Small Business Economics

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 1–15 | Cite as

Parent universities and the location of academic startups

Article

Abstract

Academic startups are thought to locate in their parent university’s home region because being in the vicinity of a university provides cost advantages in accessing academic knowledge and resources. In this paper we analyze the importance of a different mechanism, namely, social ties between academic entrepreneurs and university researchers, for enabling and facilitating the access to academic knowledge and resources, and therefore for the location of academic startups. We employ unique data on academic startups from regions with more than one university and find that only the parent university influences academic entrepreneurs’ decisions to stay in the region while other universities in the same region play no role. Our findings suggest that the mere local availability of a university may not per se guarantee access to knowledge and resources; social ties are additionally required. The importance of social ties implies that academic knowledge and resources are not necessarily local public good. This holds implications for universities’ role in stimulating regional development.

Keywords

University startups Academic startups Location choice Social proximity Spillovers 

JEL Classification

M13 L20 R30 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Tom Astebro, Stefan Bauernschuster, Werner Bönte, Oliver Falck, Olav Sorenson and seminar participants at the Council for Regional Economics for insightful comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Astebro, T., & Bazzazian, N. (2011). Universities, entrepreneurship and local economic development. In M. Fritsch (Ed.), Handbook of research on entrepreneurship and regional development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  2. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). Innovative clusters and the industry life cycle. Review of Industrial Organization, 11, 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review, 86, 641–652.Google Scholar
  4. Autant-Bernard, C., Billand, P., Frachisse, D., & Massard, N. (2007). Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies. Papers in Regional Science, 86, 495–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltzopoulos, A., & Broström, A. (2011). Attractors of talent: Universities, regions, and alumni entrepreneurs. Regional Studies. doi:10.1080/00343404.2011.602335.
  6. Bauernschuster, S., Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2010). Social capital access and entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76, 821–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33, 1477–1492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berggren, A., & Lindholm Dahlstrand, A. (2009). Creating an entrepreneurial region: Two waves of academic spin-offs from Halmstad University. European Planning Studies, 17, 1171–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braunerhjelm, P. (2008). Specialization of regions and universities: The new versus the old. Industry and Innovation, 15, 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buenstorf, G., & Klepper, S. (2009). Heritage and agglomeration: The Akron tyre cluster revisited. Economic Journal, 119, 705–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlton, D. W. (1979). Why new firms locate where they do: An economic model. In W. C. Wheaton (Ed.), Interregional movements and regional growth. Washington: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Carlton, D. W. (1983). The location and employment choices of new firms: An econometric model with discrete and continuous endogenous variables. Review of Economics and Statistics, 65, 440–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31, 1103–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dahl, M. S., & Sorenson, O. (2009). The embedded entrepreneur. European Management Review, 6, 172–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dorfman, N. S. (1983). Route 128: The development of a regional high technology economy. Research Policy, 12, 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., & Rammer, C. (2004). Location decisions of spin-offs from public research institutions. Industry & Innovation, 11, 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. European Commission. (2006a). Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007 to 2013). Official Journal of the European Union, 2006/144/EC, 20–29.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission. (2006b). Entrepreneurship education in Europe: Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning. Final Proceedings of the “Conference on Entrepreneurship Education” in Oslo, October 2627.Google Scholar
  22. Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning. (2003). Aktuelle Daten zur Entwicklung der Staedte, Kreise und Gemeinden. Band 17, Bonn.Google Scholar
