Region-specific technology policy in Belgium: The significance of New Technology Based Start-ups

Since the beginning of the 1980s, strategic regional technology policies have been adopted in Belgium. A number of NTBFs are emerging in generic technology industries such as micro-electronics, biotechnology and information technology. These industries are particularly conducive to the formation of NTBFs since the advancing new technologies are constantly creating new and specialist product-market niches. High technology product groups are selected/supported in the fields of aerospace, medical technology, robotics and office automation, agro-business and energy.The regional dimension of technology policy raises the question whether a relationship can be established between strategic technology policy and New Technology Based Startups in Belgium. An outline of the current situation in Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia) provides an answer to this question.     

New technology based firms and the creation of regional growth potential

This paper focuses on the role of New Technology Based Firms (NTBFs) as a vital determinant of regional growth potential. The theoretical framework starts from the relation between innovation and economic development (macro-approach), to show how NTBFs can contribute to the creation of a regional growth potential (micro-approach). Empirical data for Belgium illustrate how NTBFs differ significantly from common starters on a number of fundamental characteristics such as educational level, product/market-orientation, socio-economic networking, delegation, growth strategy and Research and Development. Taking these findings into account, we concentrate on the region-specific technology policies in Belgium. The case of the emerging biotechnology industry is used as an illustration.     

Configurations of strategic R&D decisions and financial performance in small-sized and medium-sized firms

This paper links the strategic decisions made in R&D during the financially turbulent period of 2009 to the firm's financial health in the period 2010–2013. The focus is on decisions made in R&D-active small and medium-sized enterprises in terms of absorptive capacity, open innovation, type of R&D, and the organizational structuring of R&D. Based on a representative set of R&D-active firms in Belgium, qualitative comparative analysis reveals that the outcomes in terms of financial performance related to optimal configurations of strategic R&D decisions depend on the firm's size and on the time-lag under consideration. Managers in small-sized firms are advised to pay particular attention to a more functionally-structured R&D approach in configurations of strategic R&D decisions. To increase medium-term financial performance, managers in medium-sized firms benefit from more engagement in research-oriented activities, more in-house innovation, and the enhancement of absorptive capacity in sets of strategic R&D decisions.     

Growth of New Technology-Based Firms: Which Factors Matter?

This paper deals with the explanation of variations in the growth between New Technology-based Firms (NTBFs) and non-innovative firm foundations. Based on theoretical models explaining the growth of firms, hypotheses on potential determinants are derived. The regression results indicate strong correlations between the growth rate on the one hand and firm-specific, founder-specific as well as external factors on the other. These factors influence the growth rates of innovative and non-innovative young firms in different ways. Furthermore, based on the results of multivariate regressions, NTBFs achieve on average higher growth rates than non-innovative firm foundations. Moreover, the net employment effect of those NTBFs founded in 1989/90 is positive. This does not hold for non-innovative young firms, in which the number of jobs destroyed by closures and shrinking firms is larger than the number of new jobs in growing and expanding firms.     

Change in the size distribution of UK firms

This paper examines the extent of change and stability in the population of UK firms through time in terms of its size distribution, as defined by number of employees. It was empirically found that the distribution of employment by firm size remained surprisingly constant over the 1987–1989 period. A major implication of this finding is that in times of very high net job creation (involving high gross job creation and loss), factors are at work in the economy to keep the population distribution of firms (in terms of employment concentrations) more or less stable. It is hypothesised that a natural concentration exists for each different size band, and that as change takes place, the proportion of total employment based in the size band will tend towards this natural level.The rise in the proportion of employment in small firms, and the comparatively high job creation ability of small firms in recent times has come about in part because of negative rather than positive macro-economic influences. In recession, small firms in aggregate in spite of their individual volatility, are the most resilient. In prosperous times they do not increase their proportion of employment share, while in times of recession they do. Our results imply that large firms have a very significant, if not the most significant, bearing upon aggregate employment trends. On the other hand, small firms inherently have more potential to create jobs than large firms.The majority of public expenditure and legislative support for UK business is directed at large firms, as a result of culture and tradition. Even with the benefit of this support, large firms in recent decades have still performed badly, in job generation terms. In contrast, small firms have shown an inherent advantage in their ability to create jobs. A shift of government expenditure and legislative support from large to small firms would further enhance and realise the potential of small firms to benefit the economy and create jobs.     

Small-v-large firms in Australian manufacturing

The measurement of the relative efficiency of the sub-groups of large and small enterprises in each Australian manufacturing industry is undertaken in this study using two concepts of efficiency. Technical efficiency is assessed in relation to an estimated frontier production function while economic efficiency is expressed in terms of a sales based price-cost margin — a proxy for profitability. The large enterprises were found, for the most part, to be more technically efficient than the small. In terms of the profitability measure the small firms were just as likely to be the more efficient in any industry. They were generally more dispersed around the mean of both efficiency measures than were the large. The industries in which the large (or small) firms were found to be more technically efficient were not necessarily the industries for which the large (or small) firms were the more profitable. The study highlights the relationships between technical and economic efficiency and emphasises the need for careful definition of the concept efficiency when making comparisons of performance among enterprises.     

Survival and Growth Patterns among New Technology‐Based Firms: Empirical Study of Cohort 2006 in Sweden

This study investigates the survival and growth trends in a cohort of new technology‐based firms (NTBFs) established in Sweden in 2006. This cohort has faced both an economic upswing and a severe downturn, which started in 2008, and by 2014 provides 8 years of historical records. Our study makes several contributions to the current understanding of NTBF survival and growth. First, our empirical observations show that many NTBFs (72 percent) from the 2006 cohort were still operating at the end of 2014, indicating a much higher survival rate than those found in previous studies. Second, surviving firms from the 2006 cohort positively affected employment, as their annual job creation was higher than the reduction in employment caused by exiting firms. Third, very few companies experienced high‐growth during their first 7 years, and employment growth and sales growth were highly correlated among high‐growth firms.     

The power of partnerships

Increased competition, especially from foreign competitors, and the rising cost of technology have forced companies to seek out strategic alliances. A growing number of firms have learned to reap the benefits--while avoiding the pitfalls--of partnering.     

Contrasting corporate profiles: Women and minority representation in top management positions

This paper investigates the characteristics of firms which have underrepresented groups in top management positions and those which do not. It is argued that profiles of these characteristics will be different for firms with minorities vs. women and that these profiles will be different depending on whether representation is by board membership or through officerships. A discriminant analysis found both similarities and differences in variables that were associated with these different forms of representation. It was found, for example, that size is associated with representation for both minorities and women, whereas high advertising intensity is associated with firms with women on board, but not as officers. Other findings and the implications of the study are discussed.Jerry Fryxell is an Assistant Professor of Management at the University of Tennessee — Knoxville. His current research interests are in the area of corporate culture, innovation, and strategic management.Linda Lerner is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Management at the University of Tennessee — Knoxville. Her current research interests include strategic management, social issues, and corporate governance. She has over ten years of management and consulting experience.     

Syndicated investments by venture capital firms: A networking perspective

The networking of 464 venture capital firms is analyzed by examining their joint investments in a sample of 1501 portfolio companies for the period 1966–1982. Some of the factors that influence the amount of networking are the innovativeness, technology, stage, and industry of the portfolio company. Using the resource exchange model, we reason that the relative amount of networking is explained primarily by the degree of uncertainty associated with an investment rather than by the sum of money invested.Among the findings of our study about venture capitalists are the following:The top 61 venture capital firms that managed 57% of the pool of venture capital in 1982 had an extensive network. Three out of four portfolio companies had at least one of the top 61 venture capital firms as an investor. Those top 61 firms network among themselves and with other venture capital firms. Hence they have considerable influence.Sharing of information seems to be more important than spreading of financial risk as a reason for networking. There is no difference in the degree of co-investing of large venture capital firms—those with the deep pockets—and small firms. Furthermore, where there is more uncertainty, there is more co-investing, even though the average amount invested per portfolio company is less. That, we argue, is evidence that the primary reason for co-investing is sharing of knowledge rather than spreading of financial risk. Venture capital firms gain access to the network by having knowledge that other firms need.It is likely that there will be increasing specialization by venture capital firms. Knowledge is an important distinctive competence of venture capital firms. That knowledge includes information such as innovations, technology, and people in specific industry segments. Among the portfolios of the top 61 venture capital firms are ones with a concentration of low innovative companies, others with a concentration of high innovative technology companies, and others with a no particular concentration. As technology changes rapidly and grows more and more complex, we expect that venture capitalists will increasingly specialize according to type of companies in which they invest. Only the largest firms with many venture capitalists will be like “department stores,” which invest in all types of companies. The smaller firms with only a few venture capitalists will tend to be more like “boutiques” which invest in specific types of companies, or in specific geographical regions around the world.We think that the networking of venture capital firms has the following implications for entrepreneurs:Entrepreneurs should seek funds from venture firms that are known to invest in their type of product. It speeds the screening process. If the venture capital firm decides to invest, it can syndicate the investment through its network of similar firms. And after the investment has been made, the venture capital firms can bring substantial expertise to the entrepreneur's company.Entrepreneurs should not hawk their business plans indiscriminately. Through their networks, venture firms become aware of plans that have been rejected by other firms. A plan that gets turned down several times is unlikely to be funded. Thus it is better to approach venture capital firms selectively.The extensive network of the leading venture capital firms probably facilitates the setting of a “market rate” for the funds they invest. The going rate for venture capital is not posted daily. Nevertheless, details of the most recent deals are rapidly disseminated through venture capitalists' networks. Hence, that helps to set an industry-wide rate for the funds being sought by entrepreneurs.Lastly, we give the following advice to strategic planners:Venture capital firms share strategic information that is valuable to others outside their network. Since they often invest in companies with emerging products and services, venture capitalists gather valuable strategic information about future innovations and technological trends. Thus, strategic planners should tap into venture capitalists' networks, and thereby gain access to that information. It is sometimes information of the sort that can revolutionize an industry.     

