Article
Cristian Germán Hernández1*, Enric Bas2,
1Facultad de Ciencias Administrativas, Universidad de Guayaquil, Av. Delta, 090510 Guayaquil, Eсuador
2University of Alicante, Carr. de San Vicente del Raspeig, s/n, 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Alicante, Spain
Abstract
This study examines plausible futures for Ecuador’s entrepreneurial ecosystem toward 2040 through a strategic foresight approach. Anchored in the Six Pillars framework, the research operationalizes a structured sequence of methods, including the Futures Triangle, Futures Wheel, Causal Layered Analysis, and a double uncertainty matrix, to explore systemic tensions, deep-rooted constraints, and transformational possibilities. The analysis reveals an ecosystem characterized by high entrepreneurial activity alongside persistent informality, limited innovation capacity, and institutional inertia. Through participatory scenario construction and expert co-production, the study develops alternative future configurations and identifies strategic leverage points for anticipatory governance, policy design, and the transition toward more inclusive, resilient, and knowledge-based entrepreneurial pathways.
Keywords
Strategic foresight, Entrepreneurial ecosystems, Scenario planning, Ecuador
Introduction
In contexts characterized by high uncertainty, structural volatility, and long-term institutional fragility, conventional diagnostic approaches often prove insufficient for informing strategic decision-making. Linear analyses and short-term policy assessments tend to prioritize observable indicators while overlooking deeper systemic constraints, cultural narratives, and temporal dynamics that shape how socio-economic systems evolve. Within this context, Futures Studies offers an alternative analytical perspective. Bell (2003) conceptualizes futures inquiry as a discipline aimed at exploring possible, probable, and preferable futures in order to expand human choice under conditions of uncertainty. Building on this view, Slaughter (2004) argues that strategic foresight enhances the capacity of institutions to identify emerging issues, question dominant assumptions, and develop longer-term strategic intelligence. Rather than predicting specific outcomes, foresight provides structured approaches for examining plausible trajectories and underlying drivers of change.
Ecuador’s entrepreneurial ecosystem offers a particularly relevant empirical setting for such an anticipatory analysis. Over the past two decades, the country has exhibited one of the highest levels of entrepreneurial activity worldwide. In 2023, the Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) rate reached 32.7%, indicating that nearly one in three adults was engaged in entrepreneurial activity (GEM, 2023). Despite this apparent dynamism, national assessments reveal important structural tensions. The ESPAE Graduate School of Management reports that approximately 90% of entrepreneurs initiate business activities primarily due to the absence of formal employment opportunities (ESPAE, 2024). Consequently, a substantial share of entrepreneurial initiatives emerges from structural labor constraints rather than from opportunity-driven innovation.
This structural pattern has important implications for ecosystem development. Ayaviri-Nina et al. (2023) show that ecosystems dominated by necessity-driven entrepreneurship tend to display limited innovation capacity and lower probabilities of long-term business survival. Similarly, Perez-Campdesuñer et al. (2021) identify weak articulation between innovation systems, productive sectors, and public policy instruments as a key barrier to entrepreneurial upgrading in Latin America. Evidence from Ecuador reflects comparable dynamics. Policy analyses conducted by the Ministerio de Producción, Comercio Exterior, Inversiones y Pesca highlight persistent structural constraints, including limited access to financing, weak institutional coordination, and insufficient incentives for technology-based entrepreneurship (MIPRO, 2023). Under these conditions, entrepreneurial activity frequently functions as a mechanism of subsistence rather than as a driver of innovation or structural transformation.
These tensions become more visible when broader labor and enterprise dynamics are considered. Informality remains one of the defining features of the Ecuadorian economy. In 2022, approximately 68.5% of total employment occurred under informal conditions (Statista, 2023), while more than 60% of micro and small enterprises operated outside the formal economy (MIPRO, 2023). Business discontinuity is also significant: more than 40% of new ventures close within their first three years (INEC, 2023). The Alianza para el Emprendimiento e Innovación similarly highlights the fragility of early-stage ventures within the national ecosystem (AEI, 2022). Such dynamics limit firms’ capacity to accumulate capital, formalize operations, and access institutional support mechanisms. Empirical research by Hernández et al. (2023) identifies weak innovation linkages as an additional constraint, while regional assessments conducted by the Corporación Andina de Fomento point to persistent productivity gaps across Latin American entrepreneurial ecosystems (CAF, 2023).
Financial exclusion further exacerbates these dynamics. Only 18% of Ecuadorian entrepreneurs obtain credit from formal financial institutions (AEI, 2022). Likewise, the Banco de Desarrollo del Ecuador reports that the average institutional microcredit granted to small productive units was approximately USD 3,500 in 2022, a level that constrains business expansion and technological upgrading. From a regional perspective, Kantis et al. (2022) identify restricted access to financing as one of the principal structural barriers limiting the growth and scalability of entrepreneurial ecosystems across Latin America.
Policy initiatives have attempted to address these challenges. The Organic Law on Entrepreneurship and Innovation, enacted in 2020, introduced fiscal incentives and simplified registration procedures. In parallel, the Ecuador Emprendedor, Innovador y Sostenible 2030 strategy seeks to promote innovation-oriented growth through cluster development and ecosystem coordination (Presidency of the Republic of Ecuador, 2021; MIPRO, 2023). Nevertheless, comparative research suggests that weak monitoring mechanisms and fragmented institutional coordination often limit the effectiveness of such initiatives (Kantis et al., 2022).
Additional structural constraints complicate the transition toward a knowledge-based entrepreneurial ecosystem. Investment in research and development remains below 0.4% of national GDP, far below the OECD average of approximately 2.7% (OECD, 2021). At the same time, Ecuador ranks 98th out of 141 countries in digital skills according to global assessments by the World Economic Forum (2023). Human capital dynamics also pose challenges: the World Bank (2023) highlights the persistence of brain drain and the limited integration of highly trained postgraduate talent into national research and innovation systems.
Taken together, these conditions reveal a structural paradox. Ecuador simultaneously exhibits high levels of entrepreneurial activity and persistent institutional fragility, informality, and limited innovation capacity. Such contradictions cannot be adequately understood through linear analytical models or short-term policy evaluations alone. Instead, they require analytical frameworks capable of engaging with systemic complexity, structural inertia, and competing future imaginaries. Strategic foresight provides such a framework. As Inayatullah (2008) explains, foresight methods enable analysts and decision-makers to examine how historical legacies, present dynamics, and future aspirations interact to shape the range of plausible futures available to societies.
Accordingly, this study adopts the Six Pillars framework to operationalize a structured foresight process, drawing on methods such as the Futures Triangle, Futures Wheel, Causal Layered Analysis (CLA), and scenario construction through a double uncertainty matrix. The objective is to develop plausible scenarios for Ecuador’s entrepreneurial ecosystem toward 2040, providing foresight-informed insights to support anticipatory governance, strategic reflection, and long-term coordination under conditions of uncertainty. The remainder of the article is organized as follows: the next section reviews relevant literature; the methodology is then outlined; empirical results are presented and discussed; and the paper concludes with implications for policy and future research.
Literature Review
Futures Studies has been widely conceptualized as a field concerned with the systematic exploration of alternative futures rather than the prediction of singular outcomes. In his foundational work, Bell (2003) characterizes futures inquiry as a normative and reflexive discipline aimed at expanding human choice through the examination of possible, probable, and preferable futures. From this perspective, the purpose of futures thinking is not to anticipate a predetermined trajectory, but to broaden the range of options available to societies when confronting uncertainty.
Building on this normative orientation, Inayatullah (2008) emphasizes that futures thinking explicitly rejects deterministic forecasting and instead encourages analytical engagement with uncertainty, plurality, and long-term societal transformation. In this sense, futures inquiry shifts attention away from prediction toward the critical exploration of alternative trajectories and the assumptions that shape them.
Subsequent scholarship further developed this non-predictive perspective by framing foresight as a process of collective sense-making and learning. Slaughter (2004), for instance, argues that foresight strengthens the capacity of individuals and institutions to question dominant assumptions, identify emerging issues, and cultivate longer-term strategic intelligence. Extending this argument, Inayatullah (2017) highlights that futures methods also serve to deconstruct dominant narratives and expose underlying worldviews, thereby expanding the range of futures that actors perceive as imaginable and actionable.
More recently, these ideas have been consolidated within the emerging field of anticipation studies. Poli (2021) conceptualizes anticipation as the way actors engage with possible futures in order to inform present action. From this standpoint, the value of anticipation lies not in improving forecasting accuracy but in shaping decision-making processes through reflexive engagement with uncertainty. Consequently, futures are understood as relational constructs that influence present choices and institutional practices rather than as objective states waiting to be discovered.
Foresight, governance, and public decision-making
The relevance of foresight has increasingly been examined in relation to governance and public decision-making. Scholars have argued that foresight becomes particularly consequential when embedded within institutional contexts, where it can support strategic reflection, policy learning, and long-term orientation (Slaughter, 2004). Rather than functioning as a standalone analytical exercise, foresight contributes to governance by enabling institutions to engage proactively with uncertainty and systemic risk.
This perspective has been formalized through the concept of anticipatory governance, which refers to the capacity of institutions to integrate foresight, reflexivity, and learning into policy processes. Empirical research shows that anticipatory governance is less about predicting future conditions and more about creating institutional arrangements that allow for adaptive decision-making under uncertainty (Muiderman et al., 2020). Such arrangements emphasize early sense-making, exploration of alternatives, and iterative policy design.
Recent studies further suggest that foresight-informed governance can improve policy coherence and resilience by broadening the range of futures considered in decision-making. Boyd et al. (2022) show that anticipatory approaches can enhance institutional learning by opening up deliberative spaces where assumptions are questioned and long-term implications are explored. In this sense, as Boyd et al. (2022) argue, foresight contributes to governance not by offering solutions, but by structuring how problems and options are understood.
Institutionalization of governmental foresight in comparable contexts
Recent case-based research indicates that, in governments operating under conditions of fragmentation, limited administrative capacity, and high uncertainty, foresight is most often institutionalized as anticipatory capacity rather than as a single permanent organizational unit. Studies of strategic foresight in government emphasize that such capacity is built through recurrent practices, skills development, and coordination mechanisms embedded in existing policy processes, rather than through isolated scenario exercises (OECD, 2021). In these contexts, institutionalization depends less on formal structures and more on the integration of foresight into planning and decision routines.
A second, empirically documented pathway for institutionalizing foresight is parliamentary foresight. Recent peer-reviewed research on legislature-based “future institutions” demonstrates how parliamentary committees dedicated to long-term issues can contribute to anticipatory governance by creating formal spaces for future-oriented deliberation, strengthening accountability, and broadening actor participation (González-Ricoy & Gosseries, 2023). Analyses of parliamentary foresight further indicate that such arrangements can sustain long-term policy orientation even in political systems characterized by electoral turnover and executive discontinuity (Koskimaa, 2023).
Beyond high-income settings, foresight has also been applied in middle-income and development contexts as part of innovation and transformation strategies. Applied research and policy syntheses document how technology foresight and technology assessment have been used to support strategic prioritization and option-building in science, technology, and innovation policy under structural constraints (UNCTAD, 2023). This work emphasizes that foresight’s contribution in such contexts lies primarily in structuring dialogue, aligning stakeholders, and informing strategic choices, rather than in guaranteeing implementation outcomes.
Foresight, systemic change, and policy-oriented futures work
Foresight scholarship has increasingly highlighted its relevance for addressing systemic and transformative challenges in complex policy environments. Inayatullah (2008) argues that futures methods are particularly valuable for uncovering the underlying assumptions, worldviews, and narratives that shape policy debates and institutional behavior. By engaging multiple layers of analysis, foresight allows actors to question dominant frames of interpretation and to explore alternative pathways for social and institutional change.
This systemic orientation also resonates with broader discussions on complexity and long-term transformation in public policy. Analyses conducted by the OECD (2021), for example, emphasize that foresight tools help policymakers engage with extended time horizons, systemic interdependencies, and high levels of uncertainty that characterize contemporary governance challenges. Similarly, UNCTAD (2023) highlights the role of foresight and technology assessment in supporting strategic prioritization and policy coordination in contexts where innovation and structural transformation unfold over long temporal scales. In this sense, foresight contributes not by optimizing existing policy frameworks, but by expanding the range of strategic options considered in decision-making processes.
At the same time, futures scholarship cautions against the uncritical transfer of foresight models across institutional and cultural contexts. Sweeney (2019) stresses that futures practice must remain reflexive and attentive to the socio-political conditions in which foresight processes are embedded. Complementing this perspective, Ramos (2017) argues that anticipatory governance approaches require strong contextual grounding, particularly in settings characterized by inequality, institutional fragility, and contested development trajectories. Together, these perspectives underscore the importance of adapting foresight methodologies to local realities while preserving analytical rigor and strategic relevance.
Methodology
This study adopts a qualitative, interpretive, and participatory foresight design, structured around a prospective methodological sequence composed of five analytically connected phases: (1) formation of the expert panel, (2) identification of structural tensions through the Futures Triangle, (3) anticipatory exploration of first- and second-order implications using the Futures Wheel, (4) deepening of meaning through Causal Layered Analysis (CLA), and (5) synthesis of insights into plausible futures through a double-uncertainty matrix. The design is inspired by the Six Pillars framework (Inayatullah, 2008) and was adapted to the contextual characteristics of Ecuador’s entrepreneurial ecosystem to ensure methodological coherence and strategic relevance.
The selection of a 2040 horizon constitutes a methodological choice rather than an assumption about future outcomes. In Futures Studies and strategic foresight, time horizons of approximately 15 to 20 years are commonly used to examine the evolution of complex social, economic, and innovation systems under conditions of uncertainty. Such horizons allow analysts to move beyond short-term policy cycles while avoiding assumptions of linear change or deterministic transformation (OECD, 2021). Consistent with this practice, foresight initiatives developed within the European Union and by UNESCO frequently adopt outlooks extending toward 2040 when addressing long-term dynamics in science, technology, and innovation, particularly where institutional change unfolds gradually (European Commission, 2021; UNESCO, 2021). Similarly, global assessments of technological and economic change often employ horizons approaching 2040 to frame uncertainty and structural persistence rather than to project specific outcomes (World Economic Forum, 2023).
The research was conducted between January and December 2024, combining synchronous and asynchronous instruments such as virtual workshops, structured analytical templates, guided individual reflection, and collective feedback sessions. The process did not follow a Delphi protocol, nor did it seek consensus or statistical aggregation of expert judgments. Instead, it was conceived as a co-productive foresight process, where expert knowledge was elicited to explore tensions, assumptions, and alternative futures through iterative reflection and dialogue.
Ethical considerations were addressed as an integral component of the research design, consistent with foundational perspectives in Futures Studies that frame futures inquiry as a normative and responsibility-laden practice (Bell, 2003; Dator, 2009). Informed consent was obtained from all participants, confidentiality of contributions was ensured, and participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any stage. The process was also designed to respect plurality of perspectives and avoid the imposition of singular or deterministic futures, in line with the futures tradition’s emphasis on expanding choice.
Overall, the methodological design sought to promote rigor, inclusiveness, and active participation, enabling a process of knowledge co-production that integrated empirical knowledge with critical reflection. The prospective sequence provided a coherent analytical pathway, from structural diagnosis to scenario synthesis, for generating foresight outputs with both interpretive depth and policy relevance (Figure 1).
Fig. 1: Methodological Design Based on the Six Pillars Framework
Formation of the Expert Panel
The first phase involved the deliberate formation of an expert panel designed to ensure diversity in institutional affiliation, disciplinary background, and territorial perspective, while also guaranteeing a minimum level of technical competence regarding the Ecuadorian entrepreneurial ecosystem. Although the overall research design is qualitative, interpretive, and participatory, the study required participants with sufficient domain-specific expertise to engage meaningfully with structurally complex and context-dependent issues.
For this reason, a competence coefficient (K), derived from Delphi-based expert screening practices and used here pragmatically within a qualitative and participatory foresight design, was employed as a screening criterion rather than as a mechanism for consensus-building or hierarchical ranking. A threshold of K ≥ 0.80 was applied to ensure minimum analytical competence and contextual familiarity with the Ecuadorian entrepreneurial ecosystem, in line with established recommendations in Delphi and futures-oriented research (Linstone & Turoff, 2002; Landeta, 2006). Importantly, the use of this coefficient did not signal a positivist or validation-oriented epistemological stance, but functioned as a pragmatic safeguard to support subsequent phases of participatory reflection and critical futures exploration. The selected experts participated asynchronously through structured digital templates and synchronously in four facilitated discussion sessions, with confidentiality and informed consent ensured throughout the process in accordance with the ALLEA Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2023).
Mapping Structural Tensions with the Futures Triangle
The second phase applied the Futures Triangle (Inayatullah, 2008) to identify structural tensions shaping the future trajectory of entrepreneurship in Ecuador. This tool provides a three-dimensional diagnostic: the weight of the past (historical and institutional constraints), the push of the present (current trends and dynamics), and the pull of the future (aspirational visions and desirable transformations).
Experts began by completing structured templates individually, identifying elements within each dimension from their specific perspectives. These reflections were then consolidated through group discussions. Past constraints included persistent informality, centralized governance, patronage networks, and the prevalence of necessity-driven entrepreneurship. Present dynamics emphasized the rise of digital ventures, the expansion of incubator networks, and the acceleration of automation. Future aspirations reflected imaginaries of technological sovereignty, territorial sustainability, and inclusive innovation.
Rather than seeking quantification or variable measurement, this phase prioritized a qualitative and interpretive mapping of competing temporal forces. Following Inayatullah’s original formulation of the Futures Triangle as a heuristic device, the analysis focused on identifying how the weight of the past, the push of the present, and the pull of the future interact to shape dominant tensions and imaginaries rather than producing evaluative metrics (Inayatullah, 2008). The material generated by the experts was examined to surface areas of narrative convergence, points of conceptual divergence, and zones of analytical silence, consistent with the Futures Triangle’s use as a sense-making framework for diagnosing structural tensions under conditions of uncertainty.
Anticipatory Exploration Using the Futures Wheel
The third phase applied the Futures Wheel (Glenn & Gordon, 2009) to explore the direct and indirect consequences of a transformative premise for 2040. Experts participated in a synchronous digital workshop in which first-, second-, and third-order effects were collaboratively mapped, with particular attention to identifying opportunities, risks, and ambivalent dynamics. This process made visible systemic interdependencies and potential feedback loops relevant to subsequent scenario construction.
Rather than producing predictions, this phase functioned as an anticipatory exercise, understood as the deliberate use of future possibilities to inform present reflection and decision-making. In line with Miller’s conception of anticipation, the Futures Wheel was used to expand participants’ capacity to question assumptions, explore alternative consequences, and surface ethical, social, and territorial implications embedded in different future pathways (Miller, 2018). In this sense, the exercise contributed to scenario development not by forecasting outcomes, but by enriching the collective understanding of how present choices may shape divergent futures.
Deepening Through Causal Layered Analysis (CLA)
The fourth phase employed Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) (Inayatullah, 2017) to explore the multi-layered structures shaping narratives around entrepreneurship in Ecuador. CLA was operationalized across four levels: litany, systemic causes, worldview, and myth/metaphor.
Unlike conventional individual applications, this phase was conducted in a synchronous group format with the ten experts, enabling dialogical exchange and iterative interpretation. A shared digital matrix captured contributions in real time, supporting interaction and the identification of interlayer patterns. To ensure analytical rigor, the exercise was anchored in empirical data from GEM, INEC, and SENESCYT, while facilitation guided the process toward deconstructing assumptions and cultural paradigms embedded in entrepreneurial discourse (Poli, 2021; Riedy, 2020).
In methodological terms, CLA functioned both as a diagnostic and transformative tool within the overall foresight framework, clarifying the deeper narratives and paradigms that inform scenario construction (Slaughter, 2004).
Construction of Scenarios via Double Uncertainty Matrix
The fifth and final methodological phase involved the construction of plausible future scenarios using a double uncertainty matrix, a well-established scenario planning approach designed to explore divergent trajectories arising from the interaction of critical uncertainties. In the scenario literature, this method is explicitly framed as a heuristic device for structuring strategic reflection under deep uncertainty, rather than as a predictive or probabilistic tool (Wilkinson & Ramírez, 2010). Its value lies in making explicit how different combinations of contextual conditions can generate qualitatively distinct futures.
Scenario construction was conducted synchronously with the expert panel through a facilitated deliberative process that integrated insights from the preceding phases, particularly the structural diagnostics produced through Causal Layered Analysis and the anticipatory implications identified via the Futures Wheel. Participants collectively identified two uncertainties considered most structurally influential for the future of Ecuador’s entrepreneurial ecosystem: (i) the socioeconomic and regulatory environment and (ii) the level of innovation and technological development. These dimensions were articulated as orthogonal axes to generate four scenario spaces, each developed narratively in terms of a guiding premise and systemic configuration. In line with established scenario practice, scenarios were not ranked by likelihood but assessed in terms of internal coherence, contextual plausibility, and strategic relevance, allowing the synthesis of earlier analytical stages into a set of contrasting yet plausible future configurations (Wilkinson & Ramírez, 2010).
Exploring the Core Discoveries
As a first outcome of the research process, the competence coefficient (K) was calculated for twelve preselected participants based on two parameters: the knowledge coefficient (Kc) and the argumentation coefficient (Ka). In line with established practices in Delphi and futures-oriented research, a threshold of K ≥ 0.80 was applied as a screening criterion to ensure minimum analytical competence and contextual familiarity (Landeta, 2006; Linstone & Turoff, 2002). On this basis, ten experts were selected for participation in the subsequent phases of the study.
The resulting panel achieved an average competence coefficient of 0.92, indicating a high level of domain expertise relevant to the Ecuadorian entrepreneurial ecosystem (Table 1). It is important to note that the competence coefficient was used exclusively as a screening mechanism, rather than as a measure of hierarchical expertise or a basis for weighting contributions in later stages of the foresight process.
Table 1: Expert Panel Assessment: Competence Coefficients and Qualification Levels
| Expert | Knowledge Coefficient (Kc) | Argumentation Coefficient (Ka) | Competence Coefficient (K) | Rating |
| 1 | 0,8 | 0,8 | 0,8 | Medium |
| 2 | 1 | 0,9 | 0,95 | High |
| 3 | 0,8 | 0,9 | 0,85 | High |
| 4 | 0,8 | 0,9 | 0,85 | High |
| 5 | 0,9 | 0,9 | 0,9 | High |
| 6 | 0,6 | 0,7 | 0,65 | Medium |
| 7 | 0,8 | 1 | 0,9 | High |
| 8 | 0,8 | 0,9 | 0,85 | High |
| 9 | 1 | 0,9 | 0,95 | High |
| 10 | 0,9 | 0,8 | 0,85 | High |
| 11 | 0,8 | 0,9 | 0,85 | High |
| 12 | 0,9 | 0,9 | 0,9 | High |
Note. The formula to estimate the K competence coefficients is K= 1/2 (Kc+Ka).
All selected participants held postgraduate qualifications and extensive professional experience (15–30 years) in domains directly related to the study, including entrepreneurship, public policy, innovation systems, and strategic foresight. The final composition of the panel ensured institutional, territorial, and disciplinary diversity, combining senior public officials, academic researchers, and private-sector leaders. This heterogeneity contributed to the incorporation of multiple perspectives throughout the foresight process and supported the contextual grounding of the subsequent analytical outcomes.
Structural Diagnosis: Futures Triangle Analysis
As part of the structural diagnostic phase, the expert panel applied the Futures Triangle to analyze the evolving tensions shaping Ecuador’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. This tool deconstructs the system into three forces: the pushes of the present, the pulls of the future, and the weights of the past. Rather than seeking consensus, the aim was to map diverse perspectives on current drivers, structural barriers, and long-term aspirations.
The pushes of the present include the rise of digital entrepreneurship in sectors like e-commerce and fintech, spurred by trends such as digitalization, internet access, and labor flexibilization. Experts also noted the expansion of alternative financing and incubation initiatives, as well as growing interest in sustainable ventures. However, these advances remain concentrated in urban areas and insufficient to disrupt entrenched systemic inertia.
The pulls of the future represent aspirational shifts projected for 2040. Experts emphasized reducing oil dependency, fostering diversification into tourism, technology, and sustainability, and positioning universities as hubs of entrepreneurial education. Strategic infrastructure, supportive policy, and strengthened networks were identified as key enablers for scaling innovation and competitiveness.
Conversely, the weights of the past continue to constrain progress. Bureaucracy, limited formal financing, and a cultural preference for job stability over entrepreneurship persist. Structural challenges, such as outdated infrastructure, rigid labor laws, and economic dependency, further limit resilience. Mistrust in institutions and weak links between education and entrepreneurship aggravate these issues.
The Futures Triangle analysis revealed a paradox: while aspirational futures are gaining traction, deep-rooted constraints persist. This diagnosis clarified leverage points for change and anchored the transition toward anticipatory and scenario-based planning. Ultimately, the Futures Triangle bridged analytical reflection with strategic foresight, laying a foundation for more coherent, inclusive, and future-oriented policy design (Figure 2).
Fig. 2: Futures Triangle Mapping: Understanding the Forces Shaping the Future
Anticipatory Dynamics: Futures Wheel Analysis
To guide the anticipatory exploration, the expert panel defined the following emerging issue: “Ecuador successfully transitions to a science and technology-based entrepreneurial ecosystem.”
During the anticipatory stage of the study, a collaborative Futures Wheel exercise was conducted based on this premise. This was not merely a speculative assumption, but rather the strategic solution that experts collectively identified as the most viable response to the structural deficits currently afflicting Ecuador’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. The transition toward a knowledge-intensive model was framed as an enabling condition for long-term systemic transformation.
Drawing on this premise, experts engaged synchronously in identifying a multi-layered set of consequences, articulated through first-, second-, and third-order effects. At the core of the projected developments was a significant increase in both public and private investment in research and development (R&D), catalyzed by fiscal incentives and regulatory reforms aimed at boosting innovation. This foundational shift was anticipated to foster a measurable rise in patent activity, the consolidation of university-based research centers, and the establishment of specialized technology parks interconnected with industry.
In parallel, participants projected the emergence of a strategically coordinated interface between academia and the productive sector, enabling the co-development of deep-tech solutions, science-based products, and effective knowledge transfer mechanisms. This institutional synergy would support the accelerated growth of high-impact scientific startups, attract venture capital, and position Ecuadorian enterprises to scale competitively in global markets.
From a socio-economic standpoint, experts underscored the creation of high-skilled employment opportunities and the reduction of brain drain, particularly through the retention of domestic researchers and the reintegration of foreign-trained professionals. These dynamics were seen as essential for reinforcing local scientific communities, building endogenous innovation capacities, and reshaping national perceptions of entrepreneurship as a pathway to transformation beyond its traditional role as a means of survival.
On a broader strategic horizon, the panel envisioned Ecuador emerging as a regional hub for knowledge and innovation, actively engaging in global networks, fostering science diplomacy, and participating in transnational R&D alliances. The projected future implied not only the upgrading of the productive matrix, but also the reframing of collective narratives around the value of knowledge as a strategic national asset.
Nevertheless, the exercise also revealed potential risks and ethical dilemmas. Among them were concerns about territorial inequality, particularly regarding the concentration of technological resources in urban centers, and the potential exclusion of traditional sectors unable to adapt. Additionally, participants flagged tensions linked to the automation of informal labor and the governance of emerging technologies in low-regulation environments. These anticipated challenges underscored the need for inclusive policy design and adaptive institutional frameworks to ensure an equitable transition.
The resulting visualization presented a densely interconnected reticular structure, with a central node activating a broad spectrum of developments across education, policy, technology, and investment. Numerous feedback loops and intermediary connectors were identified, suggesting that the transition would not unfold linearly, but rather through a complex reconfiguration of interdependent systems and actors (Figure 3).
Fig. 3: Futures Wheel Analysis Based on the Emerging Issue “Ecuador Successfully Transitions to a Science and Technology-Based Entrepreneurial Ecosystem”
Deepening Systemic Narratives: Causal Layered Analysis
The Deepening the Future phase employed Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) to unpack the structural, cultural, and symbolic forces shaping Ecuador’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. Rather than focusing solely on surface-level indicators, such as early-stage activity rates or limited access to credit, the analysis revealed a more entrenched set of systemic constraints. Chief among these were the predominance of necessity-driven entrepreneurship, a national education system that deprioritizes science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), historically low investment in research and development (R&D), and rigid regulatory conditions that hinder the scalability of innovation. Taken together, these factors have perpetuated a subsistence-based entrepreneurial model, with limited capacity to generate high-value, science- and technology-oriented ventures.
The CLA exercise further revealed how dominant worldviews and cultural narratives inhibit the ecosystem’s evolution toward a knowledge-based paradigm. Entrepreneurship continues to be perceived primarily as a survival strategy rather than a catalyst for innovation or structural transformation. High levels of fear of failure, coupled with a widespread belief that meaningful innovation is exogenous, suppress local investment and entrepreneurial ambition. At the deepest symbolic level, metaphors such as the “artisanal entrepreneur” and conceptions of science as an insular academic domain reinforce these limitations (Table 2). To ensure empirical grounding, the expert panel initiated the workshop with data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), fostering a rigorous and evidence-based deliberation process. Below, the key insights derived from the four analytical layers developed by the experts are presented:
Table 2: Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) Summary
| CLA Layer | Key Insights Identified by the Expert Panel |
| Litany | • Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity Rate (TEA): According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), Ecuador records a TEA of 32.7%, indicating that approximately 3.3 million adults are involved in the creation and management of new businesses.
• Necessity-Driven Entrepreneurship: 90% of Ecuadorian entrepreneurs start their businesses due to a lack of employment opportunities, reflecting a motivation primarily based on necessity rather than the identification of market opportunities. • Investment in Research and Development (R&D): Between 2007 and 2018, Ecuador allocated USD 175 million to R&D+i projects through institutions such as SENESCYT; however, there is no comprehensive assessment of the impact of these investments on the country’s scientific and economic development. • Education in STEM Fields: Approximately 14% of early-stage entrepreneurs have higher education, which may influence their ability to innovate and adopt sustainable practices. • Fear of Failure: 38% of Ecuadorians express fear of failure when considering starting a business, which could inhibit entrepreneurial initiative and the willingness to take necessary risks for innovative projects. |
| Systemic Causes | • Education and Technical Training: The Ecuadorian educational system’s limited focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) results in a workforce with insufficient technical skills to develop sophisticated enterprises, directly impacting the ability to generate high-value-added innovations.
• Investment in R&D: Low investment in research and development restricts entrepreneurs’ capacity to innovate and compete in international markets; historically modest investment has hindered the consolidation of science- and technology-based projects. • Access to Financing: Entrepreneurs, particularly in technological sectors, face significant challenges in accessing adequate financing, constraining the development of innovative and technology-based projects. • Regulatory Environment: Excessive bureaucracy and rigid regulations discourage the formalization and growth of new businesses, especially in high-tech sectors. • Entrepreneurial Culture: A dominant culture of necessity-driven entrepreneurship persists, reinforcing traditional, low-value-added activities rather than innovation-oriented ventures. |
| Worldview | • Entrepreneurship as a Means of Subsistence: The prevalence of necessity-driven entrepreneurship reflects a perception of self-employment as a response to the absence of formal employment, limiting aspirations toward innovation-driven ventures.
• Perception of Failure: Fear of failure reinforces the idea that entrepreneurship is a highly risky endeavor, discouraging engagement in science- and technology-based projects where uncertainty is greater. • Valuation of Local Innovation: There is a widespread belief that meaningful innovation originates abroad, discouraging domestic investment in research and development. • Role of the State: While there is an expectation that government should promote science and technology, state intervention is often perceived as insufficient or ineffective, weakening ecosystem modernization efforts. |
| Myths and Metaphors | • “Science as an Ivory Tower”: Science is perceived as distant from entrepreneurial practice, locked within academia and inaccessible to business actors.
• “Mountains of Tradition”: Strong traditions are imagined as immovable forces that overshadow innovative ventures, constraining flexibility and transformation. • “The Artisan Entrepreneur”: The dominant image of entrepreneurship is associated with small-scale, traditional activities, limiting perceptions of technology-based business potential. • “Imported Innovation”: Innovation is believed to originate primarily from abroad, reinforcing dependence on external solutions and discouraging domestic R&D capabilities. |
Source: own elaboration based on the results of the expert panel.
Scenario Development Through Double Uncertainty Matrix
In the final phase of the methodological process, four plausible scenarios were developed using a double uncertainty matrix, constructed around two of the most structurally influential variables shaping the future of Ecuador’s entrepreneurial ecosystem: (i) the socioeconomic and regulatory environment and (ii) the level of innovation and technological development. This matrix allowed for the exploration of divergent combinations of these conditions, projecting contrasting trajectories for the country toward 2040. The scenario-building workshop was conducted synchronously with the expert panel and drew upon key insights from earlier phases, such as the CLA and the Futures Wheel. Each quadrant was elaborated through collaborative narrative construction, including a scenario title, guiding premise, and a contextual description developed collectively. This methodology enabled the articulation of futures that were contextually grounded, internally coherent, and strategically valuable for informing long-term decision-making.
The resulting scenarios included: “Entrepreneurial stagnation,” where low levels of innovation and an unfavorable institutional context give rise to an ecosystem dominated by necessity-driven and subsistence entrepreneurship; “Innovation with barriers,” which envisions an emerging tech economy constrained by bureaucratic obstacles, limited financing, and a conservative entrepreneurial culture; “Sustained traditional growth,” characterized by macroeconomic stability and expanded access to financing, yet lacking innovative momentum; and “Ecuador: Hub of Scientific Innovation,” an aspirational scenario where the ecosystem is driven by robust R&D policies, highly trained STEM talent, and a supportive environment for disruptive startups. Rather than assigning probabilities, the scenarios were designed as anticipatory tools to stimulate strategic reflection and reimagine the country’s long-term development pathways (Figure 4).
Fig. 4: Scenario Matrix for Ecuador’s Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Towards 2040
Following the four strategic scenarios identified through the double uncertainty matrix, the expert panel engaged in a subsequent analytical process to detail the internal configuration of each scenario. Drawing on insights from the Futures Triangle, the Futures Wheel, and the CLA, a deeper layer of systemic understanding was constructed by disaggregating each scenario into its fundamental drivers, associated challenges, and institutional implications. This methodological step enabled the translation of abstract narratives into structured variables, laying the groundwork for targeted strategic recommendations.
Specifically, the panel synthesized a scenario-based diagnostic framework that organizes the drivers into two major families: innovation and technological development and the socioeconomic-regulatory context. For each driver, the analysis includes a precise description of its systemic role and the identification of key stakeholders responsible for influencing or transforming that variable. This multidimensional table serves as a bridge between foresight and policy design, allowing actors to visualize critical leverage points and governance responsibilities. By linking drivers to concrete institutions, ranging from regulatory agencies to financial entities and innovation ecosystems, the table enhances the granularity of scenario planning and supports the construction of strategic roadmaps tailored to Ecuador’s entrepreneurial transition toward 2040 (Table 3).
Table 3: Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Driver Map
| Driver Family | Drivers | Description | Involved Social Actors |
| Technological Innovation and Development | Investment in R&D | Low investment in research and development limits innovation capacity and international competitiveness. | SENESCYT, YACHAY EP, Universities (ESPOL, EPN, PUCE, USFQ), Ecuadorian Chamber of Innovation and Technology (CITEC) |
| Technological Innovation Capacity | Need to consolidate projects that integrate science and technology as the core of entrepreneurship. | Ministry of Production, Foreign Trade, Investment and Fisheries; National Financial Corporation (CFN); Ecuadorian Institute of Intellectual Property (IEPI) | |
| Availability of Specialized Talent | Lack of STEM education restricts the generation of sophisticated technological ventures. | Ministry of Education, SENESCYT, Universities (ESPOL, EPN, USFQ), Alliance for Entrepreneurship and Innovation (AEI) | |
| Ecosystem of Incubators and Accelerators | The existence of support networks for startups impacts the success of technological ventures. | IMPULSO ECUADOR, Startup Grind Ecuador, Endeavor Ecuador, AEI, Conquito, EPICO Guayaquil | |
| Socioeconomic and Regulatory Context | Access to Financing | Difficulties in obtaining capital affect the development of technology-based startups. | Private Banks (Banco Pichincha, Produbanco), National Financial Corporation (CFN), BID Lab, angel investors, venture capital funds |
| Entrepreneurial Culture | The prevalence of necessity-driven entrepreneurship reduces the orientation toward high value-added businesses. | Ministry of Production, AEI, Conquito, Chambers of Commerce of Quito and Guayaquil, Universities, Media | |
| Regulatory Environment and Bureaucracy | Administrative complexity discourages the formalization and scalability of technology ventures. | Superintendency of Companies, Internal Revenue Service (SRI), Ministry of Production, National Assembly (economic and legislative commissions) | |
| Social Attitude Toward Entrepreneurship | Fear of failure and the perception that innovation originates abroad limit the development of disruptive startups. | Media, Universities, Private Companies, International Organizations (IDB, CAF, UNIDO) |
Source: own elaboration based on the results of the expert panel.
Discussion
The foresight results of this study reveal that Ecuador’s entrepreneurial ecosystem is characterized by a structural paradox that cannot be adequately interpreted through conventional entrepreneurship indicators alone. High levels of early-stage entrepreneurial activity are frequently interpreted as signals of economic dynamism. Indeed, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data consistently place Ecuador among the countries with the highest rates of early-stage entrepreneurship worldwide (GEM, 2023). However, national evidence suggests a more complex reality. The ESPAE Graduate School of Management (2024) shows that a large proportion of entrepreneurial initiatives emerge as responses to the absence of formal employment rather than as opportunity-driven ventures. Consequently, high entrepreneurial intensity coexists with fragile institutional conditions for innovation and business development. UNCTAD (2023) similarly observes that in structurally constrained economies entrepreneurial dynamism does not necessarily translate into productive transformation.
From a futures perspective, this paradox highlights the limitations of interpreting long-term development trajectories through surface indicators alone. Strategic foresight addresses this limitation by examining how institutional structures, historical legacies, and competing imaginaries interact to shape development pathways.
Within this analytical framework, the Futures Triangle analysis proved particularly useful for explaining how these dynamics persist over time. The analysis showed that the weight of the past, manifested in persistent informality, historically low investment in research and development, and weak articulation between science, policy, and industry, continues to constrain present options and future aspirations. At the same time, the push of the present emerges through expanding digital platforms, entrepreneurship promotion initiatives, and growing policy discourse around innovation. Although these dynamics generate momentum, their transformative capacity remains limited. The pull of the future articulated by the expert panel, a transition toward a knowledge-based and innovation-oriented ecosystem, therefore operates under strong countervailing forces. This configuration reflects the analytical logic of the Futures Triangle described by Inayatullah (2008), which highlights how past structures, present drivers, and future aspirations interact to shape perceptions of plausible futures.
The Futures Wheel analysis expanded this diagnosis by illuminating how present policy decisions may cascade into long-term systemic consequences. Mapping first-, second-, and third-order effects revealed complex interdependencies linking education systems, innovation financing, regulatory frameworks, and territorial inequalities. Glenn and Gordon (2009) describe the Futures Wheel as a method designed to stimulate systematic reflection on indirect consequences. In this study, the tool functioned primarily as a learning mechanism that allowed participants to identify feedback loops and unintended effects embedded in current development trajectories. This interpretive dimension resonates with Miller’s (2018) notion of futures literacy, which conceptualizes futures methods as instruments for reshaping how actors understand responsibility and agency in the present.
Causal Layered Analysis further deepened the interpretation by demonstrating that institutional and economic constraints alone cannot fully explain the ecosystem’s limited transformative capacity. At deeper interpretive levels, entrepreneurship frequently appears framed as a strategy of subsistence, while innovation is often perceived as externally generated rather than locally produced. Inayatullah (2017) introduced CLA precisely to reveal how such cultural narratives shape policy imaginaries and restrict the range of futures considered plausible by social actors. The persistence of metaphors such as “science as an ivory tower” or “innovation as something imported” suggests that policy reforms may remain insufficient if they do not also address these underlying interpretive frames. Slaughter (2004) similarly argues that effective foresight must confront dominant assumptions and narratives that stabilize existing systems and inhibit transformative change.
The scenarios constructed through the double-uncertainty matrix synthesized these structural and cultural insights into coherent alternative futures. Crucially, the results indicate that entrepreneurial intensity alone does not determine developmental trajectories. Instead, different futures emerge from the interaction between institutional capacity and innovation capability. Some scenarios reproduce the current pattern of fragmented entrepreneurship and limited technological upgrading, while others describe the emergence of a more coordinated science- and technology-oriented ecosystem. In line with scenario planning scholarship, Wilkinson and Ramírez (2010) emphasize that scenarios should not be interpreted as forecasts but as structured explorations of uncertainty that support strategic reflection.
From a policy perspective, scenario frameworks contribute by reorganizing how decision-makers interpret present conditions. By exploring multiple trajectories, scenarios enable policymakers to identify structural leverage points, evaluate policy strategies against alternative futures, and design adaptive governance approaches capable of responding to uncertainty.
These findings also resonate with the literature on the institutionalization of governmental foresight discussed earlier. Research on anticipatory governance indicates that foresight becomes influential not through isolated exercises but through its integration into policy processes. The OECD (2021) shows that durable foresight systems emerge when practices such as horizon scanning and scenario analysis become embedded within planning cycles and coordination mechanisms. In this sense, the foresight process implemented in this study contributes to the development of anticipatory capacity within policy debates on entrepreneurial development.
At the institutional level, the results also connect with emerging discussions on “future institutions” in democratic governance. González-Ricoy and Gosseries (2023) argue that parliamentary or cross-institutional foresight mechanisms can create arenas for long-term deliberation on complex societal challenges. Complementing this perspective, Koskimaa (2023) demonstrates that parliamentary foresight arrangements may sustain long-term policy orientation even in political systems characterized by frequent political turnover. From this viewpoint, the scenario exploration conducted in this study illustrates how structured foresight exercises can support long-term policy reflection in contexts where institutional continuity remains fragile.
Finally, the Ecuadorian case reflects patterns observed in foresight applications within middle-income and structurally constrained economies. UNCTAD (2023) emphasizes that in such contexts the primary contribution of foresight lies in structuring dialogue among stakeholders, aligning strategic expectations, and facilitating the exploration of alternative development pathways. The foresight process developed here performs precisely this function: rather than prescribing specific policies, it provides a structured platform for examining how institutional capacity, innovation capability, and cultural narratives may interact to shape the future evolution of Ecuador’s entrepreneurial ecosystem.
At the same time, the scenarios reveal important trade-offs associated with transitions toward a more innovation-intensive entrepreneurial ecosystem. Increased digitalization and automation may enhance productivity and competitiveness; however, these transformations also risk deepening territorial inequalities and marginalizing informal or low-skilled entrepreneurs if inclusion is not deliberately addressed. Inayatullah (2008) argues that foresight processes gain legitimacy when they make such tensions visible before they materialize. UNCTAD (2023) likewise stresses that innovation-led development strategies must consider their distributive implications in order to remain socially sustainable.
From a disciplinary standpoint, this study contributes to Futures Studies by demonstrating how the Six Pillars framework can function as an integrated architecture for decision support in contexts marked by structural constraints and contested imaginaries. The contribution therefore lies not only in the Ecuadorian case but also in illustrating how anticipatory practices can reveal systemic tensions, challenge limiting narratives, and expand the range of plausible futures available to decision-makers. Bell (2003) conceptualizes futures inquiry as a reflexive practice aimed at expanding human choice, while Slaughter (2004) similarly frames foresight as a means of enlarging institutional imagination. In this sense, the study illustrates how foresight can operate not merely as an analytical exercise but as a reflective practice capable of broadening strategic imagination in structurally constrained contexts.
Conclusions
This study set out to explore plausible futures for Ecuador’s entrepreneurial ecosystem toward 2040 using a strategic foresight approach grounded in Futures Studies. Rather than producing forecasts or policy prescriptions, the research aimed to diagnose structural tensions, surface underlying narratives, and expand the range of plausible developmental trajectories available to decision-makers. The results demonstrate that foresight provides particular value in contexts characterized by high uncertainty, institutional fragility, and contradictory signals, where linear extrapolation from present indicators is insufficient.
Empirically, the study shows that Ecuador’s high levels of entrepreneurial activity coexist with persistent structural constraints that limit innovation-driven transformation. Through the combined application of the Futures Triangle, Futures Wheel, Causal Layered Analysis, and scenario construction, the research reveals how informality, weak science–innovation linkages, and deeply embedded cultural narratives continue to shape the ecosystem’s evolution. These findings underscore that entrepreneurial transformation cannot be understood solely through economic or regulatory variables, but must be examined as a systemic and culturally embedded process.
