Entrepreneurial Clusters and the Co-agglomeration of Related Industries: Spinouts in Portuguese Plastics and Molds

The success of ?entrepreneurial clusters' has led policymakers towards extensive efforts to seed local entrepreneurship. A particularly important determinant of the ?supply of entrepreneurs' are industry linkages within cities or regions. Indeed, studies consistently find that the most powerful predictor of future entrepreneurship for a city or region is the presence and strength of incumbent firms in the same or in related industries. This study examines how co-agglomeration (or collocation) of entrepreneurial firms in related industries influences cluster growth. Two types of effects are considered that may drive collocation: the inheritance of capabilities from local incumbents by spinout founders; and agglomeration benefits stemming from local access to supply-side spillovers. These effects are examined for the Portuguese molds and plastics industries. If agglomeration economies explain industry collocation, one would expect firms from related industries to collocate in the agglomerated region. Firms locating in the agglomerated region should perform better than firms located elsewhere, independently of their background. If heritage is the main force behind collocation, then spinouts will locate close to parent firms regardless of their region of origin. Spinouts from parent firms in the same or a related industry perform better than other startups. Our methodology is twofold. We first present a historical account of the evolution of the Portuguese molds and plastics industries, focusing on the location and genealogy of firms. Second, we conduct an econometric analysis of detailed data on firms, founders, and workers in the Portuguese molds and plastics industries covering the period 1986-2009. In order to test the predictions derived from agglomeration and organizational heritage theories, two main types of models are estimated, regarding: I. the probability of firms in molds and plastics industries cross-spawning entrants in those industries; II. the determinants of the performance of entrants, according to their geographical origin and founder background (i.e. spinouts vs. independent startups), using survival and sales growth models. Results suggest that the transmission of capabilities from parent firms to spinouts locating in the same region is the foremost driver of collocation and performance for the molds and plastic injection industries. The presence of the plastics industry has a positive impact on the molds industry but not the inverse, implying that while collocation with molds is not a requirement for the plastics industry to flourish, collocation with plastics is important for the molds industry.

[1]  Claudio Michelacci,et al.  Why So Many Local Entrepreneurs? , 2006, The Review of Economics and Statistics.

[2]  E. Glaeser,et al.  Local Industrial Conditions and Entrepreneurship: How Much of the Spatial Distribution Can We Explain? , 2008 .

[3]  Steven Klepper,et al.  Dominance by birthright: entry of prior radio producers and competitive ramifications in the U. S. , 2000 .

[4]  Octávio Figueiredo,et al.  Home-field advantage: location decisions of Portuguese entrepreneurs , 2002 .

[5]  Jeffrey L. Meikle,et al.  American Plastic: A Cultural History , 1995 .

[6]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre-history , 2002 .

[7]  Edward L. Glaeser,et al.  Geographic Concentration in U.S. Manufacturing Industries: A Dartboard Approach , 1994, Journal of Political Economy.

[8]  Steven Klepper,et al.  Heritage and Agglomeration: The Akron Tyre Cluster Revisited , 2009 .

[9]  Douglas P. Woodward,et al.  Localization economies and establishment size: was Marshall right after all? , 2009 .

[10]  Scott Stern,et al.  Clusters, Convergence, and Economic Performance , 2010 .

[11]  M. Porter The Competitive Advantage Of Nations , 1990 .

[12]  Paulo Guimaraes,et al.  Dartboard Tests for the Location Quotient , 2008 .

[13]  E. Glaeser,et al.  Clusters of Entrepreneurship and Innovation , 2014 .

[14]  Andrew M. Isserman,et al.  The Location Quotient Approach to Estimating Regional Economic Impacts , 1977 .

[15]  Glenn Ellison,et al.  What Causes Industry Agglomeration? Evidence from Coagglomeration Patterns , 2007 .

[16]  Gerald A. Carlino,et al.  Contrasts in Agglomeration: New York and Pittsburgh Reconsidered , 1980 .

[17]  Steven Klepper,et al.  Spinoffs and Clustering , 2016, Innovation Systems, Policy and Management.

[18]  Steven Klepper,et al.  The Origin and Growth of Industry Clusters: The Making of Silicon Valley and Detroit , 2010 .

[19]  M. Porter Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy , 2000 .

[20]  Margarethe F. Wiersema,et al.  The Use of Limited Dependent Variable Techniques in Strategy Research: Issues and Methods , 2009 .

[21]  Damon J. Phillips A Genealogical Approach to Organizational Life Chances: The Parent-Progeny Transfer among Silicon Valley Law Firms, 1946–1996 , 2002 .

[22]  A. Marshall Principles of Economics: An Introductory Volume , 1949 .

[23]  Maria Elvira Callapez Os plásticos em Portugal : a origem da indústria transformadora , 2000 .

[24]  R. Boschma,et al.  The impact of aging and technological relatedness on agglomeration externalities: a survival analysis , 2012 .

[25]  M. Porter,et al.  The Competitive Advantage of Nations. , 1990 .

[26]  Olav Sorenson,et al.  The embedded entrepreneur , 2009 .

[27]  Steven Klepper,et al.  Disagreements, Spinoffs, and the Evolution of Detroit as the Capital of the U.S. Automobile Industry , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[28]  E. Glaeser,et al.  Clusters of Entrepreneurship and Innovation , 2013, Innovation Policy and the Economy.

[29]  Rasmus Lentz,et al.  Labor Market Models of Worker and Firm Heterogeneity , 2010 .