Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Skill heterogeneity in startups and its development over time

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We study how startup teams are assembled in terms of team member human capital characteristics. To this end, we derive a statistically motivated benchmark for new venture team heterogeneity in terms of observed team member characteristics to generate stylized facts about team member diversity at startup and how it evolves as the new venture matures. We use the population of Danish startups that were established in 1998 and track them until 2001. Main findings are that teams are relatively more homogeneous at startup compared to our benchmark, indicating that difficulties associated with workforce heterogeneity (like affective conflict or coordination cost) as well as “homophily” (people’s inclination to bound with others with similar characteristics) may overweigh the benefits of heterogeneity. While workforce heterogeneity does increase over time, the increase is smaller compared to our benchmark but substantially larger than if team additions and replacements had the same characteristics as the initial team members.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Existing studies consider very high growth firms (Ensley et al. 1998; Kamm et al. 1990), firms founded by US MBA graduates (Ruef 2000), high-technology firms (Clarysse and Moray 2004; Eisenhardt and Bird Schoonhoven 1990; Higgins and Gulati 2003; Roberts 1991; Roure and Maidique 1986; Shrader and Siegel 2007), firms that eventually went public (Zimmerman 2008), venture capital-backed firms (MacMillan et al. 1985; Zacharakis and Meyer 1998) and university spin-offs (Forbes et al. 2006; Vanaelst et al. 2006; Santoni et al. 2012). Ruef et al. (2003) provide a critical discussion of existing empirical sociological studies of team assembly.

  2. Our methodology is best compared to Ellison and Glaeser’s (1997) “dartboard approach” of geographic industry concentration. Their thought experiment is to write down the identity of each firm in their data on a dart and to throw these darts on a map of the USA, thereby generating a random distribution of firms across the USA which they compare to the observed distribution of firms.

  3. Amason and Sapienza (1997), Bunderson and Sutcliffe (2002), Hambrick et al. 1996, Hambrick and Mason (1984) as well as Kilduff et al. (2000) underscore the importance of cognitive conflict to avoid group think. Cognitive conflict also induces people to reconsider their ideas, generates a variety of perspectives (Miller et al. 1998; Simons et al. 1999) and leads to more creativity (Ensley et al. 2002; Smith et al. 1994).

  4. The underlying assumption here is that, e.g., an individual with a technical education is likely to fulfill technological-oriented tasks and that individuals with a management education fulfill managerial tasks. While it indeed seems unlikely that individuals with a management education fulfill technological-oriented task, the reverse is, however, questionable. At the same time, however, individuals with the same education are more likely to be similar in how they think and work, irrespective of the actual task they perform.

  5. In competitive markets, wages correspond to marginal productivity of worker. Productivity can be interpreted as ability because it reflects individuals’ talent to create valuable economic output.

  6. Chandler et al. (2005) study the determinants of startup team membership changes over time using a large sample of USA and Swedish firms, finding some evidence for initial team heterogeneity being positively linked to the probability of changes in the assembly of startup teams.

  7. We cannot rule out that some of our startups are set up for tax reasons only, even though all but twelve firms have positive sales. In Denmark, it is not only possible to deduct losses from self-employment from income from wage work, it is also possible to put profits from self-employment aside and have it taxed after retirement. While this might affect the number of startups and the number of team foundations, it is not clear if and in what direction that would influence team heterogeneity.

  8. Firms that started in 1998 and that were also shut down within that year are not included in the data set.

  9. Examples of categories of this variable are “degree after a vocational training at a bank,” “bachelor degree in management” or “Ph.D. in engineering.” The categories are a mix of years of education and the field of education. We do not separate these components in the analyses because we think that someone with, e.g., a vocational degree in a technical field has a different education than an engineer with a master’s degree.

  10. In addition, even if our benchmark did not take differences in net team additions into account, our figures would still be meaningful since these additions could both increase or decrease team heterogeneity.

References

  • Aldrich, H. E., & Kim, P. H. (2007). Small worlds, infinite possibilities? How social networks affect entrepreneurial team formation and search, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 147–165. doi:10.1002/sej.8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23, 495–516. doi:10.1177/014920639702300401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision making, and organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 239–253. doi:10.1108/eb022745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A., Shrader, R. C., & Tompson, G. H. (2006). Newness and novelty: Relating top management team composition to new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 125–148. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.04.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, C. M., Burton, D., & O’Reilly, C. (2007). Early teams: The impact of team demography on VC financing and going public. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 147–173. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: a meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 709–743. doi:10.1177/0149206310365001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingley, P., & Westergård-Nielsen, N. (2003). Returns to tenure, firm-specific human capital and worker heterogeneity. International Journal of Manpower, 24(7), 774–788. doi:10.1108/01437720310502122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1960). Patterns of deviation in work groups. Sociometry, 23, 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When member homogeneity is needed in work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 31, 305–326. doi:10.1177/104649640003100303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunninge, O., Nordqvist, M., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Corporate governance and strategic change in SME’s: The effects of ownership, board composition and top management teams. Small Business Economics, 29, 295–308. doi:10.1007/s11187-006-9021-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternate conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 875–893. doi:10.2307/3069319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, G. N., Honig, B., & Wiklund, J. (2005). Antecedents, moderators, and performance consequences of membership change in new venture teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 705–725. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484. doi:10.2307/2393204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of a research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 55–79. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00113-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coad, A., & Timmermans, B. (2014). Two’s company: Composition. Structure and Performance of Entrepreneurial Pairs, European Management Review, 11(2), 117–138. doi:10.1111/emre.12030.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M., & Piva, E. (2012). Firms’ genetic characteristics and competence–enlarging strategies: A comparison between academic and non-academic high-tech startups. Research Policy, 41(1), 79–92. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.08.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. doi:10.2307/2780243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. C., & Daily, C. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial teams. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), Entrepreneurship 2000. Madison, WI: Upstart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, M. S., & Klepper, S. (2008). Whom do new firms hire? http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2420122.

  • Dahl, M. S., & Sorenson, O. (2010a). The migration of technical workers. Journal of Urban Economics, 67(1), 33–45. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2009.09.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, M. S., & Sorenson, O. (2010). The social attachment to place. Social Forces, 89(2), 633–658. doi:10.1353/sof.2010.0078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, M. S., & Sorenson, O. (2012). Home sweet home: Entrepreneurs’ location choices and the performance of their ventures. Management Science, 58(6), 1059–1071. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, M. S., Van Praag, M., & Thompson, P. (2014). Entrepreneurial couples. Available at SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2420369.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bird Schoonhoven, C. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 504–529. doi:10.2307/2393315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, G., & Glaeser, E. L. (1997). Geographic concentration in U.S. manufacturing industries: A dartboard approach. Journal of Political Economy, 105(5), 889–927. doi:10.3386/w4840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ensley, M. D., & Pearce, C. L. (2001). Shared cognition in top management teams: Implications for new venture performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 145–160. doi:10.1002/job.83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ensley, M. D., Carland, J. W., & Carland, J. C. (1998). The effect of entrepreneurial team skill heterogeneity and functional diversity on new venture performance. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A. W., & Amason, A. C. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of new venture top management teams Cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 365–386. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00065-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, D. P., Borchert, P. S., Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2006). Entrepreneurial team formation: An exploration of new member addition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1042–2587. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00119.x.

  • Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., Gatewood, E., & Katz, J. A. (1994). Finding the entrepreneur in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice, 18(3), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golub, B., & Jackson, M. O. (2012). How homophily affects the speed of learning and best-response dynamics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1287–1338. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1443787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grupp, H., Legler, H., Jungmittag, A., & Schmoch, U. (2000). Hochtechnologie 2000 - Neudefinition der Hochtechnologie für die Berichterstattung zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands. Karlsruhe, Hannover: Research Report for the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

  • Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1346–1352. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.28166119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms-competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659–684. doi:10.2307/2393871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper Echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. doi:10.5465/AMR.1984.4277628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.26586096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J., Lochner, L. J., & Todd, P. E. (2003). Fifty years of Mincer earnings regressions. NBER Working Paper No. 9732. doi:10.3386/w9732.

  • Helfat, C. E. (2007). Stylized facts, empirical research and theory development in management. Strategic Organization, 5(2), 185–192. doi:10.1177/1476127007077559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, M. C., & Gulati, R. (2003). Getting off to a good start: The effects of upper echelon affiliations on underwriter prestige. Organization Science, 14(3), 244–263. doi:10.1287/orsc.14.2.244.15160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogendorn, S., & van Praag, M. (2012). Ethnic diversity and team performance: A field experiment. IZA discussion paper 6731. http://ftp.iza.org/dp6731. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2105284

  • Horwitz, S., & Horwitz, I. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 6, 987–1015. doi:10.1177/0149206307308587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223–238. doi:10.1108/eb022744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557. doi:10.2307/2393737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50(3), 649–670. doi:10.2307/1912606.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kamm, J., Shuman, J., Seeger, J., & Nurick, A. J. (1990). Entrepreneurial teams in new venture creation: A research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 7–17.

  • Kilduff, M., Angelmar, R., & Mehra, A. (2000). Top management team diversity and firm performance: Examining the role of cognitions. Organization Science, 11, 21–34. doi:10.1287/orsc.11.1.21.12569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, D., Pearce, C., Smith, K., Olian, J., Sims, H., Smith, K., et al. (1999). Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 445–465. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199905)20:5<445:AID-SMJ27>3.0.CO;2-V.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koeller, C. T., & Lechler, T. G. (2006). Economic and managerial perspectives on new venture growth: An integrated analysis. Small Business Economics, 26, 427–437. doi:10.1007/s11187-005-5068-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lant, T., Milliken, F., & Batra, B. (1992). The role of managerial learning and interpretation in strategic persistence and reorientation: An empirical exploration. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 585–608. doi:10.1002/smj.4250130803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., Mahnke, V., & Vejrup-Hansen, P. (2005). Do differences make a difference? The impact of human capital diversity, experience and compensation on firm performance in engineering consulting. DRUID Working Paper No. 2005–04.

  • Lau, D. C., & Murninghan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–340. doi:10.5465/AMR.1998.533229.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, I. C., Siegel, R., & Narasimha, P. N. S. (1985). Criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate new venture proposals. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 119–128. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(85)90011-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C., Burke, L., & Glick, W. (1998). Cognitive diversity among upper-echelon executives: Implications for strategic decision processes. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 39–58. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199801)19:1<39:AID-SMJ932>3.0.CO;2-A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402–433. doi:10.5465/AMR.1996.9605060217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mincer, J. (1958). Investment in human capital and personal income distribution. Journal of Political Economy, 66, 281–302. doi:10.1086/258055.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Nanda, R., & Sørensen, J. B. (2010). Workplace peers and entrepreneurship. Management Science, 56(7), 1116–1126. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1100.1179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Østergaard, C. R., Timmermans, B., & Kristinsson, K. (2011). Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation. Research Policy, 40(3), 500–509. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. C. (2009). Can cognitive biases explain venture team homophily? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(1), 67–83. doi:10.1002/sej.55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7, 615–631. doi:10.1287/orsc.7.6.615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitcher, P., & Smith, A. D. (2001). Top management team heterogeneity: Personality. Power, and Proxies, Organization Science, 12(1), 1–18. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.1.1.10120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology: Lessons from MIT and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195067040.001.0001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roure, J. B., & Maidique, M. A. (1986). Linking prefunding factors and high technology venture success: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 295–306. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(86)90006-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, M. (2000). Strong ties, weak ties and islands: Structural and cultural predictors of organizational innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 427–449. doi:10.1093/icc/11.3.427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 195–222. doi:10.1177/000312240406900208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santoni, S., Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Wright, M. (2012). How does team diversity evolve? Exploring adaptation and perpetuation perspectives in entrepreneurial team change. Paper presented at DRUID 2012.

  • Schjoedt, L., Monsen, E., Pearson, A., Barnett, T., & Chrisman, J. J. (2012). New venture and family business team formation: Understanding team formation. Composition, Behaviors, and Performance, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37(1), 1–15. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00549.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader, R. C., & Siegel, D. S. (2007). Assessing the relationship between human capital and firm performance: Evidence from technology-based new ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(6), 893–908. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00206.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 662–673. doi:10.2307/256987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., O-Bannon, D. P., & Scully, J. A. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412–438. doi:10.2307/2393297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stam, E., & Schutjens, V. (2006). The fragile success of team startups. In R. Oakey, W. During, & S. Kauser (Eds.), New technology-based firms in the new millennium (Vol. V). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In L. W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans, B. (2010a). The Danish integrated database for labor market research: Towards demystification for the English speaking audience. DRUID working paper 10–16.

  • Timmermans, B. (2010b). Old wine in new bottles: The effect of previous co-worker experience on the survival of new firms. DRUID working paper 10–17.

  • Timmermans, B. (2010c). The impact of a diverse human resource composition on the survival of new firms. Aalborg University working paper. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1912422. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1912422.

  • Ucbasaran, D., Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Westhead, P. (2003). Entrepreneurial founder teams: Factors associated with member entry and exit. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. doi:10.1046/j.1540-6520.2003.00034.x.

  • Vanaelst, I., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Moray, N., & S’Jegers, R. (2006). Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: An examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00120.x.

  • van der Sluis, J., van Praag, C., & Vijverberg, W. (2008). Education and entrepreneurship selection and performance: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(5), 795–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27(2), 141–162. doi:10.1177/014920630102700202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacharakis, A. L., & Meyer, D. G. (1998). A lack of insight: Do venture capitalists really understand their own decision process? Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 57–76. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00004-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. A. (2008). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on the capital raised through an initial public offering. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00233.x.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, Chair for Entrepreneurship, University of Zurich, Affolternstrasse 56, 8050, Zurich, Switzerland

    Ulrich Kaiser

  2. Research Department Industrial Economics and International Management, Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), P.O. Box 103443, 68034, Mannheim, Germany

    Bettina Müller

Authors
  1. Ulrich Kaiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bettina Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bettina Müller.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 7.

Table 7 Definition of knowledge based industries
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaiser, U., Müller, B. Skill heterogeneity in startups and its development over time. Small Bus Econ 45, 787–804 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9667-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9667-8

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation