Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Regional Public Research, Higher Education, and Innovative Start-Ups

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovative Start-Ups and the Distribution of Human Capital

Part of the book series: Contributions to Economics ((CE))

  • 824 Accesses

Abstract

New businesses are an important source of economic growth (Fritsch 2013), especially those start-ups that pose a competitive threat to incumbent firms by introducing a significant innovation. The available data suggest that only a small fraction of all start-ups is of such quality and that their geographic distribution is highly uneven (Fritsch 2011). According to the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship (Acs et al. 2009), new businesses in general, and highly innovative start-ups in particular, are manifestations of knowledge spillover from extant knowledge sources. Hence, the number and the types of new business are shaped considerably by the regional knowledge base, and the emergence of innovative start-ups can be especially expected in regions with significant amounts of knowledge, private or public.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Earlier studies for Germany are Harhoff (1999), Bade and Nerlinger (2000), Audretsch and Lehmann (2005), Audretsch et al. (2005), and Hülsbeck and Pickavé (2014).

  2. 2.

    Harhoff’s (1999) analysis is limited to start-ups in electrical machinery and the mechanical engineering industry. Audretsch and Lehmann (2005) and Audretsch et al. (2005) focus on 281 firms that made an initial public offering (IPO) in Germany between March 1997 and March 2002. Since these firms may have been set up considerably in advance of making an IPO, their founding date is only vaguely defined.

  3. 3.

    Information about the non-university research institutions in the region are also included, which are neglected in Audretsch and Lehmann (2005), Audretsch et al. (2005), and Hülsbeck and Pickavé (2014).

  4. 4.

    For the researcher, starting an own business is often the only way to have an idea realized. For a more detailed discussion of this point, see Audretsch et al. (2006) and Acs et al. (2009).

  5. 5.

    This corresponds to the observation that founders are likely to set up their business in the industry in which they previously worked (Fritsch and Falck 2007).

  6. 6.

    Since many service firms do not have a standardized product program but provide customer-specific services, they are not innovative in the same sense as manufacturing firms. Hence, service industries that may be relevant for innovation are defined as such based on the knowledge intensity of their inputs. These knowledge-intensive service industries include, for example, “computer services,” “research and development in natural sciences and engineering,” and “business consultancy.” For definitions of these groups of industries, see Grupp and Legler (2000) and OECD (2005). For a review of different methods of identifying innovative businesses, see Fritsch (2011).

  7. 7.

    Audretsch and Lehmann (2005), Bade and Nerlinger (2000), Harhoff (1999), Hülsbeck and Pickavé (2014), Lasch et al. (2013).

  8. 8.

    The reason for these mixed results may be high correlation among the different indicators (see Sect. 2.4).

  9. 9.

    A study of the USA by Bania et al. (1993) shows that there may also be considerable differences in the effect of different regional knowledge sources among four-digit industries that are classified as highly innovative.

  10. 10.

    An indication for different effects of size and quality-related university indicators is provided by Fritsch and Slavtchev (2007), who find that only the volume of external funds has a positive effect on regional innovation activity; no such positive effect can be found for indicators that are related to size, such as the number of professors and academic personnel or the number of students and of graduates.

  11. 11.

    See Fritsch (2011) for the classification of German industries as “innovative,” “technologically advanced,” or “technology-intensive services.”

  12. 12.

    For an official translation for the German administrative divisions, see EC-DGT (2014).

  13. 13.

    All institutes of the four large public research organizations in Germany are accounted for, i.e., the Fraunhofer, the Helmholtz, the Leibnitz, and the Max Planck Society. Data have been collected from different sources, mainly from publications of these organizations and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Since a number of these institutes have several locations, the publicly available information about their budgets and number of personnel cannot be meaningfully assigned to regions.

  14. 14.

    If a patent has more than one inventor, the count is divided by the number of the inventors involved and each inventor is registered with his or her share of that patent.

  15. 15.

    This common classification of German regions by the Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning is based on a region’s population density and settlement structure. For details, see Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (2003).

  16. 16.

    The highest number of HEIs can be found in Berlin (34 HEIs), followed by Munich (19), Hamburg (17), and Stuttgart (10). The regions with the highest number of non-university institutions for public research are Berlin (26), Munich (20), and Dresden (17).

  17. 17.

    A plausible assumption for the selection of “true” zero values could be that the emergence of an innovative start-up in a region requires the presence of at least one university or of a non-university public research institute. This assumption, however, is not unproblematic because it already implies the general hypothesis that innovative start-ups emerge from public research. Running a zero-inflated negative binomial model with the variable “presence of a university or non-university public research institute in the region” for the selection of the “true” zero values, reveals a Vuong test suggesting that doing so is not a significant improvement over a standard negative binomial model.

  18. 18.

    A great deal of the financing and legal framework for universities and non-university public research institutes is the responsibility of the Federal States in Germany. Most of the Federal States also operate their own programs for promoting entrepreneurship.

  19. 19.

    The AIC is a measure of the relative goodness of fit of a statistical model that accounts for the number of independent variables included in the model. For details, see Akaike (1974) and Greene (2012).

  20. 20.

    Employment in industry groups and small-firm employment are entered in the regressions as shares in overall regional employment because including these numbers would lead to double counting with the overall number of employees and cause multicollinearity.

  21. 21.

    It is not distinguished between patents registered by HEIs, non-university public research institutes, or the private sector for several reasons. One reason is that universities and other public research institutes in Germany are to different degrees selective with respect to patenting inventions so the number of patents is not a meaningful indicator of innovative output. A second reason is a change in the legal framework for university patenting that led to considerable change in patenting behavior during the period of analysis (for details, see Proff et al. 2012).

  22. 22.

    The correlation coefficient between the aggregate indicator for the regional HEIs (the number of non-university public research institutes) and the number of private-sector R&D employees is 0.465 (0.596); see Table A.2 in the Appendix. The correlation between the regional number of private-sector R&D employees and the aggregate indicator for HEIs (the number of non-university public research institutes) in adjacent regions is 0.323 (−0.021).

  23. 23.

    See Tables A.6–A.14 in the Appendix.

  24. 24.

    The coefficient of correlation between these two indicators in the overall sample is 0.488 (see Table A.2 in the Appendix).

References

  • Acs ZJ, Braunerhjelm P, Audretsch DB, Carlsson B (2009) The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 32:15–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB, Lehmann E (2013) The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 41:767–774

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams JD (2002) Comparative localization of academic and industrial spillovers. J Econ Geogr 2:253–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19:716–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anselin L, Varga A, Acs ZJ (1997) Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. J Urban Econ 42:422–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asheim BT, Gertler MS (2005) The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR (eds) The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 291–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Åstebro T, Bazzazian N (2011) Universities, entrepreneurship and local economic development. In: Fritsch M (ed) Handbook of research on entrepreneurship and regional development. Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 252–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch DB, Lehmann EE (2005) Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Res Policy 34:1191–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch DB, Lehmann EE, Warning S (2005) University spillovers and new firm location. Res Policy 34:1113–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch DB, Keilbach M, Lehmann EE (2006) Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bade F-J, Nerlinger EA (2000) The spatial distribution of new technology-based firms: empirical results for West-Germany. Papers Region Sci 79:155–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bania N, Eberts RW, Fogerty MS (1993) Universities and the startup of new companies can we generalize from Route 128 and Silicon Valley? Rev Econ Stat 75:761–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baptista R, Mendonça J (2010) Proximity to knowledge sources and the location of knowledge-based start-ups. Ann Region Sci 45:5–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baptista R, Lima F, Mendonça J (2011) Establishment of higher education institutions and new firm entry. Res Policy 40:751–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi A, Colombo MG, Guerini M, Rossi-Lamastra C (2014) How universities contribute to the creation of knowledge-intensive firms: detailed evidence on the Italian case. In: Bonaccorsi A (ed) Knowledge, diversity and performance in European Higher Education—A changing landscape. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 205–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma R (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Region Stud 39:61–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosma N, Hessels J, Schutjens V, van Praag M, Verheul I (2012) Entrepreneurship and role models. J Econ Psychol 33:410–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carree MA (2002) Does unemployment affect the number of establishments? A regional analysis for US states. Region Stud 36:389–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carree MA, Della-Malva A, Santarelli E (2014) The contribution of universities to growth: empirical evidence for Italy. J Technol Transf 39:393–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl MS, Sorenson O (2009) The embedded entrepreneur. Eur Manag Rev 6:172–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC-DGT: European Commission; Directorate-General for Translation (2014) Country compendium: a companion to the English style guide. EC Directorate-General for Translation, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Elfenbein DW, Hamilton BH, Zenger TR (2010) The small firm effect and the entrepreneurial spawning of scientists and engineers. Manag Sci 56:659–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung) (2003) Aktuelle Daten zur Entwicklung der Städte, Kreise und Gemeinden, vol 17. Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman MP (2001) The entrepreneurial event revisited: firm formation in a regional context. Indus Corp Change 10:861–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figueiredo O, Guimaraes P, Woodward D (2002) Home-field advantage: location decisions of Portuguese entrepreneurs. J Urban Econ 52:341–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch M (2011) Start-ups in innovative industries—Causes and effects. In: Audretsch DB, Falck O, Heblich S, Lederer A (eds) Handbook of innovation and entrepreneurship. Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 365–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch M (2013) New business formation and regional development—A survey and assessment of the evidence. Found Trends Entrepreneurship 9:249–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch M, Falck O (2007) New business formation by industry over space and time: a multidimensional analysis. Region Stud 41:157–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch M, Slavtchev V (2007) Universities and innovation in space. Industry Innov 14:201–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrke B, Schasse U, Rammer C, Frietsch R, Neuhäusler P, Leidmann M (2010) Listen wissens- und technologieintensiver Güter und Wirtschaftszweige. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, 19, Frauenhofer ISI, NIW, ZEW

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene WH (2012) Econometric analysis, 7th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Grupp H, Legler H (2000) Hochtechnologie 2000: Neudefinition der Hochtechnologie für die Berichterstattung zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands. Karlsruhe and Hannover, FhG, ISI, NIW

    Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff D (1999) Firm formation and regional spillovers – Evidence from Germany. Econ Innov New Technol 8:27–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hülsbeck M, Pickavé EN (2014) Regional knowledge production as determinant of high-technology entrepreneurship: empirical evidence for Germany. Int Entrepreneurship Manag J 10:121–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper S (2009) Spinoffs: a review and synthesis. Eur Manag Rev 6:159–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasch F, Robert F, Le Roy F (2013) Regional determinants of ICT new firm formation. Small Bus Econ 40:671–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markusen A, Glasmeier A, Hall P (1986) High tech in America—The what, how, where, and why of the sunrise industries. Allen & Unwin, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005) OECD handbook on economic globalization indicators. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker SC (2009) Why do small firms produce the entrepreneurs? J Socio-Econ 38:484–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piva E, Grilli L, Rossi-Lamastra C (2011) The creation of high-tech entrepreneurial ventures at the local level: the role of local competences and communication infrastructures. Industry Innov 18:563–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proff S v, Buenstorf G, Hummel M (2012) University patenting in Germany before and after 2002: what role did the professors’ privilege play? Industry Innov 19:23–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds PD, Storey DJ, Westhead P (1994) Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates. Region Stud 28:443–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spengler A (2008) The establishment history panel. Schmollers Jahrbuch/J Appl Social Sci Stud 128:501–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg R (2009) Regional dimensions of entrepreneurship. Found Trends Entrepreneurship 5:211–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey DJ, Tether BS (1998) New technology-based firms in the European Union: an introduction. Res Policy 26:933–946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutaria V, Hicks DA (2004) New firm formation: dynamics and determinants. Ann Region Sci 38:241–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW) (2011) Die Bereitstellung von Standardauswertungen zum Gründungsgeschehen in Deutschland für externe Datennutzer. ZEW, Mannheim

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GSBC EIC “The Economics of Innovative Change”, Jena, Germany

    Ronney Aamoucke

Authors
  1. Ronney Aamoucke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Aamoucke, R. (2016). Regional Public Research, Higher Education, and Innovative Start-Ups. In: Innovative Start-Ups and the Distribution of Human Capital. Contributions to Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44462-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation