Introduction Development Of Agribusiness Ecosystem

Introduction Development Of Agribusiness

Ecosystem

In recent times, the COVID 19 epidemic and various global

complexities have had a significant impact on global supply

chains. As a result, the issue of food security and the food

supply in Singapore has gained widespread public attention.

Singapore’s land area of just over 700 square kilometres, with

only 1% of its land designated for agricultural production. The

country’s food self-sufficiency rate is currently below 10%, with

90% of its food supply being imported. In comparison to other

Southeast Asian countries, Singapore's food self-sufficiency rate

is notably lower. In 2017, South Korea’s self-sufficiency rate for

food was 48.9% while Japan’s was 37% in 2018. Taiwan, which

has a significant presence in Southeast Asia, had a self-

sufficiency rate of 31% in 2020. Countries with more extensive

land areas and advanced agricultural technologies generally have

higher food self-sufficiency rate.

Singapore’s focus on developing high-value-added

manufacturing and limited agricultural area is due to its limited

land size. Being a city-state with a high level of urbanization,

Singapore faces challenges in ensuring food security due to its

reliance on importing food from various countries. The global

fluctuations in food prices and instability of food supply pose

significant threats to Singapore’s food security. For instance, the

Russian-Ukrainian war in early February 2022 greatly affected

the global food supply chain leading to concerns about food

shortages and price increases in Singapore. As a result, there

was a widespread "panic buying" among the general public.

Although the Singapore government provided assurance about

sufficient food supplies, this incident highlighted the importance

of ensuring stable food supplies amidst the current turbulent

global situations. Singapore’s heavy reliance on food imports,

with more than 90% of its food coming from abroad, further

underscores the urgency of addressing this critical issue.

Prior to the outbreak of the epidemic, the Singapore

government has been closely monitoring food supply and food

security, exploring effective solutions to address food

sustainability. It has to ensure accessible and affordable food for

its residents. In 2019, the Singapore government introduced the

“30 by 30” goal, aiming to domestically produce 30% of its

national nutritional needs by 2030, a significant increase from

the current rate of less than 10%. Achieving this target would

require Singapore has to increase its local food production by

approximately three-fold within a decade. The epidemic has

propelled the Singapore Food Agency’s efforts towards realizing

this objective, with the Singapore government committed to

diversifying food imports and expanding methods of food

cultivation to bolster local supplies. The latter is of particular

significance in achieving the “30 by 30” vision.

In the context of the global climate crisis and disruptions to

global supply chains resulting from the epidemic, the reliability

of food imports has become uncertain, emphasizing the need to

increase domestic production and achieve self-sufficiency to

ensure price stability and maintain quality. The Singapore

government is pursuing various avenues to increase local food

production, including supporting agricultural research and

development of high-yield crops, promoting the construction of

urban aerial farms and utilization of vacant roof top of HDB car

parks for farming purposes, and building new facilities and

sustainable farms. In April 2022, the Singapore Food Agency

committed SGD 30 million to support farmers in implementing

advanced technologies to increase the production of eggs, leafy

vegetables, and fish. However, it is pertinent to evaluate the

effectiveness of these measures and subsidies from an academic

perspective. It would be valuable to study the ecosystems of

other countries with well-developed agricultural industries and

learn from their past experiences. Such insights could serve as a

reference for relevant government bodies in expediting the

achievement of the "30 by 30" goal.

The study revealed that, Taiwan, being an island similar to

Singapore in Southeast Asia, has a self-sufficiency rate at

approximately 31% in 2020. Taiwan is renowned as the “fruit

kingdom” in Asia and processes a well-established agricultural

and aquaculture industry that surpasses domestic demand,

particularly for pork and poultry eggs. The country could export

high-quality pork, vegetables, tea, rice, fruits. The agricultural

products exports reported in Taiwan’s 2020 Statistical Yearbook

was US$132 million. The author contends that by studying

Taiwan’s agricultural ecosystem and its past experience,

valuable insights can be gleaned to develop Singapore’s

agribusiness ecosystem, making Taiwan an excellent case study.

In order to promote the rapid development of the

agricultural industry, the first step is to mobilise the agricultural

enterprises. Singapore must encourage its residents to actively

involved in agricultural entrepreneurship and agricultural

production.

However, for agricultural enterprises to develop and remain

sustainable, they require the support from an ecological system

that has agriculture at its core, forming a positive network cycle

that complements the strengths and weaknesses of each

enterprise. Taiwan’s agricultural ecosystem structure has been

developed over several years of experience. Given the many

similarities between Taiwan and Singapore. it would be

worthwhile for Singapore to refer to and build upon Taiwan’s

agricultural ecosystem.

(2) Theoretical background

The academics literature on agricultural ecosystem is scarce,

and it lacks comprehensive coverage of all aspects of this

ecosystem. However, in the last two decades, there has been a

plethora of research and studies on entrepreneur ecosystem,

entrepreneur enterprise infrastructure and entrepreneur

environment. Many of these studies share a belief that the

concept of the ecosystem is transferable to any industry.

However, in practice, there are often differences between

various ecosystems, and what works in one ecosystem may not

prove effective in another (Mason & Brown, 2014).

Given the aforementioned limitations and nuances of

ecosystem research, this study aims to explore and comprehend

the domains comprising in the agribusiness ecosystem,

contextualize the agribusiness ecosystem model and offer it as a

benchmark for the advancement of Singapore’s agricultural

industry.

1.2 Research Question

The study inquiry centres on the lessons that Singapore can

extract from Taiwan’s agribusiness ecosystem development. The

title of this study is “Exploring the Development of an

agribusiness Ecosystem for Singapore: Lessons from Taiwan”.

The primary objective of this study is to leverage on Taiwan’s

agribusiness ecosystem development experience, contextualize

the agribusiness ecosystem model and offer it as a reference for

Singapore when developing its agricultural enterprise

ecosystem. From this perspective, the author will conduct the

research by addressing the following three sub-research

questions:

(1) What domains are included in the agribusiness ecosystem?

(2) What are the main difficulties and solutions faced by

agribusiness entrepreneurs?

(3) What are the implications of Taiwan’s agribusiness

ecosystem that Singapore can refer to?

1.3 Research Settings

Agriculture, as a primary industry has been a crucial source

of livelihood since the dawn of civilization. However, the

conventional small-scale agricultural model, which

predominantly relies on labour intensive practices, has become

outdated and faces issues such as inefficiency and wastage of

resources. For country like Singapore, being a country with

limited and valuable land, labour, and capital, requires advanced

agricultural technologies and a well-established agricultural

ecosystem to bolster its agricultural industry. While Singapore

has well-established entrepreneurial ecosystem, its knowledge,

and experience in the agricultural industry remain limited. Thus,

it becomes imperative for Singapore to learn from the past

experiences of other countries to form the structures and

accelerate the performance of its agribusiness ecosystem

Taiwan, which shares several similarities with Singapore, has

been selected as a case study for this study. This study aims to

examine the various factors in Taiwan’s agricultural ecosystem

and the research setting are as follows:

At the first phase, the author will commence by undertaking

a literature review on the enterprise ecosystem in order to

establish a theoretical foundation for this study. The work of

Isenberg (2011) will be referenced as it posits that the domains

of an enterprise ecosystem comprised of policy, finance, culture,

supports, human capital, and markets. The interactions between

these domains are complex and unique, ultimately shaping the

entrepreneurial environment. The vast majority of enterprise

ecosystems are composed of these fundamental elements.

For the second phase, the author will utilize Isenberg’s

(2011) model to design the interview outline and conduct

interviews with founders and co-founders of the target

enterprises. Since this study aims to draw lessons from Taiwan’s

agricultural ecosystem and apply them to Singapore’s

development, the questionnaires will be incorporating the

characteristics of Taiwan’s agricultural enterprises. After

selecting nine Taiwan agricultural SMEs that meet the research

criteria, the author will conduct in-depth interviews with their

founders to comprehensively understand the roles and

composition of the domains and elements in Taiwan’s

agricultural enterprise ecosystem.

At the third phase, the author will undertake a review and

analysis of the interview outcomes. Through an evaluation of the

appropriateness of the model and identification of areas that

require further improvement, the author will present those

findings as a reference for Singapore when developing its

agricultural enterprise ecosystem.

1.4 Chapters and Organizational Structure

This study comprises of five chapters, starting with the

introduction and followed by literature review, research

methods, findings, and discussions.

1.5 Significance of Research

The study carries significant implications in three key aspects.

Firstly, to contribute

to the existing literature on agribusiness ecosystems by filling a

theoretical gap. Departing from the traditional theories and

models, this study adopts from the perspective of the ecosystem

to explore the domains and elements in the agricultural

enterprise ecosystem, thereby enriching existing theories.

Previous studies on entrepreneurial ecosystems have not delved

into specific industries, with a common belief that the

constructed ecosystem model will be generic and applicable to

all industries. However, research of Tan et al. (2000) indicates

that factors such as geographical and industry may affect the

ecosystem and business infrastructure. The limited existing

research, from the perspective of agricultural enterprises, fails to

cover all aspects. This study, from the perspective of agricultural

enterprises, proposes the concept of agricultural enterprise

ecosystem, contextualizes the model and thus fills the theoretical

gap in this industry.

The second significant aspect of this study is to consolidate

Taiwan’s experience in developing agricultural ecosystems.

Taiwan’s highly established agricultural industry can be traced

back to the 1960s when to the government initiated the building

of the ecosystem. To accomplish this, the government sent a

delegation of scholars, technicians, and businesspeople to the

United States and other countries to learn from their

experiences. In the 1980s, the government attracted these

individuals back to Taiwan, bringing with them their knowledge

and experience in agricultural technology, organizational

structures, and policies, there by laying a solid foundation for

Taiwan’s agricultural talents and knowledge base. Over the

course of twenty years, Taiwan has emerged as a well-known

agricultural region in Asia, with one of the most developed

agricultural ecosystems. Through the interviews conducted in

this study, adjustments and enhancements to the entrepreneurial

ecosystem model will be proposed to fully apply to Taiwan’s

agricultural ecosystem.

Lastly, the findings in this study could be a reference for

Singapore when developing its agricultural enterprise

ecosystem. Singapore faces the urgent challenge of food security

and has proposed the 30/30 vision to produce 30% of its food

domestically by 2030. As such, there is a pressing need to

develop an enterprise ecosystem that integrates technology,

innovation, sustainability, and investment among other factors.

By considering Taiwan’s experiences and Singapore’s current

situations, this study offers a practical case study for Singapore

when developing its agribusiness ecosystem.

Chapter 2 Literatures

The author conducted literatures research on three areas: (1)

sustainable agriculture; (2) infrastructure of business; and (3)

entrepreneur ecosystem. These literature reviews led the author

to appreciate the contextual and problematic nature of the

research area, thereby underscoring the imperative for this study.

2.1 Sustainable Agriculture

Agricultural industry is an integral component of a nation’s

economy, as it directly contributes to the country’s economic

growth and productivity. Moreover, it holds a crucial role in

ensuring sustainability. Smith and Donald (1998) argued that

since agriculture is the primary source of food and shelter for

humans, no other industry can play a greater role in promoting

sustainability. Despain (1995) also emphasized that agriculture

serves as the foundation for society, education, research, and

policy activities. Thus, agriculture has been the subject of

significant research on sustainability and remains an active field

of study.

2.1.1 Definition of Sustainable Agriculture

In 1987, the Brundtland Commission released a report

entitled “Our common Future”, which introduced the concept of

sustainable development: meeting the present needs without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own

needs.

The concept of “sustainable agriculture” was formally proposed

for the first time in

1985, when the California State Assembly authorized the

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. The

1990 Farm Bill defined sustainable agriculture as an integrated

system of animal and plant production activities at a specific

location that can, in the long run, meet humanity’s needs for

food and fiber; improve the quality of the environment and the

natural resources on which the agricultural economy depends,

maximize the efficient use of non-renewable resources and

internal resources in farms, incorporate as much as possible into

the natural ecological cycle, maintain the economic viability of

the farms’ operations, and improve the overall quality of

farmers’ social life. In April 1991, the Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations

(FAO) and the Dutch government jointly issued “The den Bosch

Declaration and Agenda for Action on Sustainable Agriculture

and Rural Development” which proposed a new strategy for

sustainable agriculture and rural development in developing

countries called "Sustainable Agriculture and Rural

Development (SARD)". The United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development held in Brazil in 1992, further

promoted the theory and practice of exploring sustainable

agricultural development with the issuance of the “Rio

Declaration” and “Agenda 21” (a nonbinding action plan for

sustainable development). The currently accepted definition of

sustainable agriculture is a manner of using and maintaining the

natural resources, along with technological and institutional

changes, to ensure that the agricultural needs of present and

future generations are met. Sustainable development (including

agriculture, forestry, and fisheries) helps to preserve land, water,

animal, and plant genetic resources and is defined as

environmentally non-degrading, technically appropriate,

economically viable and socially acceptable.

2.1.2 Key Factors to Sustainable Agricultural

Development

Since the mid-1980s, there has been a rapid development in

theoretical research

and sustainable agriculture (SA) practices on a global scale. In

establishing sustainable agriculture. As proposed by Pretty

(2008), the fundamental principles for sustainable agriculture

can be encapsulated as:

(1) Integrate biological and ecological processes such as

nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration, allopathy,

competition, predation and parasitism into food production

processes;

(2) Minimize the use of those non-renewable inputs that

cause harm to the environment or to the health of farmers and

consumers;

(3) Make productive use of the knowledge and skills of

farmers, thus improving their self-reliance and substituting

human capital for costly external inputs;

(4) Make productive use of people’s collective capacities

to work together to solve common agricultural and natural

resource problems, such as for pest, watershed, irrigation, forest

and credit management.

In addition, the literature review of Gomiero, Pimentel, &

Paoletti (2011) suggested that there are eight practices that are

important to sustainable agriculture:

(1) Agroecology: The holistic study of agroecosystems

including all the environmental and human elements. It focuses

on the form, dynamics and functions of their interrelationship

and the processes in which they are involved.

(2) Agriculture Intensification: Approaches to minimize

demand for farmland by increasing yield by improving crop

efficiency

(3) Integrated Agriculture: Approaches that combine

management practices from conventional and organic

agriculture. As an example, animal manure may be used instead

of chemical fertilizer when possible.

(4) Organic Agriculture: Approaches that aim at

preserving soil fertility, reducing soil erosion, conserving water,

biodiversity, landscape, ecological functionality, and reducing

global change.

(5) Permaculture: Approaches that aim at producing an

efficient, low-input integrated culture of plants, animals, people

and structure, and integration that is applied at all scales from

home garden to large farm.

(6) Precision Agriculture: An information and

technology based agricultural management system to identify,

analyze and manage site-soil spatial and temporal variability

within fields for optimum profitability, sustainability, and

protection of the environment.

(7) Perennial Crops: Approaches that rely on the

cultivation of perennial crops, so that the detrimental effect of

soil tillage and agrochemical usage could be avoided or at least

greatly reduced.

(8) Transgenic Technology: The applications of genetic

technology to boost agriculture productivity and cope with new

environmental challenges while at the same time benefiting the

conservation of natural resources.

2.1.3 Status of Research on Sustainable Agriculture

Initially, a cohort of scholars convened to deliberate upon the

notion and execution of sustainable agriculture with the

objective of rectifying the ecological and economic in

equilibrium resulting from the overtly specialized contemporary

science and technology and the reductionist inclination. Douglas

outlined three diverse standpoints on agricultural sustainability.

The first perspective entailed catering to the sustenance needs

and seeking maximum productivity within the farmers’ interests.

The second viewpoint, dubbed managerial sustainability,

revolved around the harm inflicted upon the environment.

Lastly, the third stance, termed social sustainability, was

characterized by the sustenance or reconstruction of ecologically

and economically sound rural systems.

Yunlong Cai and Schmidt (1994, 1995) expounded on three

agricultural sustainability concepts, namely: 1) the ecological

sustainability definition, which underscored the significance of

biological natural processes and ecological productive economic

systems; 2) the economic definition of sustainability, which

prioritized the sustenance of agricultural producers’ profitability

in the long run; 3) social sustainability definition, which

concentrated on fulfilling fundamental human needs for food

and shelter, in addition to contentment derived from security,

equality, freedom, education, employment and entertainment.

Based on the aforementioned comprehension of agricultural

sustainability, Smith and McDonald (1998) contended that the

delineation of agricultural sustainability should be centered on

four key aspects, namely: intergenerational and intergenerational

equality, adequacy of food supply, effective management of the

environment, and socioeconomic viability.

Chinese scholars have consolidated their research and

presented comprehensive definitions of sustainable agriculture.

Hongguang Wang (1993) characterized sustainable agriculture

as “an agricultural paradigm that integrates aspects such as

yield, quality, benefits and environment to design agricultural

production strategies. This is achieved by ensuring that

resources and the environment are not destroyed, the interests of

future generations are not compromised, and people’s

expectations regarding agricultural products are met.

Xunhao Liu (1995) viewed sustainable agriculture as a

fusion of production sustainability, economic sustainability, and

ecological sustainability. Yuezhen Liu (1998) posited that

China’s sustainable agriculture, situated in a framework of high

production, quality and efficiency, is attained through the

utilization of science and technology. This is achieved by

sustaining an increase in production, enhancing soil fertility,

balancing the farmers’ ecosystem, and focusing on the

utilization and preservation of agricultural resources. The

ultimate aim is to achieve a balance between the economy,

society, population and resources, environment and

development.

Furthermore, numerous scholars have conducted research on

the approaches to stimulate sustainable agricultural

development, as well as the determinants that influence

sustainable agricultural development. Ryszkowski et al. (2002)

undertook investigations on various aspects, such as whole

plants, farmlands, and farming system among others, and their

respective environments to comprehend their influence on

agricultural productivity. Additionally, studies have been

conducted to explore the correlation between the input and

output of the research system, as well as the equilibrium

between production efficiency and resource value over the long

term, with the ultimate objective of obtaining an optimal blend

and evaluation model. In the study conducted by Jiao Jinpeng

Jiao (2019), a strong positive correlation was observed between

the development of farmland water conservancy facilities and

environmental preservation, and between green agriculture and

sustainable agricultural development. These findings hold

substantial implications for the advancement of sustainable

agricultural development.

Siwei Hu et al. (2022) conducted a quantitative analysis of a

substantial number of Chinese and English literature obtained

from CNKI and Web of Science, which indicated that current

research on sustainable agricultural development primarily

focuses on four areas: 1) enhancing the resilience of food system

and ensuring food security, 2) intensifying agricultural ecology

and promoting sustainable intensification, 3) developing urban

agriculture and enhancing the multi-functionality of agriculture;

and 4) balancing the trade-off and synergies of agricultural

ecosystem services. Yin Changbin et al. (2015) posited, from the

perspective of ecological civilization, that the future direction

for the sustainable agricultural development should involve the

strengthening of agricultural resource protection, the promotion

of conservation and utilization of agricultural resources, to

establishment of a comprehensive agricultural industry chain,

and the implementation of sustainable projects. Furthermore, the

authors proposed the strengthening of the ecosystem, such as

through the provision of ecological compensation.

Certain scholars examined the research and measurement

methods regarding agricultural sustainable development and

related variables. Yujie Chen et al. (2022) established a

comprehensive evaluation system composed of four main

evaluation directions: agricultural production, agricultural

economy, environmental resources, and social population. They

employed the entropy weight method and grey relational

analysis to assess the sustainable development of agriculture in a

given region.

Jianqun Miao et al. (2016) developed an evaluation index

system for sustainable agriculture development in the southern

hilly and mountainous regions basing on practical investigations.

Hailan Liu (2019) devised a model and index system to

evaluate regional agricultural sustainable development, which

incorporated geographical indications, using a combination of

quantitative and qualitative techniques, such as kernel density

analysis, Pearson correlation coefficient, questionnaire survey,

analytic hierarchy process, and factor analysis.

Guoqing Wu (2001) introduced the concept of ecological

security in the context of sustainable agricultural development.

The proposed evaluation index system comprises three

measurements of resource ecological environment, namely

pressure, quality, and protection and remediation capabilities, as

well as the determination of unsafe standard values and the

calculation of unsafe indexes.

In general, sustainable agricultural development involves the

intricate interplay among economic, social, resource and

ecological factors. Research on sustainable agricultural

development is multidisciplinary and draws upon diverse

perspectives encompassing ecology, economy, and food

security. Additionally, it involves coordination among various

departments such as land, economy, environment, and energy

department, signifying the need for smooth functioning of the

mechanisms and cooperation’s among all domains in the

agricultural ecosystem. Therefore, both theoretical and practical

approaches are necessary for all elements in agricultural ecology

to play their part in achieving sustainable agricultural

development.

2.2 Infrastructure of business

As sustainable agriculture is increasingly studied in theory

and practice, many experts and government organizations have

recognized that there are numerous limitations in the

implementation and research, even within the agricultural

industry. This is because of the complexity of the modern socio-

economic system, which creates intricately linked relations

between agriculture and various domains within its ecosystem.

To promote sustainable agriculture, a possible approach is to

focus on business infrastructure. The government has long

aimed to stimulate people’s interest in agricultural

entrepreneurship and as a key factor in revitalizing the capitalist

economy (Drucker, 1985; Reynolds, Storey, Westhead, 1994).

In the academic community, research on agricultural

entrepreneurship, its requirements and processes could provide

insights and understanding to policymakers in the agricultural

environment and facilitate the formulation of supportive policies

(Hoy, 1997). To understand the entrepreneurial environment of

agricultural enterprises, the concept of business infrastructure

could be used to identify the dimensions of the entrepreneurial

environment and the related domains.

2.2.1 Definition of business infrastructure

As defined in the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary

(2020), infrastructure is (1) the basic systems and services that

are needed in order to support an economy in

Economics, (2) the basic systems and services that a company or

industry needs in order to work effectively in workplace, and (3)

the equipment, software, etc. that a computer system needs in

order to operate and communicate with other computers in

information technology. This study is focused on the second

definition of infrastructure.

At the foundation stage, agricultural basic infrastructure is

akin to a comprehensive industry sector, and its development

could impede the sustainable progress of the agricultural

industry (Wenke Chen & Houchun Lin, 2000). Shuguang Bao

and Xingyuan Feng (2021) conducted a comprehensive

evaluation of China’s investment in agricultural infrastructure,

highlighting funding mechanisms such as industrial funds,

public-private partnerships (PPP), and local special bonds.

Nonetheless, they observed issues like insufficient cash flow, as

well as inadequate support and guidance.

According to Ziqiang Li et al. (2022), the Global-Malmquist-

Luenberger (GML) index was employed to investigate the

impact of agricultural infrastructure on the total factor

productivity of food ecology. The study found that all

dimensions of agricultural infrastructure were found to be

effective in enhancing the total factor productivity.

Fusheng Zeng and Fei Li (2015) conducted a comprehensive

analysis on the costsaving effect of agricultural infrastructure by

employing a visual model effect and structural effect based on

the total cost function model of grain production. They found

that increasing the stock of agricultural infrastructure could

significantly reduce the average cost of food production (scale

effect), and that it has the ability to replace labor, and also has

complementary effects on the capital and intermediate factors.

In the evaluation of infrastructure, it is necessary to consider

specific locations. A universal assessment method cannot be

utilized to evaluate numerous cities and counties throughout the

nation. Moreover, a comprehensive evaluation of a specific

metropolitan region may not be applicable to its urban and

suburban areas.

2.2.2 Composition of business infrastructure

At a basic level, business infrastructure can be classified into

both hard and soft aspects. In China, the former primarily

comprises of essential facilities, such as transportation,

communication and is reflected in infrastructure indicators

adopted by institutions such as the World Bank and the Global

Competitiveness Report by the World Economic Forum.

However, the soft aspect is equally crucial for businesses. For

instance, accordingly to the Chinese National Federation of

Industries (2020) Whitepaper, Taiwan’s shortage of blue-collar

workers was among its most pressing “deficiencies”.

Furthermore, numerous anecdotal reports suggest that the

creativity of knowledge workers poses a significant hurdle to

successful innovation in hightechnology industries. Thus,

differentiation both the hard and soft aspects is essential for

understanding the multifaceted and diverse nature of

infrastructure.

Infrastructure can be further categorized into general and

industry specific. For instance, the labor force can be classified

into general labor and special skill labor. A sufficient supply of

general labor does not necessarily ensure the appropriate supply

and quality of labor for specific industries. Therefore,

classifying the type of labor can help to assess the adequacy and

supply of labor. This approach is also applicable to other

infrastructure projects. For example, in the case of the tourism

industry, the main infrastructure projects consist of general

infrastructure, such as labor force and public transportation

facilities, and tourism-specific infrastructure, such as the number

of beds, hotel types, and quality of buffet (Beerli & Martin,

2004). Similarly, in agriculture, the main infrastructure will also

include specific infrastructure, such as seeds and fertilizers.

Furthermore, some studies categorize business infrastructure

based on the stages of enterprise development, that is:

entrepreneurial infrastructure and nonentrepreneurial

infrastructure. Since most of the agricultural enterprises in this

study are small and medium-sized and are in the initial stage of

entrepreneurship infrastructure, this study will focus on

researching the entrepreneurial infrastructure to construct a

holistic classification or framework.

2.3 Entrepreneurial Ecosystem

2.3.1 Essential concepts

There exist numerous analogous notions pertaining to the

entrepreneurial environment, entrepreneurial support system,

entrepreneurial infrastructure, and entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Among these, the notion of entrepreneurial ecosystem is laden

with the most implications. In anticipation of presenting the

Entrepreneurial Ecosystem, the author first endeavors to

introduce two comparable notions: entrepreneurial infrastructure

and entrepreneurial environment.

(1) Entrepreneurial infrastructure

The theoretical framework of the entrepreneurial ecosystem

stems from the concept of entrepreneurial infrastructure. The

latter refers to the fundamental systems and services necessary

for enterprises or industries to operate effectively in their

respective domains. For instance, studies in the field of tourism

have indicated that key infrastructure components include

private and public transportation facilities, hotels of varying

categories, and available beds. In this regard, Van de Ven (1993)

is recognized as one of the pioneering researchers in the field of

entrepreneurial infrastructure. According to his seminal work,

entrepreneurial infrastructure is composed of three essential

components: (1) institutional frameworks that legitimize,

regulate, and standardize novel technologies; (2) public resource

endowments consisting of basic scientific knowledge, financial

mechanisms, and a pool of skilled labor; and (3) proprietary

research and development, manufacturing, marketing, and

distribution functions performed by private entrepreneurial firms

to commercialize innovations for profit. According to Tan et al.

(2000), entrepreneurial infrastructure within a specific

geographic region encompasses the various facilities and

services aimed at stimulating the establishment of new joint

ventures and promoting the growth and development of small

and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) shown in table 2-1. To

develop a generic entrepreneurial infrastructure model, the

relevant literature was reviewed and subsequently applied to

Singapore. He conducted interviews and surveys with

representatives from 12 local SMEs in Singapore, and based on

the interview results, established a “mapping” function to predict

the possibility of these entrepreneurs participating in

entrepreneurial infrastructure, and finally explored and

sequenced the impact of six variables on entrepreneurial

participation. Respectively, the factors affecting entrepreneurs’

presence in entrepreneurial infrastructure are awareness of the

need for legitimate business assistance, corporate awareness of

the existence of resources or facilities, the urgency of needs

faced by entrepreneurs and SMEs, the availability of resources

or facilities, institutional or project capacity and resource

capacity.

(2) Entrepreneurial environment

Although the infrastructure theory offers valuable insights, it

is considered to be somewhat limited in scope. Consequently,

the theory of entrepreneurial environment was proposed to

incorporate additional elements that extend beyond the

enterprise or entrepreneur. In a seminal article, Gnyawali &

Fogel (1994) introduced the construct of “entrepreneurial

environment” which encompasses (1) the broader economic,

sociocultural, and political factors that shape people’s

inclination and ability to undertake entrepreneurial activities,

and (2) the availability of assistance and support services that

facilitate the start-up process. The theory of entrepreneurial

environment is distinct from that of entrepreneurial

infrastructure. Thus, it examines the overall economic,

sociocultural, and political factors that influence entrepreneurial

pursuits, as well as the availability of assistance and support

services for start-up ventures. The focus was on external factors

within an environment, and not just connected factors.

(3) Entrepreneurial ecosystem

The construct of the “Entrepreneurial ecosystem” is widely

discussed in academic literature. As defined by Stam (2015), an

entrepreneurial ecosystem is composed of interdependent

domains and factors that are coordinated to facilitate productive

entrepreneurship within a specific geographical area. Unlike

infrastructure, which typically comprises interrelated

components, the entrepreneurial ecosystem is characterized by

its interdependence and coordination. Nevertheless, a closer

examination of the components of each concept reveals some

areas of overlap.

4) Comparison of similar concepts

“construct content” of three articles, highlighting some of

their similarities. For instance, the components identified as

“institution factors” within the entrepreneurial infrastructure

construct correspond to “government policies & procedures” in

the entrepreneurial environment and “government & regulatory

framework” in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Let’s look at the

components of the three similar concepts (see table 2-2 for

details). Entrepreneurial infrastructure has three components,

which include institutional arrangements; public resource

endowments such as basic scientific knowledge, financing

mechanism, and a pool of competent labor; and private skills

necessary for commercialization, such as proprietary R&D,

manufacturing, marketing and distribution functions by private

entrepreneurial firms.

Entrepreneurial environment is composed of five

components: government policies & procedures; socioeconomic

conditions; entrepreneurial & business skills; financial

assistance; and non-financial assistance. Entrepreneurial

ecosystem has six components: policy; finance; culture;

supports; human capital; and markets.

The table above reveals the presence of overlapping

factors across the three concepts under consideration.

Specifically, the factor denoted as “institution factors” in the

context of entrepreneurial infrastructure corresponds to both

“government policies & procedures” in the realm of

entrepreneurial environment and “government & regulatory

framework” within the ambit of entrepreneurial ecosystem.

2.3.2 Common analysis framework

Mason and Brown (2014) presented a widely used analytical

framework for assessing the entrepreneurial ecosystem in their

background paper, commissioned for a seminar jointly

organized by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD) and Ministry of Economic Affairs and

Climate Policy of Netherlands. Their study characterizes the

entrepreneurial ecosystem as a constellation of interrelated

entrepreneurial domains (both nascent and established),

entrepreneurial entities (for example, firms, venture capitalists,

business angels, banks), institutions (for example, universities,

public sector agencies, financial bodies) and entrepreneurial

processes (for example, business creation rate, numbers of high

growth firms, levels of “blockbuster entrepreneurship”,

incidence of serial entrepreneurs, extent of sell-out mentality

among firms, and levels of entrepreneurial ambition) that

formally and informally converge to facilitate, mediate and

govern the functioning of the local entrepreneurial environment.

The authors posited that conventional transactional support

mechanisms such as financial aid have limited efficacy in

promoting high-growth enterprises and advocated for innovative

approaches to bolster entrepreneurial ecosystems. Drawing on a

review of relevant literature, the authors delineated the core

characteristics and theoretical models of entrepreneurial

ecosystems, identifying salient features such as entrepreneurial

domination, corporate cycle, and information-rich environment

as well as other vital factors including culture, availability of

start-ups and growth capital, presence of large companies,

universities, and service providers. The authors emphasized four

innovative features of the entrepreneurial ecosystem as a new

analytical approach: 1) as a metaphorical tool to offer a

comprehensive understanding of how clusters of economic

activities are formed, with a fresh perspective emphasizing the

external environment of a company rather than its internal

attributes and operations; 2) shifting the focus from the

“enterprise” to the ecosystem in which it is situated as a whole,

highlighting the moderating effect of externalized and relational

aspects of firm performance and the nature of ecosystem

dynamics; 3) underscoring the significance of examining the

broader ecological environment in which a business functions,

coupled with robust growth in specific types of environments;

and 4) downplaying the importance of firm size.

In addition to the shared characteristics previously

expounded, Mason and Brown (2014) maintained that each

entrepreneurial ecosystem is unique. To elucidate, strategies that

prove effective in one enterprise may not necessarily yield

desirable outcomes when implemented in other organizations. In

terms of policy implications, the authors suggested that the value

of the entrepreneurial ecosystem as a guide for policy, especially

policies relating to high-growth firms, was not readily apparent.

Furthermore, political backing for the entrepreneurial ecosystem

could potentially exacerbate spatial and internal disparities

within the ecosystem.

Isenberg (2011) widely used framework for characterizing

entrepreneurship ecosystems posits that such systems should

comprise various domains: policy, finance, culture, supports,

human capital, and markets. These domains, in turn, are

implemented by policymakers and public leaders, financial

institutions, cultural influencers, support organizations,

educators, and corporations (see Figure 2-2 for further details).

The model defines an “entrepreneur” as someone who creates

economic value through growth and is motivated by aspirations,

as well as an individual who is willing to take risks and

perceives themselves as superior to others in the market due to

possession of critical assets, information, or business ideas.

Within this framework, the government is tasked with

establishing a system that allows for entrepreneurial competition

while ensuring deserving ventures, capable of generating

external benefits for the industry and society, receive necessary

resources, while others do not.

2.3.3 Research perspective

Tsujimoto et al. (2018) conducted a review of 90 papers

related to ecosystem analysis and summarized their findings into

four perspectives. The first perspective is the industrial ecology

approach, which is centered on the concept of industrial

ecosystems. The second perspective is the business ecosystem

approach, which is grounded in organizational boundary theory.

Within the business ecosystem perspective, platform

management has emerged as a key focus among influential

scholars, constituting the third approach. The fourth perspective

is the multi-actor network approach, which employs social

network theory. To analyze dynamic behavioral relationships

among various actors, including government; private enterprises;

universities; consumers, entrepreneurs, and investors. The

authors’ conclusion is that the multi-actor network perspective

offers the most promising avenue for researchers seeking to

identify the factors that contribute to business success. This

implies that a successful business or enterprise ecosystem should

involve multiple actors, including those listed above.

2.3.4 Impact of entrepreneurial ecosystems on

enterprises

The impact of entrepreneurial ecosystems on enterprises is

significant.

Specifically, such ecosystems can influence the entrepreneurial

potential of firms

(Specht, 1993). Drawing on resource dependence and population

ecology theories, Specht, 1993 argued that the richness and

carrying capacity of an environment are critical predictors of

new ventures survival rates. According to Specht, richness is

defined as the abundance of resources in an environment, while

carrying capacity refers to the number of organizations

competing for the same resource in a niche environment. She

identified five dimensions of richness, namely economy,

politics, market, infrastructure, and society. Carrying capacity,

however, is only one dimension. Her predictions suggested that

organizational formation rate would increase with higher levels

of environmental richness and carrying capacity. In addition to

its impact on entrepreneurial potential, entrepreneurial

ecosystems can also influence the entrepreneurial interest of

entrepreneurs. Building upon Specht’s (1993) model, Birley and

Westhead (1993) suggested that the richness and carrying

capacity of an environment may relate to the entrepreneurial

interest of potential entrepreneurs (Birley and Westhead, 1993;

Tsai, MacMillan, and Low, 1991). However, it is the

entrepreneurs’ perception of politics, economy, and environment

rather than the objective reality of the situation, that has greater

impact on their interest in entrepreneurship. In fact, people are

more likely to take action when they perceived favorable

conditions, regardless of whether the conditions are objectively

favorable or not (Davidsson, 1991). The critical perceived

factors for environmental resources include perceived financing,

supportive government regulations, market opportunities,

support services, skilled labor, and relationships with resource

holders. Reynolds et al. (2001) proposed that the greater the

availability of perceived favorable conditions, the greater the

perceived feasibility and desire for entrepreneurship. Moreover,

potential entrepreneurs’ views on environmental carrying

capacity also affect their interest in starting a business. While

negative factors such as high business failure rates and risks may

reduce interest, favorable conditions such as high barriers to

entry, high demand for the products or service and industry

expansion can increase entrepreneurial interest. The government

can enhance perceived favorable conditions to stimulate

entrepreneurial interest (Davidsson, 1991; Porter, 1980). Thus,

clarifying the environmental resources that entrepreneurs can

access to improve feasibility and desire is necessary to increase

interest in entrepreneurship.

2.4 Pointers from the literature

Based on the literature review conducted, the following

conclusions have been drawn.

Firstly, it has been determined that the sustainable

development of agriculture is reliant on collaborative efforts

across all domains of the agricultural ecosystem. Sustainable

agricultural development is a multifaceted field of research that

integrates perspectives from ecology, economy, and food

security, and involves various departments including land,

economy, environment, and energy departments. The

achievement of sustainable agricultural development is

contingent upon the involvement and coordination of all

domains within the agricultural ecosystem. As such, providing

guidance on agricultural development from an agroecosystem

perspective can serve to strengthen the healthy, systematic, and

sustainable development of agriculture.

Secondly, agroecosystem research should adopt a specific

perspective. While the multi-actor network perspective is

beneficial for investigating entrepreneurial ecosystems,

researchers may encounter significant difficulties when

identifying the various items or components of each ecosystem.

In research practice, scholars often focus on a specific

component rather than examining all components

comprehensively. For example, Bennett (2019) examined the

relationship between infrastructure and entrepreneurial

activities, focusing on hard infrastructure (private and public

infrastructure investment) available in government statistics. The

study proposes that building an enterprise ecosystem requires

the cooperation of multiple stakeholders, with enterprises

playing the most significant role and the government’s role

being relatively limited. The government’s primary

responsibility is to create a competitive environment for

entrepreneurship and assist stronger enterprises in accessing

resources. In summary, this study aims to examine the entire

agroecosystem from the perspective of agribusiness.

Thirdly, it is worth noting that Daniel Isenberg, a

distinguished scholar of entrepreneurial ecosystem, has an

extensive research background in this field. He is the founding

executive director of the Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem

Project and has authored over five papers exploring

entrepreneurial ecosystems. Notably, his work

“How to start an entrepreneurial revolution” has been cited more

than 300 times. Therefore, for this study, Isenberg’s enterprise

ecosystem model proposed in 2011 will serve as the

foundational model.

Chapter 3 Research Process and Methods

The study topic is “Exploring the Development of an

agribusiness Ecosystem for Singapore: Lessons from Taiwan”.

The objective of this research is to extract valuable insights from

Taiwan’s agribusiness ecosystem and draw upon them to

provide a reference to Singapore for developing its agribusiness

ecosystem. This chapter aims to elucidate the research

methodology that will be adopted to accomplish this objective.

3.1 Research Process

This study collected information on the agricultural practices

and

experiences of Taiwan by means of interviews. The study is

conducted

under the guidance of Professor Tan and employs the concept of

“Agribusiness Ecosystem”, which is an adaptation of the

“Entrepreneurial

Ecosystem” concept, to facilitate the study of a specialized

entrepreneurial ecosystem in the agriculture industry. For

brevity, "AE"

will be used to represent Agribusiness Ecosystem and "EE" will

be used

to represent Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in the following

sections.

The research goal will be accomplished by following four

sequential steps. Firstly, the author will conduct a

comprehensive literature review on the entrepreneurial

ecosystem using a range of academic, governmental, and

industrial sources in both English and Chinese languages.

Secondly, based on the findings of the literature review, the

author will lay down the background of the entrepreneurial

ecosystems in Taiwan. Thirdly, the author will engage in in-

depth interviews with founders of SMEs in Taiwan to evaluate

the efficacy of Isenberg’s model and identify any gaps that exist

between theory and practice. This process will help the author

comprehend the issues, challenges, or barriers related to the

initiation and operation of a business and uncover the essential

challenges and critical components within Taiwan’s agribusiness

ecosystem. Finally, utilizing the insights from Taiwan, the

author will synthesize all the information gathered and develop a

set of success factors for Singapore.3.2 Research Methods

In this study, three research methods are predominantly

employed. Firstly, literature reviews conducted using both

online and offline sources, such as the Internet and libraries, to

gather, read, collate and analyze existing research results in the

areas of agricultural sustainable development and business

ecosystems. This method is employed to identify gaps in

research, clarify relevant ideas and methods, and establish a

robust theoretical foundation for subsequent practical research.

The literature review revealed a scarcity of academic research on

agricultural ecosystems and highlighted the potential inadequacy

of existing research theories and models when applied to such

ecosystems. However, Isenberg’s (2011) model of the

entrepreneurial ecosystem is a well-established model that can

be served as the foundational model for developing an

agricultural ecosystem model. Building on Isenberg’s model,

this study will explore the agroecosystem, identify their unique

features, and endeavor to conceptualize an agroecosystem

model.

The second research method employed in this paper is the

case study method. Given that enterprise ecosystems are

influenced by a variety of factors such as industry and

geography, it is important to define the geographical scope of

the research in order to determine the applicability of the results.

For this study, the author has selected

Taiwan as a case study due to its similarities with Singapore and

its well-developed agricultural ecosystem. By examining

Taiwan’s experiences in the development of its agricultural

ecosystem, this study aims to provide a reference to Singapore

for developing its agribusiness ecosystem.

The third research method employed in this study involves

conducting in-depth interviews. Given the complexity of the

agricultural ecosystem concept, which encompasses numerous

domains and elements, this study will draw upon research papers

such as Tan et al. (2000) to gain a deeper understanding of the

subject matter. The in-depth interviews will serve as an

additional means of gathering rich, detailed data on the

agricultural ecosystem.

3.2 Selection of Case Study

This study has selected Taiwan as a case sample for

analyzing the agroecosystem. The choice of Taiwan is based on

several underlying factors. Taiwan and Singapore are both

islands located in Southeast Asia and have limited land

resources for agriculture. In terms of demand for agricultural

products, both share similar population age structures, dietary

preferences, and GDP per capita rankings. Additionally, they

have comparable requirements for the type and quality of

agricultural products, and their populations are predominantly

made up of ethnic Chinese descent. Both are also recognized as

members of the Four Asian dragons, and have experienced rapid

development in the past decades, with their GDP per capital

ranking among the top 30 in the world, despite being considered

developing countries. With respect to the supply chain of

agricultural products, both share similar geographical locations

and climates.

Furthermore, both have relatively high population density,

limited cultivated land and a low proportion of agricultural

employment.

However, Taiwan possesses a substantial and diverse

agricultural history and expertise, which has proven to be more

successful in achieving food security compared to Singapore.

Singapore’s agriculture industry accounts for less than 5% of its

food selfsufficiency rate stands at approximately 10%. This

leaves Singapore heavily dependent on food imports from other

nations, resulting in a pressing concern for food security. Severe

food insecurity among the populace exceeded 1% between 2015

and 2018, while moderate to severe food insecurity surpassed

2.5%. Despite its high GDP per capita, approximately 10% of

households in Singapore experience food shortages at least once

within a year. Conversely, Taiwan boasts a food self-sufficiency

rate at about 31% as of 2020, with a thriving aquaculture

industry and abundance of supplies exceeding domestic demand.

As the "fruit kingdom" of Asia, Taiwan has made notable strides

in the export of high-quality pork, vegetables, sugar, sugar cane,

tea, rice, and tropical and sub-tropical fruits, with an upward

trend in export volumes. In 2020, the export value of agricultural

products was US$132 million based on the 2020 Statistical

Yearbook. Singapore could gain valuable insights from

Taiwan’s agricultural production and technological expertise to

establish a sustainable ecosystem for agricultural industry,

thereby increasing its food self-sufficiency rate.

The agricultural sector in Taiwan is made up of many small-

scale farms that prioritize high-value crops, making it an

appropriate model for Singapore given its natural limitations.

In addition, the author is a Taiwanese and given his background,

the author could

have facilitated data collection and interviews with relevant

stakeholders, further justifying the selection of Taiwan as a case

study for Singapore.

3.3 Selection of Interviewees

3.3.1 Criteria for the selection of enterprises for interviews

This study will concentrate on agricultural enterprises in

Taiwan as the subject of targeted interviewing enterprises. The

author posits that enterprises are the primary actors in the

agroecosystem. prioritizing enterprises as the central actor in the

agricultural ecosystem, it is possible to realize economic

sustainability and create benefits, value and profits. When

compared with other elements, such as government and

educational institutions, enterprises are the primary beneficiaries

of the agricultural ecosystem. Hence, they have a stronger

incentive to engage in the ecosystem and form close connections

and interactions with other elements in the ecosystem.

This study emphasizes agricultural SMEs in Taiwan. This

focus is particularly relevant to Singapore, which could benefit

from Taiwan’s extensive experience in the development of

agricultural SMEs. Singapore has historically relied on imported

agricultural products due to the high costs of land and labor,

resulting in a limited number of agricultural businesses and

employees. To achieve the objective of attaining a of 30% self-

reliance rate by 2030, Singapore requires a more significant

number of small and medium-sized agricultural business owners

and potential entrepreneurs to participate in the sector. The

growth and expansion of such enterprises would fuel

Singapore’s agricultural production and industrial development

in the future. Hence, Singapore would benefit most from the

experiences of Taiwan in developing agricultural SMEs.

SMEs require greater support from the agroecosystem as

compared to larger enterprises. The significance of the

ecosystem may vary for enterprises at different stages of the

business cycle. Larger enterprises typically have stronger core

competitiveness, brand awareness and business experience,

resulting in lower demand for external resources. However,

enterprises at the entrepreneurial stage, including birth stage and

growth stage, are more likely to encounter a range of problems.

These enterprises are typically not yet established and have

limited resources. Due to the lack of time (Gibb, 1993),

resources and experience (Smallbone et al., 1993; Tan et al.,

2000), they would require more external help and support from

other elements. For instance, they may require assistance with

obtaining seed capital, building a leadership team, developing

products and technology, and promoting new products (Choo

and Wong, 2006). When entrepreneurs and SMEs perceive that

they benefit from the services provided by these elements or

organizations, they are more likely to form relationships with the

organizations (Donckels, 1997; Ring et al., 1994) and contribute

to the formation of the ecosystems. Therefore, this study

emphasizes the importance of focusing on interviews. small and

medium-sized agribusinesses to obtain more in-depth

information about the agribusiness ecosystem.

This study takes into account the level of external resource

dependency of agricultural SMEs. Although agricultural

enterprises may be at the same stage of development, they may

have different needs for external resources due to variations in

industry segments, development stages, and founder personality.

According to Tan et al. (2000), entrepreneurs or companies’

awareness of legitimate business assistance needs, resource

availability, and resource accessibility affect their decisions to

participate in infrastructure. Consequently, the degree of

participation among enterprises in the enterprise ecosystem may

differ. Hence, this study regards the dependence of small and

medium-sized agricultural enterprises on external resources as

an indicator to differentiate among agricultural enterprises with

high, medium and low level of reliance and select three

enterprises for each level of dependency and to understand their

needs of the elements in the ecosystem and to rank the elements

based on their involvement in the ecosystem.

In summary, the present study aims to conduct

comprehensive interviews with the Taiwanese SME founders to

explore the composition and operating mechanism of the

agricultural enterprise ecosystem. By starting with critical

factors. common challenge, and corresponding solutions in the

agricultural industry, this research seeks to provide insights into

the development of enterprises and the support they receive from

ecosystem elements.

3.3.2 Profiles of interviewed enterprises

The author, who is the founder of the International Association

for Agriculture

Sustainability (IAAS), compiled a list of thirty companies that

met the screening criteria The list was derived from the

members’ profiles of IAAS and the relevant agribusiness

associations in Taiwan. Subsequently, fifteen companies were

randomly selected for further analysis. The author then

approached the SMEs founders to explain the purpose of the

interviews and the necessary requirements. Based on the

founders’ willingness to participate in the interview and their

ability to communicate effectively.

3.4 Interview outline

Prior to conducting the interviews, the author developed an

interview outline. The outline aimed to investigate whether

Isenberg’s model was applicable to Taiwan agribusiness

ecosystem and to identify any existing gaps. It aimed to

comprehend the issues, hindrances, and difficulties faced by

small business owners and entrepreneurs in the establishment

and operation of their business, as well as the primary challenges

and critical components of the agribusiness ecosystem in

Taiwan. The final interview outline was shaped by the research

topic and Isenberg’s model:

1. Description of the enterprise

2. Whether the agribusiness participated in the AE

3. Description of experience with the AE

4. What difficulties and challenges has the business

encountered, and how have they been overcome, and what

breakthroughs have been achieved? Elaborate on these six

areas (policy, finance, culture, support, human capital,

markets).

5. Which of these six areas (policy, finance, culture,

support, human capital, markets) are the most critical to the

enterprise’s development? Note that the elements that may

play a key role differ at different stages of an enterprise’s

development.

6. Who are the people or organizations that have

provided significant help to your enterprise?

6.1 In what ways have they provided clarification?

What specific contributions have they made?

6.2 How did you come into contact with these

people?

6.3 In your experience, to what extent have others

helped your own enterprise in the right way?

7. Do you have the opportunity to advise the

government?

7.1 What are the problems or shortcomings of

government programs in areas where the government is

already providing relevant assistance? If you were a

government staff member, how would you improve it?

7.2 If you were a government employee, what other

new assistance would you provide to a business like

yours?

8. In addition to those mentioned above, are there any

other domains or elements you think could help your business

grow? They may include, but are not limited to government,

financial institutions, universities, related businesses, and

cultural influencers.

The interview outline comprises of eight parts aimed at

obtaining relevant information from the entrepreneurs and small

business owners in Taiwan. The first question aims to gather

information on the enterprise’s business scope and its current

stage of development. Questions 2 and 3 are intended to inquire

about their experience with the agribusiness ecosystem.

Isenberg’s model is used as a framework to guide question 4,

which aims to explore the difficulties and challenges

encountered by the enterprises. Question 5 seeks to identify the

most critical elements required at different stages of the

company’s development. The interactions among various

elements within the agribusiness ecosystem are investigated

through questions 6 to 8, which aim to determine the

significance of specific elements in supporting the agribusiness

ecosystem.

3.5 Taiwan’s AE

In this section, the Taiwan AE is described employing

Isenberg’s model.

3.5.1 Agricultural Policy

Taiwan has implemented a range of policies aimed at

promoting the growth and development of its agricultural sector.

The Taiwan government has taken a leadership role in this

regard, which has included the establishment of official

organizations to promote agriculture, the issuance of supporting

documents, advocacy for the adoption of sustainable agriculture,

and active promotion of agricultural entrepreneurship. In terms

of governance, the government has established various

institutions such as the Young Farmers’ Counseling Platform

and the Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, alongside

financial support mechanisms including the National

Development Fund and Start Funds. Furthermore, the

government introduces research and development plans such as

the Agricultural Specialist Program and the Agricultural

Development Act 2016, which offer tax benefits to support

agricultural growth and development.

1. Leadership

The Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan, has unveiled a

set of objectives aimed to foster agricultural development. The

twelve objectives are:

1) fostering new and innovative agricultural practices;

2) developing an agricultural knowledge economy and

the cultivation of competitive niches within the sector;

3) ensuring food security and upgrading the agricultural

and food industry;

4) creating an environment favorable for fishery

management and developing high-value industries;

5) promoting integrated animal husbandry management

and establishing a new industrial image;

6) establishing an efficient and service-oriented

transportation and marketing system for agricultural

products;

7) strengthening the agricultural epidemic prevention

and quarantine network to ensure the safety and hygiene of

agricultural products;

8) enhancing the functions of farmers and fisher’s

groups and improving their well-being;

9) creating a healthy and dynamic rural landscape;

10) strengthening soil and water conservation on

hillsides and maintaining public safety;

11) conserving natural resources and preserving

environmental ecology; and

12) stepping up foreign agricultural cooperation and

promoting trade liberalization

The Taiwan government has established various institutions

and associations to support agricultural development and

facilitate research and technology, while providing financial

support for its development.

The formation of official agricultural associations such as the

Credit Department

of Farmers’ & Fishermen’s Association and the Council of

Agriculture helps to ensure the social legitimacy of agricultural

development. Based on caloric calculations, Taiwan’s self-

sufficiency rate in 2020 was around 31%. In addition to being

selfsufficiency, Taiwan also exports high-quality pork,

vegetables, and fruits for example. In 2020, Taiwan’s

agricultural product exports amounted to USD132 million. The

development of Taiwan’s agriculture is mainly due to the

government’s emphasis on agriculture. Since the late 1960s, the

Taiwan government has vigorously advocated for the

development of agriculture, changing land reform regulations

and strategizing agriculture productions for example. In the

1980s, Taiwan’s agriculture was in a secondary position in terms

of GDP and experienced consecutive negative growth. In

response, the Taiwan authorities adjusted the agricultural

structure, promoted the agricultural products as high-quality

products, and implemented measures to promote the

industrialization, automation, and modernization of agricultural

production, while adhering to the concept of "core farmers" and

advocating for the transformation and upgrading of its

agriculture industry from various angles.

Table 3-1 Taiwan agricultural business total value (NT

million)

Taiwan government has taken an active in promoting

sustainability and advocating for the agricultural sector. In 2010,

the government emphasized the sustainable use of land and

natural resources. More recently, in 2022, Taiwan hosted a

seminar on climate services in the agricultural sector, with the

participation of relevant departments. During the seminar, the

Bureau of Meteorology proposed a framework for climate

services in the agricultural sector and discussed an action plan to

promote agricultural climate services. These efforts have laid out

a new blueprint for climate services and reinforced Taiwan’s

commitment to net-zero emissions in agriculture.

The Taiwan government also encourages entrepreneurship in

the agricultural sector, particularly in the field of technological

innovation. Taiwan established the Agricultural Technology

Research Institute in 2014, with the aim to provide agricultural

technology, commercialization, and industrialization services to

farmers, farming organizations, and agricultural enterprises,

accelerating the development of new agricultural businesses and

internationalization. Furthermore, innovative agricultural

management models have been developed, such as agricultural-

commercial cooperation mechanisms that integrate agricultural

and fishery special zones, and piloted agricultural insurance

schemes. The government is also committed to cultivating

agricultural talents, providing counselling for youth farmers and

setting up agricultural exchange service platforms to guide

young people becoming the backbone of the agricultural

workforce. In terms of agricultural marketing, Taiwan has

constructed an export-oriented agricultural value chain and

expanding international business opportunities for agriculture.

2. Government

Initially, Taiwan has established institutions such as the

Young Farmers’ Counseling Platform to promote agricultural

development. The Platform imparts practical training and

internships to young farmers to develop their professional skills,

as well as provides consulting services for agricultural

management to guide them in addressing business challenges

and improving their management abilities.

In addition, the Taiwan government ensures financial

assistance for agricultural enterprises through various means,

such as investment, loans, and subsidies. The National

Development Fund by the National Development Council

provides funding for enterprise operations and development

through direct investment or as angel investment. The Council

of Agriculture offers agricultural loans to young and middleaged

farmers (aged 18 to 45 years old) to alleviate financial

difficulties. The Agricultural Specialist Program provides

subsidies for innovations, research and development activities to

encourage enterprises to commercialize their research results.

The Bureau of Foreign Trade, MOEA, provides subsidies, such

as venue rental and registration fees, for companies participating

in overseas exhibitions.

Furthermore, the Taiwan government supports agricultural

development through regulatory policies such as tax incentives.

The Agricultural Development Act 2016 provides tax benefits to

ensure the sustainable development of agriculture, address

agricultural globalization and liberalization, promote the

reasonable utilization of farmland, adjust the structures of

agricultural enterprises, and stabilize the sale of agricultural

production.

Moreover, the government has established and supported

research institutes to promote scientific research and

technological advancement in the agricultural sector. These

institutions, such as The Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute,

are categorized into agricultural experiment institutes, testing

grounds, and improvement grounds, professional research

institutes, and scientific research institutions with corporate

nature. Each category is governed by specific regulations and

systems, with financial support provided by the government.

3.5.2 Agricultural Finance

In Taiwan, agricultural enterprises reply primarily: on three

sources of funding: (1) personal connections with friends and

family; (2) angel investment funds and (3) microloans from

institutions.

The majority of interviewees reported using personal savings

or investment from acquaintances to meet their initial financial

needs. Only Means Good was able to secure angel investment,

and Kindly Eggs obtained commercial loans.

Micro-loans for agricultural development are offered by

commercial banks through personal or corporate credit loans, as

well as by the Agricultural Bank of Taiwan, which specializes in

financing for agriculture, forestry, fishery, animal husbandry.

The Agricultural Bank of Taiwan, established in 2005 by the

Bureau of Agriculture Finance under the Council of Agriculture,

Executive Yuan, aims to establish an agricultural financial

system, support the development of credit departments for

farmers’ and fishermen’s associations, and boost the

development of the agricultural economy. However, most

agricultural SEMs are not eligible for investment from

commercial banks, even those targeting agricultural enterprises,

due to their lack of assets, revenues, or profitability.

Overall, Taiwan’s agricultural enterprises face significant

challenges in securing financing. They lack zero-stage venture

capital, venture capital funds, private equity, public capital

markets, and debts, while their angel investors and micro-loan

providers need to be further strengthened. Therefore, there is a

need for policies that address these issues to improve the

financial support available to Taiwan’s agricultural sector.

3.5.3 Agricultural Culture

Taiwan has a rich legacy in the realm of agricultural

production. While many countries and regions tend to view

agriculture as a "low-end industry”, thereby dissuading people

from pursuing careers in this domain. However, the belief that

"engaging in agriculture is honorable" has permeated the

Taiwanese psyche. Agriculture is viewed as the bedrock of

human existence and national stability, and it transcends the

dichotomy of high versus low, and noble versus humble

professions. Through the dissemination of success stories and

cultivation of social norms, Taiwan has been successful in

transforming public perception regarding agriculture, making the

Taiwanese people proud to be involved in this vital sector.

1．Success Stories

In Taiwan, promoting the success of agricultural

entrepreneurs is highly emphasized both in academic institutions

and daily life. For instance, the Agricultural Bank of Taiwan has

compiled a book featuring 100 successful agricultural

enterprises, and their experiences are shared to inspire young

people to return to their hometowns and engage in agricultural

work. The Taiwanese government also places significant

emphasis on the financial returns of agricultural producers. It is

reported that the income of Taiwanese farmers is 25 times

higher than that of their Chinese counterparts, owing to both the

high level of agricultural modernization and the government’s

focus on increasing the added value of agriculture. The concept

of "agricultural multiplier" effect is promoted, on the importance

of product quality, food processing, and marketing to maximize

the value of farmers’ output. With a per capita agricultural

value-added of USD13,300, which is ten times that of China, the

urban-rural income gap in Taiwan is around 1.3:1, much lower

than China’s 3.3:1. For many Taiwanese people, this is a crucial

factor when deciding to participate in agricultural production. In

addition, the Taiwanese government, universities, and social

organizations bestow awards and honors upon agricultural

practitioners to recognize their contributions. While economic

returns are critical, acknowledgment is also highly sought after.

Hence, the Taiwanese government sponsors evaluations and

competitions such as the Shen Nong Award, Golden Platter

Award, Golden Chicken Award, and Elite Award.

2. Societal norms

By means of cultural guidance and educational training,

Taiwan’s resident regard agricultural workers as individuals

with high social status. Taiwanese operators of homestays,

leisure farms, and rural tourism exhibit a remarkable passion for

agriculture, and the desire to own a farm is shared by many

Taiwanese individuals. A significant number of individuals,

including recent college graduates, are willing to engage in

agricultural activities and pursue a farming lifestyle.

Furthermore, there is a segment of individuals who work part-

time as farmers, experimenting with innovative and creative

farming techniques.

3.5.4 Agricultural Support

1. Infrastructure

Taiwan has established various infrastructure and invested

resources to foster their growth, notably, the “Startup Terrace”,

which serves as an “all-in-one” entrepreneurship resource

integration platform established by the Small and Medium

Enterprise Administration of the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

By integrating entrepreneurship resources from the central to

local governments and the private sectors, the platform has

become the largest one-stop platform for entrepreneurship

resources in the country. In addition, it has launched physical

bases and incubation institutions, playing an important role in

assisting new entrepreneurs to start businesses and promote

Taiwan’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. This platform provides

diverse support for the development of agricultural enterprises

and ecosystems.

2.Support Professions

Infrastructure encompasses both hard and soft aspects

(Beerli & Martin, 2004). The “soft” aspects of infrastructure

refer to support professions such as legal, accounting,

investment bankers, technical experts, and advisors, as outlined

in Isenberg’s model (2011). In this regard, Taiwan has made

significant strides. For instance, in 2019, the Legislative Yuan

enacted an amendment to the "Agricultural Product Production

and Verification Management Act," which established the legal

framework for eco-friendly agricultural operations. In addition,

Taiwan’s accounting and consulting services are also well-

established and are willing to provide related services to

agricultural enterprises to support their growth. The "Startup

Terrace" website also integrates professional services crucial for

agricultural development and facilitates the connection between

agricultural enterprises and related service agencies.

3.Non-Government Institutions

According to the interviews conducted, it is revealed that

several nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Taiwan are

actively supporting agricultural development. Firstly, there are

numerous agricultural associations, including the Farmers’

Association, which serves as a platform for farmers to convene

and engage in discussion. In rural Taiwan, almost all farmers

(99%) are members of such associations, which are established

and managed democratically by the farmers. The association

aims to improve the quality and skills of farmers, protect their

rights, and enhance their political status. Secondly, several

accelerators have been established, such as the HAOSHi

Accelerator, which is the largest food and agrifood accelerator in

Taiwan. It promotes the development of new food and

agriculture industries with international perspectives and

innovative thinking, stimulates local innovation in food and

agriculture, and accelerates global integration. The HAOHSi

Accelerator has incubated the Means Good team. In addition,

there are numerous business competitions and conferences in

which agricultural enterprises can participate. Interviewees from

Yuan Jin Chuang, Lin Wang Tea, Green Day Biotech, Hua

Gung Tea, and Rice Valley, stated that participating in these

competitions and receiving awards and honors has aided in their

business development.

3.5.5 Agricultural Human Capital

Isenberg’s (2011) model divides Human Capital into two

aspects: Labor and Educational Institutions. As education

enhances the quality of the labor force, it is a critical factor in

improving human capital.

1.Labor

To enhance the quality of human resources in agriculture,

Taiwan has taken active measures to upgrade the skills of

farmers. In 2011, the Farmers’ Academy was established by the

Council of Agriculture, which serves as a comprehensive

agricultural training system that combines research, education,

and resources. This academy uses various experimental

improvement sites, professional skills, and knowledge to

cultivate high-quality agricultural talents and enhance

agricultural competitiveness. To achieve this, the academy

formulated functional benchmarks for various categories of

agriculture, fisheries, and animal husbandry, followed by the

planning of systematic education and training courses for the

general public, new farmers, and professional farmers. These

courses range from introductory to basic, advanced, and high-

level training in agriculture, with strengthened farmers’

internships and providing lifelong learning channels for farmers

and those interested in farming.

In Taiwan, farmers can be categorized into various groups,

such as full-time farmers, serial entrepreneurs, and “later

generation family farmers”. Most of them operate family-based

micro-enterprises, planting rice, vegetables, and fruits year after

year, and passing down their agricultural activities from one

generation to another.

There are many "part-time farmers" who engage in agricultural

activities in their spare time, and their work extends to various

related professional fields. To them, farming has become a rich

and diverse industry, and they identify themselves with multiple

identities as a "part-time farmer", who integrates physical labor

and as an entrepreneur.

2.Educational Institutions

Taiwan places significant importance on agricultural degree

and entrepreneurship training, in addition to providing skills

training for farmers. This is evidenced by prestigious

universities in Taiwan, including National Taiwan University,

National Chung-Hsin University, National Pingtung University

of Technology, National Ilan University and National Chiayi

University, which offer bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral

degrees in agriculture, with relevant courses and experimental

sites to cultivate the experts and scholars in the field.

Furthermore, the Taiwan Ministry of Education has launched the

New Agriculture Innovation and Entrepreneurship Talent

Cultivation Program, aimed at bridging the gap between learning

and application by establishing a connection between

government, academic institutions, and the agricultural industry.

This program aims to support agricultural research and

development scholars in achieving commercialization. Thus,

Taiwan’s Agricultural Entrepreneurship (AE) has developed

significantly in terms of Human Capital, with each element

outlined in

Isenberg’s (2011) model being closely related to this

development.

3.5.6 Agricultural Market

According to Isenberg’s (2011) model, the market comprises

of two elements, namely: Early Customers and Networks.

1.Early Customers

Taiwan has displayed considerable ingenuity in the

processing and marketing of unique agricultural products.

Firstly, the government has supported farmers in developing

distinctive agricultural products and promoting their sales and

distribution. In response to food safety concerns, consumers

have increasingly favored small-scale, handmade, natural, and

additive-free agricultural products, and the Council of

Agriculture has launched various campaigns such as the "One

Township, One Leisure Agriculture and Fishery Park",

"Development of Local Specialties as Souvenirs", and "Rural

Regeneration" to take advantage of this trend. By combining

rural tourism with industrial guidance and integrating marketing

channels, the Council has facilitated the marketing of local

specialty products across Taiwan and overseas. Moreover, in

2019, the "Agricultural Product Production and Verification

Management Act" was amended to establish a certification

system for primary processing facilities for agricultural

products, enabling small farmers to set up food processing

rooms on legally designated land under their own brands. This

has enhanced the value of agricultural products and enabled

farmers to connect directly with consumers through farmer’s

markets, social media, and online platforms, thereby establishing

a mutually beneficial network between consumers and

producers.

Secondly, the Council of Agriculture has established an

agricultural product processing integration service center to

enhance the food processing skills of farmers. The center

provides one-stop consulting services for agricultural product

processing, including integration consulting, sample production

guidance, trial production, and public packaging services. The

"Agricultural Product Value-Adding Sample Center" has also

been established in agricultural trial units throughout Taiwan

and some agricultural colleges, providing consultation services

such as processing equipment, technical guidance, processing

mediation, marketing packaging, and other services for low-risk

processing projects, such as drying, crushing, grinding, and

roasting, to help farmers carry out agricultural product

processing operations and extend the shelf life of agricultural

products. The primary processing system highlights the

government’s recognition of the demand and value of small-

scale farmer processing, which helps to stabilize the production

and sales of agricultural products, increase the value of local

crops, enhance agricultural competitiveness and farmers’

income, and promote agricultural transformation. With the

strong promotion of agricultural policy units and local

organizations, Taiwanese farmers have gained a basic

understanding of the benefits and effectiveness of the “six-level

industrialization” approach through the training provided by the

small-scale rural processing program. These improve the added

value of agricultural products by integrating their production,

processing, and sales.

2.Networks

The Taiwan government has established an International

Marketing Advisory

Center to assist businesses in exploring overseas markets.

Similarly, the Taiwan

External Trade Development Council has instituted the

“International Marketing Advisory Center” to support

innovative industries or small and medium-sized enterprises

with international competitiveness in expanding into the global

markets. The center comprises regional experts with extensive

international market experience, who serve as exclusive

consultants for international marketing of small and

mediumsized enterprises by providing customized, one-stop

professional consulting services. In addition, they guide

entrepreneurs in leveraging government funding, enhancing

business operations, and strengthening international

competitiveness. Through these concerted efforts, Taiwan’s

agricultural products gained traction overseas, rendering Taiwan

a renowned "kingdom" of agricultural exports in Asia. Thus, it is

evident that Taiwan’s agricultural ecosystem actively aids

farmers in developing specialty agricultural products and

facilitates their sales and distributions. The establishment of the

International Marketing Advisory Center enables businesses to

explore global markets, while the Agricultural Product

Processing Integration Service Center improves farmers’ food

processing skills.

Chapter 4 Findings

Taiwan and Singapore share similarities in various aspects,

including demographics age structure, dietary preferences, GDP

per capita ranking, geographical location, climate, and land area

per capita. However, a significant difference between the two

nations is Taiwan’s notably higher food self-sufficiency rate

which can be attributed to a combination of government

policies, scientific research institutions and school’s

contributions, as well as native agribusinesses’ involvement. As

Singapore aims to achieve its objective of domestically

producing 30% of the food it consumes by 2030, Taiwan’s

agribusiness ecosystem can serve as a valuable reference for the

Singapore government. This study intends to examine the

domains within Taiwan’s agribusiness ecosystem, the roles they

assume, and the constituent elements of each domain.

Based on the selection process described in Chapter 3, the

author will identify target enterprises for conducting interviews.

Theses interviews will involve the founders of nine enterprises

and will focus on six aspects. Firstly, the fundamentals of these

enterprises will be ascertained. Secondly, the relationships

between policies, financing, culture, support, human capital, and

market - referred to as the “six domains” hereafter – will be

explored. Thirdly, any other domains or elements that

contributes to business development besides Isenberg’s six

domains or elements. Finally, the difficulties encountered and

suggestions for Taiwan’ entrepreneurial ecosystem will be

identified.

4.1 Profiles of the enterprises

Prior to conducting the interviews, the author attempted to

comprehend the fundamental information of the enterprises,

including their business growth stage and other basic details.

The aim was to ascertain whether the enterprises met the

interview criteria for this study and to create a context for an

open discussion with the founders during the interviews.

Specifically, the author gathered information on the year of

incorporation, primary business activities, and current business

growth stage of each enterprise.

The table presented below display the data gathered from the

interviewees regarding their enterprises’ year of establishment,

primary business activities and business growth stage. To

categorize the growth stages of these enterprises, the author

adopted the categories proposed by Miller and Friesen in 1984,

which classifies the corporate life cycle into five stages: Birth

phase (B), Growth phase (G), Maturity phase (M), Revivl phase

and Decline phase. In this context, we will focus solely on the

first three stages of the corporate life cycle, namely the birth

phase, growth phase, and maturity phase, and we will not

address the revival phase or the decline phase. For enterprises in

the revival phase, the emphasis is on diversifying and expanding

their products and markets, and the focus is on corporate

strategy rather than on AE. Conversely, in the decline phase,

enterprises experience a contraction in their operations due to

market exhaustion, and the emphasis is on scaling back their

operations, which is beyond the scope of AE support.

Drawing upon the fundamentals of the enterprises, it is

apparent that SMEs reach the maturity stage, when their product

sales revenue has stabilized, operations are relatively stable, and

market prospects are positive, and funding constraints are

relatively small (Churchill and Lewis, 1984；Miller and

Friesen, 1984), SMEs still desire to engage with relevant

authorities, associations, institutions and other enterprises within

the ecosystem to foster their business development.

Many SMEs are reliant on external research centres for their

research and development needs. Thus, they need close

collaboration with universities and research institutions in the

AE. SMEs also engage with AE for market information and

expansions. SME owners recognize the significance of market

information in the sales market and leverage on their industry

network and relationship with their peers to obtain valuable

information to adjust their enterprise strategies and even create

new businesses. Consequently, many owners of mature SMEs

proactively cultivate ties with their peers in their industry by

joining associations, serving as board of directors or committee

members of SME associations or agricultural associations, or

offering parttime lectures in universities to acquire useful

information for business development. As an illustration, the

Chairman of Hua Gung Tea (M), Mr. Du, also serves as an

adjunct teacher at National Chung Hsing University and often

invites industry players to deliver lectures on campus. Through

this activity, Hua Gung Tea obtains consumer feedback on

product research and development while promoting their

products. It is a formidable challenge for SMEs to grow and

transform into larger enterprises. Despite being operational for

20 to 30 years and achieving stable turnover and maturity, many

enterprises are still classified as SMEs. Hence, SMEs at matured

stage are an important research party for this study.

In contrast, SMEs in the Birth or Growth stages, while showing

a strong desire

to participate in the ecosystems, often lack clarity on how to do

so effectively. Some entrepreneurs who have just started their

businesses may not fully understand the roles of the government

and universities and as a result, may provide limited information

on these areas during the interview process. For example, some

start-up small businesses have too high expectations of

government support and hope that the government will provide

the necessary assistance. However, some mature SME owners

realize that government support is merely a supplementary

resource. As Mr. Wei, the chairman of Means Good,

emphasized, enterprises in their infancy should focus on product

development, as seeking government aid could be a waste of

time, especially when the enterprise’s future is uncertain.

Government personnel who oversee SME support have key

performance indicators to meet, and if they provide assistance to

an enterprise that fails to develop further, their performance will

be affected. Therefore, start-up enterprises should not spend too

much time seeking resources from the government. This is also

why the interviews conducted in this study focused on

entrepreneurs with 20 to 30 years of entrepreneurial experience,

as they possess a better understanding of the ecosystem’s

history, domains, and elements, and can provide more relevant

information for this study.

Through the initial interviews conducted, this study has

discovered that SMEs in the Birth, Growth, and Maturity stages

were keen to engage with the Agricultural Ecosystem (AE) and

facilitate the growth and development of their businesses.

Asstandardized and institutionalized. The strategic objective of

the enterprise is to achieve rapid sales growth and invest in

expanding production scale, in order to defeat other competitors

(Miller and Friesen, 1984). Enterprises in the Birth stage are still

in the early exploration stage, they do not possess a

comprehensive understanding of the AE. However, those in the

Growth stage and Maturity stage have developed a clearer

understanding of the composition and functional positioning of

the AE through years of exploration. Moreover, as the

interviewees were primarily founders of their respective

companies, they possess a deep understanding of their

companies’ history and situations. Therefore, it is suggested that

interviewing founders of companies in the Growth stage and

Maturity stage would offer a more useful and comprehensive

understanding of AE than those in the Birth period. Hence, the

author opted to conduct in-depth interviews with one enterprise

in the Birth period, four in the Growth period, and four in the

Maturity period of small and medium-sized agricultural

enterprises to construct an AE model.

4.2 The impact of the six domains on the business

development of the enterprises

The second phase of the interviews focused on exploring the

relationship between the interviewees and various stakeholders,

the challenges encountered during business development, and

the strategies adopted to overcome obstacles. Isenberg’s (2011)

six domains-namely, policy, finance, culture, support, human

capital, and markets - were used as the framework to guide the

interviews, with a specific focus on how each domain impacted

the interviewees’ business development. This approach was

intended to assess the applicability of Isenberg’s entrepreneurial

ecosystem model to the context of Taiwan’s agribusinesses,

while also uncovering any additional insights.

4.2.1 Agribusinesses in Taiwan are involved with the

agricultural ecosystem (AE)

To foster growth and expansion, Taiwan agribusiness

maintain active and positive connections with various elements

in the agriculture ecosystem in order to seek the means to

strengthen their relationship with the government, industry

associations, universities, and other relevant entities to obtain

help and assistance.

Through the interviews, it was revealed that the AE could

assist agricultural enterprises in overcoming challenges. The

interviewees highlighted two of the most difficult stages in the

business development of such enterprises. The first stage is the

start-up phase when entrepreneurs must determine their future

business directions. Many agribusinesses, prior to their

incorporation or during the early stages of incorporation, must

continuously explore the markets and adjust their business

directions for survival. This process often takes two to three

years or more. The second stage occurs when enterprises are

established, but entrepreneurs have to make adjustments to their

products and strategies to achieve further growth. Mr. Wei,

chairman of Means Good, expressed that the exhaustion he

experienced before and after determination his business

directions were different. After setting business directions, the

focus is on expanding and growing the business. However,

before the business directions are determined, the entrepreneur is

hesitating at every step, as investing funds and resources in the

wrong approach would result in significant losses. At this stage,

agricultural enterprises can seek guidance from entrepreneurial

predecessors, industry development, market information

provided by associations, and policy interpretation provided by

the government. Through the AE, these forms of assistance can

help enterprises clarify their business development direction.

Innovation and product development can pose another

challenging stage for agribusinesses, particularly in terms of

introducing innovative products to the market and generating

revenue from them. Due to their newness, consumers may be

hesitant to accept such products, and there may be a shortage of

capital funds available to address this issue. Therefore,

enterprises must quickly overcome these challenges by obtaining

customer acceptance and generating sales to secure the

necessary working capital for normal operations. To achieve

this, agribusinesses engage actively with various elements in the

AE, seeking assistance in opening up new markets, acquiring

customer referrals, and obtaining valuable market information to

help them to quickly penetrate the market.

It can be inferred that agribusinesses exhibit a pronounced

inclination to engage with the AE, as such a move allows them

to address the operational obstacles they encounter. The degree

of an enterprise’s willingness to participate in the agricultural

ecosystem corresponds directly to the magnitude of the

challenges it confronts.

4.2.2 Presence of Isenberg’s Domains in Taiwan’s AE

The nine interviews report that the six domains of Isenberg’s

model are present in

Taiwan’s AE.

(1) Policy in Taiwan AE

Isenberg’s model (2011) highlights the importance of

leadership and government institutions in promoting

entrepreneurship.

a)Leadership, such as clear support, social legitimacy,

advocates of openness, and entrepreneurship policies

b) Government, such as institutions (investment and

support), financial support (R&D funding, start-up capital),

regulatory incentives (tax benefits), research institution

establishment, entrepreneurial legislation (bankruptcy, contract

enforcement, property rights and labour).

Through the interviews conducted, it was revealed that the

Taiwan government plays a role in AE by providing subsidies

for exhibition booth, investment funds, bonuses, and other

monetary support. The most frequently mentioned type of

support was overseas exhibition booth subsidies, which is aimed

at promoting market expansion and encouraging agricultural

enterprises to venture into the international market. With regards

to government grants for research and development, the

application process was noted to be lengthy, thus enterprises are

advised to carefully consider whether to proceed with the

application and seek assistance from experienced experts or

scholars if they intend to. The government’s support in AE, as

mentioned by the interviewees.

However, the author suggests that Taiwan government

should focus more on policies related to “urgency, crisis, and

challenge” and “venture-friendly legislation”, with reference to

Isenberg’s model (2011), to further enhance its support for

agricultural development.

(2) Finance in Taiwan AE

According to Isenberg’s model (2011), the financial factor

plays a crucial role in providing necessary funds to facilitate

entrepreneurial activities. These funds may take various forms

such as small credit loans, capital funding, angel investment

funding, intellectual property (IP) funding, and public capital

funding, among others.

The author conducted interviews with the founders of the

enterprises to examine the level of financial support provided by

financial institutions. The extent of financial support that SMEs

can obtain is contingent upon their operational status and

existing assets. The findings indicate that such support remains

weak and insufficient, particularly for SMEs. SMEs have high

operating risks which may render them unattractive to many

financial institutions. Moreover, agricultural enterprises face

dual risks emanating from nature and business operations,

making it an industry with higher risks than others.

Consequently, it is more challenging for these enterprises to

secure financial support from financial institutions. Most

interviewees revealed that they primarily rely on internal

fundraising to obtain capital, with only one enterprise, Means

Good, receiving angel investment through a start-up accelerator.

Despite some enterprises having a history of over 20 years,

obtaining external funding is still difficult for them. Banks

typically require financial statements and assets before issuing

credit, which is an obstacle for start-up enterprises that are yet to

turn a profit. However, given that most agricultural enterprises

have low initial investment requirements, they may not have

significant funding needs.

(3) Culture in Taiwan AE

Isenberg (2011) identifies the following elements of culture

in his model, are:

a)Successful case studies, such as successful models, the

wealth and honour of founders.

b) Social norms, such as tolerance for risk and failure,

entrepreneurs’ social status, ambition, drive and motivation.

According to Chen and Li (2010), culture is a gradual

development of concepts, ideas, or habits over time. Taiwan

exhibits a strong culture of entrepreneurship and agricultural

enterprises, which can be attributed to various factors.

Firstly, the government provides a favourable environment

for entrepreneurship by offering support to individuals interested

in starting their own businesses. Secondly, the Taiwanese

society regards entrepreneurs in high esteem, which serves as a

motivation for aspiring entrepreneurs. Thirdly, entrepreneurs in

Taiwan often engage in knowledge-sharing, mentorship, and

networking, which helps in building a supportive community. In

addition, Taiwan’s agricultural sector is not considered as a low-

level industry, which makes it an attractive option for

individuals seeking career opportunities in this field and even

small and medium-sized agribusinesses can easily attract

university graduates (Hwang et al., 2008). The government has

also been supportive of the agricultural sector, with the Council

of Agriculture providing assistance to farmers and

agribusinesses. Almost all interviewees acknowledged receiving

some form of support from the Council.

The extracts from the interviews in Table 4-6 show the

influence of role-models on the SMEs; see e.g., Means Good.

The supportive networks and assistance from the

Council of Agriculture are also highlighted by Lin Wang Tea.

(4) Supports in Taiwan AE

As stated in the research by Isenberg (2011), the key

elements of support that benefited the EE are:

a) Infrastructure, such as telecommunications, transport and

logistics, energy.

b) Professional support like lawyers, accountants, technical

experts, and consultants.

c) Non-governmental organizations, including business

plan competitions, seminars, enterprise incubator,

accelerators, and entrepreneur associations.

As per the responses of the interviewees, they reported that

they establish connections with experienced business mentors

and fellow entrepreneurs through accelerator programs and

professional associations. The support is accessed through the

connections and the events organized by non-governmental

organizations. Such relationships have proven to be

advantageous for their business development, allowing them to

minimize detours in their journey. In addition, participating in

various competitions has enabled the enterprises to not only gain

recognition, awards and bonuses but also to evaluate their

strengths and weaknesses relative to their competitors in the

industry. This self-assessment has facilitated the identification of

areas that require improvement and has guided the enterprises in

determining their strategic

direction for growth.

(5) Human capital in Taiwan AE

Isenberg’s (2011) educators and human capital elements

include:

a) Labor (skilled and unskilled labor), serial entrepreneurs,

and intergenerational inheritors.

b) Educational institutions (providing professional /&

academic qualifications), and specific entrepreneurial

training.

Taiwan places great emphasis on the cultivation of agricultural

talent. Firstly, both the government and non-governmental

organizations provide numerous training courses on agricultural

entrepreneurship and food processing. The most prominent of

these is the "Six-level Industrialization," which guides

Taiwanese citizens on how to increase the added value of

agricultural products through processing and balancing between

production and sales. Many Taiwanese universities value the

training of agricultural talent, with renowned institutions such as

National Taiwan University, National Chung Hsing University,

National Pingtung University of Science and Technology,

National Ilan University, and National Chiayi University, setting

up agricultural colleges. Many other institutions also establish

agricultural-related majors such as food science and actively

engage in research and development cooperation with

enterprises while simultaneously cultivating professional talent

for these industries.

In terms of human capital and education providers, the

interviewees express the opinion that colleges and universities

could play a significant role in enhancing the performance of

agricultural enterprises by offering courses on product

innovation, business modelling innovation and to improve and

increase the efficiency of business management. Agricultural

enterprises would like to recruit graduates from the relevant

fields of academia. For instance, Rice Valley mentioned that

during the early stages of his startup, he enrolled in a doctoral

course in a business school, which greatly assisted in the

operations and expansion of his business. Similarly, an

interviewee from Yuan Jin Chuang stated that they recruited

students who collaborated with their enterpriseand to hire the

teachers who work with them as consultants.

(6) Markets in Taiwan AE

The key elements in market access are listed below based on the

model of Isenberg

(2016):

a) Initial customers (e.g., early adopters who had certified

the concept), productization expertise, experimental

customers, and distribution channels;

b) Networks, for example entrepreneurial networks,

discrete networks, and multinational corporations.

With regard to attracting the first batch of customers at the

beginning of their businesses, the majority of the interviewees

expressed that leveraging the internet to promote their brand and

identify potential customers was a highly effective strategy to

adopt. As these enterprises are at the start-up phase, they lack an

established reputation, which makes market entry a more

challenging task. Therefore, it is crucial for these businesses to

leverage the distinctive qualities of their high-quality products to

create awareness and expand their network. One feasible

approach is to offer free trials and samples to potential

customers, which will enable them to experience the benefits of

the products and potentially lead to purchases. In addition,

exhibiting the unique features of the products at relevant trade

shows and exhibitions can also serve as an effective way to

attract customers.

In terms of networking, the interviewees recognized its

significance for agriculture enterprises. For instance, the

interviewee from Means Good emphasized that “given the

characteristics of the agricultural industry, it takes a longer time,

as compared to other industries, to establish networks, and the

industry circle is relatively closed. Even with the provision of

product information and instructions, potential customers may

not be willing to invest their time to understand, build trust and

collaborate without the recommendation of acquaintances.

Recommendations, provide a suitable platform to discuss

cooperation opportunities and significantly reduce the time spent

searching for potential customers.”

4.3 Additional new roles for AE

According to the interviewees, certain novel roles were

observed in the AE ecosystem, which were not identified in

Isenberg’s model. It appears that due to the increasing

interactions and richer functions of the elements within each

domain, some additional roles have emerged. However, these

new roles could not be fully integrated into the existing model.

The new roles can be broadly classified into four categories:

(1) The accelerator, which is supposed to be used for

financing, becomes a place to develop a new customer base.

The primary aim of the accelerator program is to aid

entrepreneurial teams in defining their core competencies and

securing funding during the developmental stages (Gourlay et

al., 2008). In the accelerator program, entrepreneurs have the

opportunity to meet highly experienced mentors who can

provide guidance on the development of business directions and

connection to potential customers, often resulting in a high

likelihood of collaboration through the mentor’s network. In the

context of accelerators, entrepreneurs may exhibit similarities in

terms of their values and business life cycles. Accelerators that

focus on specific sub-industries may serve as a hub for

entrepreneurs within the same industry. The training programs

offered by the accelerators may create a sense of camaraderie

among entrepreneurs, fostering an environment that encourages

sharing, mutual support, and networking, including the exchange

of customer referrals.

(2) In addition to their traditional role of providing talent

and education, universities also serve an important function in

product research and development for enterprises.

Isenberg’s (2011) model positions colleges and universities

as providers of talent and training, however, interviews with the

founder and co-founders revealed an additional function - co-

operation in research and development. Given that many

agricultural start-ups have limited resources and expertise for

research and development, they often actively collaborate with

universities and research institutes. For instance, Means Good

mentioned that “we participated in the experimental program of

the Agricultural Technology Research Institute (ATRI),

providing raw materials for the experiments while the ATRI’s

researchers conducted the experiments and shared the research

data and results with us. The research findings of ATRI have

opened up a new market for us, and the data obtained from the

research has become the most effective evidence for our

marketing efforts. Without the ATRI, we cannot do the research

due to high personnel requirements and high expenditures”. This

highlights the crucial role that universities and research institutes

play in facilitating product development and ultimately, business

success.

(3) Government agencies, in Isenberg’s model, are

primarily viewed as policymakers and public leaders.

However, the interviews revealed that these agencies are

involved in activities beyond these traditional roles. The

agricultural experts at the Agricultural Research and Extension

Station and the Agricultural Research institute under the Council

of Agriculture cover various fields such as agriculture, forestry,

and animal husbandry. Their research results can be transferred

to private enterprises as technology for their use. These experts’

grasp of international industry trends can provide enterprise

education and training to enhance our industry vision and

research and development standard. In addition, the

government’s selection activities for outstanding enterprises and

excellent products, due to the strict participation requirements

and rigorous evaluation process, serve as the best guarantee for

enterprises to enhance their brand image. Yuan Jin Chuang, Lin

Wang Tea and Rice Valley all highlighted the significance of

government-issued awards and endorsements for their

businesses. These awards were considered equivalent to

receiving endorsement from the government, which resulted in

positive publicity effects when included in the enterprises’

marketing and promotion materials. Yuan Jin Chuang explained,

"Every year, we apply for awards to gain media exposure, such

as the National Quality Award. It will be easier for our

marketing team because getting an award would indicate that

our enterprise and products have gained the government’s

approval".

(4) Other additional roles in the AE domains. Additional

roles for actors in the AE domains include staff employment at

trade fairs, and exploring customers through EMBA classes,

among others. This indicates that as interactions between

elements in the ecosystem’s various domains increase, the

functions and roles of these elements become richer and more

diverse.

4.4 Unique features in Taiwan AE under Supports

The author endeavored to construct a comprehensive AE

model by exploring domains or elements that potentially affect

AE beyond the scope of the Isenberg’s model. In this vein, the

author asked the interviewees that “in addition to those

mentioned above, are there any other domains or elements you

think could help your business grow? These include, but are not

limited to government, financial institutions, universities, related

businesses, and cultural influencers”. This inquiry aimed to

identify additional domains or elements that significantly affect

AE and integrate them into Isenberg’s (2011) model to improve

its comprehensiveness. The author incorporated these domains

or elements to enhance the model based on insights gathered

from the interviews.

The actors that are most frequently cited include successful

entrepreneurs, technical experts, and individuals with extensive

connections.

Successful entrepreneurs: One of the frequently cited

elements is successful entrepreneurs who often act as mentors to

most entrepreneurs. These mentors play a crucial role in guiding

the business direction and company management while also

sharing their network resources with the mentees. In the case of

agricultural entrepreneurs, access to networking resources is

particularly crucial given that the industry circle is relatively

closed. Therefore, entrepreneurs often rely on connectors to

facilitate their entry into the circle. For example, Means Good

participated in the HAOSHi accelerator program, and through

mentor’s networking referrals, they were able to meet the

research and development director of a well-known animal feed

factory, which led to an opportunity to test their products and

ultimately secure an order. Technical experts: According to

Green Day Biotech’s interviewee, technical experts such as

university professors or government research unit researchers

are not only familiar with the latest technologies and industry

trends, but also have connections with international research

organizations and industry experts. They have the potential to

introduce contacts to assist with research and development of

new products, market promotion, and internationalization

development for enterprises.

Network: Means Good and Kindly Eggs’ interviewees stated

that individuals who possess an extensive network of contacts,

particularly those experienced in marketing or holding

leadership positions in associations, can significantly aid in the

promotion of new products.

People with rich industrial contacts are crucial for SMEs as

they can help connect enterprises to the right people, reducing

the time and cost required for developing relationships from

scratch. Moreover, their introduction of products also serves as

an endorsement, while reducing the risk of a new party in

choosing products and suppliers. The present study posits that to

establish a complete AE model, "connectors" are required to

facilitate the linkage between different domains and actors

within the ecosystem. However, the "connectors" should not be

regarded as a distinct domain or element beyond Isenberg’s

model, rather they should be seen as an element that plays a vital

supporting role. This support can be in the form of professional

assistance provided by lawyers, accountants, technical experts,

or consultants.

Furthermore, this study observes that among the six

domains, entrepreneurs in Taiwan exhibit a particular emphasis

on human resources related elements, recognizing that the

ecosystem operates as a network of connections, highlighting the

significance of human resources in this regard. In addition to

“connectors”, this study identifies a strong sense of

“comradeship” among Taiwanese entrepreneurs, fostered by a

supportive culture in the government and among the general

public. Mentors and advisors are often found providing their

support to entrepreneurs beyond their call, even at their own

expense. They are willing and eager to share their network

resources with them to create more opportunities for

collaboration. This culture of support extends beyond Taiwan, as

some interviewees attest that their business expanded overseas

due to the help provided by friends who had already established

a presence in foreign markets.

4.5 Difficulties encountered by agribusiness that need

Taiwan’s AE to improve

4.5.1 Difficulties encountered by agribusiness in Taiwan

During the interviews, it was revealed that the Taiwan AE

was beneficial for agribusinesses, however, there were certain

areas in which its usefulness may be lacking. In order to identify

these areas of improvement, questions were asked to ascertain

the difficulties faced by the interviewees regarding the AE, even

though the current AE provided for the needs of agribusinesses.

Addressing these difficulties would lead to a better functioning

AE in the future.

Interestingly, the difficulties encountered by the

entrepreneurs were mainly attributed to the government. There

appeared to be a gap between what the government does and

what entrepreneurs expect from the government. For instance,

interviewees faced challenges with the high threshold for

qualification certification, low efficiency lack of publicly

available agricultural data for market opportunity analysis, and

the government’s limited support on international market

regulations and requirements which are critical for the

enterprises to enter the international market. The following are

some examples from the interviews:

Means Good’s interviewee noted that: “It is time consuming

to apply to the government for certification of qualification. At

the beginning, we made human health products and wanted to

supply to big brand companies, however they needed the

enterprise’s qualifications, and the certification process took

more than a year. I hope the government will speed up the

efficiency of certifying the qualification.”. In addition, he

mentioned that: “Most of our customers are enterprises. One of

the approaches to develop the market is to obtain the

information of potential customers through the data published by

the government, and then promote to them individually.

However, the current information is not comprehensive

enough.”

Balay’s interviewee mentioned that: “I hope that the

government will strengthen their services pertaining to

international market regulations. To enter the international

market, we must first clearly understand the regulations of the

international market.”

Nevertheless, it remains a significant challenge for enterprises to

acquire the necessary information and comprehend the

regulations of the international market, as well as to link them

with the domestic regulations regarding product manufacturing

and exporting. Meanwhile, the government possesses the

capacity to reach out to the pertinent departments and obtain

such information. We expect that the government can take the

initiative to understand the regulations of other countries and

facilitate introductions with foreign regulators to enable the

exportation of enterprises’ products to these countries.

Moreover, the respondents have cited with regards to the

domains of market and finance. Specifically, impediments in

marketing operations stem from policy modifications which

precipitate market fluctuations. Additionally, certain offline

sales channels entail exorbitant commission rates, further

compounded by customers’ limited knowledge of newly

introduced products. As for financial difficulties, the

interviewees noted the arduousness of procuring loans from

conventional banking institutions, both for start-up and

enterprises at growth stage, thereby necessitating exploration of

alternative funding options.

4.5.2 Suggestions for improvement

In the course of the interviews conducted for this study, the

interviewees were asked to undertake the role as consultants, to

identify areas for potential improvement within the Taiwan

agricultural ecosystem.

The overarching objective of this approach is to facilitate

greater governmental comprehension of the demands of

agricultural enterprises, thereby enabling it to play a more

integral role in this domain. Notably, a significant proportion of

the interviewees articulated a desire for greater policy

harmonization between Taiwan and other countries, particularly

with respect to regulations. Given Taiwan’s relatively

diminutive size and dependence on foreign trade, its enterprises

exhibit a strong demand for exporting products to other nations.

The results of these interviews were subsequently compiled

and presented in a table, along with recommendations for the

development of Taiwan’s agricultural ecosystem as below.

Chapter 5 Discussion

This chapter will examine the implications arising from the

findings in chapter 4 and put forth recommendations, within the

context of two primary development goals, namely urban

agriculture and agricultural food, as a reference for Singapore in

its development of agribusiness ecosystems. This study also

aims to serve as a reference for future research endeavours in

this field.

5.1 Implications from findings

This study identifies three implications which can be drawn

from the findings. The first implication suggests that Singapore

could potentially adopt Isenberg’s (2011) model in the

development of its AE. This model was found to be effective in

Taiwan’s AE, where its various domains facilitate the growth of

the industry and allowed for a systematic evaluation of the

necessary components in an agribusiness ecosystem.

The second implication of this study highlights the

significance of individuals who established connections between

different domains within the AE. While Isenberg’s (2011) model

identified six domains as critical components, his 2016 model

added the concept of six actors corresponding to the six

domains. However, this study’s interviews revealed the

importance of individuals who act as “connectors” between the

elements in different domain, which constitutes a novel addition

to Isenberg’s model (2011, 2016). When we prompted to

identify other elements with a substantial impact on AE, the

interviewees consistently emphasized the importance of these

connectors”, who play a crucial role in bridging the various

domains and elements within such system.

The third implication Drawn from this study highlights the

necessity of contextualizing. Isenberg’s model (2011, 2016)

before its application to any particular AE. While Isenberg’s

model (2011, 2016) may present a generic approach, the case of

Taiwan’s AE illustrates that the development of any ecosystem

must be contextualized according to regional and local

environments. Scholars have long recognized that local

economic conditions play a significant role in promoting new

business creation and the growth and development of SMEs

(Tan et al., 2000). Researchers have sought to explain why some

discrete geographic areas produce greater degrees of economic

activity than others (Arrow,1971). Local economic development

typically refers to the promotion of economic growth and

activity within a specific geographic region. Furthermore,

culture elements and entrepreneurship have been identified as

critical factors with a direct and substantial impact on the

economic quality of life within distinct geographic areas (Morris

and Lewis ,1991). Thus, Isenberg’s model must be

contextualized before its application to any specific agribusiness

ecosystem.

5.1.1 Contextualization of Isenberg’s domains for AE in

Singapore

Given that regional and local environments are recognized as

significant factors in stimulating new business creation and the

growth and development of SMEs, the contextualization of

Isenberg’s model (2011) could be undertaken from two

perspectives. First, geographic location should be taken into

account. Second, industryspecific factors should be considered.

The author suggests that prior to applying

Isenberg’s model in Singapore, the model should undergo both

industrial and geographical contextualization.

(1) Industrial contextualization

Based on the interview, the research has identified distinct

characteristics of agriculture. Agriculture is a primary industry

that ensures the country’s economic and livelihood security, thus

prompting governments to implement various policies to support

it. As an industry with dual risks of business and natural hazards,

agriculture faces more challenges in obtaining financial support

from institutions compared to other industries (Ramaswami,

2003). Agriculture operates within a relatively closed market,

which relies heavily on networks to expand its market reach.

Beerli and Martin (2004) also highlight that infrastructure can be

categorized as general or industryspecific, with unique

infrastructure needs for each industry. Consequently, the concept

of an ecological system varies across industries, and geographic

location is also a crucial factor to consider the research has

developed an agricultural ecosystem model based on Isenberg’s

model. The Taiwanese government places particular emphasis

on improving agricultural technology, cultivating talent, and

supporting farmers financially in promoting agricultural

development. These are further elaborate as follows:

First, improving agricultural technology: The Council of

Agriculture has established an agricultural research and

extension stations and agricultural research institutes (under the

government’s research institutes element in the policy domain).

The agricultural research institutes focus on regional crop and

silkworm breeding, biotechnology application, and research on

improving agricultural product quality testing and processing.

The agricultural research institutes are tasked with improving

crop cultivation methods, crop varieties, and agricultural

machinery and facility design. Second, developing human

capital: The establishment of agricultural colleges at National

Taiwan University, National Chung Hsing University, National

Pingtung University of Science and Technology, National Ilan

University, and National Chiayi University provides

comprehensive training for industry talent in agriculture,

forestry, fishery, and animal husbandry (under educational

institutions in the human capital domain).

Third, supporting farmers financially: The Council of

Agriculture has set up agricultural and fishery associations to

provide assistance to farmers and fishers. This includes credit

loans (under finance in the finance domain), agricultural

subsidies (under government in the policy domain), and

agricultural product promotion (under markets in the markets

domain).

This study was contextualized to Taiwan’s circumstances.

However, Singapore’s agricultural ecosystem is still in the

developmental stage and is not as comprehensive as Taiwan’s. It

is essential to contextualize the model as replicating the

practices implemented in Taiwan may not be applicable to

Singapore due to the differing local conditions and necessary

institutions.

Due to the scarcity of land in Singapore, the country is not

able to pursue agriculture to the same extent as Taiwan but has

instead chosen to focus on the development of urban farming. In

response to issues such as extreme weather conditions and food

shortages, alternative protein and related products are a major

focus of Singapore’s agrifood industry. Therefore, when

implementing the AE model in Singapore, it is necessary to

further contextualize and tailor it to the specific conditions and

needs of the country.

(2) Geographical contextualization

As discussed earlier, regional, and local environments are

important factors in stimulating new business creation and the

growth and development of SMEs (Tan et al., 2000).

Entrepreneurship and cultural elements have been identified as

having a direct and significant impact on the economy within

specific geographic areas (Morris and Lewis ,1991).

Due to scarcity of land, Singapore is only suitable for urban

agriculture development, and has launched the 30x30 initiative

to increase its food self-sufficiency rate. These conditions differ

from those in Taiwan, highlighting the need for geographical

contextualization.

Although Taiwan and Singapore are both Southeast Asian

islands, they have some cultural differences. Cultural difference

can include differences in lifestyles, thoughts, attitudes,

language, behaviour, institutions, and power structures (Jones

and Richard,2006). For example, Taiwan embraces Confucian

culture, which emphasizes compassion, respect, and mutual

support among individuals. In contrast, Singapore is heavily

influenced by British capitalism, which may limit the spirit of

mutual support among individuals compared to Taiwan due to a

more westernized culture. It is important to note that the culture

of sharing and proclivity towards mutual help is crucial for

agricultural businesses, especially SMEs and start-ups, which

relies heavily on information and referrals from acquaintances to

enter the relatively closed circle of agriculture. This Taiwan’s

culture may have contributed significantly to its AE’s success.

Singapore may consider building up similar culture.

5.1.2 The human element in the ecosystem

In the ecosystem of entrepreneurship, the role of human

interaction is crucial. Isenberg has identified six domains in an

ecosystem: policy, finance, culture, supports, human capital and

markets. However, simply creating departments and

organizations based on this model may not be workable. The AE

model is not just a structure, but a living ecology, that requires

interaction between the different domains to be effective. During

interviews conducted for this study, interviewees emphasized

the importance of certain individuals who are instrumental in

their success. Interestingly, these individuals often played non-

traditional roles within the ecosystem. The interviews revealed

two key aspects: 1) the importance of individuals who go

beyond their immediate roles in connecting with the different

elements in the ecosystem (AE connectors); 2) the importance of

individuals who have the ability to understand the specific needs

of enterprises (AE need attentiveness)

(1) AE connectors

This study introduces “AE connectors” to refer to individuals

who bridge the elements of the different domains. The concept

of entrepreneurial ecosystem draws upon the natural ecosystem,

in which the existence of organisms depends on the mutual

influence and restriction between them and their environment,

leading to an interactive relationship (Feld and Brad,2012).

Isenberg’s model (2016) only considers the actors of domains

within the entrepreneurial ecosystem and may have understated

the importance of individuals who can connect or link with the

different elements. The domains in AE are separated by space

and time, creating gaps that need to be bridged by connectors.

The theory of structural holes (Burt, 2003) was developed to

explain this phenomenon and later evolved into a social network

theory. In order to reduce gaps between individuals or groups,

bridges, brokers or boundary spanners have emerged, who

facilitate transactions and the information flow between the

individuals or group.

The individuals who act as bridges between domains within

the AE can be referred to as connectors. Thus, the AE requires

connectors to operate as a living ecology. For instance, if the

different elements of domains, such as Trade Association,

University, government agency and financial institutions, do not

interact with each other or work independently, entrepreneurs

must approach each element individually and start cultivating

relationships from scratch if they lack prior contacts within each

domain. However, if connectors exist who can link the

entrepreneurs with the different elements, the process will be

more efficient and effective.

The importance of relationships in AE can be attributed to

three reasons. Firstly, SMEs are associated with high risk, and

partners need to be endorsed through relationships. Secondly,

the agricultural practitioners’ circle is relatively closed, and

enterprises rely on relationships for entry. Lastly, relationships

constitute the essence of the ecosystem, and are therefore

regarded as the logical starting point for ecosystem formation,

according to Brown et al. (2020), who argues that relationships

should be the meta-theory of ecosystems.

The role of connectors is usually performed by members of

support institutes, such as associations, industry organizations,

and intermediaries. For instance, governments provide

agricultural enterprises with awards that they can apply for.

However, since awarding is not a frequent occurrence,

government staff often lack the knowledge on how to set up and

publicize the awards, and a lot of workforces is required during

the application and selection processes. Hence, professional

support organizations could help the government formulate

plans for the publicity and selection of awards, collect

application materials, and hire experts for evaluation and

selection, thereby saving time for government staff and

enhancing project effects.

For enterprises, award application is an infrequent event,

and enterprises often do not know how to handle the application

process to increase the probability of winning. Furthermore, it

takes a lot of time to understand and follow the application

process, which discourages some enterprises from applying for

government awards. Similarly, applying for bank loans or angel

investments is also challenging for SMEs, as rules are complex

and document preparation is time-consuming. Thus, expert

intermediaries and supporting organizations are critical in

assisting SMEs with navigating these complex procedures.

Connectors may also play an important role in facilitating

information exchange, resource complementation, and synergy

development between different elements of the ecosystem. By

linking the elements of the ecosystem, connectors reduce detours

or wasted resources, and hence are strongly needed to ensure the

optimal functioning of AE.

Likewise, Singapore can develop its AE by setting up

relevant departments and encouraging them to interact and

influence one another for an interactive relationship. The role of

connectors is crucial in facilitating these ties between

departments, and building a digital social platform could be a

potential strategy for connecting individuals and organizations in

the AE.

(2) AE need Attentiveness

The AE is not simply a structure of various domains and

elements, but a living ecology that requires attentiveness in

addition to connectors to thrive. Attentiveness refers to

individuals who are sensitive to the needs of

agribusinesses.Throughout the phases of growth, ranging from

start-up to maturity, agribusinesses face a series of unique

challenges, each requiring targeted solutions and innovative

breakthroughs. To effectively address these challenges,

attentiveness is essential in identifying potential partners within

the AE who can provide necessary resources to achieve the

desired outcomes. The subsequent discussion outlines the

specific obstacles that agribusinesses encounter during each

growth stage.

In most cases, agribusinesses initiate operations with a

distinctive technology or innovative service that requires

validation for its commercial viability. During the growth phase,

agribusinesses must address a range of challenges, including

expanding products range, upgrading technology to compete in

the market, generating revenue through marketing, and ensuring

long-term sustainability. For enterprises that continue to

progress, further development stages, such as international

marketing, globalization, and internationalization, present

unique and diverse obstacles. To navigate these challenges,

attentiveness is essential at each stage of growth, facilitating the

identification of key partners and innovative solutions to address

specific issues.

5.2 Recommendations for AE development in Singapore

Based on the strengths and weaknesses in Taiwan’s

agroecosystem, this paper proposes two recommendations with

reference to Singapore’s agricultural policies and competitive

advantage.

(1) Create a good agricultural culture

Taiwan has a rich history of agricultural production, which is

considered the most critical industry for sustaining human

existence and national stability. The deeply ingrained belief that

"farming is honourable" has become a fundamental part of

Taiwanese culture. In 2021, the Taiwanese agricultural sector

published a book titled Transforming 100 Farmers into

Outstanding Agricultural Entrepreneurs which presented 100

successful cases of agricultural businesses and their inspiring

stories of success. The book aims to inspire and encourage more

young people to return to rural areas and engage in agricultural

work by sharing these entrepreneurial experiences. Singapore

may use this as a reference to build its culture.

In recent years, Singapore has shifted its focus from

commercial development to promoting urban agriculture.

However, building a culture that values agriculture will be a

long-term process that should start with education. It should also

involve promoting food and agriculture education, food safety

awareness, and arranging opportunities for students to explore

agricultural careers and visit successful agricultural enterprises

from various perspectives.

With regard to food and agriculture education, the term

"food" refers to the understanding of agricultural food and the

increasing awareness of agricultural environments. For

Singapore to revitalize agriculture, food and agriculture

education should be integrated into everyday life as a life skill.

This involves learning nutrition knowledge and developing

dietary culture, which are essential components. Food and

agriculture education should not only start from school

education but also include family education. If everyone has the

opportunity to receive food and agriculture education from a

young age and experience it in an educational environment, it

will become a lifelong learning experience.

Another area of focus should be food safety. Food safety is a

fundamental requirement for human survival. When food

becomes a commodity, it is crucial to uphold its original value.

Choosing nutritious food also supports environmental

sustainability. Therefore, it is imperative to implement food

safety education in daily life.

Singapore would also need to build up talent pool.

Agricultural career exploration could encourage students to visit

farms and fisheries and explore potential career opportunities in

the agricultural industry. By understanding the capabilities

required in the future workplace, Singapore needs to cultivate a

new generation of agricultural operators.

(2）Build Strong Agricultural support

Taiwan has provided a variety of infrastructure to support

agricultural development and invested resources to encourage

innovation and entrepreneurship. The

"Entrepreneurship Platform," established by the Ministry of

Economic Affairs for SMEs, serves as an integrated platform for

consolidating entrepreneurial resources from central to local

governments and private sectors. Moreover, there are many

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Taiwan that support

agricultural development. Vertical and horizontal accelerators

both support the development of new type of agribusiness that

has an international perspective and innovative thinking, hence

stimulating local food and agricultural innovation, and

accelerating the development of start-ups. Singapore may

consider setting up such platforms to support its AE.

Singapore, as a business hub of Asia, boasts ample support

professions, a wellestablished entrepreneurship infrastructure,

and non-governmental institutions. With the existing framework,

and by intensifying its efforts on the two critical domains of

"urban agriculture" and "high-value Agrifood" in its agricultural

development, Singapore can expect to attain significant

outcomes over an extended period.

5.3 Limitations and future research directions

This study employs an ecosystem logic to explore the

diverse domains and characteristics of relationships that exist

within the agricultural ecosystem and reconstructs an

agricultural ecosystem model by drawing on social capital

theory and other relevant theories. Through in-depth interviews

with the founders of nine SMEs in Taiwan, this study finds that

the enterprise-centric agricultural ecosystem comprises

hierarchies of interactions among individual, group factors, and

community factors, and their relationships with the domains and

elements in the ecosystem.

By analysing the functional and structural dimensions of the

ecosystem, this study aims to provide theoretical reference for

the construction of agribusiness ecosystems in Singapore, and to

offer a more powerful theoretical explanation for the functioning

laws and functional emergence of the ecosystem. However, this

study has certain limitations, and future research may consider

conducting interviews with other elements in the ecosystem,

both in Taiwan and Singapore to verify and supplement the

findings of this research. This study posits that in order to ensure

sustainable, attention should be directed towards the core of the

agricultural ecosystem, and agribusiness are best positioned to

benefit from the ecosystem. They process the motivation and

financial resources to establish and sustain the ecosystem despite

inadequate funding.

Consequently, this study focuses on conducting in-depth

interviews with only nine founders of agricultural enterprises to

gain insights into the roles of the different elements in the

ecosystem. This study specifically approaches enterprises with

more than twenty years of experience as they have a nuanced

understanding of the ecosystem’s elements’ function. However,

the inherent biases and perspectives of each actor make it

challenging to provide a comprehensive and objective account.

Hence, future research should conduct interviews with more

enterprises and other elements in the ecosystem to validate and

complement this study’s findings.

Secondly, interviews with the various elements in

Singapore’s agroecosystem should be conducted to determine

whether Taiwan’s successful agricultural development

experience can be replicated in Singapore. It is important to

recognize that different countries possess diverse systems,

economies and cultures for example, which may affect the

applicability of the Taiwanese model in Singapore. Future

research could c investigate the applicability and suitability of

the Taiwanese agricultural structure in the Singaporean

agroecosystem by conducting interviews with the ecosystem’s

elements.

Thirdly, this study mainly relied on in-depth interviews to

derive empirical conclusions. Although these interviews

provided valuable insights, further research could use large-scale

surveys and other methods to ensure the study’s generalizability.

Further research could also investigate the co-relationship

between the ecosystem’s elements.

5.4 Conclusion

Singapore has set a goal to enhance its food self-sufficiency rate

through the

“30/30 vision” initiative, which aims to fulfil 30% of its

residents’ nutritional needs with locally produced food by 2030.

This study provides evidence that Isenberg’s Entrepreneurial

Ecosystem (EE) model is applicable to Taiwan’s agricultural

ecosystem (AE) and reveals that connectors, which facilitate

interactions and close relationships between enterprises and

various domains, are a crucial component of the ecosystem.

This study presents an analysis of the positive and negative

aspects of the Taiwan’s agricultural ecosystem and provide as a

reference for Singapore to enhance its agribusiness ecosystem.

Singapore is the hub of the ASEAN market and the financial and

trading centre of

Asia. It also serves as a Launchpad for Asian enterprises to

expand into Europe and

America, and as the headquarters for European and American

companies to enter Asia. Apart from developing an agricultural

ecosystem within Singapore, this study suggests that the key

findings “AE connectors” and “AE need attentiveness” can be

applied by engaging Singapore experts to serve as Asian AE

connectors and attentiveness. These experts can facilitate the

expansion of agricultural enterprises in other Asian countries,

enable Asian agricultural enterprises to access Europe and

America, and accelerate the entry of European and American

agricultural enterprises into Asia. In this way,

Singapore will play a crucial role in the global AE ecosystem.

Students also viewed