The geography of opportunity: spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms

By Toby E. Stuart, Olav Sorenson. 2003

928 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Economics and Econometrics, Management of Technology and Innovation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f3f4f56c75a4c01e712f623f69b53f523be84098

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

In Management of Technology and Innovation

Citations in the corpus

The emerging empirics of evolutionary economic geography (2011, background): “Entry rates are highly dependent on the number of incumbent firms in a region, as each firm constitutes a potential source for spinoffs (Arthur, 1994; Sorenson and Audia, 2000; Stuart and Sorenson, 2003) as well as a signal to (re)locating firms (Suire and Vincente 2009).”
Social networks and industrial geography (2003, background): “7 Stuart and Sorenson (2003) also extend the shoe industry analysis by looking not just at the proximity of firms in the biotech industry, but also at the local presence of skilled labor (biotech patent holders), venture capital firms and universities with leading biological sciences departments.”
Democratizing Innovation and Capital Access: The Role of Crowdfunding (2016, background): “Due to the need for in-person evaluation and monitoring, venture capital investments are highly concentrated in just a few geographic areas, where both entrepreneurs and venture capital firms are lcoated.(11) In fact, Stuart and Sorenson found that the average distance between a lead VC and his or h”
FROM CONCEPTION TO BIRTH: OPPORTUNITY PERCEPTION AND RESOURCE MOBILIZATION IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP (2003, background): “1. Stuart and Sorenson (2003) demonstrate a similar dynamic in the U.S.”
Global cities and multinational enterprise location strategy (2013, background): “…these benefits may come at additional costs, if MNEs’ convergence toward global cities leads to increased competition for limited local resources (Stuart & Sorenson, 2003) or inbred knowledge linkages that are insulated from ideas arising outside the global city network (Pouder & St John, 1996).”
The role of clustering in the growth of new technology-based firms (2010, background): “Additionally, positive benefits at the start-up stage may become negative over time as competitors increase in number (Stuart and Sorenson 2003).”
How Anticipated Employee Mobility Affects Acquisition Likelihood: Evidence from a Natural Experiment (2015, background): “As professional networks tend to be geographically localized (Saxenian, 1994; Sorenson and Stuart, 2001; Stuart and Sorenson, 2003a), a firm’s employees are more likely to be raided by nearby competitors within the state.”
7. Coming from good stock: Career histories and new venture formation (2002, background): “Second, there is a growing interest in the economic and sociological literature on technological innovation in the operation of geographical " spillover " effects (Jaffe, Trajtenberg and Henderson 1993; Saxenian 1994; Stuart and Sorenson 1999).”
Entrepreneurial Geographies: Support Networks in Three High-Technology Industries (2005, background): “6 There is little evidence that the location of the pharmaceutical industry, whose largest cluster is in the New Jersey–New York City area, was a significant driver of the industrial clustering (see, e.g., Zucker, Darby, and Brewer 1998; Stuart and Sorenson 2003; Romanelli and Feldman 2004).”
Understanding regional variation in entrepreneurial activity and entrepreneurial attitude in Europe (2011, background): “These regional features also determine the extent to which new businesses are sustainable (see also Stuart and Sorenson 2003 ).”
Local and international networks in small firm internationalization: cases from the Rhône-Alpes medical technology regional cluster (2013, background): “Local institutions (e.g. governmental actors, hospitals and universities) are normally in geographic proximity to one another and, thus, an attractive locational base for small med-tech firms (Al-Laham and Souitaris 2008; Stuart and Sorenson 2003).”