New Business Formation and Incumbents’ Perception of Competitive Pressure

  • Javier Changoluisa
  • Michael FritschEmail author


We investigate the relationship between new business formation and the level of competitive pressure that is perceived by manufacturing incumbent establishments. The perceived pressure of competition is stronger when entry in the respective industry is higher. This relationship holds not only for start-ups that are located in the same region of the incumbent, but also for start-ups across all regions of Germany. Additionally, we find that particularly small, low-productivity incumbents—as well as incumbents that are located in highly populated regions—are more likely to associate new business formation with high levels of competitive pressure. We also identify other incumbent characteristics that influence the overall level of perceived competitive pressure.


New business formation Competitive pressure Regional competition Incumbent firms Manufacturing industries 

JEL Classification

L26 L60 D20 O12 R11 



The authors are grateful to the Research Data Center of the Institute for Employment Research (IAB) in Nuremberg, Germany, for hospitality and assistance during research visits. We are indebted to Florian Noseleit, Michael Wyrwich and Moritz Zoellner for valuable comment on earlier versions. Comments from two anonymous referees and from the Editor of this journal helped us to considerably improve this paper. Financial support from the German Science Foundation (DFG RTG 1411) is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Aghion, P. (2017). Entrepreneurship and growth: Lessons from an intellectual journey. Small Business Economics, 48, 9–24.Google Scholar
  2. Aghion, P., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P., & Prantl, S. (2004). Entry and productivity growth: Evidence from microlevel panel data. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2, 265–276.Google Scholar
  3. Aghion, P., Blundell, R. W., Griffith, R., Howitt, P., & Prantl, S. (2009). The effects of entry on incumbent innovation and productivity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, 20–32.Google Scholar
  4. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60, 323–351.Google Scholar
  5. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1998). Endogenous growth theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Aghion, P., Howitt, P., & Mayer-Foulkes, D. (2005). The effects of financial development on convergence: Theory and evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 173–222.Google Scholar
  7. Allison, P. (1999). Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods & Research, 28, 186–208.Google Scholar
  8. Amend, E., & Bauer, F. (2005). Vergleichende Analyse von Länderarbeitsmärkten: Länderstudie Nordrhein-Westfalen, IAB regional Nr. 01/2005. IAB, Nordrhein-Westfalen.Google Scholar
  9. Andersson, M., Braunerhjelm, P., & Thulin, P. (2012). Creative destruction and productivity—entrepreneurship by type, sector and sequence. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 1, 125–146.Google Scholar
  10. Audretsch, D. B., & Fritsch, M. (1994). On the measurement of entry rates. Empirica, 21, 105–113.Google Scholar
  11. Bade, F.-J., & Nerlinger, E. A. (2000). The spatial distribution of new technology-based firms: Empirical results for West Germany. Papers in Regional Science, 79, 155–176.Google Scholar
  12. Baumol, W. J. (2004). Entrepreneurial enterprises, large established firms and other components of the free-market growth-machine. Small Business Economics, 23, 9–21.Google Scholar
  13. Biege, S., Lay, G., Zanker, C., & Schmall, T. (2013). Challenges of measuring service productivity in innovative, knowledge-intensive business services. The Service Industries Journal, 33, 378–391.Google Scholar
  14. Borraz, F., Dubra, J., Ferrés, D., & Zipitria, L. (2014). Supermarket entry and the survival of small stores. Review of Industrial Organization, 44, 73–93.Google Scholar
  15. Bosma, N., Stam, E., & Schutjens, V. (2011). Creative destruction and regional productivity growth: Evidence from the Dutch manufacturing and services industries. Small Business Economics, 36, 401–418.Google Scholar
  16. Bosworth, B. P., & Triplett, J. E. (2003). Productivity measurement issues in services industries: ‘Baumol’s Disease’ has been cured. Economic Policy Review, 9, 23–33.Google Scholar
  17. Bothner, M. S. (2005). Relative size and firm growth in the global computer industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 617–663.Google Scholar
  18. Braha, D., Stacey, B., & Bar-Yam, Y. (2011). Corporate competition: A self-organized network. Social Networks, 33, 219–230.Google Scholar
  19. Bramati, M. C., Gaggero, A. A., & Solomon, E. M. (2015). International trade and domestic competition: Evidence from Belgium. Review of Industrial Organization, 46, 383–399.Google Scholar
  20. Brixy, U. (2014). The significance of entry and exit for regional productivity growth. Regional Studies, 48(6), 1051–1070.Google Scholar
  21. Callejon, M., & Segarra, A. (1999). Business dynamics and efficiency in industries and regions: The case of spain. Small Business Economics, 13, 253–271.Google Scholar
  22. Carree, M. A., & Thurik, A. R. (2008). The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 557–594). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Caves, R. E. (1998). Industrial organization and new findings on the turnover and mobility of firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 1947–1982.Google Scholar
  24. Deutsch, J., & Silber, J. (1995). Static versus dynamic measures of aggregate concentration: The case of Fortune’s 500. Southern Economic Journal, 62, 192–209.Google Scholar
  25. Disney, R., Haskell, J., & Heden, Y. (2003). Restructuring and productivity growth in UK manufacturing. Economic Journal, 113, 666–694.Google Scholar
  26. Duranton, G., & Puga, D. (2004). Micro-foundations of urban agglomeration economies. In J. Vernon Henderson & J.-F. Thisse (Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. 4, pp. 2063–2117). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  27. Ejermo, O. (2005). Technological diversity and Jacobs’ externality hypothesis revisited. Growth and Change., 36, 167–195.Google Scholar
  28. Fischer, G., Janik, F., Müller, D., & Schmucker, A. (2009). The IAB establishment panel: Things users should know. Schmollers Jahrbuch/Journal of Applied Social Science Studies, 129, 133–148.Google Scholar
  29. Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J. C., & Krizian, C. J. (2006). Market selection, reallocation, and restructuring in the U.S. retail trade sector in the 1990s. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88, 748–758.Google Scholar
  30. Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J., & Syverson, C. (2001). Aggregate productivity growth: Lessons from microeconomic evidence. In C. R. Hulton, E. R. Dean, & M. J. Harper (Eds.), New developments in productivity analysis (pp. 303–363). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Fouskas, K. G., & Drossos, D. A. (2010). The role of industry perceptions in competitive responses. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110, 477–494.Google Scholar
  32. Fritsch, M. (2013). New business formation and regional development—a survey and assessment of the evidence. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9, 249–364.Google Scholar
  33. Fritsch, M., & Aamoucke, R. (2013). Regional public research, higher education, and innovative start-ups—an empirical investigation. Small Business Economics, 41, 865–885.Google Scholar
  34. Fritsch, M., & Changoluisa, J. (2017). New business formation and the productivity of manufacturing incumbents: Effects and mechanisms. Journal of Business Venturing, 32, 237–259.Google Scholar
  35. Fritsch, M., & Noseleit, F. (2013a). Investigating the anatomy of the employment effect of new business formation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37, 349–377.Google Scholar
  36. Fritsch, M., & Noseleit, F. (2013b). Start-ups, long- and short-term survivors, and their contribution to employment growth. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 23, 719–733.Google Scholar
  37. Geroski, P. (1995). What do we know about entry? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13, 421–440.Google Scholar
  38. Glaeser, E. L., & Gottlieb, J. D. (2009). The wealth of cities: Agglomeration economies and spatial equilibrium in the United States. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 983–1028.Google Scholar
  39. Glaeser, E. L., Kallal, H. D., Scheinkman, J. A., & Shleifer, A. (1992). Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy, 100(6), 1126–1152.Google Scholar
  40. Greene, W. H. (Ed.). (2012). Econometric analysis (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
  41. Greenstone, M., Hornbeck, R., & Moretti, E. (2010). Identifying agglomeration spillovers: Evidence from winners and losers of large plant openings. Journal of Political Economy, 118, 536–598.Google Scholar
  42. Greenstone, M., & Moretti, E. (2003). Bidding for industrial plants: Does winning a ‘Million Dollar Plant’ increase welfare? Working Paper no. 9844, Cambridge (MA). National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).Google Scholar
  43. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 929–984.Google Scholar
  44. Helsley, R. W., & Strange, W. C. (2011). Entrepreneurs and cities: Complexity, thickness and balance. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 41, 550–559.Google Scholar
  45. Hethey, T., & Schmieder, J. F. (2010). Using worker flows in the analysis of establishment turnover—evidence from German administrative data. FDZ-Methodenreport 06-2010 EN, Research Data Centre of the Federal Employment Agency (BA) at the Institute for Employment Research (IAB): Nuremberg.Google Scholar
  46. Hulten, C. R. (2010). Growth accounting. In B. H. Hull & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 2, pp. 987–1031). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishers.Google Scholar
  47. Iacovone, L. (2012). The better you are the stronger it makes you: Evidence on the asymmetric impact of liberalization. Journal of Development Economics, 99, 474–485.Google Scholar
  48. Igami, M. (2011). Does big drive out small? Entry, exit, and differentiation in the supermarket industry. Review of Industrial Organization, 38, 1–21.Google Scholar
  49. Kemp, R. G. M., & Hanemaaijer, J. (2004). Perception of competition: A measurement of competition from the perspective of the firm. Zoetermeer: EIM (EIM SCALES Research report H200406).Google Scholar
  50. Klepper, S. (1997). Industry life cycles. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6, 145–181.Google Scholar
  51. Kölling, A. (2000). The IAB-establishment panel. Schmollers Jahrbuch/Journal of Applied Social Science Studies, 120, 291–300.Google Scholar
  52. Nickell, S. (1996). Competition and corporate performance. Journal of Political Economy, 104, 724–746.Google Scholar
  53. Ranger-Moore, J., Breckenridge, R. S., & Jones, D. L. (1995). Patterns of growth and size localized competition in the New York state life insurance industry, 1860–1985. Social Forces, 73, 1027–1049.Google Scholar
  54. Redding, S. J. (2011). Theories of heterogeneous firms and trade. Annual Review of Economics, 3, 77–105.Google Scholar
  55. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  57. Schutjens, V., & Stam, E. (2003). The evolution and nature of young firm networks: A longitudinal perspective. Small Business Economics, 21, 115–134.Google Scholar
  58. Spengler, A. (2008). The establishment history panel. Schmollers Jahrbuch/Journal of Applied Social Science Studies, 128, 501–509.Google Scholar
  59. Tang, J. (2006). Competition and innovation behavior. Research Policy, 35, 68–82.Google Scholar
  60. Verhoeven, W. H. J. (2004). Firm dynamics and labour productivity. In G. Gelauff, L. Klomp, S. Raes, & T. Roelandt (Eds.), Fostering productivity: patterns, determinants and policy implications (pp. 213–241). Amsterdam: Elsevier BV.Google Scholar
  61. Wagner, J. (2012). International trade and firm performance: A survey of empirical studies since 2006. Review of World Economics/Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 148, 235–267.Google Scholar
  62. Williams, R. (2009). Using heterogeneous choice models to compare logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods & Research, 37, 531–559.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Friedrich Schiller University JenaJenaGermany
  2. 2.ESAI Business SchoolUniversidad Espíritu SantoGuayaquilEcuador

Personalised recommendations