Location choice of academic entrepreneurs: Evidence from the US biotechnology industry

Journal of Business Venturing

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 227-254

  Kolympiris, Christos ^a   Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas ^b   Miller, Douglas ^c  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^c University of the Cumberlands   (United States)

Author keywords

Academic entrepreneur; Biotechnology; Location choice; Utility maximization

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925110122     PISSN: 08839026     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.02.002     Document Type: Article

References (142)

1. Acosta M., Coronado D., Flores E. University spillovers and new business location in high-technology sectors: Spanish evidence. Small Bus. Econ. 2009, 1-12.
2. Acs Z.J., Anselin L., Varga A. Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Res. Policy 2002, 31:1069-1085.
3. Acs Z.J., Braunerhjelm P., Audretsch D.B., Carlsson B. The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Bus. Econ. 2009, 32:15-30.
4. Aharonson B.S., Baum J.A.C., Feldman M.P. Desperately seeking spillovers? Increasing returns, industrial organization and the location of new entrants in geographic and technological space. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2007, 16:89-130.
5. Anselin L., Varga A., Acs Z. Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. J. Urban Econ. 1997, 42:422-448.
6. Antonelli C. The new economics of the university: a knowledge governance approach. J. Technol. Transf. 2008, 33:1-22.
7. Asheim B., Gertler M. The geography of innovation. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation 2005, 291-317. Oxford University Press, Oxford. J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery, R.R. Nelson (Eds.).
8. Audretsch D.B., Beckmann I.A.M. From small business to entrepreneurship policy. Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship Policy 2007, 36-53. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA. B. Audretsch, I. Grilo, R. Thurik (Eds.).
9. Audretsch D.B., Feldman M.P. R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. Am. Econ. Rev. 1996, 86:630-640.
10. Audretsch D.B., Lehmann E.E. Do University policies make a difference?. Res. Policy 2005, 34:343-347.
11. Audretsch D.B., Stephan P.E. Company-scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology. Am. Econ. Rev. 1996, 86:641-652.
12. Audretsch D.B., Lehmann E.E., Warning S. University spillovers and new firm location. Res. Policy 2005, 34:1113-1122.
13. Audretsch D.B., Aldridge T., Nadella K.V. University Science Faculty Ventures into Entrepreneurship 2013.
14. Autio E., Renko H.Y. New, technology-based firms as agents of technological rejuvenation. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 1998, 10:71-92.
15. Azoulay P., Ding W., Stuart T. The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality and direction of (public) research output. J. Ind. Econ. 2009, 57:637-676.
16. BankBoston MIT: The Impact of Innovation 1997, (Boston).
17. Barney J.B. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17:99-120.
18. Bartik T.J. Business location decisions in the United States: estimates of the effects of unionization, taxes, and other characteristics of states. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 1985, 14-22.
19. Bathelt H., Malmberg A., Maskell P. Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2004, 28:31.
20. Baum J.A.C., Calabrese T., Silverman B.S. Don't go it alone: alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21:267-294.
21. Beaudry C., Breschi S. Are firms in clusters really more innovative?. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2003, 12:325-342.
22. Bercovitz J., Feldman M. Academic entrepreneurs: organizational change at the individual level. Organ. Sci. 2008, 19:69-89.
23. Bertoni F., Colombo M.G., Grilli L. Venture capital financing and the growth of high-tech start-ups: disentangling treatment from selection effects. Res. Policy 2011, 40:1028-1043.
24. Breschi S., Catalini C. Tracing the links between science and technology: an exploratory analysis of scientists' and inventors' networks. Res. Policy 2010, 39:14-26.
25. Breschi S., Lissoni F. Localised knowledge spillovers vs. innovative milieux: knowledge "tacitness" reconsidered. Pap. Reg. Sci. 2001, 80:255-273.
26. Bygrave W.D. The structure of the investment networks of venture capital firms. J. Bus. Ventur. 1988, 3:137-157.
27. Bygrave W.D., Timmons J.A. Venture Capital at the Crossroads 1992, Harvard Business Press.
28. Carlton D.W. The location and employment choices of new firms: an econometric model with discrete and continuous endogenous variables. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1983, 65:440-449.
29. Carpenter R.E., Petersen B.C. Capital market imperfections, high-tech investment, and new equity financing. Econ. J. 2002, 112:54-72.
30. Cassar G. Entrepreneur opportunity costs and intended venture growth. J. Bus. Ventur. 2006, 21:610-632.
31. Champenois C. How can a cluster policy enhance entrepreneurship? Evidence from the German 'BioRegio' case. Environ. Plan. 2012, 30:796.
32. Chung W., Alcácer J. Knowledge seeking and location choice of foreign direct investment in the United States. Manag. Sci. 2002, 1534-1554.
33. Cockburn I.M., Henderson R.M. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. J. Ind. Econ. 1998, 46:157-182.
34. Cohen W.M., Levinthal D.A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 128-152.
35. Conner K.R. A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: do we have a new theory of the firm?. J. Manag. 1991, 17:121.
36. Cooke P. New economy innovation systems: biotechnology in Europe and the USA. Ind. Innov. 2001, 8:267-289.
37. Coughlin C.C., Terza J.V., Arromdee V. State characteristics and the location of foreign direct investment within the United States. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1991, 675-683.
38. Cross R., Sproull L. More than an answer: information relationships for actionable knowledge. Organ. Sci. 2004, 15:446-462.
39. Czarnitzki D., Toole A.A. Is there a trade-off between academic research and faculty entrepreneurship? Evidence from US NIH supported biomedical researchers. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2010, 19:505-520.
40. Czarnitzki D., Hussinger K., Schneider C. Commercializing academic research: the quality of faculty patenting. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2011, 20:1403-1437.
41. Dahl M., Sorenson O. Home sweet home: entrepreneurs' location choices and the performance of their ventures. Manag. Sci. 2012, 58:1059-1071.
42. Dahlstrand Å.L. Growth and inventiveness in technology-based spin-off firms. Res. Policy 1997, 26:331-344.
43. De Bettignies J.E., Brander J.A. Financing entrepreneurship: bank finance versus venture capital. J. Bus. Ventur. 2007, 22:808-832.
44. Deeds D.L., Decarolis D., Coombs J.E. The impact of firmspecific capabilities on the amount of capital raised in an initial public offering: evidence from the biotechnology industry. J. Bus. Ventur. 1997, 12:31-46.
45. Deeds D.L., DeCarolis D., Coombs J. Dynamic capabilities and new product development in high technology ventures: an empirical analysis of new biotechnology firms. J. Bus. Ventur. 2000, 15:211-229.
46. Di Gregorio D., Shane S. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?. Res. Policy 2003, 32:209-227.
47. DiMasi J.A., Grabowski H.G. The cost of biopharmaceutical R&D: is biotech different?. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2007, 28:469-479.
48. Doeringer P.B., Terkla D.G. Business strategy and cross-industry clusters. Econ. Dev. Q. 1995, 9:225-237.
49. Dohse D. Technology policy and the regions-the case of the BioRegio contest. Res. Policy 2000, 29:1111-1133.
50. Douglas E.J., Shepherd D.A. Entrepreneurship as a utility maximizing response. J. Bus. Ventur. 2000, 15:231-251.
51. Duranton G., Puga D. Micro-foundations of urban agglomeration economies. Handbook of Urban and Regional Economics 2004, 2063-2117. Elsevier, New York. J.V. Henderson, J.-F. Thisse (Eds.).
52. Egeln J., Gottschalk S., Rammer C. Location decisions of spin-offs from public research institutions. Ind. Innov. 2004, 11:207-223.
53. Figueiredo O., Guimarães P., Woodward D. Home-field advantage: location decisions of Portuguese entrepreneurs. J. Urban Econ. 2002, 52:21.
54. Fischer M.M., Varga A. Spatial knowledge spillovers and university research: evidence from Austria. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2003, 37:303-322.
55. Florida R., Kenney M. Venture capital financed innovation and technological change in the United States. Res. Policy 1988, 17:119-137.
56. Folta T.B., Cooper A.C., Baik Y.-s. Geographic cluster size and firm performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 2006, 21:217-242.
57. Glaeser E.L., Kerr W.R. Local industrial conditions and entrepreneurship: how much of the spatial distribution can we explain?. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 2009, 18:623-663.
58. Gompers P.A. Optimal investment, monitoring, and the staging of venture capital. J. Financ. 1995, 1461-1489.
59. Gompers P., Lerner J. The venture capital revolution. J. Econ. Perspect. 2001, 15:145-168.
60. Gordon I.R., McCann P. Clusters, innovation and regional development: an analysis of current theories and evidence. Industrial Clusters and Inter-firm Networks 2005, 29-57. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. C. Karlsson, B. Johansson, R.R. Stough (Eds.).
61. Gorman M., Sahlman W.A. What do venture capitalists do?. J. Bus. Ventur. 1989, 4:231-248.
62. Grant R.M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 17:109-122.
63. Green M.B., McNaugthon R.B.e. The Location of Foreign Direct Investment: Geographic and Business Approaches 1995, Avebury Press, London.
64. Greene W.H., Zhang C. Econometric Analysis 2003, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
65. Guimaraes P., Figueiredo O., Woodward D. Agglomeration and the location of foreign direct investment in Portugal. J. Urban Econ. 2000, 47:115-135.
66. Håkanson L. Epistemic communities and cluster dynamics: on the role of knowledge in industrial districts. Ind. Innov. 2005, 12:433-463.
67. Hart D. Entrepreneurship policy: what it is and where it came from. The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Policy Governance, Start-ups and Growth in the US Knowledge Economy 2003, 3-19. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. D. Hart (Ed.).
68. Haussler C., Zademach H.-M. Cluster performance reconsidered: structure, linkages and paths in the German biotechnology industry, 1996-2003. Schmalenbach Bus. Rev. (SBR) 2007, 59:261-281.
69. Hayter R. The Dynamics of Industrial Location: The Factory, The Firm, and The Production System 1997, Wiley, New York.
70. Hayter C.S. In search of the profit-maximizing actor: motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs. J. Technol. Transf. 2011, 36:340-352.
71. Jaffe A.B. Real effects of academic research. Am. Econ. Rev. 1989, 957-970.
72. Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M., Henderson R. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Q. J. Econ. 1993, 108:577-598.
73. Jain S., George G., Maltarich M. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Res. Policy 2009, 38:922-935.
74. Jensen M.C. Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. Am. Econ. Rev. 1986, 76:323-329.
75. Jensen M.C., Meckling W.H. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financ. Econ. 1976, 3:305-360.
76. Jofre-Monseny J., Marín-López R., Viladecans-Marsal E. The mechanisms of agglomeration: evidence from the effect of inter-industry relations on the location of new firms. J. Urban Econ. 2011, 70:61-74.
77. Johnson D.K.N., Lybecker K.M. Does distance matter less now? The changing role of geography in biotechnology innovation. Rev. Ind. Organ. 2012, 1-15.
78. Kijkuit B., van den Ende J. With a little help from our colleagues: a longitudinal study of social networks for innovation. Organ. Stud. 2010, 31:451-479.
79. Kim J., Marschke G. Labor mobility of scientists, technological diffusion, and the firm's patenting decision. RAND J. Econ. 2005, 298-317.
80. Kolympiris C., Kalaitzandonakes N. The geographic extent of venture capital externalities on innovation. Venture Cap. Int. J. Entrep. Financ. 2013, 15:199-236.
81. Kolympiris C., Kalaitzandonakes N. Geographic scope of proximity effects among small life sciences firms. Small Bus. Econ. 2013, 40:1059-1086.
82. Kolympiris C., Kalaitzandonakes N., Miller D.J. Spatial collocation and venture capital in the U.S. biotechnology industry. Res. Policy 2011, 40:1188-1199.
83. Kortum S., Lerner J. Assessing the contribution of venture capital to innovation. RAND J. Econ. 2000, 31:674-692.
84. Krabel S., Mueller P. What drives scientists to start their own company? An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Res. Policy 2009, 38:947-956.
85. Lam A. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: 'Gold', 'ribbon' or 'puzzle'?. Res. Policy 2011, 40:1354-1368.
86. Landry R., Amara N., Rherrad I. Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Res. Policy 2006, 35:1599-1615.
87. Landry R., Saïhi M., Amara N., Ouimet M. Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Res. Policy 2010, 39:1387-1403.
88. Levesque M., Minniti M. The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior. J. Bus. Ventur. 2006, 21:177-194.
89. Levesque M., Shepherd D.A., Douglas E.J. Employment or self-employment: a dynamic utility-maximizing model. J. Bus. Ventur. 2002, 17:189-210.
90. Liebeskind J.P., Oliver A.L., Zucker L., Brewer M. Social networks, learning, and flexibility: sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organ. Sci. 1996, 428-443.
91. Lockett A., Siegel D., Wright M., Ensley M. Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Res. Policy 2005, 34:1043-1057.
92. Louis K.S., Blumenthal D., Gluck M.E., Stoto M.A. Entrepreneurs in academe: an exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Adm. Sci. Q. 1989, 34:110-131.
93. Lowe R.A., Gonzalez-Brambila C. Faculty entrepreneurs and research productivity. J. Technol. Transf. 2007, 32:173-194.
94. Mahoney J.T., Pandian J.R. The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1992, 13:363-380.
95. Markman G.D., Gianiodis P.T., Phan P.H., Balkin D.B. Entrepreneurship from the Ivory tower: do incentive systems matter?. J. Technol. Transf. 2004, 29:353-364.
96. McCann B.T., Folta T.B. Performance differentials within geographic clusters. J. Bus. Ventur. 2011, 26:104-123.
97. McEvily B., Marcus A. Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26:1033-1055.
98. McNaughton R.B., Green M.B. Global Competition and Local Networks 2002, Ashgate Publishing.
99. Menard S. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis 2001, Sage Publications, Incorporated.
100. Minniti M. The role of government policy on entrepreneurial activity: productive, unproductive, or destructive?. Enterp. Theory Pract. 2008, 32:779-790.
101. Munari F., Toschi L. Do venture capitalists have a bias against investment in academic spin-offs? Evidence from the micro-and nanotechnology sector in the UK. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2011, 20:397-432.
102. Mustar P. Spin-off enterprises: how French academics create Hi-Tech companies: the conditions for success or failure. Sci. Public Policy 1997, 24:37-43.
103. OECD Competitive Regional Clusters: National Policy Approaches 2007, OECD Publications.
104. Ortín-Ángel P., Vendrell-Herrero F. Why do university spin-offs attract more venture capitalists?. Venture Cap. Int. J. Entrep. Financ. 2010, 12:285-306.
105. O'Shea R.P., Allen T.J., Chevalier A., Roche F. Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Res. Policy 2005, 34:994-1009.
106. O'Shea R.P., Chugh H., Allen T.J. Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework. J. Technol. Trans 2008, 33:653-666.
107. Owen-Smith J., Powell W.W. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: the effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organ. Sci. 2004, 15:5-21.
108. Penrose E. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm 1959, Oxford University Press, Blackwell.
109. Perkmann M., Tartari V., McKelvey M., Autio E., Broström A., D'Este P., et al. Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university-industry relations. Res. Policy 2013, 42:423-442.
110. Pouder R., St.John C.H. Hot spots and blind spots; geographic clusters of firms and innovation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21:1192-1225.
111. Powers J.B., McDougall P.P. University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 2005, 20:291-311.
112. Rasmusen E. Moral hazard in risk-averse teams. RAND J. Econ. 1987, 18:428-435.
113. Rosenthal S., Strange W. Geography, industrial organization, and agglomeration. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2003, 85:377-393.
114. Sahlman W.A. The structure and governance of venture-capital organizations. J. Financ. Econ. 1990, 27:473-521.
115. Samila S., Sorenson O. Venture capital as a catalyst to commercialization. Res. Policy 2010, 39:1348-1360.
116. Samila S., Sorenson O. Venture capital, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2011, 93:338-349.
117. Sapienza H.J., Villanueva J. Conceptual and theoretical reflections on venture capital research. Handbook of Research on Venture Capital 2007, 66-85. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. H. Landström (Ed.).
118. Saxenian A.L. Regional networks and the resurgence of Silicon Valley. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1990, 33:89-112.
119. Saxenian A.L. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 1994, Harvard Univ Press.
120. Saxenian A.L. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 1996, Harvard Univ Pr.
121. Shane S. Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation 2004, Edward Elgar Publishing.
122. Shane S., Cable D. Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Manag. Sci. 2002, 364-381.
123. Siontorou C.G., Batzias F.A. Innovation in biotechnology: moving from academic research to product development-the case of biosensors. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2010, 30:79-98.
124. Sorenson O., Stuart T.E. Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venture capital investments. Am. J. Sociol. 2001, 106:1546-1588.
125. Steffensen M., Rogers E.M., Speakman K. Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. J. Bus. Ventur. 2000, 15:93-111.
126. Storey D. Entrepreneurship, small and medium sized enterprises and public policies. Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research 2003, 473-511. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht. Z.J. Acs, D.B. Audretsch (Eds.).
127. Storper M. The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy 1997, The Guilford Press.
128. Stuart T.E., Ding W.W. When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences1. Am. J. Sociol. 2006, 112:97-144.
129. Timmons J.A., Bygrave W.D. Venture capital's role in financing innovation for economic growth. J. Bus. Ventur. 1986, 1:161-176.
130. Varga A. University Research and Regional Innovation: A Spatial Econometric Analysis of Academic Technology Transfers 1998, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
131. Vincett P. The economic impacts of academic spin-off companies, and their implications for public policy. Res. Policy 2010, 39:736-747.
132. Wennekers S., Thurik R. Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Bus. Econ. 1999, 13:27-56.
133. Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5:171-180.
134. Wetzel W. Angels and informal risk capital. Sloan Manag. Rev. 1983, 24:23-34.
135. Wobbekind R., Lewandowski B., DiPersio C., Ford R., Streit R. Economic Impacts of the University of Colorado on the State and Counties of Operations 2012.
136. Wooldridge J. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach 2009, South Western Cengage Learning.
137. Wright M., Lockett A., Clarysse B., Binks M. University spin-out companies and venture capital. Res. Policy 2006, 35:481-501.
138. Wright M., Liu X., Buck T., Filatotchev I. Returnee entrepreneurs, science park location choice and performance: an analysis of high-technology SMEs in China. Enterp. Theory Pract. 2008, 32:131-155.
139. Zhang J. The performance of university spin-offs: an exploratory analysis using venture capital data. J. Technol. Transf. 2009, 34:255-285.
140. Zook M.A. Grounded capital: venture financing and the geography of the Internet industry, 1994-2000. J. Econ. Geogr. 2002, 2:151.
141. Zucker L.G., Darby M.R., Brewer M.B. Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. Am. Econ. Rev. 1998, 88:290-306.
142. Zucker L.G., Darby M.R., Torero M. Labor mobility from academe to commerce. J. Labor Econ. 2002, 20:629.