Small Business Economics

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 383–396 | Cite as

The impact of local knowledge bases on the creation of innovative start-ups in Italy

  • Alessandra ColombelliEmail author


This paper aimed at investigating the relationship between the features of local knowledge bases and the creation of innovative start-ups in Italy. The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship has here been combined with the recombinant knowledge hypothesis in order to derive a theoretical framework that could emphasize the heterogeneous nature of knowledge and identify some key dimensions. The empirical analysis has been focused on the patterns of new firm formation in Italian NUTS 3 regions using data on the creation of innovative start-ups that have followed the implementation of a new Italian regulation. The results of the analysis confirm that not only does the size of the knowledge stock play a key role in shaping the creation of innovative start-ups, but also the characteristics of such knowledge, in terms of variety and similarity.


New firm formation Innovative start-ups Knowledge-spillover theory of entrepreneurship Recombinant knowledge 

JEL Classifications

L26 M13 R11 O33 


  1. Acs, Z. J., & Armington, C. (2006). Entrepreneurship, geography and American economic growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1989a). Small-firm entry in US manufacturing. Economica, 56, 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acs, Z., Audretsch, D., & Feldman, P. (1992). Real effects of academic research: Comment. American Economic Review, 82, 363–367.Google Scholar
  4. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1989b). Births and firm size. Southern Economic Journal, 56, 467–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 757–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60, 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation and industry evolution., Cambridge (Mass): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Audretsch, D. B., & Fritsch, M. (1994). The geography of firm births in Germany. Regional Studies, 28(4), 359–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86, 630–640.Google Scholar
  12. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. C. (2007). The localisation of entrepreneurship capital: Evidence from Germany. Papers in Regional Science, 86, 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C., & Lehmann, E. E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34, 1191–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology. American Economic Review, 86, 641–652.Google Scholar
  16. Audretsch, D. B., & Vivarelli, M. (1995). New firm formation in Italy. Economics Letters, 48, 77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Audretsch, D. B., & Vivarelli, M. (1996). Determinants of new-firm startups in Italy. Empirica, 23, 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bae, J., & Koo, J. (2008). The nature of local knowledge and firm formation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Baptista, R., & Mendonça, J. (2010). Proximity to knowledge sources and the location of knowledge-based start-ups. The Annals of Regional Science, 45(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bartik, T. (1985). Business location decisions in the United States: estimates of the effects of unionization, taxes, and other characteristics of the states. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 3(January), 16–22.Google Scholar
  21. Bishop, P. (2012). Knowledge, diversity and entrepreneurship: a spatial analysis of new firm formation in Great Britain. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24, 641–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bonaccorsi, A., Colombo, M. G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2013). University specialization and new firm creation across industries. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 837–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bonaccorsi, A., Colombo, M. G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2014). The impact of local and external university knowledge on the creation of knowledge-intensive firms: Evidence from the Italian case. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 261–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Boschma, R. (2014). Constructing regional advantage and smart specialization: Comparisons of two European policy concepts. Italian Journal of Regional Science, 13(1), 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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(3), 440–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Carree, M., & Thurik, A. R. (2006). Understanding the Role of Entrepreneurship for Economic Growth. In M. Carree & A. R. Thurik (Eds.), The Handbook of Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth (pp. 9–19). Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  27. Cassia, L., & Colombelli, A. (2008). Do universities knowledge spillovers impact on new firm’s growth? Empirical evidence from UK. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4, 453–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cassia, L., Colombelli, A., & Paleari, S. (2009). Firms’ growth: Does the innovation system matter? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 20, 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., & Quatraro, F. (2014). High-growth firms and technological knowledge: do gazelles follow exploration or exploitation strategies? Industrial and Corporate Change, 23, 261–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Colombelli, A., & Quatraro, F. (2013). The properties of local knowledge bases and entrepreneurship: evidence from Italian NUTS3 regions. Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG), No. 1303, Utecht University, Section of Economic Geography.Google Scholar
  31. Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31, 1103–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dejardin, M., & Fritsch, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial dynamics and regional growth. Small Business Economics, 36(4), 377–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Feldman, M. (2001). The entrepreneurial event revisited: Firm formation in regional context. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 861–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Feldman, M. (2005). Creating a cluster while building a firm: Entrepreneurs and the formation of industrial clusters. Regional Studies, 39, 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 30, 1019–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Foray, D., David, P. A., & Hall, B. H. (2011). Smart specialization. From academic idea to political instrument, the surprising career of a concept and the difficulties involved in its implementation, MTEI-working paper, November 2011, Lausanne.Google Scholar
  38. Fritsch, M. (1997). Newfirms and regional employment change. Small Business Economics, 9(5), 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fritsch, M., & Schindele, Y. (2011). The contribution of new businesses to regional employment: An empirical analysis. Economic Geography, 87, 153–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Geroski, P. A. (1995). What do we know about Entry? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13, 421–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economics Literature, 28, 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  43. Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2014). How university and industry knowledge interact to determine local entrepreneurship. Applied Economics Letters, 21(8), 513–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hall, B., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38.Google Scholar
  46. Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79, 957–970.Google Scholar
  47. Krafft, J., Quatraro, F., & Saviotti, P. P. (2014). The dynamics of knowledge-intensive sectors’ knowledge base: Evidence from biotechnology and telecommunications. Industry and Innovation, 21, 215–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee, S. Y., Florida, R., & Acs, Z. (2004). Creativity and entrepreneurship: A regional analysis of new firm formation. Regional Studies, 38, 879–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lucas, R. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kunter, M. H. (1990). Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance, and experimental design (3rd ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.Google Scholar
  51. Quatraro, F. (2010). Knowledge coherence, variety and productivity growth: Manufacturing evidence from Italian regions. Research Policy, 39, 1289–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reynolds, P., Storey, D. J., & Westhead, P. (1994). Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates. Regional Studies, 28(4), 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rigby, D. (2013). Technological relatedness and knowledge space: Entry and exit of U.S. cities from knowledge space. Regional Studies, 49(11), 1922–1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. The Journal of Political Economy, 98, 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Saviotti, P. P. (2007). On the dynamics of generation and utilisation of knowledge: The local character of knowledge. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 18, 387–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shane, S. (2001). Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47(2), 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  58. Van Zeebroeck, N. (2011). The puzzle of patent value indicators. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20, 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Zeebroeck, N., & van Pottelsberghe, B. (2011). The vulnerability of patent value determinants. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20, 283–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth, 3, 119–138.Google Scholar
  61. Vivarelli, M. (2004). Are all the potential entrepreneurs so Good? Small Business Economics, 23, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Recombinant growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wennekers, A. R. M., & Thurik, A. R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13, 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIGEPPolitecnico di TorinoTurinItaly
  2. 2.BRICK, Collegio Carlo Alberto, GREDEG-CNRSUniversity of Nice Sophia AntipolisNiceFrance

Personalised recommendations