Advertisement
Table 7 CHQ relocation matrix. The potential endogeneity problem stemming from cluster-level pre-relocation trends is tested. This transition matrix summarizes all the relocations of CHQ. The rows denote the starting locations, whereas the columns represent their intermediate and end locations. For example, the component in [1, 2] represents the relocation from 1 to 2. Most of the relocations are within-CBSA, and there is no pattern that CHQ relocations converge to a certain CBSA, such as particularly promising CBSAs containing an industry cluster. The relocations documented in this analysis are only those that occur during periods where an alliance with an entrepreneurial partner exists; some CHQ relocations occur outside of the time windows in which the incumbent firm has alliances. Bold entries indicate relocations within the CBSA, e.g., from one location in Dover (DE) to another location in Dover (DE)
From: Extending the role of headquarters beyond the firm boundary: entrepreneurial alliance innovation
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington (PA–NJ–DE–MD) | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10 |
| 2 | New York–Newark–Jersey City (NY–NJ–PA) | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| 3 | Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario (CA) | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 4 | Cincinnati (OH–KY–IN) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 5 | Dover (DE) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 6 | Durham–Chapel Hill (NC) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 7 | Kalamazoo–Portage (MI) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 8 | Boston–Cambridge–Newton (MA–NH) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | Kansas City (MO–KS) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 11 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 28 | |
