Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

To be born is not enough: the key role of innovative start-ups

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates the reasons why entry per se is not necessarily good and the evidence showing that innovative start-ups survive longer than their non-innovative counterparts. In this framework, our own empirical analysis shows that greater survival is achieved when start-ups engage successfully in both product innovation and process innovation, with a key role of the latter. Moreover, this study goes beyond a purely microeconomic perspective and discusses the key role of the environment within which innovative entries occur. What shown and discussed in this contribution strongly supports the proposal that the creation and survival of innovative start-ups should become one qualifying point of the economic policy agenda.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1990). Innovation and small firms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, R., & Audretsch, D. B. (2001). Does entry size matter? The impact of the life cycle and technology on firm survival. Journal of Industrial Economics, 49, 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, R., & Shah, S. K. (2014). Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: Firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators. Research Policy, 43, 1109–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60, 323–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altindag, E., Zehir, C., & Acar, A. Z. (2011). Strategic orientations and their effects on firm performance in Turkish family owned firms. Eurasian Business Review, 1(1), 18–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrighetti, A., & Vivarelli, M. (1999). The role of innovation in the postentry performance of new small firms: Evidence from Italy. Southern Economic Journal, 65(4), 927–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (1991). New-firm survival and the technological regime. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73, 441–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation and industry evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C., & Lehmann, E. E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Mahmood, T. (1994). Firm selection and industry evolution: The post-entry performance of new firms. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 4, 243–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Mahmood, T. (1995). New firm survival: New results using a hazard function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (1999). Start up size and industrial dynamics: Some evidence from Italian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 17(7), 965–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J. R., & Gorecki, P. K. (1987). Plant creation versus plant acquisition: The entry process in Canadian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 5(1), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J. R., & Gorecki, P. K. (1991). Firm entry and exit in the Canadian manufacturing sector. Canadian Journal of Economics, 24, 300–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BarNir, A. (2012). Starting technologically innovative ventures: Reasons, human capital, and gender. Management Decision, 50, 399–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartelsman, E., Haltiwanger, J., & Scarpetta, S. (2004). Microeconomic evidence of creative destruction in industrial and developing countries. Policy Research Working Paper 3464. World Bank, Policy Research Department, Washington, DC.

  • Bartelsman, E., Scarpetta, S., & Schivardi, F. (2005). Comparative analysis of firm demographics and survival: Evidence from micro-level sources in OECD countries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3), 365–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. (2005). Entrepreneurship and invention: Toward their microeconomic value theory, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, related publication n. 05-38, Washington, Joint Center.

  • Baumol, W. J. (2010). The microtheory of innovative entrepreneurship. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J., Schilling, M., & Wolff, E. (2009). The superstars inventors and entrepreneurs: How were they educated? Journal of Economic and Management Strategy, 18, 711–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beesley, M. E., & Hamilton, R. T. (1984). Small firms’ seedbed role and the concept of turbulence. Journal of Industrial Economics, 33(2), 217–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. H., Kohn, K., Miller, D., & Ullrich, K. (2015). Small business. Economics, 44(1), 37–54.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. (2015). Do spinoff dynamics or agglomeration externalities drive industry clustering? A reappraisal of Steven Klepper’s work. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(4), 859–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R., & Fornahl, D. (2011). Cluster evolution and a roadmap for future research. Regional Studies, 45(10), 1295–1298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., Lenzi, C., Malerba, F., & Mancusi, M. L. (2014). Knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship: Sectoral patterns in a sample of European high-tech firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26, 751–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruderl, J., & Schussler, R. (1990). Organizational mortality: The liabilities of newness and adolescence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 530–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buenstorf, G. (2015). Schumpeterian incumbents and industry evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,. doi:10.1007/s00191-015-0423-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caves, R., & Porter, M. (1977). From entry barriers to mobility barriers. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91, 241–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2005). A matter of life and death: Innovation and firm survival. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(6), 1167–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2006). Survivor: The role of innovation in firm’s survival. Research Policy, 35(5), 626–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coad, A., & Rao, R. (2008). Innovation and firm growth in high-tech sectors: A quantile regression approach. Research Policy, 37(4), 633–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombelli, A. (2016). The impact of local knowledge bases on the creation of innovative start-ups in Italy. Small Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9722-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., & Quatraro, F. (2013). Properties of knowledge base and firm survival: Evidence from a sample of French manufacturing firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1469–1484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., & Quatraro, F. (2014a). High growth firms and technological knowledge: Do gazelles follow exploration or exploitation strategies? Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(1), 261–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., & Quatraro, F. (2014b). The emergence of new technology-based sectors in European regions: A proximity-based analysis of nanotechnology. Research Policy, 43(10), 1681–1696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., Delmastro, M., & Grilli, L. (2004). Entrepreneurs’ human capital and the start-up size of new technology-based firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(8–9), 1183–1211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2005). Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: A competence-based view, Research Policy, 34, 795–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2010). On growth drivers of high-tech start-ups: Exploring the role of founders’human capital and venture capital. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(6), 610–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortese, C. G., Ghislieri, C., Molino, M., Mercuri, A., Colombelli, A., Cantamessa, M., et al. (2015). Promuovere lo sviluppo delle start-up. Sviluppo e Organizzazione, 265, 69–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespi, F., Ghisetti, C., & Quatraro, F. (2015). Environmental and innovation policies for the evolution of green technologies: A survey and a test. Eurasian Business Review, 5(2), 343–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croce, A., Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2014). Venture capital enters academia: An analysis of university-managed funds. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(5), 688–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., & Delanote, J. (2015). R&D policies for young SMEs: Input and output effects. Small Business Economics, 45(3), 465–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, J. P. J., & Marsili, O. (2015). The distribution of Schumpeterian and Kirznerian opportunities. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dejardin, M. (2011). Linking net entry to regional economic growth. Small Business Economics, 36(4), 443–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26, 1120–1171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., & Nelson, R. R. (2013). The evolution of technologies: An assessment of the state-of-the-art. Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 3–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, T., Roberts, M. J., & Samuelson, L. (1989). The growth and failure of US manufacturing plants. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(4), 671–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esteve-Pérez, S., Sanchis, A., & Sanchis, J. A. (2004). The determinants of survival of Spanish manufacturing firms. Review of Industrial Organization, 25(3), 251–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. (1987). Tests of alternative theories of firm growth. Journal of Political Economy, 95, 657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. S., & Leighton, L. S. (1990). Small business formation by unemployed and employed workers. Small Business Economics, 2(4), 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foti, A., & Vivarelli, M. (1994). An econometric test of the self-employment model: The case of Italy. Small Business Economics, 6(2), 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C., Clark, J., & Soete, L. (1982). Unemployment and technical innovation. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (Eds.). (1987). Technical change and full employment. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Quevedo, J., Pellegrino, G., & Vivarelli, M. (2014). R&D drivers and age: Are young firms different? Research Policy, 43, 1544–1556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geroski, P. A. (1995). What do we know about entry? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4), 421–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghio, N., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2016). University knowledge and the creation of innovative start-ups: An analysis of the Italian case. Small Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9720-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Gkypali, A., Kokkinos, V., Boura, C., & Tsekouras, K. (2016). Revisiting the role of Science & Technology Parks in the heart of the fiscal austerity era: The case of a lagging Greek RIS. Small Business Economics.

  • Gkypali, A., Rafailidis, A., & Tsekouras, K. (2015). Innovation and export performance: Do young and mature innovative firms differ? Eurasian Business Review, 5(2), 397–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2014). Government, venture capital and the growth of European high-tech entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy, 43(9), 1523–1543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2015). New technology-based firms in Europe: Market penetration, public venture capital, and timing of investment. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(5), 1109–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafer, R. W., & Jones, G. (2015). Are entrepreneurship and cognitive skills related? Some international evidence. Small Business Economics, 44(2), 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H. (1987). The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the US manufacturing sector. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35, 583–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, A., Liu, W. H., & Vaona, A. (2015). Credit depth, government intervention and innovation in China: Evidence from the provincial data. Eurasian Business Review, 5(1), 73–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmers, C., & Rogers, M. (2010). Innovation and the survival of new firms in the UK. Review of Industrial Organization, 36, 227–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, D. H. (2006). Venture capitalists and cooperative start-up commercialization strategy. Management Science, 52(2), 204–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. S. (2005). Targeting firm births and economic regeneration in a lagging region. Small Business Economics, 24(5), 451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolink, A., & Niesten, E. (2016). The impact of venture capital on governance decisions in collaborations with start-ups. Small Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9719-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50, 649–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, U., & Muller, B. (2015). Skill heterogeneity in startups and its development over time. Small Business Economics, 45(4), 787–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalbfleisch, J. D., & Prentice, R. L. (1980). Statistical analysis of failure time data. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S., & Lerner, J. (2014). Venture capital data: Opportunities and challenges. In NBER-CRIW conference on measuring entrepreneurial businesses: Current knowledge and challenges, December 2014.

  • Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1958). Non-parametric estimation from incomplete observations. Journal of American Statistical Association, 53, 457–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. American Economic Review, 86(3), 562–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S. (1997). Industry life cycles. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6, 145–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koellinger, P., & Thurik, A. R. (2012). Entrepreneurship and the business cycle. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(4), 1143–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstad, I., & Wiig, A. (2015). Education and entrepreneurial success. Small Business Economics, 44(4), 783–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krafft, J. (2004). Entry, exit and knowledge: Evidence from a cluster in the info-communications. Research Policy, 33(10), 1687–1706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, L. (2008). Blurring firm boundaries: The role of venture capital in strategic alliances. The Journal of Finance, 63(3), 1137–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M., & Ensley, M. D. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy, 34, 981–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotti, F., Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2003). Does Gibrat’s law hold among young, small firms? Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13, 213–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotti, F., Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2009). Defending Gibrat’s law as a long-run regularity. Small Business Economics, 32, 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malchow-Møller, N., Schjerning, B., & Sørensen, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship, job creation and wage growth. Small Business Economics, 36(1), 15–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mata, J., & Portugal, P. (1994). Life duration of new firms. Journal of Industrial Economics, 42, 227–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mata, J., Portugal, P., & Guimaraes, P. (1995). The survival of new plants: Start-up conditions and post-entry evolution. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4), 459–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2016). University support and the creation of technology and non-technology academic spin-offs. Small Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9721-1.

  • Mitra, A., & Jha, A. K. (2015). Innovation and employment: A firm level study of Indian industries. Eurasian Business Review, 5(1), 45–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modrego, F., McCann, P., Foster, W. E., & Olfert, M. R. (2015). Regional entrepreneurship and innovation in Chile: A knowledge matching approach. Small Business Economics, 44(3), 685–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, S., & Stegmaier, J. (2015). Economic failure and the role of plant age and size. Small Business Economics, 44(3), 621–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muscio, A., Quaglione, D., & Vallanti, G. (2015). University regulation and university-industry interaction: A performance analysis of Italian academic departments. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(5), 1047–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2003). The Sources of Economic Growth in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxenfeldt, A. R. (1943). New firms and free enterprise: Pre-war and post-war aspects. Washington, DC: American Council on Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, G., Piva, M., & Vivarelli, M. (2012). Young firms and innovation: A microeconometric analysis. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23, 329–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quatraro, F., & Vivarelli, M. (2015). Drivers of entrepreneurship and post-entry performance of newborn firms in developing countries. World Bank Research Observer, 30, 277–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raspe, O., & Van Oort, F. G. (2008). Firm growth and localized knowledge externalities. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 38(2), 100–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, G. C. (1991). Staying in business. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 9(4), 545–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renko, M., Carsrud, A., & Brännback, M. (2009). The effect of a market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, and technological capability on innovativeness: A study of young biotechnology ventures in the United States and in Scandinavia. Journal of Small Business Management, 47, 331–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, V., Carneiro, A., & Varum, C. A. (2015). Entry and exit dynamics of nascent business owners. Small Business Economics, 45(1), 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rojas, F., & Huergo, E. (2016). Characteristics of entrepreneurs and public support for NTBFs. Small Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9718-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Santarelli, E. (2006). Introduction. In E. Santarelli (Ed.), Entrepreneurship, growth, and innovation: The dynamics of firms and industries (pp. xiii–xx). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2002). Is subsidizing entry an optimal policy? Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(1), 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2007). Entrepreneurship and the process of firms’ entry, survival and growth. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(3), 455–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 141–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderblom, A., Samuelsson, M., Wiklund, J., & Sandberg, R. (2015). Inside the black box of outcome additionality: Effects of early-stage government subsidies on resource accumulation and new venture performance. Research Policy, 44, 1501–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey, D. J. (1991). The birth of new firms—Does unemployment matter? A review of the evidence. Small Business Economics, 3(3), 167–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey, D. J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, J. (1997). Gibrat’s legacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 40–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szopa, A. (2013). Intellectual capital and business performance in university spin-off companies. In P. Ordóñez de Pablos, R. Tennyson, & J. Zhao (Eds.), Intellectual capital strategy management for knowledge-based organizations (pp. 215–224). Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ter Val, A., & Boschma, R. (2011). Co-evolution of firms, industries and networks in space. Regional Studies, 45(7), 919–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Praag, M. C., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What Is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vivarelli, M. (2007). Entry and post-entry performance of newborn firms. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vivarelli, M. (2013). Is entrepreneurship necessarily good? Microeconomic evidence from developed and developing countries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(6), 1453–1495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vivarelli, M., & Audretsch, D. B. (1998). The link between the entry decision and post-entry performance: Evidence from Italy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 7(3), 485–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J. (1994). The post-entry performance of new small firms in German manufacturing industries. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 42, 141–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennekers, S., & Thurik, A. R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by a public grant overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as part of the “Investissements d’avenir” program (reference: ANR-10-EQPX-17—Centre d’accès sécurisé aux données—CASD).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy

    Alessandra Colombelli

  2. BRICK Collegio Carlo Alberto, Turin, Italy

    Alessandra Colombelli

  3. CNRS-GREDEG, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France

    Jackie Krafft

  4. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy

    Marco Vivarelli

  5. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, Germany

    Marco Vivarelli

Authors
  1. Alessandra Colombelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jackie Krafft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Vivarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandra Colombelli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Colombelli, A., Krafft, J. & Vivarelli, M. To be born is not enough: the key role of innovative start-ups. Small Bus Econ 47, 277–291 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9716-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9716-y

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation