IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa05p449.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why Butterflies DonÂ’t Leave - Spatial development of new firms

Author

Listed:
  • Erik Stam

Abstract

There is an emerging interest in the local conditions of entrepreneurship and firm dynamics. The often-cited examples of entrepreneurship in successful regional clusters show that entrepreneurship is really a localized phenomenon, which seems to be at odds with the increased globalization of economic activity, in which firms are said to be relatively footloose and easily become multinational enterprises. Other authors have noted that in spite of information and communication technologies, the vital importance of face-to-face contact cannot be discounted (Hallowell, 1999); as Leamer and Storper (2001: 641) observe, the Internet “allows long distance ‘conversations’ but not ‘handshakes’ ”. Next to controversies concerning the role of the global and the local for firms (cf. West, 2002), there is a general weakness in the theory of the firm concerning the analysis of (new) firm dynamics. According to Geroski (2001) the theory of the firm in economics is preoccupied by the question of why firms exist, and it is both very narrow and very static. Further work in this area might be usefully extended to address the question of how firms grow and develop over time, and this, in turn, will force people to think through issues associated with what makes change difficult for firms. We will deal with these issues in a discussion of evolutionary theories of the firm in general, and specific theories of the entrepreneurial firm and the multinational firm in particular, and regional cluster approaches. The central question in this paper is: “Are there necessary interactions between the development of entrepreneurial firms and their spatial organization over time?”. We will deal with this question in a longitudinal way, i.e. analyze the development of entrepreneurial firms and the changes in their spatial organization during their life course. The development of entrepreneurial firms involves the firm–founding (Shane and Khurana, 2003) and the subsequent early growth (Garnsey, 1998) of the firm. These firms are not self-employed (anymore), and mostly not (yet) a multinational corporation; in a sense they are neither small nor large, but dynamic, turning from a caterpillar into a butterfly (cf. Penrose 1995), and are central to dynamics in the new, or entrepreneurial economy (Bresnahan et al., 2001; Audretsch and Thurik, 2003). The empirical part of this study is based on comparative case studies (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003) of 25 entrepreneurial firms, and 8 micro firms in four propulsive industries, namely professional business services, biomedicals, graphics-media, and shipbuilding. The spatial organization of firms consists of the dynamic constructs of locational adjustment and locational flexibility, which refer to the adjustment of the spatial organization of firms outside the headquarter (the location at which the entrepreneur/owner-manager executes his activities) of the firm and to the flexibility of the location of the headquarter respectively. With these two dimensions the tendency towards concentration or dispersion of the firm can be observed (cf. Storper, 1997, p.299-300). The spatial development of new firms consists of the sequence of locational events. Locational events refer to the changes in the state of the spatial organization of firms. The different types of locational events were coded in order to find typical sequences of locational events (cf. Abbott, 1995). Concrete events have been studied that may be unique to some extent. However, “[t]he focus is not on how or why something happened but on how or why something happens” (Mohr, 1982, p.5). We are looking for mechanisms that explain the spatial development of new firms. The abstract knowledge resulting from insight into these mechanisms may be more generally applicable. We have used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. We registered the general characteristics of the entrepreneur, his network relations, the firm (its strategy, structure and capabilities), inter-organizational relations, and their locations. The qualitative method involved a life history of the firm as told by the entrepreneur (Van Geenhuizen et al., 1992). This life history has been explicated with a critical incident technique (Tjosvold and Weicker, 1993; Chell and Pittaway, 1998). The fieldwork involved the study of how (location) decisions are actually made during the life course of emerging firms and how they affect and are affected by the firms’ development in general. Next to the quantitative data derived from the interviews other data from company archives, the press and other media was collected. The empirical study shows that capabilities more often seem to constrain (as a place-specific sunk cost) than to enable the spatial flexibility of entrepreneurial firms. However, certain organizational capabilities have to be built in order to become multilocational, especially on the interregional and international levels. The inter-organizational networks in regional clusters are hardly relevant in the explanation of the dynamics in the spatial organization of entrepreneurial firms. They only seem to constrain the location behavior in the early phases of entrepreneurial firms, when radical changes in the spatial organization are almost never considered at all.

Suggested Citation

  • Erik Stam, 2005. "Why Butterflies DonÂ’t Leave - Spatial development of new firms," ERSA conference papers ersa05p449, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa05/papers/449.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Noorderhaven, N. & Thurik, A.R. & Wennekers, A.R.M. & van Stel, A.J., 2003. "Self-Employment Across 15 European Countries:," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2003-081-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    2. Elizabeth Garnsey & Erik Stam & Paul Heffernan, 2006. "New Firm Growth: Exploring Processes and Paths," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20.
    3. David B. Audretsch & A. Roy Thurik, 2000. "Capitalism and democracy in the 21st Century: from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 17-34.
    4. André van Stel & Roy Thurik & Sander Wennekers & Niels Noorderhaven, 2003. "Self-employment across 15 European countries: the role of dissatisfaction," Scales Research Reports N200223, EIM Business and Policy Research.
    5. Garnsey, Elizabeth, 1998. "A Theory of the Early Growth of the Firm," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(3), pages 523-556, September.
    6. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    7. Ellinger, Robert, 1977. "Industrial Location Behavior and Spatial Evolution," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(4), pages 295-312, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Erik Stam & Elizabeth Garnsey, 2006. "New Firms Evolving in the Knowledge Economy: Problems and Solutions Around Turning Points," Chapters, in: Wilfred Dolfsma & Luc Soete (ed.), Understanding the Dynamics of a Knowledge Economy, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Isabel Grilo & Roy Thurik, 2008. "Determinants of entrepreneurial engagement levels in Europe and the US," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(6), pages 1113-1145, December.
    3. Alex Coad, 2018. "Firm age: a survey," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 13-43, January.
    4. Coad, Alex & Segarra, Agustí & Teruel, Mercedes, 2013. "Like milk or wine: Does firm performance improve with age?," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 173-189.
    5. Besnik A. Krasniqi & Muhamet Mustafa, 2016. "Small firm growth in a post-conflict environment: the role of human capital, institutional quality, and managerial capacities," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1165-1207, December.
    6. Grilo, I. & Thurik, A.R., 2004. "Determinants Of Entrepreneurship In Europe," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2004-106-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    7. Hundt, Christian & Holtermann, Linus & Steeger, Jonas & Bersch, Johannes, 2019. "Cluster externalities, firm capabilities, and the recessionary shock: How the macro-to-micro-transition shapes firm performance during stable times and times of crisis," ZEW Discussion Papers 19-008, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Šmaguc, Tamara, 2022. "A Synthesis Of Overlapping And Divergent Areas Of The Resource-Based View Of The Firm And Entrepreneurship Theory," UTMS Journal of Economics, University of Tourism and Management, Skopje, Macedonia, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15.
    9. Gabriele Pellegrino & Mariacristina Piva & Marco Vivarelli, 2015. "How do new entrepreneurs innovate?," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 42(3), pages 323-341, September.
    10. Demir, Robert & Wennberg, Karl & McKelvie, Alexander, 2016. "The Strategic Management of High-Growth Firms: A Review and Theoretical Conceptualization," Ratio Working Papers 273, The Ratio Institute.
    11. Tatiana Tsyganova & Galina Shirokova, 2010. "Gender Differences In Entrepreneurship: Evidence From Gem Data," Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, Faculty of Economics, Vilnius University, vol. 1(1).
    12. Lange, Francie & Tomini, Nino & Brinkmann, Florian & Kanbach, Dominik K. & Kraus, Sascha, 2023. "Demystifying massive and rapid business scaling – An explorative study on driving factors in digital start-ups," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    13. Juan Federico & Joan-Lluis Capelleras, 2015. "The heterogeneous dynamics between growth and profits: the case of young firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 231-253, February.
    14. Nora Hesse & Rolf Sternberg, 2017. "Alternative growth patterns of university spin-offs: why so many remain small?," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 953-984, September.
    15. Gupta, Himanshu & Barua, Mukesh Kumar, 2016. "Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria decision making method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 69-79.
    16. John Armour & Douglas Cumming, 2008. "Bankruptcy Law and Entrepreneurship," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 10(2), pages 303-350.
    17. Rolf Sternberg, 2022. "Entrepreneurship and geography—some thoughts about a complex relationship," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 559-584, December.
    18. Coad, Alex & Frankish, Julian & Roberts, Richard G. & Storey, David J., 2013. "Growth paths and survival chances: An application of Gambler's Ruin theory," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 615-632.
    19. André van Stel & Roy Thurik & Ingrid Verheul, 2004. "Explaining female and male entrepreneurship across 29 countries," Scales Research Reports N200403, EIM Business and Policy Research.
    20. Dvouletý, Ondřej, 2018. "How to analyse determinants of entrepreneurship and self-employment at the country level? A methodological contribution," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 92-99.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p449. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.