Advertisement

The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 5–29 | Cite as

Proximity to knowledge sources and the location of knowledge-based start-ups

  • Rui Baptista
  • Joana Mendonça
Special Issue Paper

Abstract

We use detailed longitudinal data on firms, human capital and universities to study the impact of geographical proximity to knowledge sources and local absorptive capacity on the regional location of knowledge-based start-ups. Using municipalities as the regional unit of analysis, we examine the influence of the regional distribution of universities, yearly numbers of students and graduates, and workforce education on new start-up numbers. We estimate models of regional entry using zero inflated negative binomial regression. We find that local access to knowledge and human capital significantly influences entry by knowledge-based firms into regions, after controlling for other regional-level variables.

JEL Classification

J24 M13 R12 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acosta M, Coronado D (2004) The effects of scientific regional opportunities in science-technology flows: evidence from scientific literature in firms. ERSA conference papersGoogle Scholar
  2. Acs Z, Plummer LA (2005) Penetrating the ‘Knowledge Filter’ in regional economies. Ann Reg Sci 39: 439–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acs Z, Audretsch DB, Feldman M (1994) R&D spillovers and recipient firm size. Rev Econ Stat 76: 336–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson R, Quigley JM, Wilhelmsson M (2005) Agglomeration and the spatial distribution of creativity. Pap Reg Sci 84: 445–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anselin L, Varga A, Acs Z (1997) Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. J Urban Econ 42: 422–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anselin L, Varga A, Acs Z (2000) Geographic and sectoral characteristics of academic knowledge externalities. Pap Reg Sci 79: 435–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Armington C, Acs Z (2002) The determinants of regional variation in new firm formation. Reg Stud 36: 33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Audretsch DB (1998) Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 14: 19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Audretsch DB (2003) Innovation and spatial externalities. Int Reg Sci Rev 26: 167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (2004) Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation. In: Henderson V, Thisse JF(eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics vol 4.. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 2713–2739Google Scholar
  11. Audretsch DB, Fritsch M (1994) The geography of firm births in Germany. Reg Stud 28: 359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Audretsch DB, Stephan PE (1996) Company-scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology. Am Econ Rev 86: 641–652Google Scholar
  13. Audretsch DB, Lehmann E, Warning S (2004) University spillovers: does the kind of science matter. Ind Innov 11: 193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Audretsch DB, Lehmann E, Warning S (2005) University spillovers and new firm location. Res Policy 34: 1113–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bade FJ, Nerlinger EA (2000) The spatial distribution of new technology based firms: empirical results for West-Germany. Pap Reg Sci 79: 155–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bania N, Eberts RW, Fogarty MS (1993) Universities and the start-up of new companies: can we generalize from route 128 and silicon valley. Rev Econ Stat 75: 761–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Baptista R (1998) Industrial clusters and the geography of innovation and production: a survey of the literature. In: Swann P, Prevezer M, Stout D(eds) The dynamics of industrial clustering. Oxford University Press, London, pp 13–51Google Scholar
  18. Baptista R, Preto MT (2006) Entrepreneurship and industrial re-structuring: what kinds of start-ups matter most for job creation? Discussion Paper # 06/06, Centre for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research, IN+, Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of LisbonGoogle Scholar
  19. Baptista R, Swann P (1998) Do firms in clusters innovate more?. Res Policy 27: 525–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Baptista R, Swann P (1999) A comparison of clustering dynamics in the US and UK computer industries. J Evol Econ 9: 373–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bartik TJ (1985) Business location decisions in the United States: estimates of the effects of unionization, Taxes, and other characteristics of states. J Bus Econ Stat 3: 14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Baum JAC, Sorenson O (2003) Advances in strategic management: geography and strategy, vol 20. JAI Press, GreenwichGoogle Scholar
  23. Boschma RA, Lambooy JG (1999) Evolutionary economics and economic geography. J Evol Econ 9: 411–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bóia MJ (2003) Determinants of innovation in Portugal designing, implementing and analyzing evidence from the third community innovation survey. Master Dissertation, Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of LisbonGoogle Scholar
  25. Cabral LMB, Mata J (2003) On the evolution of the firm size distribution: facts and theory. Am Econ Rev 93: 1075–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cameron C, Trivedi P (1986) Econometric models based on count data: comparisons of some estimators and tests. J Appl Econom 1: 29–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cameron C, Trivedi P (1990) Regression based tests for overdispersion in the Poisson model. J Econom 46: 347–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Capello R (2002) Entrepreneuship and spatial externalities: theory and measurement. Ann Reg Sci 36: 387–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Carlton DW (1983) The location and employment choices of new firms: an econometric model with discrete and continuous endogenous variables. Rev Econ Stat 54: 440–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cassia L, Colombelli A (2008) Do universities knowledge spillovers impact on new firm’s growth? Empirical evidence from UK. Int Entrepreneurship Manag J. doi: 10.1007/s11365-008-0084-1
  31. Cesário M, Vaz MTN (2004) Territory and entrepreneurial performance: an exercise on some industrial Portuguese regions. ERSA conference papersGoogle Scholar
  32. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1989) Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Econ J 99: 569–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1994) Fortune favors the prepared firm. Manag Sci 40: 227–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Costa J, Teixeira AC (2005) Do universities influence innovative efforts and location choices of technology based firms? The case of Portugal. DRUID AcademyGoogle Scholar
  35. Faberman RJ (2005) What’s in a city? Understanding the micro-level employer dynamics underlying urban growth. BLS WORKING PAPERS, Working Paper 386Google Scholar
  36. Feldman MP (2000) Location and innovation: the new economic geography of innovation. In: Clark G, Feldman MP, Gertler M(eds) Oxford handbook of economic geography. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Feldman MP, Audretsch DB (1999) Innovation in cities: science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. Eur Econ Rev 43: 409–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Figueiredo O, Guimarães P, Woodward D (2002) Home-field advantage: location decisions of Portuguese entrepreneurs. J Urban Econ 52: 341–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fisher MM, Varga A (2003) Spatial knowledge spillovers and university research: evidence from Austria. Ann Reg Sci 37: 303–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Florida R (1995) Towards the learning region. Futures 27: 527–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fritsch M, Falk O (2007) New firm formation by industry over space and time: a multi-level analysis. Reg Stud 41: 157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fritsch M, Mueller P (2004) The effects of new business formation on regional development over time. Reg Stud 38: 961–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fujita M, Thisse JF (1996) Economics of agglomeration. J Jpn Int Econ 10: 339–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gertler MS (1995) “Being There”: proximity, organization, and culture in the development and adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies. Econ Geogr 71: 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Glaeser EL, Kallal HD, Scheinkman JA et al (1992) Growth in cities. J Political Econ 100: 1126–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Giarratana MS (2004) The birth of a new industry: entry by start-ups and the drivers of firm growth. The case of encryption software. Res Policy 33: 787–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gilbert BA, Kusar MT (2006) The influence of geographic clusters and knowledge spillovers on the product innovation activities of new ventures. Max Planck Institute of Economics Discussion Paper on entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy #16/06Google Scholar
  48. Greene WH (1994) Accounting for excess zeros and sample selection in poisson and negative binomial regression models. Mimeo, NYU Stern School of BusinessGoogle Scholar
  49. Griliches Z (1992) The search for R&D spillovers. Scand J Econ 94(Suppl):29–47Google Scholar
  50. Hall BH, Link AN, Scott JT (2003) Universities as research partners. Rev Econ Stat 85: 485–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Henderson JV (1974) The sizes and types of cities. Am Econ Rev 64: 640–656Google Scholar
  52. Holl A (2004) Transport infrastructure, agglomeration economies, and firm birth: empirical evidence from Portugal. J Reg Sci 44: 693–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Iammarino S, McCann P (2006) The structure and evolution of industrial clusters: transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers. Res Policy 35: 1018–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jacobs J (1969) The economy of cities. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. Kangasharju A (2000) Regional variations in firm formation: panel and cross-section data evidence from Finland. Pap Reg Sci 79: 355–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Karlsson C, Nyström K (2006) Knowledge accessibility and new firm formation. CESIS Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  57. Keeble D, Wilkinson F (1999) Collective learning and knowledge development in the evolution of regional cluster of high technology SMEs in Europe. Reg Stud 33: 295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Krugman P (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Political Econ 99: 483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Markusen A, Hall P, Glasmeier A (1986) High tech America: the what, how, where, and why of the sunrise industries. Allen & Unwin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  60. Michelacci C, Silva O (2005) Why so many local entrepreneurs? CEMFI Working Paper No. 0506Google Scholar
  61. Moyano P, Fariña B, Aleixandre G, Ogando O (2005) Enterprise creation at a local scale: determining factors in the case of municipalities in Castilla y Leon. ERSA conference papersGoogle Scholar
  62. Mullahy J (1997) Heterogeneity, excess zeros, and the structure of count data models. J Appl Econom 12: 337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. OECD (2002) Science, technology and industry. ParisGoogle Scholar
  64. Porter ME (2003) The economic performance of regions. Reg Stud 37: 49–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reynolds P, Storey DJ, Westhead P (1994) Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates. Reg Stud 28: 443–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Scott AJ (1992) Industrial organization and location: division of labour, the firm, and spatial process. Econ Geogr 62: 215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shane S (1996) Explaining variation in rates of entrepreneurship in the United States: 1899–1988. J Manag 22: 747–781Google Scholar
  68. Shane S (2000) Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organ Sci 11: 448–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Siegfried JJ, Evans LB (1994) Empirical studies of entry and exit: a survey of the evidence. Rev Ind Organ 9: 121–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Simmie J (2002) Knowledge spillovers and reasons for the concentration of innovative SMEs. Urban Stud 39: 885–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Simmie J, Lever WF (2002) Introduction: the knowledge based city. Urban Stud 39: 855–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sorenson O, Audia G (2000) The social structure of entrepreneurial activity: geographic concentration of footwear production in the U.S., 1940–1989. Am J Sociol 106: 324–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stahlecker T, Koschatzky K (2004) On the significance of geographical proximity for the structure and development of newly founded knowledge intensive business service firms. Working Papers Firms and Regions, No. R2/2004, Fraunhofer InstituteGoogle Scholar
  74. Storey DJ (1984) Small firms in regional economic development. Reg Stud 18: 197–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stuart TE, Sorenson O (2003) The geography of opportunity: spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Res Policy 25: 1139–1157Google Scholar
  76. Varga A (2000) Local academic knowledge transfers and the concentration of economic activity. J Reg Sci 40: 289–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zucker L, Darby MR, Armstrong J (1998) Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. Am Econ Rev 88: 290–306Google Scholar
  78. Zucker L, Darby MR, Armstrong J (2002) Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Manag Sci 48: 138–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering and Management, Centre for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research IN+Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute of EconomicsJenaGermany
  3. 3.Centre for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research IN+Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations