{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020833333333333332, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.711790393013101, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Entrepreneurial Geographies: Support Networks in Three High-Technology Industries

Abstract Using a unique database derived from prospectuses for U.S. initial public stock offerings, we examine the location of four actors (the firm’s lawyers, the venture capitalists on the board of directors, the other members of the board of directors, and the lead investment banker) of the entrepreneurial support network for startup firms in three high-technology industries: semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, and biotechnology. We demonstrate that the economic geography of the biotechnology support network differs significantly from the networks in semiconductors and telecommunications equipment. Biotechnology has a far-more-dispersed entrepreneurial support network structure than do the two electronics-related industries. The case of biotechnology indicates that if the source of seeds for new firms is highly dispersed, then an industry may not experience the path-dependent clustering suggested by geographers. We argue that contrary to common belief, biotechnology and its support network do not exhibit as great a clustering as do semiconductors and telecommunications equipment and their support networks. This argument leads to an epistemological issue, namely, the lack of interindustry comparative work. This is an odd omission, since nearly all authors agree that industries are based on particular knowledge bases, yet few consider that the knowledge and the sources of it may have an impact on spatial distributions.