Parent universities and the location of academic startups
- 811 Downloads
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.
KeywordsUniversity startups Academic startups Location choice Social proximity Spillovers
JEL ClassificationM13 L20 R30
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.
- 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
- Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review, 86, 641–652.Google Scholar
- Baltzopoulos, A., & Broström, A. (2011). Attractors of talent: Universities, regions, and alumni entrepreneurs. Regional Studies. doi:10.1080/00343404.2011.602335.
- 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
- 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
- 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 26–27.Google Scholar
- Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning. (2003). Aktuelle Daten zur Entwicklung der Staedte, Kreise und Gemeinden. Band 17, Bonn.Google Scholar
- Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. American Economic Review, 86, 562–583.Google Scholar
- 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
- OECD. (2006). The new rural paradigm, policy and governance. Working paper on territorial policy in rural areas. OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Wicksteed, S. Q. (1985). The Cambridge phenomenon: The growth of high technology industry in a university town. Cambridge: Swavesey.Google Scholar
- 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