Abstract
This study analyses the relationship between clusters and the growth performance of new U.S. technology-based firms. It is argued that firms benefit because clustering provides access to specialized resources that cannot be developed internally. The empirical results indicate that distance from a cluster is negatively related to growth, but clustering has a greater positive impact on biotech firms. Proximity to a cluster within a diverse metropolitan area is associated with superior growth performance only for firms that rely heavily on broad, downstream supply chain effects (that is, for information and communications technology firms).
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We define NTBFs as young and initially small firms operating in research and development (R&D)-intensive sectors.
Similarly, Owen-Smith and Powell (2004) have recently distinguished between “conduits” (market-based) and “channels” (spillovers).
Geroski (2005, p. 136) argues that Gibrat-type randomness is logically inconsistent with the existence of the firm-specific competencies associated with the resource-based view of the firm. By inference, results that reject Gibrat’s Law are at least logically consistent with the RBV.
As described more fully below, cluster effects are measured by the firm’s location in, or distance from, a relevant cluster. The economic diversity associated with that cluster is measured using two different metrics.
More precisely, the sign of the coefficient will depend on how we measure the cluster effect. As discussed below, we use two measures: proximity to a cluster (with an expected negative sign, as indicated in the text), and a dummy variable indicating location within a relevant cluster. In the latter case the coefficient is expected to be positive.
In fact several other distance measures were also calculated, but are not reported in this study because they do not alter the basic results. These include the average distance to all relevant top-10 clusters, and the average distance to various subsets of the top-10 (for example, average distance to the largest two clusters).
The data in Table 2 is recorded in natural logarithms, the form in which it used in estimation. The Great Circle Calculator program measures distances from the municipal hall of a chosen cluster or metropolitan area.
The Hachman Index is computed as Hi = 1/Σ(Eij/EUSj) × Eij, where Eij represents the share of employment in industry j in region i, and EUSj is the share of employment in industry j in the U.S.
For reasons of space we do not include all of the diversity terms. There are two diversity measures, and each applies to a corresponding measure of cluster distance (distance to largest, distance to nearest etc.). We present only the diversification measures relevant to the nearest cluster.
When we estimated a specification that included interactive terms for the two ICT sectors (but not the “other” category), there was significant multicollinearity and none of these terms was statistically significant, including those for biotech. When the medical devices dummy variable was omitted, leaving only the biopharmaceutical dummy, the effect on the latter is minimal.
We note as well that direct cluster effects are not observed when distance is measured from the nearest top-10 cluster and biotech interactive terms are included (Model 3), but the relevant coefficient exceeds unity. In addition, direct effects are found when the interactive terms are deleted (results not shown, but are available on request).
The HI is not corrected for size, but it is correlated with population (r = 0.69). The estimated coefficient for an interactive term (HACHMAN*POPULATION) was not statistically significant.
If the cluster distance is endogenous, then the interaction terms that involve it will also be endogenous. There are two interactive terms involving cluster distance, and we therefore require two additional exogenous instruments. For this purpose we used the interaction of the cluster distance rank index with both firm age and firm size.
References
Acs, Z., Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (1992). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 82(1), 363–367.
Acs, Z., Fitzroy, F., & Smith, I. (2002). High-technology employment and R&D in cities: Heterogeneity vs. specialization. Annals of Regional Science, 36(3), 373–386.
Aharonson, B., Baum, J., & Feldman, M. (2004). Industrial clustering and the returns to inventive activity: Canadian biotechnology firms, 1991–2000. Rotman School of Management working paper http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/strategy/research/working.htm.
Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.
Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (2003). Small-firm strategic research partnerships: The case of biotechnology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 15(2), 273–288.
Audretsch, D., & Lehman, E. E. (2005). Mansfield’s missing link: The impact of knowledge spillovers on firm growth. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1/2), 207–210.
Audretsch, D., & Stephan, P. (1999). Knowledge spillovers in biotechnology: Sources and incentives. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9(1), 97–107.
Audretsch, D., Klomp, L., Santarelli, E., & Thurik, A. R. (2004). Gibrat’s law: Are services different? Review of Industrial Organization, 24, 301–324.
Autant-Bernard, C., Mangematin, V., & Massard, N. (2006). Creation of biotech SMEs in France. Small Business Economics, 26(2), 173–187.
Baptista, R., & Swann, G. M. (1999). A comparison of clustering dynamics in the US and UK computer industries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9(3), 373–399.
Bell, G. G. (2005). Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 287–295.
Braunerhjelm, P., Carlsson, B., Cetindamar, D., & Johansson, D. (2000). The old and the new: The evolution of polymer and biomedical clusters in Ohio and Sweden. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(5), 471–488.
Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2001). Knowledge spillovers and local innovations systems: A critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 975–1005.
Chung, W., & Alcacer, J. (2002). Knowledge seeking and location choice of foreign direct investment in the United States. Management Science, 48(12), 1534–1554.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorbtive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Cubbin, J., & Stern, J. (2006). The impact of regulatory governance and privatization on electricity industry generation capacity in developing economies. World Bank Economic Review, 20(1), 115–141.
Davidsson, P., Kirchhoff, B., Hatemi-J, A., & Gustavsson, H. (2002). Empirical analysis of business growth factors using Swedish data. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(4), 332–349.
Deloitte, & Touche, n.d., (http://www.public.deloitte.com/fast500). Accessed on April 3, 2005.
Edwards, G. E., & Waverman, L. (2006). The effects of public ownership and regulatory independence on regulatory outcomes. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 29(1), 23–67.
Eisenhardt, K., & Schoonhoven, C. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 504–529.
Evans, W., & Kessides, I. (1993). Localized market power in the US airline industry. Review of Economics and Statistics, 75(1), 66–73.
Feldman, M. (2003). The Locational dynamics of the US biotech industry: Knowledge externalities and the anchor hypothesis. Industry and Innovation, 10(3), 311–328.
Feldman, Francis, M. J., & Bercovitz, J. (2005). Creating a cluster while building a firm: Entrepreneurs and the formation of industrial Clusters. Regional Studies, 39(1), 129–141.
Geroski, P. A. (2005). Understanding the implications of empirical work on corporate growth rates. Managerial and Decision Economics, 26(2), 129–138.
Gimeno, J., Hoskinsson, R. E., Beal, B. D., & Wan, W. P. (2005). Explaining the clustering of international expansion moves: A critical test in the U.S. telecommunications industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 297–319.
Glaeser, E., Kallal, H., Scheinkman, J., & Shleifer, A. (1992). Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy, 100(6), 1126–1152.
Globerman, S., Shapiro, D., & Vining, A. (2005). Clusters and intercluster spillovers: Their influence on the growth and survival of Canadian information technology firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(1), 27–60.
Great Circle Calculator, n.d., (http://www.gb3pi.org.uk/great.html) Accessed on April 3, 2005.
Hamilton, O., Shapiro, D., & Vining, A. (2002). The growth patterns of Canadian high-tech firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 24(4), 458–472.
Harvard Cluster Mapping Project, n.d., http://data.isc.hbs.edu/isc/index.jsp. Accessed on April 3, 2005.
Helsely, R. W., & Strange, W. C. (2002). Innovation and input sharing. Journal of Urban Economics, 51(1), 22–45.
Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York: Vintage.
Kalnins, A., & Chung, W. (2004). Resource-seeking agglomeration: A study of market entry in the lodging industry. Strategic Management Journal, 25(7), 689–699.
Keller, W. (2002). Geographic localization of international technology diffusion. American Economic Review, 92(1), 120–142.
Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. American Economic Review, 86(3), 562–583.
Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483–499.
Lemarie, S., Mangematin, V., & Torre, A. (2001). Is the creation and development of biotech smes localised? Conclusions drawn from the French case. Small Business Economics, 17(1–2), 61–76.
Look-up latitude and longitude, n.d., (http://www.bcca.org/misc/qiblih/latlong_us.html). Accessed on April 3, 2005.
Lotti, F., Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2003). Does Gibrat’s law hold among Young, Small Firms? Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13(3), 213–235.
Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.
Martin, R. L., & Sunley, P. (2003). Deconstructing clusters: Chaotic concept or policy Panacea? Journal of Economic Geography, 3(1), 5–35.
Oerlemans, L. A. G., & Meeus, M. T. H. (2005). Do organizational and spatial proximity impact on firm performance? Regional Studies, 39(1), 89–104.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15(1), 5–21.
Porter, M. (2000). Location, competition and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15–34.
Porter, M., & Stern, S. (2001). Innovation: Location matters. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(4), 28–39.
Rosenthal, S., & Strange, W. (2005). The geography of entrepreneurship in the New York metropolitan area. FRBNY Economic Policy Review, December, 29–53.
Sadler-Smith, E., Hampson, Y., Chaton, I., & Badger, B. (2003). Managerial behavior, entrepreneurial style, and small business performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(1), 47–67.
Shaver, J. M. (2006). Interpreting empirical findings. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 451–452.
Shaver, J. M., & Flyer, F. (2000). Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investment in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 21(12), 1175–1193.
Steinle, C., & Schiele, H. (2002). When do industries cluster? A proposal on how to assess an industry’s propensity to concentrate at a single region or nation. Research Policy, 31(6), 849–858.
Storey, D. (1994). New firm growth and bank financing. Small Business Economics, 6(2), 139–151.
Stuart, T., & Sorenson, O. (2003). The geography of opportunity: Spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy, 32(2), 229–253.
Sutton, J. (1997). Gibrat’s legacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 40–59.
Swann, P., & Prevezer, M. (1996). A comparison of the dynamics of industrial clustering in computing and biotechnology. Research Policy, 25(7), 1139–1157.
Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., & Pinch, S. (2004). Knowledge, clusters, and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 258–271.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d., (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cew/SIC/) Accessed on April 3, 2005.
U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.) (http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/gazetteer). Accessed on April 3, 2005.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, n.d., (http://www.wcrl.ars.usda.gov/cec/java/lat-long.htm). Accessed on April 3, 2005.
U.S. Geological Survey, n.d., (http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnis/web_query.gnis_web_query_form), Accessed on April 3, 2005.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
Zaheer, A., & George, V. (2004). Reach out or reach within? performance implications of alliances and location in biotechnology. Managerial and Decision Economics, 25(6–7), 437–452.
Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and the performance of the US biotechnology firms. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.
Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–307.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the SSHRC (Canada) for financial support. The authors also thank Clayton Mitchell for research assistance and Tom Lawrence and three anonymous referees for helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maine, E.M., Shapiro, D.M. & Vining, A.R. The role of clustering in the growth of new technology-based firms. Small Bus Econ 34, 127–146 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-9104-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-9104-3