Abstract
For much of the last three decades, the world of business and economic development has been dominated by the Silicon Valley Paradigm. This paradigm stipulates that high-growth technology companies most likely emerge under the particular framework conditions that govern the business environment of Silicon Valley. These include, for example, the abundance of risk capital, a culture of risk taking, the availability of a deep pool of highly skilled talent and the presence of large communities of foreign-born graduates and entrepreneurs, in addition to strong university–industry links and other factors. Considering the rapid emergence in Silicon Valley of numerous high-growth, high-tech start-ups that have gone on to become globally dominant, it is easy to see why this region has come to dominate attention and perceptions about what is most important for start-up success. With a population of less than three million, Silicon Valley generates a GDP of around US$210 billion (or US$70,000 per capita), with 45 % of households claiming an income over US$100,000. On a per capita basis, Silicon Valley counts among the richest areas of the world—in the same league as countries like Norway and Singapore.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
See for example Galbraith, Craig S. “High-technology location and development: the case of Orange County.” California Management Review (pre-1986) 28.000001 (1985): 98; or Felsenstein, Daniel. “High technology firms and metropolitan locational choice in Israel: a look at the determinants.” Geografiska Annaler. Series B. Human Geography (1996): 43–58.
- 2.
For a good literature review see Lafuente, Esteban, Yancy Vaillant, and Christian Serarols. “Location decisions of knowledge-based entrepreneurs: Why some Catalan KISAs choose to be rural?” Technovation 30.11 (2010): 590–600.
- 3.
For example, when measured using data from WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2013–2014 and the EU Regional Competitiveness Index 2013.
- 4.
See an interview Marco Veremis in the Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/440ce4a6-ef3f-11e4-87dc-00144feab7de.html#axzz3eR2wQNtr
- 5.
Serendipity was excluded as a condition as it was deemed too amorphous in nature and thus difficult for interviewees to establish whether it was in short or plentiful supply.
References
Bolton, R. 2002. Place surplus, exit, voice, and loyalty. In Regional policies and comparative advantage, ed. B. Johansson, C. Karlsson, and R. Stough. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Brooks, David. 2010. Bobos in paradise: The new upper class and how they got there. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Cyert, Richard, and James March. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Dahl, Michael S., and Olav Sorenson. 2012. Home sweet home: Entrepreneurs’ location choices and the performance of their ventures. Management Science 58(6): 1059–1071.
Figueiredo, O., P. Guimaraes, and D. Woodward. 2002. Home-field advantage: Location decisions of Portuguese entrepreneurs. Journal of Urban Economics 52: 341–361.
Florida, Richard. 2002. Bohemia and economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 2(1): 55–71.
Florida, Richard. 2004. The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life (Paperback Ed.). New York: Basic Books
Galbraith, Craig S. 1985. High-technology location and development: The case of Orange County. California Management Review 28(1): 98 (pre-1986).
Hirschman, A.O. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lafuente, Esteban, Yancy Vaillant, and Christian Serarols. 2010. Location decisions of knowledge-based entrepreneurs: Why some Catalan KISAs choose to be rural? Technovation 30(11): 590–600.
Mueller, E., and J.N. Morgan. 1962. Location decisions of manufacturers. American Economic Review 52: 204–217.
Porter, Michael E. 1996. What is strategy? Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Prahalad, Coimbatore Krishnarao. 1993. The role of core competencies in the corporation. Research Technology Management 36: 40–47.
Puhvel, J. 1984. The origin of Etruscan Tusna (‘Swan’). The American Journal of Philology 105: 209–212.
Reynolds, P., and S.B. White. 1997. The entrepreneurial process. New London: Quorum Books.
Rogers, Everett M., and Judith K. Larsen. 1984. Silicon valley fever: Growth of high-technology culture. New York: Basic Books.
Saxenian, Annalee. 1985. Silicon valley and route 128: Regional prototypes or historic exceptions? In High technology, space and society, ed. M. Castells. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Saxenian, Annalee. 1983. The genesis of Silicon Valley. Built Environment 9: 7–17 (1978-).
Senor, Dan, and Saul Singer. 2011. Start-up nation: The story of Israel’s economic miracle. New York: Random House LLC.
Schroeder, Christopher. 2013. Startup rising. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Stam, E. 2007. Why butterflies don’t leave: Locational behavior of entrepreneurial firms. Economic Geography 83(1): 27–50.
Storey, David J., et al. 1987. The performance of small firms: Profits, jobs and failures. Urbana-Champaign’s academy for entrepreneurial leadership historical research reference in entrepreneurship, University of Illinois.
The Global Competitiveness Index 2013–14, World Economic Forum, Geneva.
Van Fraassen, Bas C. 1980. The pragmatic theory of explanation. http://www.fitelson.org/290/vanfraassen_pte.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)>
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mahroum, S. (2016). Introduction. In: Black Swan Start-ups. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57727-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57727-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-57726-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-57727-6
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)