The internationalization of small firms: The relationship between the global mindset and firms’ internationalization behavior

Some firms in internationally oriented industries are internationalized while other comparable firms in the same sector or industry do not. Observing this difference in strategic behavior among small firms led us to consider how differences in CEOs’ attitudes, international orientation, and mindset might explain it. Therefore, this study adopts a cognitive perspective on management to explore the formation of the global mindset and the relationship between the global mindset of small-firm decision makers and their firms’ internationalization behavior. A theory-based conceptual model and measurement instrument are developed and—using structural equation modeling—the model is estimated based on empirical data from cross-sectional samples of small Norwegian and Portuguese firms. The study finds: (1) a strong causal relationship between the global mindset and firms’ internationalization behavior; (2) the combination of the findings and substantive theory indicates that the main driver of firms’ internationalization operates through the global mindset. This study also covers the factors that strongly influence the formation of a global mindset, especially the decision makers’ work experience and personal characteristics in terms of propensity to interdisciplinary collaboration, cognitive flexibility, and networking capability. Based on these findings, suggestions are made for policies that can foster the internationalization of small firms.     

Dominant firms, “deep pockets,” and local market competition in banking

It has been argued that “deep pockets” and the diversified structure of large firms enable them to engage in predatory pricing in order to force their pricing policy on smaller firms in a market. Although there is some case history evidence that large firms may actively intimidate smaller rivals, there is no evidence of a more generalized nature. Therefore, this study undertakes a cross section investigation of the effects of large, dominant firms on competition in local markets. The basic hypothesis is that the presence of large firms in a market will be reflected in relatively limited rivalry and poor profit and price performance. The analysis focuses on 259 local markets in commercial banking in each of the years 1966, 1970, and 1976. Regression results provide tentative support for the hypothesis. Prices tend to be relatively high and rivalry is weak in markets where dominant firms are relatively important.     

Small firms and the merger mania

Empirical research has found an average or even superior performance of small firms. This seems to be at variance with the secular concentration process and the recurrent merger waves. This paper tries to integrate size and merger research. Higher profitability of small firms is explained by their incentive structure and shorter decision lags but also by lower wages and higher individual risk (premia). Their faster growth in the eighties was, in addition, fostered by diversification of demand, miniaturization of technology, and a need for flexibility under uncertainty. The merger wave on the other hand does not necessarily prove that large firms are superior. Managers and shareholders may be seduced by stockmarket optimism, a sizeable industry of banks, agents and lawyers have their own interests in mergers, mergers may be important in declining markets and for the acquisition of technology. On average, mergers do not improve efficiency, profits or internal growth. Small and large firms serve different purposes. Performance depends on the market, incentives and technology. The establishment, growth and closure of small firms as well as mergers are attempts to find the optimal organization for utility maximization in a world of severe uncertainty and diverse needs.     

The Role of Small Firms in the Technology Development of China

Science & Technology (S&T) is high on the Chinese policy agenda and the country aims at becoming an innovation‐driven economy. Small firms have been important in technology development in other East Asian countries but the situation in Chinese small firms has been far less explored. We examine how much S&T has been accounted for by small firms and how their S&T intensity differs across industries and ownership groups. We also analyse how various firm characteristics differ over size categories and S&T status. This study is based on newly processed micro‐level data provided by the National Bureau of Statistics with information on a large number of S&T indicators for manufacturing firms in China in 2000 and 2004. Our results suggest that the role of small firms in Chinese S&T is similar to that in many other countries. They account for a comparably small share of total S&T and most small firms are not engaged in any S&T. However, those small firms that do engage in S&T tend to be more S&T intensive and have a higher output in terms of patents than larger Chinese S&T firms.     

Entrepreneurship and survival over the business cycle: how do new technology-based firms differ?

We investigate the survival performance of new technology-based firms (NTBFs) over the business cycle and compare them against other entrepreneurial firms. Our data comprise the entire population of entrepreneurial firms entering the Swedish economy from 1991 to 2002, which we follow until 2007. Discrete-time duration models are employed to investigate whether the business cycle impacts differently on the survival likelihood of NTBFs vis-à-vis other entrepreneurial firms. Our main findings are three. First, NTBFs generally experience a lower hazard rate compared to other entrepreneurial firms, which is interpreted as a sign of their high ‘quality.’ Second, all entrepreneurial firms are sensitive to and follow a pro-cyclical pattern of survival likelihood over the business cycle. Three, when comparing NTBFs with the broader group of other entrepreneurial firms, we find that NTBFs are more sensitive to business cycle fluctuations. The above results come with a qualification, though. The sensitivity during the business cycle mainly pertains to self-employed NTBFs. Also, NTBFs’ higher survivability is only linked to not being characterized as self-employed.     

Strategic reference points in family firms

Family firms are classically seen as risk averse organizations, and this is evident in their generally lower R&D investments compared to non-family firms. Recent research, however, challenges this predominant view and suggests that family firms can embrace higher strategic risk when faced with threats to their family-centered goals. Still, the internal and external conditions that drive variations in the strategic risk taking behaviors of family firms are little known and understood. This article adds to this literature by developing and testing a conceptual model of strategic risk taking that incorporates behavioral theory, family business literature, and the logic of the strategic reference point theory. With recognition that the interplay between family and economic goals determines heterogeneity in strategic actions of family firms, this model suggests that family managers respond differentially to the feedback information regarding internal and external reference points, and consequently identifies key drivers of variation in the R&D investment behavior of family firms. By examining the pattern in R&D investments of 437 Spanish private manufacturing firms from 2000 to 2006, this study shows how strategic inputs, strategic outputs, and external benchmarks produce variations in strategic decisions about R&D investments in family and non-family firms. The findings offer insights into how internal and external reference points are considered in family firms’ decision making, thereby contributing a deeper understanding into the circumstances under which family goals cope or collide with the economic goals of the firm, and how this influences strategic risk decisions in family firms.     

The link between product diversification and performance among Spanish manufacturing firms: Analyzing the role of firm size

This study sheds additional light on the product diversification‐performance relationship for firms in a country having recently attained an advanced economy status in our period of analysis. We assume there will be an inverted U‐shaped relationship and use a sample of small, medium, and large Spanish manufacturing firms between 1994 and 2008. Our findings provide solid support for this assumption, and are identical when the sample consists of small, medium, and large firms and of large firms alone. Our results also suggest that the larger the firm, the higher the optimal level of diversification. Panel data models are used to control for unobservable heterogeneity and potential endogeneity problems. Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Employment Generation Potential of New, Technology-Based Firms During a Recessionary Period: The Case of Finland

This article analyzes the employment generation potential of new, technology-based firms during a recessionary period. The empirical data is from Finland, a country that was hit particularly hard by the economic recession between years 1990 and 1993. In spite of the recession, the number of NTBFs (new, technology-based firms) rose by 17% from 1986 to 1993. In traditional manufacturing industry branches, the overall employment fell by as much as 33% during the same period. Alternative hypotheses to explain the increase in the importance of NTBFs are presented and discussed in the light of research findings. Both flexible specialization and recession-push hypotheses receive support in the empirical data.     

Firm size and employment determination in dutch manufacturing industries

This paper examines whether the determination of employment differs between large and small firms. An employment equation is estimated on panel data of 67 (35) three-digit industries in Dutch manufacturing (1974–1986). The conclusions are as follows. Firstly, employment adjustment appears to be faster in small firms than in large ones. Secondly, the elasticity of factor substitution and the real wage elasticity at constant output are nearly the same for large and small firms. Thirdly, the estimated output elasticities suggest constant returns to scale in large firms and increasing returns in small ones. Finally, the number of working hours has less impact on employment in small firms than in large ones.