Skip to main content

To be born is not enough: the key role of innovative start-ups

Small Business Economics volume 47, pages 277–291 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

This paper investigates the reasons why entry per se is not necessarily good and the evidence showing that innovative start-ups survive longer than their non-innovative counterparts. In this framework, our own empirical analysis shows that greater survival is achieved when start-ups engage successfully in both product innovation and process innovation, with a key role of the latter. Moreover, this study goes beyond a purely microeconomic perspective and discusses the key role of the environment within which innovative entries occur. What shown and discussed in this contribution strongly supports the proposal that the creation and survival of innovative start-ups should become one qualifying point of the economic policy agenda.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1990). Innovation and small firms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Agarwal, R., & Audretsch, D. B. (2001). Does entry size matter? The impact of the life cycle and technology on firm survival. Journal of Industrial Economics, 49, 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Agarwal, R., & Shah, S. K. (2014). Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: Firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators. Research Policy, 43, 1109–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60, 323–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Altindag, E., Zehir, C., & Acar, A. Z. (2011). Strategic orientations and their effects on firm performance in Turkish family owned firms. Eurasian Business Review, 1(1), 18–36.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Arrighetti, A., & Vivarelli, M. (1999). The role of innovation in the postentry performance of new small firms: Evidence from Italy. Southern Economic Journal, 65(4), 927–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Audretsch, D. B. (1991). New-firm survival and the technological regime. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73, 441–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation and industry evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C., & Lehmann, E. E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34, 1191–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Audretsch, D. B., & Mahmood, T. (1994). Firm selection and industry evolution: The post-entry performance of new firms. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 4, 243–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Audretsch, D. B., & Mahmood, T. (1995). New firm survival: New results using a hazard function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Audretsch, D. B., Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (1999). Start up size and industrial dynamics: Some evidence from Italian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 17(7), 965–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Baldwin, J. R., & Gorecki, P. K. (1987). Plant creation versus plant acquisition: The entry process in Canadian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 5(1), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Baldwin, J. R., & Gorecki, P. K. (1991). Firm entry and exit in the Canadian manufacturing sector. Canadian Journal of Economics, 24, 300–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. BarNir, A. (2012). Starting technologically innovative ventures: Reasons, human capital, and gender. Management Decision, 50, 399–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bartelsman, E., Haltiwanger, J., & Scarpetta, S. (2004). Microeconomic evidence of creative destruction in industrial and developing countries. Policy Research Working Paper 3464. World Bank, Policy Research Department, Washington, DC.

  19. Bartelsman, E., Scarpetta, S., & Schivardi, F. (2005). Comparative analysis of firm demographics and survival: Evidence from micro-level sources in OECD countries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3), 365–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Baumol, W. J. (2005). Entrepreneurship and invention: Toward their microeconomic value theory, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, related publication n. 05-38, Washington, Joint Center.

  22. Baumol, W. J. (2010). The microtheory of innovative entrepreneurship. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Baumol, W. J., Schilling, M., & Wolff, E. (2009). The superstars inventors and entrepreneurs: How were they educated? Journal of Economic and Management Strategy, 18, 711–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Beesley, M. E., & Hamilton, R. T. (1984). Small firms’ seedbed role and the concept of turbulence. Journal of Industrial Economics, 33(2), 217–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Block, J. H., Kohn, K., Miller, D., & Ullrich, K. (2015). Small business. Economics, 44(1), 37–54.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Boschma, R. (2015). Do spinoff dynamics or agglomeration externalities drive industry clustering? A reappraisal of Steven Klepper’s work. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(4), 859–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Boschma, R., & Fornahl, D. (2011). Cluster evolution and a roadmap for future research. Regional Studies, 45(10), 1295–1298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Breschi, S., Lenzi, C., Malerba, F., & Mancusi, M. L. (2014). Knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship: Sectoral patterns in a sample of European high-tech firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26, 751–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bruderl, J., & Schussler, R. (1990). Organizational mortality: The liabilities of newness and adolescence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 530–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Buenstorf, G. (2015). Schumpeterian incumbents and industry evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,. doi:10.1007/s00191-015-0423-7.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Caves, R., & Porter, M. (1977). From entry barriers to mobility barriers. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91, 241–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2005). A matter of life and death: Innovation and firm survival. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(6), 1167–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2006). Survivor: The role of innovation in firm’s survival. Research Policy, 35(5), 626–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Coad, A., & Rao, R. (2008). Innovation and firm growth in high-tech sectors: A quantile regression approach. Research Policy, 37(4), 633–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Colombelli, A. (2016). The impact of local knowledge bases on the creation of innovative start-ups in Italy. Small Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9722-0

    Google Scholar 

  37. Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., & Quatraro, F. (2013). Properties of knowledge base and firm survival: Evidence from a sample of French manufacturing firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1469–1484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., & Quatraro, F. (2014a). High growth firms and technological knowledge: Do gazelles follow exploration or exploitation strategies? Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(1), 261–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., & Quatraro, F. (2014b). The emergence of new technology-based sectors in European regions: A proximity-based analysis of nanotechnology. Research Policy, 43(10), 1681–1696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Colombo, M. G., Delmastro, M., & Grilli, L. (2004). Entrepreneurs’ human capital and the start-up size of new technology-based firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(8–9), 1183–1211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2005). Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: A competence-based view, Research Policy, 34, 795–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2010). On growth drivers of high-tech start-ups: Exploring the role of founders’human capital and venture capital. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(6), 610–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Cortese, C. G., Ghislieri, C., Molino, M., Mercuri, A., Colombelli, A., Cantamessa, M., et al. (2015). Promuovere lo sviluppo delle start-up. Sviluppo e Organizzazione, 265, 69–78.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Crespi, F., Ghisetti, C., & Quatraro, F. (2015). Environmental and innovation policies for the evolution of green technologies: A survey and a test. Eurasian Business Review, 5(2), 343–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Croce, A., Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2014). Venture capital enters academia: An analysis of university-managed funds. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(5), 688–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Czarnitzki, D., & Delanote, J. (2015). R&D policies for young SMEs: Input and output effects. Small Business Economics, 45(3), 465–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. De Jong, J. P. J., & Marsili, O. (2015). The distribution of Schumpeterian and Kirznerian opportunities. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Dejardin, M. (2011). Linking net entry to regional economic growth. Small Business Economics, 36(4), 443–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26, 1120–1171.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Dosi, G., & Nelson, R. R. (2013). The evolution of technologies: An assessment of the state-of-the-art. Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 3–46.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Dunne, T., Roberts, M. J., & Samuelson, L. (1989). The growth and failure of US manufacturing plants. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(4), 671–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Esteve-Pérez, S., Sanchis, A., & Sanchis, J. A. (2004). The determinants of survival of Spanish manufacturing firms. Review of Industrial Organization, 25(3), 251–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Evans, D. (1987). Tests of alternative theories of firm growth. Journal of Political Economy, 95, 657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Evans, D. S., & Leighton, L. S. (1990). Small business formation by unemployed and employed workers. Small Business Economics, 2(4), 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Foti, A., & Vivarelli, M. (1994). An econometric test of the self-employment model: The case of Italy. Small Business Economics, 6(2), 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Freeman, C., Clark, J., & Soete, L. (1982). Unemployment and technical innovation. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (Eds.). (1987). Technical change and full employment. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  58. García-Quevedo, J., Pellegrino, G., & Vivarelli, M. (2014). R&D drivers and age: Are young firms different? Research Policy, 43, 1544–1556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Geroski, P. A. (1995). What do we know about entry? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4), 421–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ghio, N., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2016). University knowledge and the creation of innovative start-ups: An analysis of the Italian case. Small Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9720-2

    Google Scholar 

  61. Gkypali, A., Kokkinos, V., Boura, C., & Tsekouras, K. (2016). Revisiting the role of Science & Technology Parks in the heart of the fiscal austerity era: The case of a lagging Greek RIS. Small Business Economics.

  62. Gkypali, A., Rafailidis, A., & Tsekouras, K. (2015). Innovation and export performance: Do young and mature innovative firms differ? Eurasian Business Review, 5(2), 397–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2014). Government, venture capital and the growth of European high-tech entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy, 43(9), 1523–1543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2015). New technology-based firms in Europe: Market penetration, public venture capital, and timing of investment. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(5), 1109–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hafer, R. W., & Jones, G. (2015). Are entrepreneurship and cognitive skills related? Some international evidence. Small Business Economics, 44(2), 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Hall, B. H. (1987). The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the US manufacturing sector. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35, 583–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Hanley, A., Liu, W. H., & Vaona, A. (2015). Credit depth, government intervention and innovation in China: Evidence from the provincial data. Eurasian Business Review, 5(1), 73–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Helmers, C., & Rogers, M. (2010). Innovation and the survival of new firms in the UK. Review of Industrial Organization, 36, 227–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Hsu, D. H. (2006). Venture capitalists and cooperative start-up commercialization strategy. Management Science, 52(2), 204–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Johnson, P. S. (2005). Targeting firm births and economic regeneration in a lagging region. Small Business Economics, 24(5), 451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Jolink, A., & Niesten, E. (2016). The impact of venture capital on governance decisions in collaborations with start-ups. Small Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9719-8

    Google Scholar 

  72. Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50, 649–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Kaiser, U., & Muller, B. (2015). Skill heterogeneity in startups and its development over time. Small Business Economics, 45(4), 787–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Kalbfleisch, J. D., & Prentice, R. L. (1980). Statistical analysis of failure time data. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Kaplan, S., & Lerner, J. (2014). Venture capital data: Opportunities and challenges. In NBER-CRIW conference on measuring entrepreneurial businesses: Current knowledge and challenges, December 2014.

  76. Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1958). Non-parametric estimation from incomplete observations. Journal of American Statistical Association, 53, 457–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. American Economic Review, 86(3), 562–583.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Klepper, S. (1997). Industry life cycles. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6, 145–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Koellinger, P., & Thurik, A. R. (2012). Entrepreneurship and the business cycle. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(4), 1143–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Kolstad, I., & Wiig, A. (2015). Education and entrepreneurial success. Small Business Economics, 44(4), 783–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Krafft, J. (2004). Entry, exit and knowledge: Evidence from a cluster in the info-communications. Research Policy, 33(10), 1687–1706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Lindsey, L. (2008). Blurring firm boundaries: The role of venture capital in strategic alliances. The Journal of Finance, 63(3), 1137–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M., & Ensley, M. D. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy, 34, 981–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Lotti, F., Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2003). Does Gibrat’s law hold among young, small firms? Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13, 213–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Lotti, F., Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2009). Defending Gibrat’s law as a long-run regularity. Small Business Economics, 32, 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Malchow-Møller, N., Schjerning, B., & Sørensen, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship, job creation and wage growth. Small Business Economics, 36(1), 15–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Mata, J., & Portugal, P. (1994). Life duration of new firms. Journal of Industrial Economics, 42, 227–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Mata, J., Portugal, P., & Guimaraes, P. (1995). The survival of new plants: Start-up conditions and post-entry evolution. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4), 459–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2016). University support and the creation of technology and non-technology academic spin-offs. Small Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9721-1.

  91. Mitra, A., & Jha, A. K. (2015). Innovation and employment: A firm level study of Indian industries. Eurasian Business Review, 5(1), 45–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Modrego, F., McCann, P., Foster, W. E., & Olfert, M. R. (2015). Regional entrepreneurship and innovation in Chile: A knowledge matching approach. Small Business Economics, 44(3), 685–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Mueller, S., & Stegmaier, J. (2015). Economic failure and the role of plant age and size. Small Business Economics, 44(3), 621–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Muscio, A., Quaglione, D., & Vallanti, G. (2015). University regulation and university-industry interaction: A performance analysis of Italian academic departments. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(5), 1047–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. OECD. (2003). The Sources of Economic Growth in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Oxenfeldt, A. R. (1943). New firms and free enterprise: Pre-war and post-war aspects. Washington, DC: American Council on Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Pellegrino, G., Piva, M., & Vivarelli, M. (2012). Young firms and innovation: A microeconometric analysis. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23, 329–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Quatraro, F., & Vivarelli, M. (2015). Drivers of entrepreneurship and post-entry performance of newborn firms in developing countries. World Bank Research Observer, 30, 277–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Raspe, O., & Van Oort, F. G. (2008). Firm growth and localized knowledge externalities. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 38(2), 100–116.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Reid, G. C. (1991). Staying in business. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 9(4), 545–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Renko, M., Carsrud, A., & Brännback, M. (2009). The effect of a market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, and technological capability on innovativeness: A study of young biotechnology ventures in the United States and in Scandinavia. Journal of Small Business Management, 47, 331–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Rocha, V., Carneiro, A., & Varum, C. A. (2015). Entry and exit dynamics of nascent business owners. Small Business Economics, 45(1), 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Rojas, F., & Huergo, E. (2016). Characteristics of entrepreneurs and public support for NTBFs. Small Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9718-9

    Google Scholar 

  105. Santarelli, E. (2006). Introduction. In E. Santarelli (Ed.), Entrepreneurship, growth, and innovation: The dynamics of firms and industries (pp. xiii–xx). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  106. Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2002). Is subsidizing entry an optimal policy? Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(1), 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2007). Entrepreneurship and the process of firms’ entry, survival and growth. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(3), 455–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 141–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Söderblom, A., Samuelsson, M., Wiklund, J., & Sandberg, R. (2015). Inside the black box of outcome additionality: Effects of early-stage government subsidies on resource accumulation and new venture performance. Research Policy, 44, 1501–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Storey, D. J. (1991). The birth of new firms—Does unemployment matter? A review of the evidence. Small Business Economics, 3(3), 167–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Storey, D. J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Sutton, J. (1997). Gibrat’s legacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 40–59.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Szopa, A. (2013). Intellectual capital and business performance in university spin-off companies. In P. Ordóñez de Pablos, R. Tennyson, & J. Zhao (Eds.), Intellectual capital strategy management for knowledge-based organizations (pp. 215–224). Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  117. Ter Val, A., & Boschma, R. (2011). Co-evolution of firms, industries and networks in space. Regional Studies, 45(7), 919–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. van Praag, M. C., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What Is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Vivarelli, M. (2007). Entry and post-entry performance of newborn firms. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  120. Vivarelli, M. (2013). Is entrepreneurship necessarily good? Microeconomic evidence from developed and developing countries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(6), 1453–1495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Vivarelli, M., & Audretsch, D. B. (1998). The link between the entry decision and post-entry performance: Evidence from Italy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 7(3), 485–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Wagner, J. (1994). The post-entry performance of new small firms in German manufacturing industries. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 42, 141–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Wennekers, S., & Thurik, A. R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by a public grant overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as part of the “Investissements d’avenir” program (reference: ANR-10-EQPX-17—Centre d’accès sécurisé aux données—CASD).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy

    Alessandra Colombelli

  2. BRICK Collegio Carlo Alberto, Turin, Italy

    Alessandra Colombelli

  3. CNRS-GREDEG, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France

    Jackie Krafft

  4. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy

    Marco Vivarelli

  5. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, Germany

    Marco Vivarelli

Authors
  1. Alessandra Colombelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jackie Krafft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Vivarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandra Colombelli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Colombelli, A., Krafft, J. & Vivarelli, M. To be born is not enough: the key role of innovative start-ups. Small Bus Econ 47, 277–291 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9716-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Innovation
  • Start-ups
  • Survival
  • Product innovation
  • Process innovation

JEL Classifications

  • L26
  • O33