IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Local Firm Ownership Matter?


  • David A. Fleming

    (Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA, The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, The Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA)

  • Stephan J. Goetz

    (Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA, The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, The Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA,


A data set for U.S. counties that includes residence status of firm owners is used to assess whether per capita density of locally owned businesses affects local economic growth, compared with nonlocal ownership. The database also permits stratification of firms across different employment size categories. Economic growth models that control for other relevant factors reveal a positive relationship between density of locally owned firms and per capita income growth but only for small (10-99 employees) firms, whereas the density of large (more than 500 workers) firms not owned locally has a negative effect. These results provide strong evidence that local ownership matters for economic growth but only in the small size category. Results are robust across rural and urban counties.

Suggested Citation

  • David A. Fleming & Stephan J. Goetz, 2011. "Does Local Firm Ownership Matter?," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 25(3), pages 277-281, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:ecdequ:v:25:y:2011:i:3:p:277-281

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Goetz, Stephan J. & Fleming, David A. & Rupasingha, Anil, 2012. "The Economic Impacts of Self-Employment," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(3), pages 1-7, August.
    2. Mark D. Partridge & M. Rose Olfert, 2011. "The Winners' Choice: Sustainable Economic Strategies for Successful 21st-Century Regions," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 143-178.
    3. Alessandra Faggian & Mark Partridge & Edward J. Malecki, 2017. "Creating an Environment for Economic Growth: Creativity, Entrepreneurship or Human Capital?," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(6), pages 997-1009, November.
    4. Mark S Mygrant, 2020. "Keeping profits at home: A study of firm ownership and the geographical concentration of capital gains in the United States," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 35(5), pages 460-481, August.
    5. Anil Rupasingha, 2013. "Locally owned: Do local business ownership and size matter for local economic well-being?," FRB Atlanta Community and Economic Development Discussion Paper 2013-01, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    6. Stephan J. Goetz & Anil Rupasingha, 2014. "The Determinants of Self-Employment Growth," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 28(1), pages 42-60, February.
    7. Alexandra Tsvetkova & Mark Partridge & Michael Betz, 2019. "Self-employment effects on regional growth: a bigger bang for a buck?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 27-45, January.
    8. Goetz, Stephen & Partridge, Mark & Stephens, Heather, 2017. "The Economic Status of Rural America in the Trump Era," MPRA Paper 77830, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. David Boyle, 2015. "Henry George, Jane Jacobs, and Free Trade," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 587-599, May.
    10. Tessa Conroy & Stephan Weiler, 2016. "Does gender matter for job creation? Business ownership and employment growth," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 397-419, August.
    11. Anil Rupasingha, 2017. "Local business ownership and local economic performance: evidence from US counties," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(5), pages 659-673, May.
    12. Anil Rupasingha & Stephan J. Goetz, 2013. "Self-employment and local economic performance: Evidence from US counties," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(1), pages 141-161, March.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ecdequ:v:25:y:2011:i:3:p:277-281. 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: (SAGE Publications). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.