Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Agglomeration dynamics of innovative start-ups in Italy beyond the industrial district era

  • Published:
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Building on the literature on agglomeration economies, this study examines how urbanization, industry-diversification, district economics and incubating initiatives are associated to the creation of innovative start-ups in Italy. The empirical analysis is based on a sample of 6018 innovative start-ups distributed across 104 Italian NUTS 3 regions. Our findings show that incubating initiative and industrial districts play a major role for new venture creation and provide support to the positive role of urbanization economies and industry specialization over diversification. Finally, we discuss future research directions grounded on the empirical evidence provided by our study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The industrial district is defined as a ‘socio-territorial entity which is characterized by the active presence of both a community of people and a population of firms in one naturally and historically bounded area. In the district, unlike in other environments, such as manufacturing towns, community and firms tend to merge’ (Pyke et al. 1990, p.38).

  2. National version of the European nomenclature, NACE Rev. 2, published in the Official Journal of 20 December 2006 (Regulation (EC) no 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006).

  3. NUTS stands for Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics, geographical nomenclature subdividing the economic territory of the European Union (EU) into regions at three different levels: NUTS 1, 2 and 3 respectively, moving from larger to smaller territorial units. (Source EUROSTAT).

  4. Although they present some differences, several scholars researched on incubators and science park together, considering them as business support and incubating initiatives (Colombo and Delmastro 2002; Sofouli and Vonortas 2007; Chan and Lau 2005; Ratinho and Henriques 2010; Phan et al. 2005). The literature recognizes a high degree of closeness in term of goals and basic characteristics (e.g. Phan et al. 2005).

  5. Data were collected between 2013 and 2015 only by secondary source of data. As result, these numbers are probably underestimating the real numbers of exits as some values are not disclosed and publically available on press news.

  6. According to Decree Law 221/2012, the core business of innovative start-ups consists of innovative goods or services of high technological value. A start-up fulfils the latter requirement if: either 20% of its costs are related to R&D; or at least one third of the team is made up of people who either hold a PhD or are PhD candidates at an Italian or foreign university or have conducted research for at least three years; or it is the owner or the licensee of a patent.

  7. Updated to 18/07/2016.

  8. The Italian province are 110. However, 5 provinces present some missing data. Thus, the analysis has been realized on 104 provinces

  9. The list of Certified Incubators, provided by MISE, has not been considered exhaustive by nature as it is not mandatory for Incubators or Science Park to be enrolled in the predisposed special section of the Italian Chamber of Commerce Firms Register.

  10. The high redemption rate (91% - 184 on 203) is due to the valuable collaboration with the aforementioned association: APSTI, Italia Start-up, PNI-Cube.

  11. This criterion has been introduced in order to distinguish incubating initiatives from other entities (such as co-working spaces) that usually offer only very basic services such as physical location, internet access and network opportunities (Hackett and Dilts 2004; Shepard 2017).

  12. Updated to 18/07/2016.

  13. Data will be available upon request, with the aim of fostering and enabling future research in the entrepreneurship filed.

References

  • Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Bo, C. (2008). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aernoudt, R. (2004). Incubators: Tool for entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics23, 2, 127–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amirahmadi, H., & Saff, G. (1993). Science parks: A critical assessment. Journal of Planning Literature8, 2, 107–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonelli, C. (1997). The economics of path-dependence in industrial organization. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15(6), 643–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armington, C., & Acs, Z. J. (2002). The determinants of regional variation in new firm formation. Regional Studies, 36(1), 33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. University of Michigan Press.

  • Ashcroft, B., Love, J. H., & Malloy, E. (1991). New firm formation in the British counties with special reference to Scotland. Regional Studies, 25(5), 395–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation, growth and survival. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4), 441–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, B. (1998). Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14(2), 18–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). Innovative clusters and the industry life cycle. Review of Industrial Organization, 11(2), 253–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Fritsch, M. (1994). The geography of firm births in Germany. Regional Studies, 28(4), 359–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191–1202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., & Klofsten, M. (1998). A comparative study of two European business incubators. Journal of Small Business Management, 36(1), 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bade, F. J., & Nerlinger, E. A. (2000). The spatial distribution of new technology-based firms: Empirical results for West-Germany. Papers in Regional Science, 79(2), 155–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bae, J., & Koo, J. (2008). The nature of local knowledge and new firm formation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(3), 473–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baptista, R., & Mendonça, J. (2010). Proximity to knowledge sources and the location of knowledge-based start-ups. The Annals of Regional Science, 45(1), 5–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaudry, C., & Schiffauerova, A. (2009). Who's right, Marshall or Jacobs? The localization versus urbanization debate. Research Policy, 38(2), 318–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becattini, G. (Ed.). (1987). Mercato e forze locali: il distretto industriale. il Mulino.

  • Belussi, F. (2015). The international resilience of Italian industrial districts/clusters (ID/C) between knsowledge re-shoring and manufacturing off (near)-shoring. Investigaciones Regionales, 32, 89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belussi, F., & Sedita, S. R. (2009). Life cycle vs. multiple path dependency in industrial districts. European Planning Studies, 17(4), 505–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belussi, F., Gottardi, G., & Rullani, E. (Eds.). (2012). The technological evolution of industrial districts (Vol. 29). Springer Science & Business Media.

  • Bishop, P. (2012). Knowledge, diversity and entrepreneurship: A spatial analysis of new firm formation in great Britain. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(7–8), 641–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A., Colombo, M. G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2013). University specialization and new firm creation across industries. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 837–863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., & Schutjens, V. (2007). Patterns of promising entrepreneurial activity in European regions. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 98(5), 675–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., Van Stel, A., & Suddle, K. (2008). The geography of new firm formation: Evidence from independent start-ups and new subsidiaries in the Netherlands. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(2), 129–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, W. A., & Evans, D. S. (1989). Small business economics. Small business economics., 1(1), 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calcagnini, G., Favaretto, I., Giombini, G., Perugini, F., & Rombaldoni, R. (2016). The role of universities in the location of innovative start-ups. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 670–693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C., & Allen, D. N. (1987). The small business incubator industry: Micro-level economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 1(2), 178–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carree, M., Santarelli, E., & Verheul, I. (2008). Firm entry and exit in Italian provinces and the relationship with unemployment. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(2), 171–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassia, L., & Colombelli, A. (2008). Do universities knowledge spillovers impact on new firm’s growth? Empirical evidence from UK. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(4), 453–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994). In: Technopoles of the world: The making of twenty- first-century industrial complexes. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. F., & Lau, T. (2005). Assessing technology incubator programs in the science park: The good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation, 25(10), 1215–1228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (2006). The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombelli, A. (2016). The impact of local knowledge bases on the creation of innovative start-ups in Italy. Small Business Economics, 47(2), 383–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombelli, A., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2011). The persistence of innovation and path dependence. Handbook on the economic complexity of technological change, 105–119.

  • Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), 1103–1122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa Campi, M. T., Blasco, A. S., & Marsal, E. V. (2004). The location of new firms and the life cycle of industries. Small Business Economics, 22(3), 265–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., Lindmark, L., & Olofsson, C. (1994). New firm formation and regional development in Sweden. Regional Studies, 28(4), 395–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F. (2006). Measuring growth: Methodological considerations and empirical results. Entrepreneurship and the Growth of Firms, 1(1), 62–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Giacinto, V., Gomellini, M., Micucci, G., & Pagnini, M. (2013). Mapping local productivity advantages in Italy: Industrial districts, cities or both? Journal of Economic Geography, lbt021.

  • Duranton, G., & Puga, D. (2000). Diversity and specialisation in cities: Why, where and when does it matter? Urban Studies, 37(3), 533–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duranton, G., & Puga, D. (2001). Nursery cities: Urban diversity, process innovation, and the life cycle of products. American Economic Review, 91, 1454–1477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esposto, A. G. (1997). Estimating regional per capita income: Italy, 1861-1914. Journal of European Economic History, 26(3), 585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. S., & Jovanovic, B. (1989). An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity constraints. Journal of Political Economy, 97(4), 808–827.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg, J., Verspagen, B., & Mowery, D. C. (2008). Innovation-systems, path-dependency and policy: The co-evolution of science, technology and innovation policy and industrial structure in a small, resource-based economy.

  • Fenoaltea, S. (2003). Notes on the rate of industrial growth in Italy, 1861–1913. The Journal of Economic History, 63(3), 695–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R., Adler, P., & Mellander, C. (2017). The city as innovation machine. Regional Studies, 51(1), 86–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotopoulos, G. (2013). On the spatial stickiness of UK new firm formation rates. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(3), 651–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenken, K., Van Oort, F., & Verburg, T. (2007). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies, 41(5), 685–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freud, R. J., & Littell, R. C. (2000). SAS system for regression. Sas Institute.

