We investigate how changing technological and industry conditions in emerging markets, driven by product innovation, affect the exit rates of start-up versus established firms. We find that these changing conditions have different outcomes for start-up and established firms. We assert that the higher rates of exit for start-ups compared to established firms is due to start-up firms' lower ability to adapt both to technology and industry changes that occur with technological progress. We test this assertion by comparing the rate of exit of start-up firms to established firms that entered the U.S. personal computer market between 1975 and 1988.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbernathyW. J. (1978) The productivity dilemma: Roadblock to innovation in the automobile industry.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
2.
AbernathyW. J., & ClarkK. B. (1985) Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3–22.
3.
AbernathyW. J., & UtterbackJ. M. (1978) Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, June/July, 41–47.
4.
AfuahA. (1998) Innovation management: Strategies, implementation, and profits.New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
AldrichH. E. (1990) Using an ecological perspective to study organizational founding rates. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 11(3), 7–24.
6.
AldrichH. E., & AusterE. R. (1986) Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and their strategic implications. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 165–198.
7.
AndersonP. (1988) The population dynamics of Schumpeterian competition. In HoyF., (Ed.), Academy of management best papers proceedings, 48th Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, August 7–10, 1988, (pp. 150–154).
8.
AndersonP. (1995) Microcomputer manufacturers. In CarrollG. R., & HannanM. T. (Eds.), Organizations in industry: Strategy, structure, and selection (pp. 37–58). New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
AndersonP., & TushmanM. L. (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604–633.
10.
ArrowK. (1983) Innovation in large and small firms. In RonenJ. (Ed.), Entrepreneurship (pp. 15–28). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
11.
ArthurW. B. (1987) Competing technologies: An overview. In DosiG. (Ed.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 590–607). New York: Columbia University Press.
12.
ArthurW. B. (1989) Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical small events. Economic Journal, 99(394), 116–131.
13.
BaldwinC. Y., & ClarkK. B. (1997) Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review, September-October, 84–93.
14.
BarneyJ. B. (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
15.
BrophyD., & ShulmanJ. (1993) Financial factors which stimulate innovation. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17(2), 61–75.
16.
BusenitzL., & BarneyJ. B. (1997) Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9–30.
17.
CarrollG. R., & HannanM. (1989) Density delay in the evolution of organizational populations: A model and five empirical tests. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(3), 411–430.
18.
ChandlerG. N., & HanksS. H. (1994) Founder competence, the environment, and venture performance. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 18(3), 77–89.
19.
ClarkK. B. (1985) The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy, 14, 235–251.
20.
ConnerK. R. (1988) Strategies for product cannibalism. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 9–26.
21.
CoxD., & OakesD. (1984) Analysis of survival data.New York: Chapman and Hall.
22.
DavidP. (1987) Some new standards for the economics of standardization in the information age. In DasguptaP., & StonemanP. (Eds.), Economic policy and technological performance (pp. 206–239). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
DeanT. J., MeyerG. D., & DeCastroJ. (1993) Determinants of new-firm formations in manufacturing industries: Industry dynamics, entry barriers, and organizational inertia. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17(2), 49–60.
24.
DosiG. (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technological change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162.
25.
DosiG. (1988) Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120–1171.
26.
FiegenbaumA., & KarnaniA. (1991) Output flexibility—A competitive advantage for small firms. Strategies Management Journal, 12(2), 101–114.
27.
GarudR., & NayyarP. R. (1994) Transformative capacity: Continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 15(5), 365–385.
28.
GalbraithJ. (1982) The stages of growth. Journal of Business Strategy, 3(4), 70–79.
29.
GreinerL. E. (1972) Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 50(4), 37–46.
30.
HanksS. H., WatsonC. J., JansenE., & ChandlerG. N. (1993) Tightening the life-cycle construct: A taxonomic study of growth stage configurations in high-technology organizations. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 18(2), 5–29.
31.
HannanM. T., & FreemanJ. (1984) Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 29, 149–164.
32.
HannanM. T., & FreemanJ. (1988) Density dependence in the growth of organizational populations. In CarrollG. (Ed.), Ecological models of organizations (pp. 7–32). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Books.
33.
HendersonR. M., & ClarkK. B. (1990) Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.
34.
HoferC. W., & SandbergW. R. (1987) Improving new venture performance: Some guidelines for success. American Journal of Small Business, Summer, 11–25.
35.
HounshellD. (1984) From the American system to mass production.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
LangloisR. N. (1990) Creating external capabilities: Innovation and vertical disintegration in the microcomputer industry. Business and Economic History, second series, 19, 93–102.
MeyerG. D., LenoirR. M., & DeanT. J. (1988) The executive limit scenario in high technology firms. In Gomez-MejiaL. R., & LawlessM. W. (Eds.), Proceedings: Managing the high technology firm (pp. 342–349). Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.
40.
MeyerM. H., & RobertsE. B. (1986) New product strategy in small technology-based firms: A pilot study. Management Science, 32(7), 806–821.
41.
MitchellW. (1989) Whether and when? Probability and timing of incumbent's entry into emerging industrial subfields. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(2), 208–230.
42.
MitchellW. (1991) Dual clocks: Entry order influences on incumbent and newcomer market share and survival when specialized assets retain their value. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), 85–100.
43.
MitchellW., & SinghK. (1993) Death of the lethargic: Effects of expansion into new technical subfields on performance in a firm's base business. Organization Science, 4(2), 152–180.
44.
NelsonR. R. (1959) The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306.
45.
NelsonR., & WinterS. (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change.Cambridge, MA: The Belknop Press of Harvard University Press.
46.
PorterM. E. (1985) Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance.New York: Free Press.
47.
RandolphW. A., SapienzaH. J., & WatsonM. A. (1991) Technology-structure fit and performance in small business: An examination of the moderating effects of organizational states. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16(1), 27–41.
48.
RomanelliE. (1989) Environments and strategies of organizational start-up: Effects on early survival. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(3), 369–387.
49.
SahalD. (1981) Patterns of technological innovation.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
50.
SingerJ., & WillettJ. (1991) Modeling the days of our lives: Reviewing applications of survival analysis in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 268–290.
51.
SpechtP. H. (1993) Munificence and carrying capacity of the environment and organization formation. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17(2), 77–86.
52.
StavinsJ. (1995) Model entry and exit in a differentiated-product industry: The personal computer market. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(4), 571–584.
53.
SuarezF. F., & UtterbackJ. M. (1995) Dominant designs and the survival of firms. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 415–430.
54.
TeeceD. J. (1987) Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. In TeeceD. J. (Ed.), The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal (pp. 185–219). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
55.
TerpstraD. E., & OlsonP. D. (1993) Entrepreneurial start-up and growth: A classification of problems. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17(3), 5–20.
UtterbackJ. M., & AbernathyW. J. (1975) A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 33(6), 639–656.
58.
UtterbackJ. M., & SaurezF. F. (1993) Innovation, competition, and industry structure. Research Policy, 22(1), 1–21.
59.
VanderWerfP.A. (1993) A model of venture creation in new industries. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17(2), 39–47.
60.
WadeJ. (1995) Dynamics of organizational communities and technological bandwagons: An empirical investigation of community evolution in the microprocessor market. Strategic Management Journal, 16(summer, special issue), 111–133.
61.
WinterS. G. (1987) Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In TeeceD. J. (Ed.), The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal (pp. 159–184). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
