Defining the Relationship among Founding Resources,Strategies, and Performance in Technology-Intensive New Ventures: Evidence from the Semiconductor Silicon Industry*

The degree to which a firm's performance is dependent on its resources and strategies is widely debated in the literature. We examine this issue by analyzing historical data on the entire population of new independent firms started worldwide in the semiconductor silicon industry for the first 50 years of its existence. We measure resources (managerial capabilities and technological competencies) and strategies (emphasis on demand pull or technology push) at the time of founding and test their relationship with each other as well as with multiple measures of performance (lifespan and best year's sales). We find that firms founded on managerial capabilities emphasize demand-pull strategies at founding, whereas firms founded upon technological competencies emphasize technology-push strategies at founding. We also find that firms emphasizing technology-push strategies perform better than firms emphasizing demand-pull strategies. Lastly, we find that though managerial capabilities are related to a firm's best year's sales, this relationship is mediated by the firm's founding strategy.     

Creative destruction among industrial firms in the United States

Schumpeter proposed that innovation by new firms entering existing markets was the major mechanism of competition in capitalism. Recent formulation and analysis of mathematical models of the dynamics of capitalism seem to confirm the importance of new firm entry to ensure that technological innovation does not result in increased concentration of industrial activity. Empirical evidence is provided here to demonstrate that there is substantial movement of new firms into the ranks of the 500 largest industrial firms to demonstrate that the dynamics of new firm entry and growth still exist in U.S. capitalism. Furthermore, there is no evidence that asset concentration among the 500 largest industrial firms has increased.     

Green Business and Blue Angels

This paper presents a model of a monopolist'svoluntary overcompliance with legal environmentalstandards under asymmetric information about thefirm's environmental impacts. The key assumptions are:the existence of quality premia for environmentalsoundness, a positive but imperfect degree ofmonitoring, and adaptive consumer expectations.Conditions necessary for overcompliance to arise in aprofit-maximizing equilibrium are derived. The effectsof a third-party eco-labeling system are analyzed. Itis shown that the existence of an independent labelingauthority increases the likelihood of overcomplianceto be profit-maximizing. Moreover, firms might have anincentive to lobby for the introduction of such asystem. The effect of consumers' risk preferences andan instrument for preventing ``Greenwash' (companieslying about their environmental performance) is alsodiscussed.     

Understanding the Theoretical and Empirical Content of Critiques of U.S. Job Creation Research

Although the hypothesis that small firms create the majority of net new jobs is widely believed, a number of researchers have attacked this using empirical data. Since these attacks have been presented as corrections of past methodological errors, their authors may influence policy makers. This paper argues that the substance of these attacks is a difference in theoretical perspectives even though the researchers claim to focus on methodological differences. This paper explains the two underlying economic theories and then reviews the job creation research to demonstrate the relationship between theory and methodology.The theory discussion and methodological results demonstrates that all methodologies used to calculate small firms share of net new jobs are incorrect for analyzing the dynamics of capitalism. The appropriate methodology for understanding economic growth is analysis of new employment created over time by cohorts of newly formed firms. Recognition of this fact, combined with describing the empirical research supporting this approach, reinforces the use of economic development policies designed to promote entrepreneurship.     

Empirical Analysis of Business Growth Factors Using Swedish Data

Empirical research conducted on the U.S., German, Australian, and Scottish economies has shown that age, size, location, legal form, and industry are related to business growth. Much of this research has focused on manufacturing firms, thus providing little information about the effect of industrial sector differences on these factors. We seek to both confirm that small independent firms demonstrate the greatest growth rates and to explore the effects of the industrial sector on this conclusion.
This article uses Swedish data to replicate previous research while using a different definition of business to enhance the study of effects from industry, international versus domestic businesses, and domestic versus foreign ownership. Results show that business age, beginning size, ownership form, industrial sector, and legal form are the most important factors related to growth. Although business growth differs among industrial sectors, youth, ownership independence, and small size are major factors that underlie growth across all industries.     

Formation,growth and survival; Small firm dynamics in the U.S. Economy

Four out of five new firms fail within the first five years. This statement has been made so many times that most people believe it is true. But it isn't. In fact, using a relatively new data source developed by the U.S. Small Business Administration, we found that on the average, 39.8 percent of new firms survive six or more years. This is equivalent to a failure rate of three out of five, substantially lower than popularly believed.Survival rates vary by industry with manufacturing having the greatest (46.9 percent) and construction the smallest (35.3 percent). More important, however, is the discovery that survival rates more than double for firms that grow. Even a small amount of growth boosts the average survival rate to 66.3 percent; that is two out of three growing firms survive. The earlier in the life of the business that growth occurs, the higher the chance of survival.But, most firms do not grow in the first four years. On average, only ten percent of firms show growth in the first four years. By the sixth year, however, 34.3 percent of the firms show growth and over fifty percent show growth within eight years.To put the old adage to rest, two out of five new firms survive at least six years and over half of the survivors grow.     

Employers large and small: A review article

Summary Brown, Hamilton and Medoff add little to the advancement of our understanding of small businesses by giving us another book that arouses passions, stimulates the controversy hungry news media, but leaves the reader with a sense of unfulfilled promise. They convincingly prove only three of their eight elements. Their good analysis on the work environment topic is lost in the morass of small business sector re-definition and erroneous political action committee research assumptions.At worst, this book will create controversy on small businesses' role in job creation just as many former socialist nations turn to the U.S. for advice on how to revitalize their economies. Small business formation, survival and growth is the brightest hope for these nations.After all, employers small, not large create the majority of new jobs in America.     

The Growth,Decline and Survival of Small Businesses: An Exploratory Study of Life Cycles*

Using U.S. Census Bureau special tabulations, we follow a cohort of small (single‐establishment) firms formed in 1992 and a cohort of fast growers to 2002 to track their employment changes. Explorative findings showed growing firms as generally a constant share of the economy with a minor business cycle effect, growing firms outnumbering decliners, new firms not growing much, and fast growers in a given year tending to revert to the mean in the following year. The findings are presented as an opening statement, but are far from final salvo into the discussion of small‐firm growth.