From a methodological perspective, the study contributes to Futures Studies by demonstrating the analytical coherence and practical utility of sequencing foresight tools within the Six Pillars framework. The integration of diagnostic, anticipatory, and narrative methods enabled a progression from surface-level indicators to deeper structural and symbolic layers, culminating in plausible scenario configurations that support strategic reflection. This approach illustrates how foresight can function as a decision-support architecture rather than a collection of isolated techniques, particularly in development and innovation contexts.
Conceptually, the research reinforces the understanding of futures inquiry as a reflexive and normative field concerned with expanding choice under uncertainty. By making visible the cultural imaginaries and power structures that constrain what futures are perceived as possible or desirable, the study aligns with core futures scholarship that emphasizes the importance of questioning dominant assumptions rather than optimizing existing trajectories. In this sense, the contribution of the research lies not in identifying a preferred future for Ecuador, but in clarifying the conditions under which alternative futures may emerge or remain foreclosed.
The study also highlights the relevance of anticipatory governance in entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems. The scenarios and driver mappings suggest that long-term transformation depends less on isolated policy interventions than on sustained coordination across education, science, innovation, and regulatory domains. While foresight cannot guarantee implementation or resolve structural constraints on its own, it can support more informed and inclusive deliberation by exposing trade-offs, risks, and leverage points before they materialize.
Several limitations should be acknowledged. The foresight process relied on a purposively selected expert panel, which, while diverse and highly qualified, does not capture the full heterogeneity of entrepreneurial actors and territorial perspectives. In addition, the scenarios developed are plausible constructions rather than probabilistic claims, and their value lies in strategic exploration rather than prediction. These limitations, however, are consistent with the epistemological orientation of Futures Studies and do not detract from the study’s analytical intent.
Future research could extend this work by engaging broader stakeholder groups, including territorial and community-level actors, and by linking scenario logics to concrete policy roadmaps and evaluation mechanisms. Longitudinal studies could also examine how anticipatory capacities evolve over time within entrepreneurial ecosystems and how shifts in cultural narratives influence innovation outcomes.
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that transforming entrepreneurial ecosystems in structurally constrained contexts requires not only more entrepreneurship, but different futures. Strategic foresight offers a rigorous and reflexive means of exploring those futures, challenging limiting imaginaries, and supporting more deliberate and informed long-term choices.
References
ALLEA – All European Academies. (2023). The European code of conduct for research integrity: Revised edition 2023. ALLEA. https://doi.org/10.26356/ECOC
Alianza para el Emprendimiento e Innovación. (2022). Estudio del ecosistema de financiamiento 2020–2021. https://www.aei.ec/estudio-ecosistema-financiamiento-2021/
Ayaviri-Nina, D., Cáceres-Guzmán, J., Quispe Fernández, G. M., & Maldonado-Nuñez, A. I. (2023). The determinants of success in entrepreneurship: A study in the urban area of Ecuador. Sustainability, 15, 5277. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065277
Banco de Desarrollo del Ecuador. (2022). Informe de gestión institucional 2022. Banco de Desarrollo del Ecuador B.P.
Bell, W. (2003). Foundations of futures studies: History, purposes, and knowledge (Vol. 1). Transaction Publishers.
Boyd, E., Nykvist, B., Borgström, S., & Stacewicz, I. A. (2022). Anticipatory governance for social-ecological resilience. Ambio, 51(3), 789–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01581-7
CAF. (2023). Emprendimiento y desarrollo productivo en América Latina. CAF – Banco de Desarrollo de América Latina.
Dator, J. (2009). Alternative futures at the Manoa School. Journal of Futures Studies, 14(2), 1–18.
ESPAE. (2024). Informe GEM Ecuador 2023–2024. ESPAE Graduate School of Management. https://espae.edu.ec
European Commission. (2021). Strategic foresight report 2021: The EU’s capacity and freedom to act. https://doi.org/10.2775/48810
GEM. (2023). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Economy profiles. https://www.gemconsortium.org
Glenn, J. C., & Gordon, T. J. (Eds.). (2009). Futures research methodology (Version 3.0). The Millennium Project.
González-Ricoy, I., & Gosseries, A. (Eds.). (2023). Institutions for future generations. Oxford University Press.
Hernández, C. G., Barragán-Ochoa, F., & Hurtado-Hurtado, J. (2023). Innovation scenarios for Ecuadorian agrifood network. Foresight and STI Governance, 17(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2023.1.67.79
INEC. (2023). Dinámica empresarial y demografía de negocios. https://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec
Inayatullah, S. (2008). Six pillars: Futures thinking for transforming. Foresight, 10(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680810855991
Inayatullah, S. (2017). Causal layered analysis. Prospective and Strategic Foresight Toolbox. Futuribles International.
Kantis, H., Angelelli, P., & Moori-Koenig, V. (2022). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in Latin America. Inter-American Development Bank.
Koskimaa, V. (2023). Parliamentary foresight systems and long-term governance. Futures, 150, 103165.
Landeta, J. (2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(5), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (2002). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley.
Miller, R. (2018). Transforming the future: Anticipation in the 21st century. Routledge.
MIPRO. (2023). Estrategia Ecuador Emprendedor, Innovador y Sostenible 2030. Ministerio de Producción, Comercio Exterior, Inversiones y Pesca.
Muiderman, K., Gupta, A., Vervoort, J., & Biermann, F. (2020). Four approaches to anticipatory governance of sustainability transformations. Global Environmental Change, 64, 102132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102132
OECD. (2021). OECD science, technology and innovation outlook 2021. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/75f79015-en
Perez-Campdesuñer, R., García-Vidal, G., & Sánchez-Rodríguez, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and innovation development: Evidence from Latin America. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 13(5), 1142–1161.
Poli, R. (2021). Introduction to anticipation studies. Springer.
Presidency of the Republic of Ecuador. (2021). Estrategia Ecuador Emprendedor, Innovador y Sostenible 2030. https://www.presidencia.gob.ec
Ramos, J. M. (2017). Anticipatory governance and futures studies. Futures, 92, 23–33.
Riedy, C. (2020). Critical realism and causal layered analysis. Futures, 123, 102612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102612
Slaughter, R. A. (2004). Futures beyond dystopia: Creating social foresight. Routledge.
Statista. (2023). Informality rate in Ecuador. https://www.statista.com
Sweeney, J. A. (2019). The futures of futures studies. Futures, 111, 102402.
UNCTAD. (2023). Technology and innovation report. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO science report: The race against time for smarter development. https://unesdoc.unesco.org
Wilkinson, A., & Ramírez, R. (2010). Canaries in the mind: Methods for scenario planning in the public sector. Foresight, 12(3), 5–20.
World Bank. (2023). Ecuador economic update. World Bank Group.
World Economic Forum. (2023). Global risks report 2023. https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-report-2023