  23. Feldman, M. P. (2000). Where science comes to life: University biosciences, commercial spin-offs and regional economic development. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Research and Practice, 2, 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feldman, M., & Desrochers, P. (2001). Research universities and local economic development: Lessons from the history of the Johns Hopkins University. Industry and Innovation, 10, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Feldman, M. P., & Francis, J. (2003). Fortune favours the prepared region: The case of entrepreneurship and the Capitol region biotechnology cluster. European Planning Studies, 11, 765–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Feldman, M. P., & Francis, J. (2004). Homegrown solutions: Fostering cluster formation. Economic Development Quarterly, 18, 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Feldman, M. P., Francis, J., & Bercovitz, J. (2005). Creating a cluster while building a firm: Entrepreneurs and the formation of industrial clusters. Regional Studies, 39, 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Figueiredo, O., Guimaraes, P., & Woodward, D. (2002). Home-field advantage: Location decisions of Portuguese entrepreneurs. Journal of Urban Economics, 52, 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fritsch, M., & Schwirten, C. (1999). Enterprise–university co-operation and the role of public research institutions in regional innovation systems. Industry and Innovation, 6, 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glaeser, E. L., Kerr, W. R., & Ponzetto, G. A. M. (2010). Clusters of entrepreneurship. Journal of Urban Economics, 67, 150–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 85–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hornbostel, S. (2001). Third party funding of German universities. An indicator of research activity. Scientometrics, 50, 523–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kenney, M., Nelson, A., & Patton, D. (2009). The university-centric high-tech cluster of Madison, United States. In J. Potter & G. Miranda (Eds.), Clusters, innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 167–192). Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. American Economic Review, 86, 562–583.Google Scholar
  36. Lerner, J. (1995). Venture capitalists and the oversight of private firms. The Journal of Finance, 50, 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2003). Science park location and new technology-based firms in Sweden—Implications for strategy and performance. Small Business Economics, 20, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindholm Dahlstarand, A. (1997). Entrepreneurial spin-off enterprises in Goeteborg, Sweden. European Planning Studies, 5, 659–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lindholm Dahlstarnd, A. (1999). Technology-based SMEs in the Goeteborg Region: Their origin and interaction with universities and large firms. Regional Studies, 33, 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms—academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31, 859–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lööf, H., & Broström, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lundvall, B. A. (1993). Explaining interfirm cooperation and innovation. Limits of the transaction-cost approach. In G. Gragner (Ed.), The embedded firm on the socioeconomics of industrial networks. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Mansfield, E., & Lee, J.-Y. (1996). The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy, 25, 1047–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maskell, P., & Malmberg, A. (1999). The competitiveness of firms and regions. ‘Ubiquitification’ and the importance of localized learning. European Urban and Regional Studies, 6, 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Michelacci, C., & Silva, O. (2007). Why so many local entrepreneurs? Review of Economics and Statistics, 89, 615–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. OECD. (2006). The new rural paradigm, policy and governance. Working paper on territorial policy in rural areas. OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  47. O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34, 994–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., Bowie, J. I., & Smith-Doerrs, L. (2002). The spatial clustering of science and capital: Accounting for biotech firm–venture capital relationships. Regional Studies, 36, 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roberts, E. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology: Lessons from MIT and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roberts, E., & Eesley, C. (2011). Entrepreneurial impact: The role of MIT. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 7, 1–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Segal, N. S. (1986). Universities and technological entrepreneurship in Britain: Some implications of the Cambridge phenomenon. Technovation, 4, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Slavtchev, V. (2010). Proximity and the transfer of academic knowledge: Evidence from the spatial pattern of industry collaborations of East German professors. Regional Studies. doi:10.1080/00343404.2010.487058.
  54. Sorensen, O., & Stuart, T. E. (2001). Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venture capital investments. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1546–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wicksteed, S. Q. (1985). The Cambridge phenomenon: The growth of high technology industry in a university town. Cambridge: Swavesey.Google Scholar
  56. Woodward, D., Figueiredo, O., & Guimaraes, P. (2006). Beyond the Silicon Valley: University R&D and high-technology location. Journal of Urban Economics, 60, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wright, M., Clarisse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88, 290–306.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of EconomicsUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK
  2. 2.Structural Change DivisionHalle Institute for Economic Research (IWH)Halle (Saale)Germany

Personalised recommendations