Determinants of New-Firm Formations in Manufacturing Industries: Industry Dynamics, Entry Barriers, and Organizational Inertia

1993 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Dean ◽  
G. Dale Meyer ◽  
Julio DeCastro

This article utilizes the Ideas of Austrian economists, Industrial organization economists, and organization theorists to build a model of new-firm creation In manufacturing industries. Market dynamics create disequilibrium and profit opportunities for entrepreneurs. Whether available opportunities are exploited by existing firms, or through the founding of new firms Is dependent on the constraints on each of these types of entrepreneurs. Entry barriers tend to constrain new firms and therefore decrease the relative occurrence of new business formations. Organizational Inertia acts as a constraint on existing firms and thereby encourages the creation of new organizations.

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 543-559 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce A. Kirchhoff ◽  
Scott L. Newbert ◽  
Iftekhar Hasan ◽  
Catherine Armington

Since new firms generally lack the resources necessary to compete with their larger, older counterparts in the knowledge development process, we argue that they often rely on spillovers to fuel their own innovative efforts. Thus, we hypothesize that new firms will tend to form in areas characterized by high levels of university research and development (R & D) expenditures and that these births will in turn stimulate the local economy by generating increases in employment level and growth. We test our hypotheses at the U.S. labor market area level using secondary data from various government sources for the years 1990 through 1999. Our results demonstrate that university R & D expenditures are positively related to new firm formations, and that these new firm formations are positively related to employment level and change. These findings suggest that university R & D expenditures are an important indirect contributor to overall economic growth by encouraging primary and secondary firm births.


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?


Author(s):  
Tania Babina ◽  
Paige Parker Ouimet ◽  
Rebecca Zarutskie

2004 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Fritsch ◽  
Udo Brixy ◽  
Michael Niese ◽  
Anne Otto

New firm formation in cities. In this article the specifics of new firm formation in cities are analyzed empirically. Start-up rates in urban agglomerations areas are relatively high. Even if one controls for the effect of industry structure density is conducive for the level of new firm formation. However. survival rates of new firms in cities tend to be relatively low. Therefore, cities are characterized by high intensity of market selection leading to high turbulente of the stock of businesses. Does this imply an advantage of cities over other types of region?


2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (01) ◽  
pp. 1350002 ◽  
Author(s):  
SUSAN COLEMAN ◽  
CARMEN COTEI ◽  
JOSEPH FARHAT

This article explores factors affecting the survival and exit routes of new firms created in 2004 using data from the Kauffman Firm Survey. We draw upon the Resource-Based View to test several hypotheses regarding the impact of both tangible and intangible resources on new firm survival in both service and non-service firms. We also distinguish between two types of exit: closures (permanently stopped operations) and mergers or acquisitions. Our results reveal that, although service and non-service firms may differ in terms of industry structure, the fundamental resources that contribute to their survival are the same: education, work and life experience and adequate levels of startup financial capital. In spite of these similarities, our results did reveal industry differences in terms of exit. We found serial entrepreneurs in the service sector were more likely to exit through merger or acquisition. Conversely, intellectual property decreased the likelihood of exit through merger or acquisition for non-service firms. Thus, our findings revealed a link between human capital, industry and exit route for this sample of new firms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document