  • Fritsch, M., & Mueller, P. (2006). The evolution of regional entrepreneurship and growth regimes. In Entrepreneurship in the region (pp. 225–244). Springer US.

  • Fritsch, M., & Schilder, D. (2008). Does venture capital investment really require spatial proximity? An empirical investigation. Environment and Planning A, 40(9), 2114–2131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garofoli, G. (1994). New firm formation and regional development: The Italian case. Regional Studies, 28(4), 381–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garofoli, G. (2006). per l'innovazione nei distretti industriali. I distretti industriali dal locale al globale, 77.

  • Ghio, N., Guerini, M., Lehmann, E. E., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2015). The emergence of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E. L. (1998). Are cities dying? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(2), 139–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2003). Exploring the networking characteristics of new venture founding teams: A stdy of italian academic spin-off. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 329–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guesnier, B. (1994). Regional variations in new firm formation in France. Regional Studies, 28(4), 347–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004). A systematic review of business incubation research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 55–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hájek, O., Nekolová, J., & Novosák, J. (2015). Determinants of new business formation-some lessons from the Czech Republic. Economics & Sociology, 8(1), 147–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, B., Kelley, M. R., & Gant, J. (1996). Innovative firm behavior and local milieu: Exploring the intersection of agglomeration, firm effects, and technological change. Economic Geography, 72(3), 233–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, I. (2013). Tech starts: High-technology business formation and job creation in the United States. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Research Paper.

  • Illeris, S. (1992). The Herning-Ikast Textile Industry: An Industrial District in West Jutland. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 4(1), 73–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P., & Conway, C. (1997). How good are the UK VAT registration data at measuring firm births? Small Business Economics, 9(5), 403–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kangasharju, A. (2000). Regional variations in firm formation: Panel and cross-section data evidence from Finland. Papers in Regional Science, 79(4), 355–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeble, D., & Walker, S. (1994). New firms, small firms and dead firms: Spatial patterns and determinants in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 28(4), 411–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeble, D., & Wilkinson, F. (2000). High-technology clusters. Networking and Collective Learning in Europe, Aldershot et al.

  • Kelley, M. R., & Helper, S. (1999). Firm size and capabilities, regional agglomeration, and the adoption of new technology. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8(1–2), 79–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klapper, L., Love, I., & Randall, D. (2015). New firm registration and the businesscycle. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(2), 287–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, F. C., Koh, W. T., & Tschang, F. T. (2005). An analytical framework for science parks and technology districts with an application to Singapore. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 217–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasch, F., Robert, F., & Le Roy, F. (2013). Regional determinants of ICT new firm formation. Small Business Economics, 1–16.

  • Lazaridis, A. (2007). A note regarding the condition number: The case of spurious and latent multicollinearity. Quality & Quantity, 41(1), 123–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leone, R. A., & Struyk, R. (1976). The incubator hypothesis: Evidence from five SMSAs. Urban Studies, 13(3), 325–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Geng, S. (2012). Industrial Clusters, Shared Resources and Firm Performance. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(5–6), 357–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., Goetz, S. J., Partridge, M., & Fleming, D. A. (2016). Location determinants of high-growth firms. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(1–2), 97–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). US science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1323–1356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malecki, E. J. (1984). High technology and local economic development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(3), 262–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. (1961). Principles of economics: An introductory volume. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(4), 395–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D., Quintas, P., & Wield, D. (1992). High tech fantasies. Science Parks in Society Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2008). High tech start-ups in university Science Park incubators: The relationship between the start-up's lifecycle progression and use of the incubator's resources. Technovation, 28(5), 277–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mian, S. A. (1994). Are university technology incubators providing a milieu for technology-based entrepreneurship? Technology Management, 3(1), 86–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mian, S. A. (1997). Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4), 251–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulaert, F., & Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial innovation models: A critical survey. Regional Studies, 37(3), 289–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kunter, M. H. (1990). Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance, and experimental design (3rd ed.). Irwin: Homewood, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norrman, C., & Bager-Sjögren, L. (2010). Entrepreneurship policy to support new innovative ventures: Is it effective? International Small Business Journal, 28(6), 602–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norrman, C., & Klofsten, M. (2009). An entrepreneurship policy programme: Implications and expectations. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 10(1), 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakey, R. (2007). Clustering and the R&D management of high-technology small firms: In theory and practice. R&D Management, 37(3), 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okamuro, H., & Kobayashi, N. (2006). The impact of regional factors on the start-up ratio in Japan. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 310–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, S. E. (2006). Path dependence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1(1), 87–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1997). The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety. Research Policy, 26(2), 141–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 165–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. G. (2002). Technology business incubators: How effective as technology transfer mechanisms? Technology in Society, 24(3), 299–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1998). Cluster and the new economics of competition.

  • Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyke, F., Becattini, G., & Sengenberger, W. (Eds.). (1990). Industrial districts and inter-firm co-operation in Italy. International Institute for Labour Studies.

  • Ratinho, T., & Henriques, E. (2010). The role of science parks and business incubators in converging countries: Evidence from Portugal. Technovation, 30(4), 278–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, C. S. (1997). Vegetation processes in the pelagic: A model for ecosystem theory (Vol. 9). Oldendorf/Luhe: Ecology Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D. (2001). National panel study of US business startups: Background and methodology. In Databases for the Study of Entrepreneurship (pp. 153–227). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  • Reynolds, P. D., Miller, B., & Maki, W. R. (1995). Explaining regional variation in business births and deaths: US 1976–88. Small Business Economics, 7(5), 389–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, H. O. (2004). Entrepreneurship and development: The role of clusters. Small Business Economics, 23(5), 363–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, H. O., & Sternberg, R. (2005). Entrepreneurship: The role of clusters theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence from Germany. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 267–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. The Journal of Political Economy, 94, 1002–1037.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional networks: industrial adaptation in Silicon Valley and route 128.

  • Sentana, E., González, R., Gascó, J., & LLopis, J (2017). The Social Profitability of Business Incubators: A Measurement Proposal. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 29(1–2), 116–136.

  • Shepard, J. M. (2017). When incubators evolve: New models to assist innovative entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 21(1–2), 86–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, H. D. (1999). Assessing the intervention effectiveness of business incubation programs on new business start-ups. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sofouli, E., & Vonortas, N. S. (2007). S&T Parks and business incubators in middle-sized countries: the case of Greece. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(5), 525–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spilling, O. R. (1996). The entrepreneurial system: On entrepreneurship in the context of a mega-event. Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 91–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storper, M., & Walker, R. (1989). The capitalist imperative: Territory, technology, and industrial growth. Blackwell.

  • Studdard, N. L. (2006). The effectiveness of entrepreneurial firm’s knowledge acquisition from a business incubator. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2(2), 211–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torre, A. (2008). On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission. Regional Studies, 42(6), 869–889.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Panne, G. (2004). Agglomeration externalities: Marshall versus jacobs. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(5), 593–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Geenhuizen, M., & Reyes-Gonzalez, L. (2007). Does a clustered location matter for high-technology companies' performance? The case of biotechnology in the Netherlands. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(9), 1681–1696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Oort, F. G., & Atzema, O. A. (2004). On the conceptualization of agglomeration economies: The case of new firm formation in the Dutch ICT sector. The Annals of Regional Science, 38(2), 263–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, N., & Williams, C. C. (2014). Beyond necessity versus opportunity entrepreneurship: Some lessons from English deprived urban neighbourhoods. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(1), 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xavier Molina-Morales, F., & Teresa Martínez-Fernández, M. (2006). Industrial districts: Something more than a Neighbourhood. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 18(6), 503–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.

  • Zeitlin, J. (1992). Industrial districts and local economic regeneration: Overview and comment. Industrial Districts and Local Economic Regeneration, Frank Pyke ve Werner Sengenberger (Eds.), Geneva, International Institute for Labour Studies.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Editors in Chief, the Guest Editors and the anonymous Reviewers, who helped significantly enhancing the study’s contributions as a result of the revision process. Any errors remain our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Via Lambruschini, 4/B, 20156, Milan, Italy

    Angelo Cavallo & Antonio Ghezzi

  2. DIGEP, Politecnico di Torino and BRICK (Bureau of Research in Innovation Complexity and Knowledge), Collegio Carlo Alberto, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24, 10129, Torino, Italy

    Alessandra Colombelli

  3. Queensland University of Technology, School of Management, Brisbane, 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia

    Gian Luca Casali

Authors
  1. Angelo Cavallo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio Ghezzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alessandra Colombelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gian Luca Casali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angelo Cavallo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., Colombelli, A. et al. Agglomeration dynamics of innovative start-ups in Italy beyond the industrial district era. Int Entrep Manag J 16, 239–262 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0521-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0521-8

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation