The role of industry variety in the creation of innovative start-ups in Italy

Article
First Online:
Accepted:
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

This paper aims to ascertain whether related and unrelated industry variety affects the creation of innovative as opposed to other start-ups in Italian local labor market areas. The analysis combines elements from the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship, the recombinant growth approach, and evolutionary economic geography. Using data on Italian innovative start-ups created between 2012 and 2015, and on firms newly registered with the Italian Chambers of Commerce, and applying appropriate count data models, our estimates show that innovative start-ups are more frequently created in areas where unrelated variety is higher. This is because innovative start-ups find more opportunities to recombine different pieces of knowledge or maximize their portfolio of demand opportunities, in such a setting, whereas a higher related variety stimulates the creation of other types of new start-up, for which it is easier to combine similar, complementary knowledge sources. We also find that half of the effect of related and unrelated variety comes from the localization of (innovative) start-ups in large urban areas.

Keywords

New start-ups Innovative start-ups Related variety Unrelated variety 

JEL classification

L26 M13 R11 O33 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the editors of the special issue and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments to previous versions of the manuscript. The authors also thank ISTAT for data provision, in particular, Sandro Cruciani, for his suggestions on the creation of the dataset, and participants to the XX Uddevalla Symposium and the XXXVIII AISRE annual conference for their comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Acs, Z. J., & Armington, C. (2004). The impact of geographic differences in human capital on service firm formation rates. Journal of Urban Economics, 56(2), 244–278.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2004.03.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32, 15–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-9157-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. J. (2000). Geographic and sectoral characteristics of academic knowledge externalities. Papers in Regional Science, 79(4), 435–443.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5597.2000.tb01766.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation and industry evolution. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. The American Economic Review, 96(3), 630–640.Google Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34, 1191–1202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Audretsch, D. B., & Vivarelli, M. (1996). Determinants of new-firm startups in Italy. Empirica, 23, 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E., & Warming, S. (2004). University spillovers: does the kind of science matter? Industry and Innovation, 11(3), 193–206.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1366271042000265375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C., & Lehmann, E. E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Audretsch, D. B., Dohse, D., & Niebuhr, A. (2010). Cultural diversity and entrepreneurship: a regional analysis for Germany. Annals of Regional Science, 45(1), 55–85.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-009-0291-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Autor, D., Dorn, D., & Hanson, G. H. (2013). The China syndrome: local labor market effects of import competition in the United States. American Economic Review, 103, 2121–2168.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.6.2121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bae, J., & Koo, J. (2008). The nature of local knowledge and new firm formation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(3), 473–496.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtn017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bishop, P. (2012). Knowledge, diversity and entrepreneurship: a spatial analysis of new firm formation in Great Britain. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24(7–8), 641–660.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2011.617786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bonaccorsi, A., Colombo, M. G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2014). The impact of local and external university knowledge on the creation of knowledge-intensive firms: evidence from the Italian case. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 261–287.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9536-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boschma, R. (2017). Relatedness as driver of regional diversification: a research agenda. Regional Studies, 51(3), 351–364.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1254767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carlino, G. A., Chatterjee, S., & Hunt, R. M. (2007). Urban density and the rate of invention. Journal of Urban Economics, 61(3), 389–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Castaldi, C., Frenken, K., & Los, B. (2015). Related variety, unrelated variety and technological breakthroughs: an analysis of US state-level patenting. Regional Studies, 49(5), 767–781.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.940305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Colombelli, A. (2016). The impact of local knowledge bases on the creation of innovative start-ups in Italy. Small Business Economics, 47, 383–396.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9722-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Colombelli, A., & Quatraro, F. (2017). Green start-ups and local knowledge spillovers from clean and dirty technologies, Small Business Economics, Online First, 1–20, doi:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9934-y.
  20. Content, J., & Frenken, K. (2016). Related variety and economic development: a literature review. European Planning Studies, 24(12), 2097–2112.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1246517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cooke, P. (2016). The virtues of variety in regional innovation systems and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market and Complexity, 2, 3–19.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-016-0036-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Doloreux, D., & Shearmur, R. (2012). Collaboration, information and the geography of innovation in knowledge intensive business services. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(1), 79–105.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbr003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Donoso, V., Martin, V., & Minondo, A. (2015). Do differences in the exposure to Chinese imports lead to differences in labour market outcomes? An analysis for Spanish provinces. Regional Studies, 49(10), 1746–1764.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.879982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Duranton, G., & Puga, D. (2001). Nursery cities: urban diversity, process innovation, and the life cycle of products. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1454–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Finaldi Russo, P., Magri, S., & Rampazzi, C. (2016). Innovative start-ups in Italy: their special features and the effects of the 2012 law. Politica Economica/Journal of Economic Policy, 32(2), 297–330.  https://doi.org/10.1429/83967.Google Scholar
  26. Frenken, K., van Oort, F., & Verburg, T. (2007). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth, Regional Studies, 418(5), 685–697, doi:  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400601120296.
  27. Fritsch, M., & Mueller, P. (2008). The effects of new business formation on regional development over time. Regional Studies, 38, 961–975.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9067-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fritsch, M., & Weyh, A. (2006). How large are the direct employment effects of new businesses? An empirical investigation for West Germany. Small Business Economics, 27(2), 245–260.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-0005-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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, 47, 293–311.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9720-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glaeser, E. L., Kallal, H. D., Scheinknam, J. S., & Shleifer, A. (1992). Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 1126–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Glaeser, E. L., Kerr, W. R., Ponzetto, G. A.M. (2010) Clusters of entrepreneurship. Journal of Urban Economics 67, (1):150–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hall, B. H., Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. (2010). Measuring the returns to R&D. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (pp. 1033–1082). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  33. Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  34. Kirzner, I. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.Google Scholar
  35. Neffke, F., Hartog, M., Boschma, R., & Henning, M. (2014). Agents of structural change. The role of firms and entrepreneurs on regional diversification. In Papers in evolutionary economic geography (Vol. 14/10). Utrecht University Section of Economic Geography.Google Scholar
  36. Tödling, F., Prud’homme van Reine, P., & Dörhöfer, S. (2011). Open innovation and regional culture—findings from different industrial and regional settings. European Planning Studies, 19(11), 1885–1907.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.618688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Recombinant growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wieser, R. (2005). Research and development productivity and spillovers: empirical evidence at the firm level. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19(4), 587–621.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00260.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.“Marco Fanno” Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations