the Gioia methodology for inductive theory building, which emphasizes transparency in moving from informant-centered first-order concepts to second-order themes developed by the researcher and, ultimately, to aggregate theoretical dimensions (Gioia et al., 2013). This approach places a strong emphasis on transparency in going from raw empirical data to more complex theoretical constructs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis was carried out in three stages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst-order coding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the first stage, the interview transcripts and field notes were coded using first-order concepts closely aligned with participants\u0026apos; language. These ideas encapsulated recurring expressions and practices concerning finance, trust, social obligations, institutional navigation, and crisis response.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond-order themes\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the second stage, first-order concepts were clustered into second-order themes of higher analytical patterns identified across cases. These themes captured recurring mechanisms by which entrepreneurs mobilised resources, coordinated economic activity, and navigated institutional constraints.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAggregate dimensions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the second-order themes were synthesized into three aggregate theoretical dimensions that structure the analysis: Informal mobilization of resources, relational governance via social networks, and institutional innovation via hybrid organizational practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese aggregate dimensions serve as the basis for the conceptualization of the resilient informal ecosystem presented in the paper. Figure 1 presents the Gioia-inspired data structure used in the research and shows how first-order concepts were synthesized into second-order themes, which were then structured into three aggregate dimensions: informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e4.6.\u0026nbsp;Ensuring credibility and research ethics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral strategies were used to increase the credibility and rigor of the analysis. First, data triangulation was applied through combining interviews, participant observation, and informal conversations. Second, cross-case comparisons across countries and sectors revealed recurring patterns and flagged differences in context.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, negative case analysis was applied to explore instances that were not consistent with emergent interpretations, thereby helping refine the conceptual framework. Reflexive memos were recorded throughout the coding process to record analytical decisions and minimize interpretive bias.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval was obtained before data collection, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Given the sensitivity of discussing business practices in fragile institutional environments, particular attention was paid to protecting participants\u0026apos; anonymity and ensuring that no identifying information appears in the analysis.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5.\tEmpirical Findings: Informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section presents the empirical findings derived from the qualitative analysis of interviews, participant observation, and field notes collected across Cameroon, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Using the inductive coding process described in Section 4, three interrelated mechanisms emerged as central to the functioning and resilience of entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile institutional contexts: informal resource mobilization, relational governance through social networks, and institutional innovation through hybrid organizational practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese mechanisms were consistently observed across countries, sectors, and actor types. Rather than operating independently, they interact to form a resilient informal ecosystem, in which entrepreneurial activity is sustained through socially embedded financial arrangements, network-based coordination, and adaptive institutional strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e5.1.\u0026nbsp;Informal resource mobilization: Financial circulation and adaptive experimentation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA first major finding concerns the role of informal financial arrangements in supporting entrepreneurial activity. Across all three countries, entrepreneurs consistently described access to finance not as a transaction with formal financial institutions but as a socially embedded process grounded in relationships of trust, reciprocity, and mutual obligation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst-order coding revealed recurring references to financial practices such as tontines, kin-based lending, supplier credit, and rotating savings arrangements. These mechanisms functioned as key channels for circulating liquidity within entrepreneurial networks. One entrepreneur in Cameroon explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The tontine is my bank. It understands my problems and my rhythm.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Entrepreneur, Cameroon, retail sector)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuch statements illustrate how entrepreneurs perceived informal financial groups not merely as substitutes for banks but as institutions adapted to their operational realities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurther analysis revealed that informal finance performed multiple ecosystem functions simultaneously. Beyond providing liquidity, these arrangements enabled risk sharing and collective support during periods of uncertainty. Entrepreneurs frequently described how financial groups adjusted contribution schedules or repayment expectations when members faced economic shocks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA trader in Kinshasa recalled how informal financial groups adapted during the COVID-19 crisis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;When COVID came, nobody could pay normally. We reorganized the tontine instead of closing it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Entrepreneur, DRC, trade sector)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese adjustments highlight the flexibility of informal financial arrangements compared with formal credit systems, where repayment schedules are typically fixed and contractual.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to supporting survival during crises, informal finance also facilitated incremental experimentation. Entrepreneurs described using small amounts of capital from savings groups or family loans to test new products or markets without incurring excessive financial risk.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor example, an entrepreneur in Gabon involved in food processing explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;We try small things. If it fails, the group carries it with you.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Entrepreneur, Gabon, agri-processing sector)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuch practices indicate that informal financial arrangements enable entrepreneurs to experiment with new economic activities while distributing risk across trusted social networks. At the ecosystem level, this circulation of resources contributes to what may be described as distributed resilience, in which financial shocks are absorbed collectively rather than by individual firms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e5.2.\u0026nbsp;Relational governance: Social networks as coordination and enforcement mechanisms\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA second major finding concerns the role of socially embedded networks in organizing economic coordination and governance. Interviewees repeatedly emphasized the importance of personal relationships, community ties, and professional associations in facilitating everyday business operations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst-order coding revealed frequent references to kinship ties, neighborhood relationships, ethnic affiliations, and association memberships as key sources of support and protection. Entrepreneurs commonly contrasted these relational mechanisms with the perceived unreliability of formal legal systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne service entrepreneur in Cameroon expressed this contrast clearly:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Here, papers do not protect you. People do.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Entrepreneur, Cameroon, services sector)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuch statements illustrate how trust-based relationships often substitute for formal contracts in regulating transactions and resolving disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurther analysis revealed that social networks performed governance functions typically associated with formal institutions. These functions included enforcing behavioral norms, mediating conflicts, sharing market information, and coordinating collective responses to regulatory interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor instance, a transport entrepreneur in Libreville described how disputes were resolved through community-based mechanisms rather than formal legal channels:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;If there is a problem, we do not go to court. We call elders or association leaders.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Entrepreneur, Gabon, transport sector)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, entrepreneurs described how associations and informal networks served as information infrastructures, enabling the rapid circulation of information about regulatory inspections, supply disruptions, and changes in market conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn association leader in Douala explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Information circulates faster among us than through official channels.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Business association leader, Cameroon)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese network-based information flows helped entrepreneurs anticipate regulatory actions or coordinate responses to external pressures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, relational governance mechanisms did not operate entirely outside the formal institutional environment. In many cases, networks mediated interactions between entrepreneurs and state authorities. Collective representation through associations often allowed entrepreneurs to negotiate regulatory issues more effectively than individual actors could.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs one cooperative leader in Kinshasa explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Alone, you are invisible. Together, you can speak.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Cooperative leader, DRC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese observations suggest that relational governance represents a critical coordination mechanism within fragile entrepreneurial ecosystems, enabling economic activity to continue despite institutional fragmentation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e5.3.\u0026nbsp;Institutional innovation: Hybrid organizational forms\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA third empirical dimension concerns the development of hybrid organizational practices that combine elements of formal and informal institutional systems. Entrepreneurs frequently described maintaining partial engagement with formal regulatory frameworks while simultaneously relying on informal arrangements for everyday operations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst-order coding revealed repeated references to business registration, licenses, and official documentation, alongside informal practices related to labor management, financing, and dispute resolution. Rather than indicating inconsistency, these patterns reflected deliberate strategies for navigating institutional complexity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor example, a manufacturing entrepreneur in Cameroon described the coexistence of formal compliance and informal operational practices:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;On paper, we follow the rules. In practice, we follow reality.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Entrepreneur, Cameroon, manufacturing sector)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuch hybrid arrangements were particularly evident in labor relations. Many entrepreneurs employed family members or apprentices through informal agreements while maintaining a smaller number of formally registered employees in order to comply with regulatory requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA service-sector entrepreneur in Kinshasa explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Some workers are like family, others are employees. You cannot manage everyone with the same law.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Entrepreneur, DRC, services sector)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese practices illustrate how entrepreneurs selectively engage with different institutional frameworks depending on operational needs and legitimacy requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom an analytical perspective, these strategies represent institutional innovation rather than institutional avoidance. Entrepreneurs demonstrated high levels of institutional literacy, strategically combining elements of formal and informal governance systems to maintain business continuity while preserving flexibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough such hybrid arrangements, entrepreneurs can maintain legitimacy with external stakeholders\u0026mdash;including regulators, development agencies, and financial institutions\u0026mdash;while operating within locally embedded systems of trust and reciprocity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e5.4.\u0026nbsp;Ecosystem resilience through collective adaptation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross the three mechanisms identified above, the data reveal that resilience in fragile entrepreneurial ecosystems emerges through collective adaptation rather than isolated firm-level responses. During periods of disruption\u0026mdash;such as the COVID-19 pandemic, political instability, or supply chain interruptions\u0026mdash;entrepreneurs mobilized financial networks, activated social coordination mechanisms, and adapted organizational practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne trader in Douala summarized this collective dynamic succinctly:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The state was absent. We did not wait. We reorganized ourselves.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Entrepreneur, Cameroon, trade sector)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the ecosystem level, the interaction of informal finance, relational governance, and hybrid organizational strategies created a system capable of absorbing shocks and maintaining entrepreneurial activity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformal financial groups redistributed liquidity when individual businesses experienced losses. Social networks coordinated responses to regulatory pressures and market disruptions. Hybrid organizational practices enabled entrepreneurs to maintain legitimacy while adapting operational strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTogether, these mechanisms form the empirical foundation for the concept of the resilient informal ecosystem, in which ecosystem-level resilience arises from distributed, relational, and adaptive processes embedded within informal institutional structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e5.5.\u0026nbsp;Cross-context consistency of findings\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo further test the robustness of the empirical findings, the analysis examined whether the mechanisms identified in the previous sections were consistent across countries, sectors, and time periods. Three observations support the robustness of the analytical results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, triangulation across data sources confirmed key patterns. Evidence of informal financial arrangements, relational governance mechanisms, and hybrid organizational practices was collectively evident among semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and informal interactions. For example, the importance of informal finance and its role as central to the narratives of the interviews and during direct observation of the tontine meetings and cooperative savings activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, cross-case comparison showed that the mechanisms identified did not relate to a single national or sectoral context. Informal resource mobilizing, network-based governance, and hybrid organizational practices existed in all three countries studied in the project - Cameroon, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo - and in several sectors such as trade, services, manufacturing, and agriculture. While there were local variations - such as the stronger role of community associations in Gabon than the DRC - the basic mechanisms of coordination and resource mobilization were the same.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, the longitudinal nature of the fieldwork (2019-2024) offered insights into how these mechanisms worked during periods of disruption. Entrepreneurs explained how they adjusted their financial arrangements, labour organizations, and supply channel relationships in response to shocks such as the Covid-19 pandemic, political instability, and supply chain disruptions. These repeated adaptations demonstrate that ecosystem resilience is not a static condition but a dynamic process that unfolds through ongoing institutional adjustment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, negative case analysis was employed to examine situations in which informal arrangements failed to maintain business continuity or in which hybrid organizational strategies led to legitimacy problems. Rather than countering the general conclusions, these instances helped to explain the limits of ecosystem resilience and the circumstances under which coordination mechanisms were strained.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these observations reinforce the interpretation that informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation are recurring mechanisms that shape entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile institutional environments. Table 4 summarizes the main empirical findings and their related analytical interpretations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4. Summary of empirical findings\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheme\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmpirical Observations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIllustrative Participant Quotes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnalytical Insight / Theoretical Construct\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformal Finance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTontines, kin-based lending, trade credit, flexible repayment, collective risk-sharing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;The tontine is my bank. It understands my problems and my rhythm.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistributed resilience; adaptive experimentation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKinship ties, neighborhood and ethnic affiliations; informal governance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Here, papers do not protect you. People do\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRelational governance; institutional mediation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHybrid Organizational Forms\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial formal registration with informal labor and finance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;On paper, we follow the rules. In practice, we follow reality.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInstitutional fusion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCollective Adaptation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCoordinated responses to shocks across networks\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;We did not wait for the state. We reorganized ourselves.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResilient informal ecosystem\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following section builds on these findings to develop theoretical propositions regarding the role of informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation in sustaining entrepreneurial ecosystems under conditions of institutional fragility.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6.\tTheoretical development and propositions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe empirical findings reported in Section 5 identify recurrent mechanisms by which entrepreneurial activity is sustained in fragile institutional environments. Across the three countries considered in this study, entrepreneurs successfully marshalled resources and integrated economic activity. They ensured organizational legitimacy through combinations of informal financial practices, socially embedded networks, and hybrid institutional arrangements. These mechanisms, together, constitute what this study conceptualizes as a resilient informal ecosystem.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on the inductive insights from the qualitative analysis, this section develops a set of theoretical propositions to extend existing research on entrepreneurial ecosystems, institutional heterogeneity, and resilience. Rather than viewing resilience as an attribute of individual firms, the findings indicate that resilience results from ecosystem-level processes of resource circulation, relational governance, and the recombination of institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe propositions presented below, therefore, articulate how these mechanisms contribute to the formation and persistence of entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile institutional contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e6.1.\u0026nbsp;Informal resource mobilization and ecosystem liquidity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings show that informal financial arrangements play a core role in supporting entrepreneurial activity in settings that are characterized by limited access to formal financial institutions. Entrepreneurs in the three countries mobilised financial resources extensively through tontines, kin-based lending, supplier credit, and community-based savings mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese arrangements did more than give liquidity. They also spread risk across social networks and helped entrepreneurs experiment with new business activities without relying on formal credit systems. Because obligations within these financial groups are governed by trust and social accountability rather than contractual enforcement, they are often more flexible in the face of sudden economic disruptions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, informal financial mechanisms operated not only at the level of individual firms but also within the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Financial resources circulated among interconnected entrepreneurs, allowing businesses to prop one another up during periods of crisis or market fluctuations. In this manner, unorganized finance served as a collective financial infrastructure for entrepreneurial activity in fragile settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese observations suggest that informal resource mobilization is a core mechanism by which entrepreneurial ecosystems sustain liquidity and adaptive capacity in environments in which formal financial institutions are weak or inaccessible.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn fragile institutional environments, informal financial arrangements function as core ecosystem infrastructure, circulating liquidity, distributing risk across entrepreneurial networks, and enabling incremental entrepreneurial experimentation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e6.2.\u0026nbsp;Relational governance and ecosystem coordination\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA second mechanism that emerges from the findings concerns the role of social networks as governance systems in fragile entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurs often stressed the role of trust-based relationships, community relationships, and professional associations in facilitating business transactions and resolving disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese relational structures fulfilled governance functions usually attributed to formal institutions, such as enforcing norms of reciprocity, mediating conflicts, and coordinating collective responses to regulatory pressures or economic disruptions. Information regarding market opportunities, regulatory inspections, and supply chain changes often flowed through these networks faster than through formal institutional channels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRelational governance was also important in mediating the interaction between entrepreneurs and formal authorities. Collective representation through associations or community leaders often enabled entrepreneurs to negotiate regulatory matters more successfully than they could on their own.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese results suggest that socially embedded networks serve as an informal governance infrastructure that maintains coordination and stability in entrepreneurial ecosystems characterized by institutional fragmentation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contexts of institutional fragility, socially embedded networks function as relational governance mechanisms that coordinate entrepreneurial activity, enforce norms of exchange, and mediate interactions between entrepreneurs and formal institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e6.3.\u0026nbsp;Institutional innovation and hybrid organizational practices\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe empirical analysis also showed that entrepreneurs often pursued hybrid organizational strategies that combined formal and informal institutional elements. Many entrepreneurs had formal business registrations or licenses while simultaneously relying on informal labor arrangements, financial networks with kin, and community-based dispute-resolution mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese hybrid practices enabled entrepreneurs to retain legitimacy with external stakeholders, such as regulators, development organizations, and financial institutions, while maintaining the flexibility needed to operate in uncertain institutional environments. Rather than rejecting formal institutions altogether, entrepreneurs selectively interacted with them while supplementing them with local forms of embedded institutional practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a theoretical perspectiveperspective, these strategies are a type of institutional innovation, in which entrepreneurs help recombine elements of formal and informal institutional systems to sustain economic activity in a state of institutional uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese hybrid organizational forms reflect how entrepreneurs actively constitute the institutional environments in which they operate by developing adaptive governance arrangements to reconcile competing institutional logics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEntrepreneurs operating in fragile institutional environments sustain organizational legitimacy and operational flexibility through hybrid organizational practices that combine selective formal compliance with informal institutional arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e6.4.\u0026nbsp;Emergence of resilient informal ecosystems\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, the mechanisms identified above show how entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile contexts differ from the institutional configurations in the entrepreneurial ecosystem literature. Rather than relying on the dominant policy support, venture capital markets, or coordinated institutional infrastructures, these ecosystems are driven by socially embedded mechanisms of resource mobilization, governance, and institutional adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformal financial networks circulate resources in the ecosystem. Social networks organise economic activity and provide ideological structures for governance. Hybrid organizational practices enable entrepreneurs to navigate institutional complexity and maintain legitimacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe way these mechanisms interact gives rise to what this study conceptualizes as a resilient informal ecosystem, in which resilience is an ecosystem-level property generated through distributed, relational, and adaptive processes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEcosystem-level resilience in fragile regions emerges from the interaction of informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation, which together enable entrepreneurial ecosystems to adapt and persist under conditions of institutional uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7.\tDiscussion: Reframing entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile contexts","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe empirical results and theoretical postulations developed in this study provide a new way to understand the function of entrepreneurial ecosystems in environments with institutional fragility. While leading models of entrepreneurial ecosystems focus on formal institutional infrastructures - for example, venture capital markets, public policies, and innovation support organizations - the evidence presented here shows that ecosystems can be created and sustained by informal and hybrid mechanisms of coordination, finance, and governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study, which examines entrepreneurial activity in Cameroon, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, shows that ecosystem resilience is maintained through three interrelated mechanisms: informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation. Together, these mechanisms form what this study conceptualizes as a resilient informal ecosystem, where entrepreneurial activity is sustained through distributed financial arrangements, socially embedded coordination systems, and hybrid institutional practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis view addresses several ongoing theoretical debates in entrepreneurship and the study of ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e7.1.\u0026nbsp;Extending entrepreneurial ecosystem theory to fragile institutional environments\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first contribution of this study is to extend entrepreneurial ecosystem theory to settings where formal institutions are weak and informality is pervasive. Much of the existing ecosystem literature has focused on regions where formal institutional infrastructures - such as venture capital markets, university systems, and supportive public policies - play central roles in enabling entrepreneurial growth (Acs et al., 2014; Stam, 2015; Spigel, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the aforementioned elements are undoubtedly important in many developed economies, this study shows that entrepreneurial ecosystems can also form in environments where such formal infrastructures do not exist or are only partially functional. In these contexts, informal institutions and social networks take on many of the roles normally performed by formal organizations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of the resilient informal ecosystem, therefore, extends the theory of ecosystems by pointing out that they do not necessarily rely on institutional coherence or on the formal alignment of policies. Instead, ecosystems may be expected to evolve through decentralized, socially embedded processes of coordination and resource mobilization. This perspective responds to recent calls for more context-sensitive and place-based approaches to ecosystem research that account for institutional diversity across regions (Welter, 2011; Spigel \u0026amp; Harrison, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e7.2.\u0026nbsp;Informality as an ecosystem infrastructure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA second contribution is to the role that informality plays in the formation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Traditional development perspectives have too often placed primary emphasis on informality as a constraint or a symptom of a lack of institutional development (La Porta \u0026amp; Shleifer, 2014). In contrast, the results presented here suggest that informal practices can serve as critical infrastructure supporting entrepreneurial ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformal financial arrangements, such as tontines and kin-based lending, provide mechanisms for circulating capital and sharing risk within entrepreneurial networks. Similarly, socially embedded networks organize economic activity and establish norms of exchange, enabling entrepreneurs to operate in areas with weak or absent governance structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese observations complement new research that informal institutions may complement or replace formal institutional arrangements in influencing entrepreneurial behaviour (Webb et al., 2013; Welter et al., 2015). The combination of these insights within the ecosystem framework allows the present study to point to the role that informality can play not only as a background condition but as a structural organizing principle of ecosystem dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e7.3.\u0026nbsp;Ecosystem resilience as a relational and distributed process\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA third theoretical contribution is to the conceptualization of resilience in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Much of the existing literature focuses on resilience as a primarily firm-level capability, relating to strategic flexibility, resource diversification, or adaptive management (Pal et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this research point to a broader outlook in which resilience arises from interactions among entrepreneurs, networks, and institutions at the ecosystem level. Informal financial networks spread risk among multiple actors, social networks help to move information quickly, and hybrid organisational practices help entrepreneurs to navigate institutional complexity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom this perspective, resilience is not so much about the ability of individual firms to survive shocks as an emergent property of the ecosystem as a whole. This distributed type of resilience is based on the ability of interconnected actors to reorganize resources and relationships in response to environmental disruptions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy highlighting the role of relational and network-based forms of adaptation, this work adds to a growing body of scholarship that is conceptualizing entrepreneurial ecosystems as complex adaptive systems that can evolve in the face of changing institutional conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e7.4.\u0026nbsp;Institutional innovation and entrepreneurial agency\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, this study adds to institutional theory in showing the importance of entrepreneurial agency in shaping institutional arrangements. Rather than passively responding to institutional constraints, entrepreneurs act proactively to recombine elements of formal and informal institutions to craft workable governance arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough hybrid organizational practices - like integrating formal registration with informal labor arrangements or both formal market transactions and community-based financing - entrepreneurs create innovative institutional configurations that keep economic activity going under conditions of uncertain circumstances.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese practices illustrate how entrepreneurs are institutional innovators who shape the rules and norms of economic exchange in fragile ecosystems. This view resonates with research on institutional entrepreneurship, which focuses on the roles of actors within the institutional environment and their ability to change it through everyday practices (Battilana et al., 2009).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy showing how institutional recombination occurs at the ecosystem level, the research builds on institutional entrepreneurship research to advance the field of entrepreneurial ecosystems analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 2 summarises the theoretical relationships identified in the study and shows how informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation interact to produce ecosystem-level resilience in fragile institutional contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"8.\tConclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems and their ability to maintain resilience in fragile institutional environments characterised by limited access to formal finance, institutional fragmentation, and widespread informality. Drawing on qualitative fieldwork in Cameroon, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the research produced a conceptual understanding of the resilient informal ecosystem, looking at the mechanisms by which entrepreneurial activity survives and adapts in the face of institutional uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study advances entrepreneurial ecosystem scholarship by showing that ecosystem functioning does not necessarily require the presence of strong formal institutions or coordinated policy infrastructures. Instead, entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile contexts may develop through distributed, relational mechanisms of coordination, in which the combination of informal financial systems, socially embedded networks, and hybrid institutional arrangements sustains entrepreneurial activity. By conceptualizing these mechanisms as informal resource mobilization, relational governance, and institutional innovation, the paper extends existing ecosystem theory to institutional contexts that remain underrepresented in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research also contributes to wider debates on informality and institutional heterogeneity in entrepreneurship. Rather than acknowledging informality as a constraint or a transitional stage toward formalization, the results indicate that informal practices can serve as structural elements in entrepreneurial ecosystems to facilitate the circulation of resources, collective problem-solving, and institutional adaptation. This view complements recent arguments for adopting more context-sensitive approaches to the study of entrepreneurship that reflect the diversity of institutional environments in which entrepreneurial activity occurs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond theoretical contributions, the findings have implications for policy and development practice. Conventional entrepreneurship policies often focus on establishing formal support infrastructure (such as financial markets, incubators, or regulatory reforms) based on models developed in advanced economies. The findings of this study suggest that policy interventions work better in fragile contexts when they acknowledge and work with existing informal mechanisms of coordination rather than trying to replace them. Supporting community-based financial systems, strengthening entrepreneurial associations, and enabling hybrid institutional arrangements are more contextually appropriate strategies for building entrepreneurial ecosystems in fragile regions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations need to be acknowledged. The study is based on qualitative data from three countries in Central Africa, and even though the multi-site design of the research enables generalization in the analysis, the results may not fully reflect the diversity of entrepreneurial ecosystems across different regions or institutional environments. In addition, while the longitudinal fieldwork offered insight into ecosystem responses to shocks, it did not directly measure long-term entrepreneurial performance outcomes, such as firm growth or employment creation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture research can follow up on these findings in several directions. Comparative studies across different fragile/emerging economies might help identify the generalisability of the resilient informal ecosystem framework. Quantitative or mixed-methods methodologies could be used to investigate further the link between informal ecosystem mechanisms and tangible entrepreneurial outcomes. In addition, sector-specific studies provide deeper insight into how ecosystem dynamics may differ across industries with different regulatory exposures, capital requirements, and supply chain structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy emphasizing the importance of informal and hybrid institutional mechanisms in maintaining entrepreneurial ecosystems, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of entrepreneurship in fragile contexts. Recognizing the diversity of ecosystem configurations within institutional environments is necessary for the development of entrepreneurship research and policies that support inclusive, context-sensitive forms of entrepreneurial development.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eDeclaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile preparing this work, the author(s) used Grammarly AI to proofread and improve the manuscript's language. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and took full responsibility for the publication's content.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to Publish declaration\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval and consent to participate\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study has been approved by the *** University IRB/ethics committee. Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the qualitative interviews.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData availability statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConflicts of interest\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author(s) declare(s) no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAcs, Z. J., Autio, E., \u0026amp; Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. \u003cem\u003eResearch policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(3), 476-494.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAudretsch, D. B., \u0026amp; Guenther, C. (2023). SME research: SMEs\u0026rsquo; internationalization and collaborative innovation as two central topics in the field. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e93\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1213-1229.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAudretsch, D. B., Belitski, M., \u0026amp; Cherkas, N. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: The role of institutions. \u003cem\u003ePloS one\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(3), e0247609.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAudretsch, D. B., Cunningham, J. A., Kuratko, D. F., Lehmann, E. E., \u0026amp; Menter, M. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: economic, technological, and societal impacts. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of technology transfer\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(2), 313-325.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAudretsch, D. B., Fiedler, A., Fath, B., \u0026amp; Verreynne, M. L. (2024). The dawn of geographically unbounded entrepreneurial ecosystems. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Venturing Insights\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e, e00487.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBattilana, J., Leca, B., \u0026amp; Boxenbaum, E. (2009). 2 how actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. \u003cem\u003eThe academy of management annals\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 65-107.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeck, T., \u0026amp; Demirguc-Kunt, A. (2006). Small and medium-size enterprises: Access to finance as a growth constraint. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Banking \u0026amp; finance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(11), 2931-2943.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBelitski, M., Guenther, C., Kritikos, A. S., \u0026amp; Thurik, R. (2022). Economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on entrepreneurship and small businesses. \u003cem\u003eSmall business economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e(2), 593-609.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, R., \u0026amp; Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. \u003cem\u003eSmall business economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(1), 11-30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBr\u0026uuml;ck, T., Naud\u0026eacute;, W., \u0026amp; Verwimp, P. (2013). \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurship and violent conflict in developing countries\u003c/em\u003e (No. 2013/028). WIDER Working Paper.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuratti, M., \u0026amp; Menter, M. (2025). The resilience of entrepreneurial ecosystems: an analysis of ecosystem network structures. \u003cem\u003eReview of Managerial Science\u003c/em\u003e, 1-33.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorreia, M. P., Marques, C. S., Silva, R., \u0026amp; Ramadani, V. (2024). Academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: Systematic literature review and future research directions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Knowledge Economy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(4), 17498-17528.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., \u0026amp; Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational research methods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 15-31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGodfrey, P. C. (2011). Toward a theory of the informal economy. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of management annals\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 231-277.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGroh, A. P., Guenther, C., Schweizer, D., \u0026amp; Vismara, S. (2025). Entrepreneurial finance in an extended period of crises. \u003cem\u003eSmall Business Economics\u003c/em\u003e, 1-14.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelmke, G., \u0026amp; Levitsky, S. (2012). \u003cem\u003eInformal institutions and comparative politics: A research agenda\u003c/em\u003e. Edward Elgar Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHess, S., Wurth, B., Stam, E., Giones, F., Fini, R., Cavallo, A., ... \u0026amp; Kuckertz, A. (2025). The future of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: Toward a policy-oriented research agenda. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Venturing Insights\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e, e00538.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIsenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. \u003cem\u003eHarvard business review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e(6), 40-50.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhanna, T., \u0026amp; Palepu, K. G. (2010). \u003cem\u003eWinning in emerging markets: A road map for strategy and execution\u003c/em\u003e. Harvard Business Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKouam, A. W. F. (2025). Hybrid Resilience: Institutional Fusion and Entrepreneurial Adaptation in Fragile African Economies. \u003cem\u003eAvailable at SSRN 5705725\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLa Porta, R., \u0026amp; Shleifer, A. (2014). Informality and development. \u003cem\u003eJournal of economic perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(3), 109-126.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMunir, T., \u0026amp; Watts, S. (2025). Ecosystems beyond the formal: a systematic literature review of informal entrepreneurship and its ecosystemic dynamics. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1049-1071.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNaud\u0026eacute;, W. (2010). Entrepreneurship, developing countries, and development economics: new approaches and insights. \u003cem\u003eSmall business economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNoak, N. V., Fischer, B., \u0026amp; Roundy, P. T. (2025). \u0026ldquo;Tough\u0026rdquo; around the edges: A network-based view of resilience in entrepreneurial ecosystems. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Venturing Insights\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e, e00577.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorth, D. C. (1990). \u003cem\u003eInstitutions, institutional change and economic performance\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge university press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePal, R., Torstensson, H., \u0026amp; Mattila, H. (2014). Antecedents of organizational resilience in economic crises\u0026mdash;an empirical study of Swedish textile and clothing SMEs. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Production Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e147\u003c/em\u003e, 410-428.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScott, W. R. (1995). \u003cem\u003eInstitutions and organizations\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurship theory and practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(1), 49-72.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpigel, B., \u0026amp; Harrison, R. (2018). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. \u003cem\u003eStrategic entrepreneurship journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 151-168.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique. \u003cem\u003eEuropean planning studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1759-1769.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStam, E., \u0026amp; Spigel, B. (2016). \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurial ecosystems\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 16, No. 13, pp. 1-15). USE Discussion paper series.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStam, E., \u0026amp; Van de Ven, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. \u003cem\u003eSmall business economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(2), 809-832.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTimmermans, S., \u0026amp; Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. \u003cem\u003eSociological theory\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(3), 167-186.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWebb, J. W., Bruton, G. D., Tihanyi, L., \u0026amp; Ireland, R. D. (2013). Research on entrepreneurship in the informal economy: Framing a research agenda. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Venturing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(5), 598-614.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWebb, J. W., Tihanyi, L., Ireland, R. D., \u0026amp; Sirmon, D. G. (2009). You say illegal, I say legitimate: Entrepreneurship in the informal economy. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of management review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(3), 492-510.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWei, S., Su, Z., Ahlstrom, D., \u0026amp; Wu, Z. (2023). State fragility and informal entrepreneurship: The moderating effects of human capital under varying temporal orientations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of International Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 100992.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWelter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship\u0026mdash;conceptual challenges and ways forward. \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurship theory and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 165-184.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWelter, F., Smallbone, D., \u0026amp; Pobol, A. (2015). Entrepreneurial activity in the informal economy: a missing piece of the entrepreneurship jigsaw puzzle. \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurship \u0026amp; Regional Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(5-6), 292-306.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, N., \u0026amp; Vorley, T. (2014). Economic resilience and entrepreneurship: lessons from the Sheffield City Region. \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurship \u0026amp; Regional Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(3-4), 257-281.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, T. A., Gruber, D. A., Sutcliffe, K. M., Shepherd, D. A., \u0026amp; Zhao, E. Y. (2017). Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of management annals\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 733-769.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYin, R. K. (2018). \u003cem\u003eCase study research and applications\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"entrepreneurial ecosystems, informal finance, informal institutions, hybrid organizations, resilience, fragile contexts","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8473722/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8473722/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eEntrepreneurial ecosystem research has mainly been conducted in institutionally stable areas where formal finance, policy support, and market institutions are either well developed or underdeveloped. Much less is known about how entrepreneurial ecosystems arise and operate in fragile settings characterized by institutional weakness, financial exclusion, and rampant informality. This study examines how entrepreneurial ecosystems are created and maintained in a resilient manner in the face of such situations. Drawing on qualitative fieldwork conducted between 2019 and 2024 in Cameroon, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the study comprises 87 semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurs and ecosystem actors, supplemented by participant observation and informal interactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing an inductive qualitative approach, the findings identify three interrelated mechanisms that sustain entrepreneurial activity in fragile contexts: informal resource mobilization, relational governance through social networks, and institutional innovation through hybrid organizational practices. Informal financial arrangements such as tontines, kin-based lending, and community funds offer flexible liquidity and allow incremental experimentation. Social networks are informal governance systems that organize collective action, arbitrate disputes, and mediate interactions with formal institutions. Entrepreneurs also create hybrid organizational forms that combine formal registration with informal operational practices, enabling them to retain legitimacy while maintaining flexibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on these insights, the paper proposes the notion of a \"resilient informal ecosystem\", whereby ecosystem-level resilience arises from distributed financial arrangements, socially embedded governance, and adaptive institutional recombination. The research adds to the literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems by extending to fragile institutional environments and showing how informality and hybrid institutional arrangements are foundational ecosystem infrastructures rather than transitional and peripheral phenomena. The findings also have policy implications, suggesting that development interventions should strengthen existing informal coordination and financial mechanisms rather than replace them with standardized formal models.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"From the Margins to the Core: Reimagining Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Fragile Regions Through Informality, Finance, and Institutional Innovation","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-01 10:10:26","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8473722/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"36455558-3e80-4a08-88fb-6fc7f134c3aa","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 1st, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-05T14:44:39+00:00","index":15,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-01T10:10:26+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-01 10:10:26","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8473722","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8473722","identity":"rs-8473722","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}