Abstract
Building on recent developments in the evolutionary economics combined with a more traditional spillovers perspective, we conceptualize regional knowledge environment as consisting of two components, the base and the radical knowledge. Empirically approximating the components with proximity to regional industrial portfolio and patenting intensity, respectively, we explore how a cohort of U.S. computer and electronic product manufacturing companies with different absorptive capacity levels were able to benefit from different types of knowledge available regionally. The results suggest reinforcing dynamics between proximity to metropolitan industry mix and metropolitan patenting intensity in promoting survival of non-patenting companies. Establishments that patent, on the other hand, are mostly insensitive to these two factors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As a result, increased efforts devoted to a more precise understanding of LKS have identified several pecuniary mechanisms that boost business performance, but because they are difficult to measure empirically, these mechanisms often get attributed to the catch-all category of knowledge spillovers. The most prominent of such mechanisms are inter-firm labor mobility (Braunerhjelm, Ding and Thulin 2018; Maliranta, Mohnen and Rouvinen 2009), graduates’ migration (Faggian and McCann 2008), as well as collaboration with universities/research organizations (Arvanitis and Woerter, 2009) and clients and suppliers (Andersson 2006). When the effects of these mechanisms are accounted for in empirical analyses, what is left is more likely to be the pure knowledge spillovers, i.e. externalities that allow companies that do not invest in knowledge production to benefit from it without covering the costs of knowledge discovery.
For example, industrial diversity is found to boost economic output (van Stel and Nieuwenhuijsen) and employment (Frenken et al., 2007) in Dutch regions. Feldman and Audretsch (1999) argue that diversification promotes innovation in U.S. cities. Van der Panne (2004), on the other hand, finds that the Dutch regions with high levels of specialization in specific industries are more innovative in these industries.
It includes NAICS 3341 (Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing), NAICS 3342 (Communications Equipment Manufacturing), NAICS 3343 (Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing), NAICS 3344 (Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing), NAICS 3345 (Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing), and NAICS 3346 (Manufacturing and Reproducing Magnetic and Optical Media).
Our focus is also justified by the special role that the NAICS334 industry plays in the U.S. economy. In addition to being one of the most innovative industries, it contributes disproportionately to manufacturing GDP and productivity (Houseman, Bartik and Sturgeon 2015), creates high-paid jobs and substantial local multipliers (DeVol, Wong, Bedroussian, Hynek and Rice 2009; Helper, Krueger and Wial 2012).
Because we limit our analysis to stand-alone companies only, in what follows the terms “firm” and “establishment” are used interchangeably.
The NETS database contains data on all establishments that were ever recorded as active by Dun and Bradstreet. The establishment-level information includes location, the number of employees, sales, the first and the last years in operation, and other indicators.
The companies that went through merger and acquisition (M&A) are likely to be more successful. Such companies would be an interesting subject of a study aiming at understanding firm-level business performance determinants. Only 12 establishments in our sample were identified as having experienced an M&A process, which does not allow for a formal statistical analysis.
For every firm in our sample, we manually inserted its name and location indicated in the NETS database into the assignee name and assignee state (and then city) fields, respectively, in the USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database (https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/search-patents#heading-1).
These data were used previously to study the relationship between innovative environment and business survival in Tsvetkova, Thill and Strumsky (2014b) and (without patenting establishments and using non-parametric techniques) in Tsvetkova, Thill and Strumsky (2014a). Our study (although uses a measure of metropolitan innovative environment as one explanatory variable and business survival as the outcome) is considerably different from the cited papers in a number of ways. First, using insights from economic geography and evolutionary economics, we develop a framework that describes the way companies in a high-tech industry rely on and benefit from radical and base knowledge available in their regions. Next, we explore interactions in the effects of these knowledge types on business performance metrics.
The EMSI data is a proprietary dataset that provides yearly information on employment, earnings, and the number of establishments in the U.S. counties at the 4-digit NAICS code level (www.economicmodeling.com). These data were recently used to study a range of local economic processes (Betz, Farren, Lobao and Partridge 2015; Tsvetkova and Partridge 2017; Tsvetkova, Partridge and Betz 2019).
