Entrepreneur location decisions across industries

  • João J. M. Ferreira
  • Cristina I. Fernandes
  • Mário L. Raposo
  • Roy Thurik
  • João R. Faria


In this paper we analyse whether entrepreneur location decisions differ across industries and identify the factors determining the choice of location between rural and urban environments. Firm location is based on a new taxonomy developed over the influential three dimensions of Hayter’s (1997) approach. The paper uses data from sample of one thousand Portuguese firms. We present a stylized theoretical model to determine how these new five dimensions influence firm’s location and test the model through a logistic regression. Our results show that that the location decisions depend on the sector of activity, type of area (urban vs. rural) and the characteristics of the entrepreneur. We find that companies engaged in knowledge intensive business services prefer to locate in urban areas. From an institutional point of view, firms prefer to locate in rural areas.


Entrepreneurship Location decisions Rural vs urban 


  1. Agarwal, S., Rahman, S., & Errington, A. (2009). Measuring the determinants of relative economic performance of rurak areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(2009), 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arauzo, J. M., & Manjón, M. C. (2004). Firm size and geographical aggregation: an empirical appraisal in industrial location. Small Business Economics, 22, 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arauzo, J. M., & Viladecans, E. (2006). Industrial location at the intra-metropolitan level: A negative binomial approach. Estudos de Ecnomia Espanhola, 224, FEDEA.Google Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D. B. (2007). The entrepreneurial society. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. B., & Fritsch, M. (2002). Growth regimes over time and space. Regional Studies, 36(2), 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34, 1113–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Autant-Bernard, C., Mangematin, V., & Massard, N. (2006). Creation of Biotech SMEs in France. Small Business Economics, 26, 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birley, S. (1985). The role of networks of cities and growth in regional urban. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryden, J. M., & Hart, K. J. (2001). Dynamics of rural areas: International comparative analysis. Aberdeen: The Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
  10. Capello, R. (2007). Regional economics. Nova Iorque: Routledge advantage texts in economics and finance.Google Scholar
  11. Chiles, T. H., Vulture, D. M., Gupta, V. K., Greening, D. W., & Tuggle, C. S. (2010). The philosophical foundations of a radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(2), 138–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christaller, W. (1933). Die Zentralen Orte in Südeuschland (in Deutch). Darmstad: Wissenschaftlische Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  13. Costa, M. T., Segarra, A., & Viladecans, E. (2004). The location of new firms and the life cycle of industries. Small Business Economics, 22, 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davidsson, P., Delmar, F., & Wiklund, J. (2006). Entrepreneurship as growth; Growth as entrepreneurship. In P. Davidsson, F. Delmar, & J. Wiklund (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and the growth of firms (pp. 21–38). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawe, S., & Bryden, J. M. (1999). Competitive advantage in the rural periphery: Redefining the global–local nexus. In H. Lithwick & Y. Gradus (Eds.), Urban development in frontier regions. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Eberts, D., & Randall, J. (1998). Producer services, labor market segmentation and peripheral regions: the case of Saskatchewan. Growth & Change, 29, 401–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elgen, J., Goottschalk, S., & Rammer, C. (2004). Location decisions of Spin-Offs from public research institutions. Industry and Innovation, 11(3), 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Felsenstein, D. (1996). High technology firms and metropolitan locational choice in Israel; a look at the determinants. Geografiska Annaler Series B, Human Geography, 78(1), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferreira, J., Marques, C., & Fernandes, C. (2010). Decision-making for location of New Knowledge Intensive Businesses on ICT sector: Portuguese Evidences. International Journal of E-Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 1(1), 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Figueiredo, O., Guimarães, P., & Woodward, D. (2002). Home-field advantage, location decision of portuguese entrepreneurs. Journal of Urban Economics, 52, 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fuentes, M., Ruiz, M., Bojica, A., & Fernandez, V. (2010). Prior knowledge and social networks in the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(4), 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fuller-Love, N. (2009). Formal and informal networks in small businesses in the media industry. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5(3), 271–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Galbraith, C. S. (1985). High-technology location and development, the case of Orange County. California Management Review, 28(1), 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greene, W. (2003). Econometric analysis fifth edition Upper River, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  25. Grimes, S. (2000). Rural areas in the information society: diminishing distance or increasing learning capacity? Journal of Rural Studies, 16(1), 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Groot, H. L. F., Nijkamp, P., & Stough, R. R. (2004). Entrepreneurship and regional economic development – a spatial perspective. Massachuetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  27. Hansen, E. (1987). Industrial location choice in Sao Paulo, Brazil: a nested logit model. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 17, 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hayter, R. (1997). The dynamics of industrial location: the factory, the firm and the production system. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Hisrich, R., Langan-Fox, J., & Grant, S. (2007). Entrepreneurship research and practice: a call to action for psychology. American Psychologist, 62, 575–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holl, A. (2004). Manufacturing location and impacts of road transport infrastructure: empirical evidence from Spain. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34, 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoover, E. (1948). The location of economic activity. New York: McGraw – Hill.Google Scholar
  32. Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  33. Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50(3), 649–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kahneman, B., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keeble, D. (1998). North–south and urban–rural variations in SME growth, innovation and networking in the 1990s. In A. D. Cosh & A. Hughes (Eds.), Enterprise Britain: Growth, innovation and public policy in the small and medium sized enterprise sector 1994–1997. Cambridge: ESRC Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  36. Kihlstrom, R. E., & Laffont, J. (1979). A general equilibrium entrepreneurial theory of firm formation based on risk aversion. Journal of Political Economy, 87(4), 719–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kirchoff, B. A., & Phillips, B. D. (1988). The effect of firm formation and growth on job creation in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 133–149.Google Scholar
  38. Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  40. Krugman, P. (1981). Trade accumulation and uneven development. Journal of Development Economics, 8, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krugman, P. (1991). Geography and trade. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lafuente, E., Vaillant, Y., & Serarols, C. (2010). Location decisions of knowledge-based entrepreneurs: why some Catalan KISAs choose to be rural? Technovation, 30, 590–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lösch, A. (1940). Die Raumliche Ordung der Witschoft. Tradução para The economics of location. Yale UP, 1954Google Scholar
  44. Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lucas, R. E. (1978). On the size distributon of business firms. Bell Journal of Economics, 22(1), 3–42.Google Scholar
  46. Mahbubani, K. (2008). The new Asian hemisphere. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  47. Marshall, A. (1890). Princiles of economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of Economics. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  49. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  50. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mydral, D. (1957). Economic theory and underdeveloped regions. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  52. NCOE (2001). Embracing innovation: entrepreneurship and American Economic Growth. In National Commission on Entrepreneurship. White Paper, 1–11.Google Scholar
  53. North, D., & Smallbone, D. (1995). The employment generation potential of mature SMEs in different geographical environments. Urban Studies, 32(9), 1517–1534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. OECD (2006). The new rural paradigm, policy and governance. Working Paper on Territorial Policy in Rural Areas. OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  55. Ouwersloot, H., & Rietveld, P. (2000). The geography of R&D: tobit analysis and a Bayesian approach to mapping R&D activities in the Netherlands. Environment and Planning, 32, 1673–1688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Parker, S. C. (1996). A time series model of self-employment. Small Business Economics, 63, 459–475.Google Scholar
  57. Parker, S. C. (1997). The effects of risk on self employment under uncertainty. Small Business Economics, 9(6), 512–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Parker, S. C. (2004). The economics of self-employment and entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Poehling, R. (1999). Locating producer services in the rural South of the US: The case of Alabama, Florida and Georgia. Paper presented at the Meetings of the North American Regional Science Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  60. Schindehutte, M., & Morris, M. H. (2009). Advancing strategic entrepreneurship research: the role of complexity science in shifting the paradigm. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33(1), 241–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  63. Shearmur, R., & Doloreux, D. (2008). Urban hierarchy or local buzz? High-order producer service and (or) knowledge-intensive business service location in Canada, 1991–2001. The Professional Geographer, 60(3), 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Silva, J. (2006). Acessibility and development in peripheral regions: The case for beira interior. 45th European Congress of Regional Science Association International, ERSA, Volos.Google Scholar
  65. Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Britanic encyclopedic, 1952. London.Google Scholar
  66. Sternberg, R., & Arndt, O. (2001). The firm or the region: what determines the innovation behaviour of European firms? Economic Geography, 7, 364–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Storey, D. J. (1994). Employment. In D. J. Storey (Ed.), Understanding the small business sector (pp. 160–203). London: Routledge. Chapther 6.Google Scholar
  68. Thurik, A. R., & Wennekers, A. (2004). Entrepreneurship, small business and economic growth. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(1), 140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Trullén, J. (2001). Léconomia de Barcelona: cap a un nou model de desenvolupament. Revista Situación Catalunya, 2, 26–38.Google Scholar
  70. Van Praag, M. C., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29, 351–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. van Stel, A. J. (2006). Empirical analysis of entrepreneurship and economic growth. International studies in entrepreneurship series, 13. New York: Springer Science.Google Scholar
  72. Veciana, J. M., & Urbano, D. (2008). The institutional approach to entrepreneurship research. Introduction. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(4), 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Von Thünen (1826). Der isolierte staat in bezeihungauf landwirtschaft und national ö konomie. In English by C. M. Wartenberg “Von Thünen’s isolated state”. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1966.Google Scholar
  74. Weber, A. (1909). Über den standort der industrien. In English by C. J. Friedrich as Theory of the location of industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928.Google Scholar
  75. Welter, F., & Lasch, F. (2008). Entrepreneurship research in Europe: taking stock and looking forward. EntrepreneurshipTheory & Practice, 32(2), 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wernerheim, M., & Sharpe, C. (2003). High-order producer services in metropolitan Canada: how footloose are they? Regional Studies, 37, 469–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • João J. M. Ferreira
    • 1
  • Cristina I. Fernandes
    • 2
  • Mário L. Raposo
    • 3
  • Roy Thurik
    • 4
  • João R. Faria
    • 5
  1. 1.University of Beira Interior and NECE - Research Unit in Business SciencesCovilhãPortugal
  2. 2.Polytechnic of Castelo Branco & NECE - Research Unit in Business SciencesCovilhãPortugal
  3. 3.University of Beira Interior and NECE - Research Unit in Business SciencesCovilhãPortugal
  4. 4.Erasmus School of EconomicsErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamNetherlands
  5. 5.University of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA

Personalised recommendations