IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article

New Plant Venture Performance Differences Among Incumbent, Diversifying, and Entrepreneurial Firms: The Impact of Industry Learning Intensity

  • Natarajan Balasubramanian

    ()

    (Whitman School of Management, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244)

Prior firm experience, firm capabilities, and the industry environment are known to be important determinants of new-venture performance. We hypothesize that firm experience prior to setting up a new venture influences the ability to learn from experience after start-up (which is a key capability), and that this relationship is moderated by the importance of learning by doing within the new venture's industry (which is a critical aspect of the industry environment). We argue that together, these relationships influence performance differences among new plant ventures of incumbents, diversifying entrants, and entrepreneurial (de novo) entrants. Using data on 47,915 new plant ventures in U.S. manufacturing, we find that incumbents and diversifying entrants establish significantly more productive new plants than de novo entrants, and that this advantage significantly increases with the importance of learning by doing in an industry (industry learning intensity). These productivity differences appear to be driven more by learning subsequent to plant start-up than by initial disparities in productivity. Together, these findings strongly suggest that pre-start-up experience adds to the process of post-start-up learning, and that the industry learning environment plays an important role in whether entrepreneurial firms can achieve a competitive advantage over existing firms. This paper was accepted by Lee Fleming, entrepreneurship.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1294
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Management Science.

Volume (Year): 57 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 (March)
Pages: 549-565

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:57:y:2011:i:3:p:549-565
Contact details of provider: Postal:
7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA

Phone: +1-443-757-3500
Fax: 443-757-3515
Web page: http://www.informs.org/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Natarajan Balasubramanian & Marvin B. Lieberman, 2011. "Learning‐By‐Doing And Market Structure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 177-198, 06.
  2. Agarwal, Rajshree & Gort, Michael, 1996. "The Evolution of Markets and Entry, Exit and Survival of Firms," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(3), pages 489-98, August.
  3. Lucia Foster & John Haltiwanger & Chad Syverson, 2005. "Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency: Selection on Productivity or Profitability?," Working Papers 05-11, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  4. Constance E. Helfat & Marvin B. Lieberman, 2002. "The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre-history," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 725-760, August.
  5. Olley, G Steven & Pakes, Ariel, 1996. "The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(6), pages 1263-97, November.
  6. Peter Thompson, 2001. "How Much Did the Liberty Shipbuilders Learn? New Evidence for an Old Case Study," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(1), pages 103-137, February.
  7. Teece, David J., 1993. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 112-113, April.
  8. Shaker A. Zahra & Harry J. Sapienza & Per Davidsson, 2006. "Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(4), pages 917-955, 06.
  9. Steven J. Davis & John Haltiwanger, 1992. "Gross Job Creation, Gross Job Destruction, and Employment Reallocation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 107(3), pages 819-863.
  10. Peter Thompson, 2005. "Selection and Firm Survival: Evidence from the Shipbuilding Industry, 1825-1914," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(1), pages 26-36, February.
  11. Marvin B. Lieberman, 1984. "The Learning Curve and Pricing in the Chemical Processing Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(2), pages 213-228, Summer.
  12. Peter Doeringer & Christine Evans-Klock & David G. Terkla, 2002. "Start-Up Factories: High Performance Management, Job Quality, and Regional Advantage," Books from Upjohn Press, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, number suf.
  13. R. Glenn Hubbard, 1997. "Capital-Market Imperfections and Investment," NBER Working Papers 5996, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. Bahk, Byong-Hong & Gort, Michael, 1993. "Decomposing Learning by Doing in New Plants," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(4), pages 561-83, August.
  15. Hopenhayn, Hugo A, 1992. "Entry, Exit, and Firm Dynamics in Long Run Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(5), pages 1127-50, September.
  16. Natarajan Balasubramanian & Marvin Lieberman, 2006. "Industry Learning Environments and the Heterogeneity of Firm Performance," Working Papers 06-29, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  17. Steven Klepper, 2002. "The capabilities of new firms and the evolution of the US automobile industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 645-666, August.
  18. David C. Mowery & Bhaven N. Sampat & Arvids A. Ziedonis, 2002. "Learning to Patent: Institutional Experience, Learning, and the Characteristics of U.S. University Patents After the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 73-89, January.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:57:y:2011:i:3:p:549-565. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.