Growth paths and survival chances: an application of Gambler's Ruin theory

By Alex Coad, J. Frankish, R. Roberts, D. Storey. 2013

291 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Economics and Econometrics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ea654cf5b31763446acf5401af633539b9d2ae7b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Economics and Econometrics

Citations in the corpus

Distinguishing micro-businesses from SMEs: a systematic review of growth constraints (2016, background): “Although a couple of studies question the influence of education (Cassar, 2006; Coad et al., 2013), better educated OMEs start larger businesses (Cooper et al., 1989), and OME’s human capital and a minimum of apprenticeship experience have a positive effect on micro-business survival and growth…”
What really happens to small and medium-sized enterprises in a global economic recession? UK evidence on sales and job dynamics (2015, background): “Moreover, it is argued that the decision and outcome of growth for entrepreneurial firms could lie within the entrepreneur level (Westhead and Wright, 2011; Wright and Stiliani, 2012), or even be modelled as a random process (Coad et al., 2013), which may be less affected by macroeconomic conditions”
My first employee: an empirical investigation (2016, background): “However, despite the efforts, research into the determinants of firm growth has been slow (McKelvie and Wiklund 2010), and our ability to predict which firms will grow is hardly better than random (Geroski 2000; Coad et al. 2013; Denrell et al. 2015).”
Muppets and gazelles: political and methodological biases in entrepreneurship research (2014, unknown): “…compete on par with incumbents ( 10 years); growth is rarely persistent (Ho00 lzl, 2013) and is approximately as persistent as a random coin toss (Coad et al., 2013); adjustment costs are high (and penalize large scale entry and rapid postentry growth); and as firms get both older and larger…”
The impact of government financial support on the performance of new firms: the role of competitive advantage as an intermediate outcome (2014, methodology): “We have included a number of control variables that have been shown in prior work to influence survival and performance of new firms (e.g. Coad et al. 2013).”
Untangling the relationships among growth, profitability and survival in new firms (2013, unknown): “…is consistent with some evolutionary theorizing that argues that growth is a risky endeavor that may not enhance the chances of survival, at least in the short-term (Delmar and Wennberg, 2007; Dosi et al., 1995) or that growth can be depicted as a ‘random walk’ (Coad et al., 2012; Geroski, 2000).”
Myth-busting and entrepreneurship policy: the case of high growth firms (2017, background): “of time does not guarantee sustained high growth (Coad et al. 2013; Daunfeldt and Halvarsson 2015).”
Does innovativeness reduce startup survival rates (2015, background): “Our study highlights the importance of (a) allowing for selection among and within the various cohorts of ﬁ rms (Cader and Leatherman, 2011; Coad et al., 2013), and (b) distinguishing ex ante activity from ex post outcomes, such as patents and market introductions of new processes or products.”