Appendix Table 4 presents a brief description of the variables and their data sources.
\( LQ=\left({E}_{im}/{E}_m\right)/\left(\frac{{\boldsymbol{E}}_{\boldsymbol{in}}}{{\boldsymbol{E}}_{\boldsymbol{n}}}\right) \) where E is employment, i denotes an industry (agriculture and government excluded), m indicates an MSA and n is the nation (all economy).
As an example of the resulting industry space for all industries nationally (using only MSA data and excluding agriculture and government), our estimates suggest that industries in retail and in mining tend to be the most cohesive, i.e. they are more likely to co-locate in concentrations. For example, our proximity measure for NAICS4413 and NAICS4471, Automotive Parts, Accessories, and Tire Stores and Gasoline Stations, respectively, is 0.76. Likewise, our proximity measure for NAICS2111 and NAICS2131, Oil and Gas Extraction and Support Activities for Mining is also 0.76. Our proximity measure for NAICS3273 and NAICS4842, Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing and Specialized Freight Trucking is 0.61. For the computer and electronic product manufacturing, all proximity measures are below 0.45.
In compiling their data, EMSI uses an imputation algorithm to fill in values for county-industry pairs that are suppressed in publicly available data. This introduces a measurement error and employment counts at the 4-digit NAICS level in the EMSI data seem to be unreliable if a county employs up to 5 workers in an industry (also, small number of workers in an industry in a county as indicated by EMSI – often a fraction less than one – are entered in the data set to ensure that total counts across industries and states equal to the totals in the governmental data sources). Since MSAs encompass larger counties or are a combination of counties, we raised the threshold of considering an industry present in an MSA to 10 employees.
Although the measure of industrial proximity of a metropolitan economy conceptually sounds a lot like Porter-type clustering, these two notions are empirically different. The measure of proximity is based on the co-location patterns of all industries across U.S. MSAs and is by construction a broader measure. The distance to the industrial portfolio calculated for this research takes into account proximities among all industries present in a metro area, regardless of the presence or absence of clusters. To illustrate this point, Appendix Table 3 shows pairwise correlations between our measure of industrial proximity and other potential indicators of NAICS334 clustering. While industrial proximity for NAICS334 firms in our sample is positively related to the corresponding LQs, the correlation is very close to zero. All other potential measures of clustering for this industry are negatively (and significantly at the 0.001 level) correlated with proximity to the MSA industrial portfolio. NAICS334 location quotient, on the other hand, is positively related to all clustering metrics. Table 3, thus, demonstrates that the industrial proximity measure is not about clustering but about average proximity among all industries in an MSA and how these industries are close or far from NAICS334 (clusters will naturally be a special case of this scenario but the negative correlations reported in the appendix suggest that clustering is not a dominant story in our data set).
\( IndProximit{y}_{mt}(Centered)= IndProximit{y}_{mt}-\overline{IndProximit{y}_{mt}} \) where m is an MSA, t indicates year and the last term is an average of the industrial proximity measure for all MSAs and all years.
Some scholars argue that composite measures of innovation and knowledge should be used in order to capture the elusive nature of this phenomenon (Hagedoorn and Cloodt 2003; Nelson 2009). In the case of high-technology sectors, to which NAICS334 belongs, however, the correlation among alternative measures such as R&D inputs, patent counts, patent citations and new product announcements is very high. This makes using just one approximation an appropriate strategy (Hagedoorn and Cloodt 2003).
We thank Prof. Deborah Strumsky for providing data for this variable.
Another potential issue with studying business outcomes of patenting firms is that generally a researcher does not know their business strategy, i.e. if the company uses its patented knowledge or prefers to license it out. Although this is an important distinction and our data do not allow us to explore this issue, we hope that limiting our sample to stand-alone manufacturing establishments with less than 200 patents should mitigate this concern for the following reasons. First, the firms in our sample must be producers; otherwise they would be classified in a different NAICS code. Second, since stand-alone entities are likely to have fewer resources, they should be less likely to focus on both research for licensing out and manufacturing. Finally, the overwhelming majority of patenting firms in our sample have no more than two patents, which means that licensing out is likely to undermine own competitive advantages in production. For these reasons we assume (but cannot prove) that companies in our data set are producers who are unlikely to license their new knowledge out.
We thank anonymous referees for drawing our attention to these concerns.
Our specification differs from Tsvetkova et al. (2014b) in that we center our main variables that are expected to interact. This slightly changes the interpretation of the coefficients on the variables that were demeaned.
They are practically indistinguishable for the purpose of estimation.
Discussion in this subsection is based on Cleves et al. (2010).
One needs to keep in mind that the NAICS334 industry is a knowledge-intensive one, so the high/low absorptive capacity discussion applies only within this industry and is not generalizable to other, particularly low-tech, settings.
In previous research that relies on the same data set but uses uncentered variables, the effect of size on business survival was found to be statistically insignificant (Tsvetkova et al. 2014b).
References
Acs, Z. J., & Varga, A. (2002). Geography, endogenous growth, and innovation. International Regional Science Review, 25(1), 132–148.
Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31, 1069–1085.
Acs, Z. J., Armington, C., & Zhang, T. (2007). The determinants of new-firm survival across regional economies. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 367–391.
Adams, J. D., & Jaffe, A. (1996). Bounding the effects of R&D: An investigation using matched establishment-firm data. RAND Journal of Economics, 27(4), 700–721.
Agarwal, R., & Gort, M. (2002). Products and firm life cycles and firm survival. American Economic Review, 92(2), 184–190.
Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323–351.
Al-Laham, A., Tzabbar, D., & Amburgey, T. L. (2011). The dynamics of knowledge stocks and knowledge flows: Innovation consequences of recruitment and collaboration in biotech. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(2), 555–583.
Amin, A., & Wilkinson, F. (1999). Learning, proximity and industrial performance: An introduction. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2), 121–125.
Andersson, M. (2006). Co-location of manufacturing and producer services: A simultaneous equations approach. In C. Karlsson, B. Johansson, & R. Stough (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and dynamics in the knowledge economy (pp. 94–124). New York: Routledge.
Andersson, M., & Lööf, H. (2011). Agglomeration and productivity: Evidence from firm-level data. The Annals of Regional Science, 46(3), 601–620.
Antonietti, R., & Cainelli, G. (2011). The role of spatial agglomeration in a structural model of innovation, productivity and export: A firm-level analysis. The Annals of Regional Science, 46(3), 577–600.
Arvanitis, S., & Woerter, M. (2009). Firms’ transfer strategies with universities and the relationship with firms’ innovation performance. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1067–1106.
Audretsch, D. (2003). Innovation and spatial externalities. International Regional Science Review, 26(2), 167–174.
Audretsch, D., & Mahmood, T. (1995). New firm survival: New results using a hazard function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 97–103.
Audretsch, D., Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (1999). Start-up size and industrial dynamics: Some evidence from Italian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 17, 965–983.
Beaudry, C., & Schiffauerova, A. (2009). Who's right, Marshall or Jacobs? The localization versus urbanization debate. Research Policy, 38(2), 318–337.
Bettencourt, L. M. A., Lobo, J., & Strumsky, D. (2007). Invention in the city: Increasing returns to patenting as a scaling function of metropolitan size. Research Policy, 36, 107–120.
Betz, M. R., Farren, M., Lobao, L., & Partridge, M. (2015). Coal mining, economic development, and the natural resource curse. Energy Economics, 50, 105–116.
BLS. (2011). Career guide to industries, 2010–2011. Washington, DC.
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.
Bottazzi, L., & Peri, G. (2003). Innovation and spillovers in regions: Evidence from European patent data. European Economic Review, 47(4), 687–710.
Box, M. (2008). The death of firms: Exploring the effects of environment and birth cohort on firm survival in Sweden. Small Business Economics, 31, 379–393.
Braunerhjelm, P., Ding, D., & Thulin, P. (2018). The knowledge spillover theory of intrapreneurship. Small Business Economics, 51(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9928-9.
Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2001). Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: A critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 975–1005.
Buddelmeyer, H., Jensen, P. H., & Webster, E. (2009). Innovation and the determinants of company survival. Oxford Economic Papers, 62(2), 261–285.
Calvo, G. A., & Wellisz, S. (1978). Supervision, loss of control, and the optimum size of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 86(5), 943–952.
Cassia, L., Colombelli, A., & Paleari, S. (2009). Firms' growth: Does the innovation system matter? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 20(3), 211–220.
Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2005). A matter of life and death: Innovation and firm survival. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(6), 1–26.
Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2006). Survivor: The role of innovation in firm’s survival. Research Policy, 35(5), 626–641.
Cleves, M., Gutierrez, R., Gould, W., & Marchenko, Y. (2010). An introduction to survival analysis using Stata. College Station: Stata Press.
Coad, A., & Rao, R. (2008). Innovation and firm growth in high-tech sectors: A quantile regression approach. Research Policy, 37, 633–648.
Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2003). Strategic human resource practices, top management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 740–751.
DeVol, R., Wong, P., Bedroussian, A., Hynek, C. F., and Rice, D. (2009). Manufacturing 2.0: A more prosperous California. Retrieved from Santa Monica, CA: http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/view/394. Accessed 15 Mar 2013.
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.
Dunne, T., Roberts, M., & Samuelson, L. (1989). The growth and failure of U.S. manufacturing plants. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(4), 671–698.
Essletzbichler, J. (2015). Relatedness, industrial branching and technological cohesion in US metropolitan areas. Regional Studies, 49(5), 752–766.
Esteve-Pérez, S., & Mañez-Castillejo, J. (2008). The resource-based theory of the firm and firm survival. Small Business Economics, 30(3), 231–249.
Esteve-Perez, S., Sanchis-Llopis, A., & Sanchis-Llopis, J. A. (2010). A competing risks analysis of firms’ exit. Empirical Economics, 38(2), 281–304.
Evangelista, R., Lucchese, M., & Meliciani, V. (2015). Business services and the export performances of manufacturing industries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 25(5), 959–981.
Faggian, A., & McCann, P. (2008). Human capital, graduate migration and innovation in British regions. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(2), 317–333.
Fallah, B., Partridge, M., & Rickman, D. S. (2014). Geography and high-tech employment growth in US counties. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(4), 683–720.
Feldman, M. P., & Audretsch, D. (1999). Innovation in cities: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. European Economic Review, 43(2), 409–429.
Ferragina, A. M., & Mazzotta, F. (2014). FDI spillovers on firm survival in Italy: Absorptive capacity matters! The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(6), 859–897.
Fitjar, R. D., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2011). When local interaction does not suffice: Sources of firm innovation in urban Norway. Environment and Planning A, 43(6), 1248–1267.
Frenken, K., van Oort, F., & Verburg, T. (2007). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies, 41(5), 685–697.
Geroski, P. A. (1995). What do we know about entry? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13, 421–440.
Gilbert, B. A., McDougall, P. P., & Audretsch, D. (2008). Clusters, knowledge spillovers and new venture performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(4), 405–422.
Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94(0), S29-S47.
Guerrieri, P., & Meliciani, V. (2005). Technology and international competitiveness: The interdependence between manufacturing and producer services. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 16(4), 489–502.
Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32, 1365–1379.
He, C., Yan, Y., and Rigby, D. (2018). Regional industrial evolution in China. Papers in Regional Science, 97, 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12246.
Headd, B. (2003). Redefining business success: Distinguishing between closure and failure. Small Business Economics, 21, 51–61.
Helper, S., Krueger, T., & Wial, H. (2012). Why does manufacturing matter? Which manufacturing matters? A policy framework. Washington, DC: Brookings Institutions.
Helsley, R. W., & Strange, W. C. (2011). Entrepreneurs and cities: Complexity, thickness and balance. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 41(6), 550–559.
Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay?: Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review, 74(2), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400203.
Hidalgo, C. A., Klinger, B., Barabási, A.-L., & Hausmann, R. (2007). The product space conditions the development of nations. Science, 317(5837), 482–487.
Houseman, S. N., Bartik, T., & Sturgeon, T. (2015). Measuring manufacturing: How the computer and semiconductor industries affect the numbers and perceptions. In S. N. Houseman & M. Mandel (Eds.), Measuring globalization: Better trade statistics for better policy (Vol. 1, pp. 151–193). Kalamazoo: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Howells, J. (2002). Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies, 39(5–6), 871–884.
Ibrahim, S. E., Fallah, M. H., & Reilly, R. R. (2009). Localized sources of knowledge and the effect of knowledge spillovers: an empirical study of inventors in the telecommunications industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(3), 405–431.
Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York: Random House.
Johnson, P. (2005). Targeting firm births and economic regeneration in a lagging region. Small Business Economics, 24(5), 451–464.
Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50(3), 649–670.
Kaniovski, S., & Peneder, M. (2008). Determinants of firm survival: A duration analysis using the generalized gamma distribution. Empirica, 35(1), 41–58.
Kirchhoff, B. A., Newbert, S. L., Hasan, I., & Armington, C. (2007). The influence of university R&D expenditures on new business formations and employment growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(4), 543–559.
Knoben, J. (2009). Localized inter-organizational linkages, agglomeration effects, and the innovative performance of firms. The Annals of Regional Science, 43(3), 757–779.
Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71–89.
Koch, A., & Strotmann, H. (2008). Absorptive capacity and innovation in the knowledge intensive business service sector. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17(6), 511–531.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.
Koo, J. (2005). Technology spillovers, agglomeration, and regional economic development. Journal of Planning Literature, 20, 99–115.
Kueng, L., Yang, M.-J., and Hong, B. (2014). Sources of firm life-cycle dynamics: Differentiating size vs. age effects. NBER Working Paper No. 20621October 2014
Littunen, H. (2000). Networks and local environmental characteristics in the survival of new firms. Small Business Economics, 15, 59–71.
López-Bazo, E., Vayá, E., & Artís, M. (2004). Regional externalities and growth: Evidence from European regions. Journal of Regional Science, 44(1), 43–73.
Maliranta, M., Mohnen, P., & Rouvinen, P. (2009). Is inter-firm labor mobility a channel of knowledge spillovers? Evidence from a linked employer–employee panel. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1161–1191.
Marshall, J. (1982). Linkages between manufacturing industry and business services. Environment and Planning A, 14(11), 1523–1540.
Martín-de Castro, G. (2015). Knowledge management and innovation in knowledge-based and high-tech industrial markets: The role of openness and absorptive capacity. Industrial Marketing Management, 47, 143–146.
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), 459–481.
Mazzola, F., & Bruni, S. (2000). The role of linkages in firm performance: Evidence from southern Italy. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 43(2), 199–221.
Neffke, F., Henning, M., & Boschma, R. (2011). How do regions diversify over time? Industry relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions. Economic Geography, 87(3), 237–265.
Nelson, A. (2009). Measuring knowledge spillovers: What patents, licenses and publications reveal about innovation diffusion. Research Policy, 38, 994–1005.
Oerlemans, L., Meeus, M., & Boekema, F. (2001). On spatial embeddedness of innovation networks: An exploration of the proximity effect. Journal of Economic and Social Geography, 92, 59–76.
Parente, S. (2001). The failure of endogenous growth. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy, 13(4), 49–58.
Pianta, M. (2005). Innovation and employment. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piva, M., & Vivarelli, M. (2005). Innovation and employment: Evidence from Italian microdata. Journal of Economics, 86(1), 65–83.
Poncet, S., & de Waldemar, F. S. (2013). Product relatedness and firm exports in China. The World Bank Economic Review, 29(3), 579–605.
Qian, H., & Acs, Z. J. (2013). An absorptive capacity theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 185–197.
Renski, H. (2011). External economies of localization, urbanization and industrial diversity and new firm survival. Papers in Regional Science, 90(3), 473–502.
Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 164–177. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556374.
Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Crescenzi, R. (2008). Research and development, spillovers, innovation systems, and the genesis of regional growth in Europe. Regional Studies, 42(1), 51–67.
Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. The Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, part 2: The problem of development: A conference of the Institute for the Study of free Enterprise systems), S71-S102.
Roper, S., & Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2015). Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and innovation: Evidence from matched patents and innovation panel data. Research Policy, 44(7), 1327–1340.
Rosenkopf, L., & Almeida, P. (2003). Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49(6), 751–766.
Scott, A. (2006). Entrepreneurship, innovation and industrial development: Geography and the creative field revisited. Small Business Economics, 26(1), 1–24.
Segarra, A., & Callejón, M. (2002). New firms' survival and market turbulence: New evidence from Spain. Review of Industrial Organization, 20(1), 1–14.
Sorensen, J., & Stuart, T. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81–112.
Squicciarini, M. (2009). Science parks: Seedbeds of innovation? A duration analysis of firms’ patenting activity. Small Business Economics, 32(2), 169–190.
Strotmann, H. (2007). Entrepreneurial survival. Small Business Economics, 28(1), 87–104.
Trippl, M., & Maier, G. (2010). Knowledge spillover agents and regional development. Papers in Regional Science, 89(2), 229–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2010.00302.x.
Tsvetkova, A. (2012). External effects of innovation on firm survival: evidence from computer and electronic product manufacturing, and healthcare. (doctoral dissertation), University of North Carolina - Charlotte.
Tsvetkova, A. (2015). Innovation, entrepreneurship, and metropolitan economic performance: Empirical test of recent theoretical propositions. Economic Development Quarterly, 29(4), 299–316.
Tsvetkova, A., & Partridge, M. (2017). The shale revolution and entrepreneurship: An assessment of the relationship between energy sector expansion and small business entrepreneurship in US counties. Energy, 141, 423–434.
Tsvetkova, A., Thill, J.-C., & Strumsky, D. (2014a). External effects of metropolitan innovation on firm survival: Non-parametric evidence from computer and electronic product manufacturing, and healthcare. In K. Kourtit, P. Nijkamp, & R. Stimson (Eds.), Applied regional growth and innovation models. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Tsvetkova, A., Thill, J.-C., & Strumsky, D. (2014b). Metropolitan innovation, firm size, and business survival in a high-tech industry. Small Business Economics, 43(3), 661–676.
Tsvetkova, A., Partridge, M., & Betz, M. R. (2019). Self-employment effects on regional growth: A bigger bang for a buck? Small Business Economics, 52(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-9988-5.
van der Panne, G. (2004). Agglomeration externalities: Marshall versus Jacobs. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14, 593–604.
van Stel, A. J., & Nieuwenhuijsen, H. R. (2004). Knowledge spillovers and economic growth: An analysis using data of Dutch regions in the period 1987–1995. Regional Studies, 38(4), 393–407.
Watson, J. (2007). Modeling the relationship between networking and firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(6), 852–874.
Williamson, O. E. (1967). Hierarchical control and optimum firm size. Journal of Political Economy, 75(2), 123–138.
Zachariadis, M. (2003). R&D, innovation, and technological progress: A test of the Schumpeterian framework without scale effects. Canadian Journal of Economics, 36(3), 566–586.
Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2012). How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9), 1090–1102.
Zimmerman, J. L. (1983). Taxes and firm size. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5, 119–149.
Acknowledgements
The work on this paper was principally completed while Alexandra Tsvetkova was at the Ohio State University; she appreciates the partial support of the USDA AFRI grant #11400612 “Maximizing the Gains of Old and New Energy Development for America’s Rural Communities”; Tessa Conroy acknowledges support provided by the Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Wisconsin – Madison and the University of Wisconsin – Extension. The opinions expressed in this paper are solely of the authors and under no circumstances can be interpreted as reflecting the official position of the OECD and its member countries.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tsvetkova, A., Conroy, T. & Thill, JC. Surviving in a high-tech manufacturing industry: the role of innovative environment and proximity to metropolitan industrial portfolio. Int Entrep Manag J 16, 501–527 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00591-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00591-8