Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 6 Pre-alliance trend analysis. The potential endogeneity problem stemming from pre-alliance trends is tested. The results show that there is no evidence that incumbent firms tend to align with nearby startup partners that outperformed before the alliance

From: Extending the role of headquarters beyond the firm boundary: entrepreneurial alliance innovation

Dependent variable: Distance CHQ to Startup (6.1) (6.2) (6.3) (6.4)
Sample: Full Full Restricted Restricted
Startup Patent Count 0.001   − 0.003  
(One-Year Lagged) (0.002)   (0.003)  
Cumulative Startup Patent Count   − 0.000   − 0.000
(One-Year Lagged)   (0.000)   (0.000)
Horizontal Alliance 0.162 0.168 0.718 0.699
  (0.281) (0.281) (0.446) (0.458)
Alliance Exploitation − 0.320* − 0.322* 0.003 0.028
  (0.172) (0.173) (0.228) (0.224)
Alliance Equity and Joint Venture 0.032 0.015 − 0.103 − 0.067
  (0.250) (0.250) (0.429) (0.430)
Incumbent Subsidiary Dispersion 0.002 0.002 − 0.013 − 0.012
  (0.005) (0.005) (0.011) (0.011)
Incumbent Age − 0.002 − 0.003 − 0.013 − 0.010
  (0.002) (0.002) (0.011) (0.010)
Incumbent Size (Logged) − 0.009 − 0.011 0.095 0.085
  (0.100) (0.100) (0.260) (0.255)
Startup Age 0.009 0.010 0.015 0.015
  (0.006) (0.007) (0.012) (0.013)
Startup Size (Binary) 0.202 0.223 − 0.128 − 0.127
  (0.185) (0.190) (0.333) (0.335)
Startup Manufacturing − 0.231 − 0.228 − 0.029 − 0.050
  (0.147) (0.146) (0.317) (0.320)
Startup Capital Investment (Cumulative) − 0.001 − 0.001 − 0.005 − 0.004
  (0.002) (0.002) (0.007) (0.007)
Incumbent fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Yes
Year fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Yes
Startup location fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Yes
Incumbent location fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Yes
Observations 1401 1401 233 233
Number of startup–incumbent dyads 376 376 179 179
Adjusted R2 0.352 0.351 0.369 0.362
  1. Robust standard errors clustered at startup–incumbent level in parentheses
  2. *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01