Untangling the relationships among growth, profitability and survival in new firms

Technovation ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (8-9) ◽  
pp. 276-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frédéric Delmar ◽  
Alexander McKelvie ◽  
Karl Wennberg
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Jones

This chapter lays out the principal aims of the book and its contribution. It shows that business drove unprecedented wealth creation over the last two hundred years but the cost was unprecedented environmental pollution resulting in new geological era known as the Anthropocene Age. Already in the nineteenth century there was resistance which mostly took the form of elite conservation movements. Overlooked has been the advent of green entrepreneurs who sought to create new firms to facilitate sustainability. Today there is much discussion about green entrepreneurship, but these figures predate today’s green entrepreneurs by a century. The book breaks new ground in business history by looking at these many small and marginal entrepreneurial figures, who were often highly unconventional. The book will explore what has motivated green entrepreneurs in each generation, how they build businesses, and whether they achieved their goals.


2002 ◽  
Vol 92 (5) ◽  
pp. 1335-1356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Johnson ◽  
John McMillan ◽  
Christopher Woodruff

Which is the tighter constraint on private sector investment: weak property rights or limited access to external finance? From a survey of new firms in post-communist countries, we find that weak property rights discourage firms from reinvesting their profits, even when bank loans are available. Where property rights are relatively strong, firms reinvest their profits; where they are relatively weak, entrepreneurs do not want to invest from retained earnings.


ILR Review ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 667-685 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Finegold ◽  
Karin Wagner

The authors present a detailed case study of the evolution of apprenticeships in German banking over the past two decades to analyze why employers continue to be willing to invest in these programs that provide workers with transferable skills. They explain employers' motivation in terms of two “logics.” Some considerations stemming from the logic of consequences, such as recruitment cost savings and enhanced workplace flexibility, encourage retention of the apprenticeship system. On balance, however, the cost calculus that is at the heart of the logic of consequences would, if unopposed, encourage head-hunting for apprentices trained by other firms, eventually undermining the system. The countervailing logic of appropriateness, however, discourages defections from the system by fostering trust among employers, encouraging new firms to participate in the system, supporting the strong reputational effect associated with training, and creating mechanisms with which banks can have a hand in keeping the system efficient.


2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (Sspecial Edition) ◽  
pp. 143-182
Author(s):  
Azam Chaudhry ◽  
Maryiam Haroon

Despite the consensus that new firms have a significant economic and socioeconomic impact, there is very little empirical evidence to support this claim in the Pakistani context. In this paper, we start by looking at how new firm entry varies across districts in Punjab over time. We then look at how the establishment of different types of firms across these districts has affected district-level socioeconomic outcomes in the province. We find that firm entry has a positive impact on economic outcomes such as employment and enrollment, and that this impact can vary by the scale of the firms that enter.


1969 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yali Friedman

In the relatively short history of the biotechnology industry, new business models have emerged every few years. Some have been little more than short-lived marketing or investment-attraction devices, whereas others have had endured as viable options. Given the dramatic changes in the economic climate and potentially the regulations affecting biotechnology, is it time for a new business model?A SHORT HISTORYFirst there was the FILCO, or fully integrated life science company, business model. This model, employed by some of the first biotechnology companies, positioned firms to capture the revolutionary advances of biotechnology and to build large vertically-integrated companies. Companies like Amgen and Genentech were able to fulfill this endpoint, but many other companies were not so fortunate. Another early model was to improve existing products, rather than to build an entire franchise around discovering and commercializing new ones. This model is exemplified by Alza, which was founded to improve medical treatment through controlled drug delivery and focused on improving existing drugs rather than developing new ones. This same model is still employed today, and shares some similarity with the technology platform business model, where companies focus on developing technologies that can be sold to other R&D firms, rather than independently developing consumer applications.Newer business models did not replace the older ones, but rather enabled new firms to focus on the unique environment in which they were founded. Examples include the hybrid model that combined product development with a technology platform, which could be sold or licensed to others, and the no research, development-only model that as a derivative of the specialty pharmaceutical model, saw newly founded companies buying drug leads off of other companies to complete late-stage clinical trials. These models enabled new firms to meet the respective needs of risk-averse and cash-rich investors.WHERE ARE WE NOW?I've previously written that the global economic crisis has been (and still is) transformative for the biotechnology industry. The aforementioned biotechnology business models rose to prominence in conditions that favored them. For example, the hybrid model emerged in a funding drought and was favored as it enabled companies to build internal revenue streams while still maintaining the possibility to realize the upside of product sales.What are the factors influencing biotechnology companies today? In the United States, beyond the general economic climate there are still unresolved questions about the availability of early stage financing, the ability to recruit foreign workers, and – post-commercialization – data exclusivity, generic biologics and the potential for price controls. Internationally, some nations are still undergoing dramatic economic reorganizations, while others are making significant investments in building biotechnology R&D capacity.So, the question remains: Is the biotechnology industry ready for a new business model, and is there a business model that can accommodate the myriad domestic challenges faced by many countries while addressing the increasing globalization of activities?


2018 ◽  
pp. 94-111
Author(s):  
Muhammad Khalid Sohail ◽  
Abdul Raheman

In this study, the sample of newly IPO firms at PSX from 2000 to 2018 is selected to observe the performance in the long run, under different maturity level. The analysis is based on Jensen’s alpha obtained through CAPM, four factors (4-F), and three factors model (3-F). Based on the analysis of Jensen’s alpha, the underpricing of IPOs disappeared after the periods of one to three years to suggest that investors can not earn risk-adjusted positive returns accounting for market, momentum, value and size factors. In the analysis of GCT regression model, for the three different maturity level, the severe underperformance of these new firms are to be observed. Further, the result of new firms through GCT model show that different maturity (1-5 years, 6-10 years, and more than 10 years) of firms do not matter, and overall newly firms underperform in long run.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document