Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collision density: driving growth in urban entrepreneurial ecosystems

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

Abstract

The growth of entrepreneurial ecosystems is becoming increasingly dynamic. We introduce the concept of collision density, defined as the potential frequency of interdisciplinary interactions, to explain this phenomenon. We develop hypotheses about the impact of collision density on the growth of entrepreneurial ecosystems. This impact is hypothesized to be amplified by the presence of angel financing. We find support for our hypotheses in panel data from 89 urban entrepreneurial ecosystems of 92,229 investments between 2007 and 2014. We conclude with discussions of the the implications for research and practice.

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(1), 476–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, P., & de Paula, J. (2014). Atkins’ physical chemistry (10th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: the importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltagi, B. (2008). Econometric analysis of panel data. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batty, M. (2008). The size, scale, and shape of cities. Science, 319(5864), 769–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (1986). Econometric models based on count data. Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 1(1), 29–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B. (2016). The emergence of the urban entrepreneur. San Francisco: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B., & Muñoz, P. (2015). Towards a theory of purpose-driven urban entrepreneurship. Organization & Environment, 28(3), 264–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuervo, A. (2008). The geographic space and the creation of new firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(2), 105–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downes, D. H., & Heinkel, R. (1982). Signaling and the valuation of unseasoned new issues. The Journal of Finance, 37(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, S., & Folta, T. B. (2016). A comparison of the effect of angels and venture capitalists on innovation and value creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(1), 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elitzur, R., & Gavious, A. (2003). Contracting, signaling, and moral hazard: a model of entrepreneurs, angels, and venture capitalists. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 709–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feld, B. (2012). Startup communities: building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R., & Mellander, C. (2016). Rise of the startup city: the changing geography of the venture capital financed innovation, California Management Review, 59(1), forthcoming.

  • Geere, D. (2010). Google android: its history and uncertain future. Wired, April 10, 2010.

  • Glaeser, E. L., Kallal, H. D., Scheinkman, J., & Shleifer, A. (1992). Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy, 100(6), 1126–1152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. G., Gavin, M. B., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1995). Assessing a multidimensional measure of radical technological innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(3), 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251–1271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, B., Gauthier, J. F., Holtschke, D., Berman, R., & Marmer, M. (2015). The global startup ecosystem ranking 2015. San Francisco: Compass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. (1969). The economies of cities. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, B., & Wagner, J. (2014). The rise of innovation districts: a new geography of innovation in America. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Kim, W., & Yang, T. (2012). The effect of the triple helix system and habitat on regional entrepreneurship: empirical evidence from the US. Research Policy, 41(1), 154–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrissette, S. G. (2007). A profile of angel investors. The Journal of Private Equity, 10(3), 52–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulas, V., Minges, M., & Applebaum, H. (2015). Boosting tech innovation ecosystems in cities, World Bank Discussion Paper, 100899.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2016). The making of the urban entrepreneur. California Management Review, 59(1), forthcoming.

  • Nathan, M. (2015). After Florida: towards an economics of diversity. European Urban and Regional Studies, 22(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1953). A glossary of terms in nuclear science and technology. New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neck, H. M., Meyer, G. D., Cohen, B., & Corbett, A. C. (2004). An entrepreneurial system view of new venture creation. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2), 190–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushkoff, D. (2016). Throwing rocks at the Google bus: how growth became the enemy of prosperity. Portfolio Trade.

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A. (1999). Venture capitalists’ assessment of new venture survival. Management Science, 45(5), 621–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spigel, B. (2015). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, forthcoming.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinmetz, K. (2014). What the twitter tax break means for San Francisco. Time, February 28, 2014.

  • Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2001). The focus of entrepreneurial research: contextual and process issues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 57–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2014). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision. United Nations, Department of economic and social affairs, Population division.

  • Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 57, 307–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. (2007). Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3), 443–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business and Communication, University of Vic – Central University of Catalonia, Sagrada Família, 7, 08500, Vic, Spain

    Petra A. Nylund

  2. Faculty of Business and Communication, University of Vic – Central University of Catalonia, Sagrada Família, 7, 08500, Vic, Spain

    Boyd Cohen

  3. EADA Business School, Carrer d’Aragó, 204, 08011, Barcelona, Spain

    Boyd Cohen

Authors
  1. Petra A. Nylund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Boyd Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petra A. Nylund.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 3 Ecosystems in the sample with variable values for 2014, ordered by collision density
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nylund, P.A., Cohen, B. Collision density: driving growth in urban entrepreneurial ecosystems. Int Entrep Manag J 13, 757–776 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0424-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0424-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation