Do Non-Compete Covenants Influence State Startup Activity? Evidence from the Michigan Experiment

This paper examines how the enforceability of employee non-compete agreements affects the entry of new establishments and jobs created by these new firms. We use a panel of startup activity for the U.S. states for the period 1977 to 2013. We exploit Michigan?s inadvertent policy reversal in 1985 that transformed the state from a non-enforcing to an enforcing state as a quasi-natural experiment to estimate the causal effect of enforcement on startup activity. Our findings offer little support for the widely held view that enforcement of non-compete agreements negatively affects the entry rate of new firms or the rate of jobs created by new firms. In a difference-in-difference analysis, we find that a 10 percent increase in enforcement led to an increase of about 1 percent to about 3 percent in the startup job creation rate in Michigan and, in general, to essentially no change in the startup entry rate. Extending our analysis to consider the effect of increased enforcement on patent activity, we find that enforcement had differential effects across technological classifications. Importantly, increased enforcement had a positive and significant effect on the number of quality-adjusted mechanical patents in Michigan, the most important patenting classification in that state.

[1]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  Liquidity Events and the Geographic Distribution of Entrepreneurial Activity , 2003 .

[2]  Jasjit Singh,et al.  Geographic Constraints on Knowledge Spillovers: Political Borders vs. Spatial Proximity , 2012, Manag. Sci..

[3]  Olav Sorenson,et al.  Non-Compete Covenants: Incentives to Innovate or Impediments to Growth , 2009 .

[4]  Xiaoying Xie,et al.  Noncompetes in the U.S. Labor Force , 2017 .

[5]  D. Harhoff,et al.  Citation Frequency and the Value of Patented Inventions , 1999, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[6]  S. Davis,et al.  Labor Market Fluidity and Economic Performance , 2014 .

[7]  James B. Rebitzer,et al.  Job-Hopping in Silicon Valley: Some Evidence Concerning the Microfoundations of a High-Technology Cluster , 2006, The Review of Economics and Statistics.

[8]  K. Stone Knowledge at Work: Disputes Over the Ownership of Human Capital in the Changing Workplace , 2002 .

[9]  Ronald J. Gilson,et al.  The Legal Infrastructure of High Technology Industrial Districts: Silicon Valley, Route 128, and Covenants Not to Compete , 1998 .

[10]  Jonathan M. Barnett,et al.  Revisiting Labor Mobility in Innovation Markets , 2016 .

[11]  Matt Marx,et al.  Mobility, Skills, and the Michigan Non-Compete Experiment , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[12]  E. Duflo,et al.  How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates? , 2001 .

[13]  Ron S. Jarmin,et al.  Who Creates Jobs? Small versus Large versus Young , 2013, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[14]  Jake K. Carr,et al.  Localized Knowledge Spillovers: Evidence from the Agglomeration of American R&D Labs and Patent Data , 2015 .

[15]  Nicola Meccheri A note on noncompetes, bargaining and training by firms , 2009 .

[16]  L. Fleming,et al.  Regional disadvantage? Employee non-compete agreements and brain drain , 2014 .

[17]  Evan Starr Consider This: Training, Wages, and the Enforceability of Covenants Not to Compete , 2015, ILR Review.

[18]  Matt Marx,et al.  The Firm Strikes Back , 2011 .

[19]  William R. Kerr,et al.  Labor Regulations and European Venture Capital , 2013 .

[20]  Natarajan Balasubramanian,et al.  Screening Spinouts? How Noncompete Enforceability Affects the Creation, Growth, and Survival of New Firms , 2016, Manag. Sci..

[21]  Carlos J. Serrano The Dynamics of the Transfer and Renewal of Patents , 2008 .

[22]  Raffaele Conti Do non-competition agreements lead firms to pursue path-breaking inventions? , 2011 .