Small Business Economics

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 865–885 | Cite as

Regional public research, higher education, and innovative start-ups: an empirical investigation

  • Michael Fritsch
  • Ronney Aamoucke


Based on detailed information about the regional knowledge base, particularly about universities, we find that regional public research and education have a strong positive impact on new business formation in innovative industries but not in industries classified as non-innovative. Measures for the presence and size of public academic institutions have more of an effect on the formation of innovative new businesses than indicators that reflect the quality of these institutions. We find relatively weak evidence for interregional spillovers of these effects. Our results clearly demonstrate the importance of localized knowledge and, especially, of public research for the emergence of innovative new businesses.


New business formation Innovative start-ups Universities Regional knowledge 

JEL Classifications

L26 L60 L80 O18 R12 R30 


  1. Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. J. (1997). Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42, 422–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asheim, B. T., & Gertler, M. S. (2005). The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 291–317). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Astebro, T., & Bazzazian, N. (2011). Universities, entrepreneurship and local economic development. In M. Fritsch (Ed.), Handbook of research on entrepreneurship and regional development (pp. 252–333). Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M., & Lehmann, E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34, 1191–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34, 1113–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bania, N., Eberts, R. W., & Fogerty, M. S. (1993). Universities and the startup of new companies can we generalize from Route 128 and Silicon Valley? Review of Economics and Statistics, 75, 761–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baptista, R., Lima, F., & Mendonça, J. (2011). Establishment of higher education institutions and new firm entry. Research Policy, 40, 751–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baptista, R., & Mendonça, J. (2010). Proximity to knowledge sources and the location of knowledge-based start-ups. Annals of Regional Science, 45, 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonaccorsi, A., et al. (2013). How universities contribute to the creation of knowledge intensive firms: Detailed evidence on the Italian case. In A. Bonaccorsi (Ed.), The European higher education landscapediversity and performance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  14. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bosma, N., et al. (2012). Entrepreneurship and role models. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 410–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carree, M. A. (2002). Does unemployment affect the number of establishments? A regional analysis for US states. Regional Studies, 36, 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carree, M. A., Della Malva, A. & Santarelli, E. (2012). The contribution of universities to growth: Empirical evidence for Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-012-9282-7.
  18. Dahl, M. S., & Sorenson, O. (2009). The embedded entrepreneur. European Management Review, 6, 172–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elfenbein, D. W., Hamilton, B. H., & Zenger, T. R. (2010). The small firm effect and the entrepreneurial spawning of scientists and engineers. Management Science, 56, 659–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung). (2003). Aktuelle Daten zur Entwicklung der Städte, Kreise und Gemeinden (Vol. 17). Bonn: Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning.Google Scholar
  21. Feldman, M. P. (2001). The entrepreneurial event revisited: Firm formation in a regional context. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 861–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Figueiredo, O., Guimaraes, P., & Woodward, D. (2002). Home-field advantage: Location decisions of Portuguese entrepreneurs. Journal of Urban Economics, 52, 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fritsch, M. (2011). Start-ups in innovative industries—causes and effects. In D. B. Audretsch, O. Falck, S. Heblich, & A. Lederer (Eds.), Handbook of innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 365–381). Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  24. Fritsch, M. (2013). New business formation and regional development—a survey and assessment of the evidence. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9, 249–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fritsch, M., & Falck, O. (2007). New business formation by industry over space and time: A multi-dimensional analysis. Regional Studies, 41, 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fritsch, M., & Slavtchev, V. (2007). Universities and innovation in space. Industry and Innovation, 14, 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gehrke, B., Schasse, U., Rammer, C., Frietsch, R., Neuhäusler, P., & Leidmann, M. (2010). Listen wissens- und technologieintensiver Güter und Wirtschaftszweige. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 19(2010), Frauenhofer ISI, NIW, ZEW.Google Scholar
  28. Greene, W. (2008). Econometric analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Grupp, H., & Legler, H. (2000). Hochtechnologie 2000: Neudefinition der Hochtechnologie für die Berichterstattung zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands. Karlsruhe and Hannover, FhG, ISI, NIW.Google Scholar
  30. Harhoff, D. (1999). Firm formation and regional spillovers—evidence from Germany. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8, 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hülsbeck, M., & Pickavé, E. N. (2012). Regional knowledge production as determinant of high-technology entrepreneurship: empirical evidence for Germany. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal,. doi: 10.1007/s11365-011-0217-9.Google Scholar
  32. Klepper, S. (2009). Spinoffs: A review and synthesis. European Management Review, 6, 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lasch, F., Robert, F., & Le Roy, F. (2013). Regional determinants of ICT new firm formation. Small Business Economics, 40, 671–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Markusen, A., Glasmeier, A., & Hall, P. (1986). High Tech in America—the what, how, where, and why of the sunrise industries. Boston: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  35. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). OECD handbook on economic globalization indicators. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  36. Parker, S. C. (2009). Why do small firms produce the entrepreneurs? Journal of Socio-Economics, 38, 484–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Piva, E., Grilli, L., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2011). The creation of high-tech entrepreneurial ventures at the local level: the role of local competences and communication infrastructures. Industry and Innovation, 18, 563–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Proff, S. V., Buenstorf, G., & Hummel, M. (2012). University patenting in Germany before and after 2002: What role did the professors’ privilege play? Industry and Innovation, 19, 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reynolds, P. D., Storey, D. J., & Westhead, P. (1994). Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates. Regional Studies, 28, 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spengler, A. (2008). The establishment history panel. Schmollers Jahrbuch/Journal of Applied Social Science Studies, 128, 501–509.Google Scholar
  41. Sternberg, R. (2009). Regional dimensions of entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5(4), 211–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Storey, D. J., & Tether, B. S. (1998). New technology-based firms in the European Union: An introduction. Research Policy, 26, 933–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sutaria, V., & Hicks, D. A. (2004). New firm formation: Dynamics and determinants. Annals of Regional Science, 38, 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Statistisches Bundesamt (various volumes). Fachserie 11Bildung und Kultur. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.Google Scholar
  45. Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW). (2011). Die Bereitstellung von Standardauswertungen zum Gründungsgeschehen in Deutschland für externe Datennutzer. Mannheim: ZEW.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and Business AdministrationFriedrich Schiller University JenaJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations