Parent universities and the location of academic startups

Small Business Economics

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 1-15

  Heblich, Stephan ^a   Slavtchev, Viktor ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^b HALLE INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Academic startups; Location choice; Social proximity; Spillovers; University startups

Indexed keywords

EID: 84891900837     PISSN: 0921898X     EISSN: 15730913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11187-013-9470-3     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Astebro, T., & Bazzazian, N. (2011). Universities, entrepreneurship and local economic development. In M. Fritsch (Ed.), Handbook of research on entrepreneurship and regional development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
2. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). Innovative clusters and the industry life cycle. Review of Industrial Organization, 11, 253-273.
3. Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review, 86, 641-652.
4. Autant-Bernard, C., Billand, P., Frachisse, D., & Massard, N. (2007). Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies. Papers in Regional Science, 86, 495-519.
5. Baltzopoulos, A., & Broström, A. (2011). Attractors of talent: Universities, regions, and alumni entrepreneurs. Regional Studies. doi: 10. 1080/00343404. 2011. 602335.
6. Bauernschuster, S., Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2010). Social capital access and entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76, 821-833.
7. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33, 1477-1492.
8. Berggren, A., & Lindholm Dahlstrand, A. (2009). Creating an entrepreneurial region: Two waves of academic spin-offs from Halmstad University. European Planning Studies, 17, 1171-1189.
9. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39, 61-74.
10. Braunerhjelm, P. (2008). Specialization of regions and universities: The new versus the old. Industry and Innovation, 15, 253-275.
11. Buenstorf, G., & Klepper, S. (2009). Heritage and agglomeration: The Akron tyre cluster revisited. Economic Journal, 119, 705-733.
12. Carlton, D. W. (1979). Why new firms locate where they do: An economic model. In W. C. Wheaton (Ed.), Interregional movements and regional growth. Washington: Urban Institute.
13. 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, 440-449.
14. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
15. Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31, 1103-1122.
16. Dahl, M. S., & Sorenson, O. (2009). The embedded entrepreneur. European Management Review, 6, 172-181.
17. Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209-227.
18. Dorfman, N. S. (1983). Route 128: The development of a regional high technology economy. Research Policy, 12, 299-316.
19. Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., & Rammer, C. (2004). Location decisions of spin-offs from public research institutions. Industry & Innovation, 11, 207-223.
20. European Commission. (2006a). Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007 to 2013). Official Journal of the European Union, 2006/144/EC, 20-29.
21. European Commission. (2006b). Entrepreneurship education in Europe: Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning. Final Proceedings of the "Conference on Entrepreneurship Education" in Oslo, October 26-27.
22. Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning. (2003). Aktuelle Daten zur Entwicklung der Staedte, Kreise und Gemeinden. Band 17, Bonn.
23. Feldman, M. P. (2000). Where science comes to life: University biosciences, commercial spin-offs and regional economic development. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Research and Practice, 2, 345-361.
24. Feldman, M., & Desrochers, P. (2001). Research universities and local economic development: Lessons from the history of the Johns Hopkins University. Industry and Innovation, 10, 5-25.
25. Feldman, M. P., & Francis, J. (2003). Fortune favours the prepared region: The case of entrepreneurship and the Capitol region biotechnology cluster. European Planning Studies, 11, 765-788.
26. Feldman, M. P., & Francis, J. (2004). Homegrown solutions: Fostering cluster formation. Economic Development Quarterly, 18, 127-137.
27. Feldman, M. P., Francis, J., & Bercovitz, J. (2005). Creating a cluster while building a firm: Entrepreneurs and the formation of industrial clusters. Regional Studies, 39, 129-141.
28. Figueiredo, O., Guimaraes, P., & Woodward, D. (2002). Home-field advantage: Location decisions of Portuguese entrepreneurs. Journal of Urban Economics, 52, 341-361.
29. Fritsch, M., & Schwirten, C. (1999). Enterprise-university co-operation and the role of public research institutions in regional innovation systems. Industry and Innovation, 6, 69-83.
30. Glaeser, E. L., Kerr, W. R., & Ponzetto, G. A. M. (2010). Clusters of entrepreneurship. Journal of Urban Economics, 67, 150-168.
31. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
32. Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 85-112.
33. Hornbostel, S. (2001). Third party funding of German universities. An indicator of research activity. Scientometrics, 50, 523-537.
34. Kenney, M., Nelson, A., & Patton, D. (2009). The university-centric high-tech cluster of Madison, United States. In J. Potter & G. Miranda (Eds.), Clusters, innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 167-192). Paris: OECD.
35. Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. American Economic Review, 86, 562-583.
36. Lerner, J. (1995). Venture capitalists and the oversight of private firms. The Journal of Finance, 50, 301-318.
37. Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2003). Science park location and new technology-based firms in Sweden-Implications for strategy and performance. Small Business Economics, 20, 245-258.
38. Lindholm Dahlstarand, A. (1997). Entrepreneurial spin-off enterprises in Goeteborg, Sweden. European Planning Studies, 5, 659-673.
39. Lindholm Dahlstarnd, A. (1999). Technology-based SMEs in the Goeteborg Region: Their origin and interaction with universities and large firms. Regional Studies, 33, 379-389.
40. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms-academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31, 859-876.
41. Lööf, H., & Broström, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 73-90.
42. Lundvall, B. A. (1993). Explaining interfirm cooperation and innovation. Limits of the transaction-cost approach. In G. Gragner (Ed.), The embedded firm on the socioeconomics of industrial networks. London: Routledge.
43. Mansfield, E., & Lee, J.-Y. (1996). The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy, 25, 1047-1058.
44. Maskell, P., & Malmberg, A. (1999). The competitiveness of firms and regions. 'Ubiquitification' and the importance of localized learning. European Urban and Regional Studies, 6, 9-25.
45. Michelacci, C., & Silva, O. (2007). Why so many local entrepreneurs? Review of Economics and Statistics, 89, 615-633.
46. OECD. (2006). The new rural paradigm, policy and governance. Working paper on territorial policy in rural areas. OECD, Paris.
47. O'Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U. S. universities. Research Policy, 34, 994-1009.
48. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., Bowie, J. I., & Smith-Doerrs, L. (2002). The spatial clustering of science and capital: Accounting for biotech firm-venture capital relationships. Regional Studies, 36, 291-305.
49. Roberts, E. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology: Lessons from MIT and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.
50. Roberts, E., & Eesley, C. (2011). Entrepreneurial impact: The role of MIT. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 7, 1-149.
51. Segal, N. S. (1986). Universities and technological entrepreneurship in Britain: Some implications of the Cambridge phenomenon. Technovation, 4, 189-204.
52. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
53. Slavtchev, V. (2010). Proximity and the transfer of academic knowledge: Evidence from the spatial pattern of industry collaborations of East German professors. Regional Studies. doi: 10. 1080/00343404. 2010. 487058.
54. Sorensen, O., & Stuart, T. E. (2001). Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venture capital investments. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1546-1588.
55. Wicksteed, S. Q. (1985). The Cambridge phenomenon: The growth of high technology industry in a university town. Cambridge: Swavesey.
56. Woodward, D., Figueiredo, O., & Guimaraes, P. (2006). Beyond the Silicon Valley: University R&D and high-technology location. Journal of Urban Economics, 60, 15-32.
57. Wright, M., Clarisse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
58. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U. S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88, 290-306.