1. +Do Italian
startups live in
the city?
The role of
territorial contexts
in the new forms of
innovative
entrepreneurship
SASE Conference, Milan
June 27-29, 2013
Ivana Pais Università
Cattolica,
Milan
Cecilia Manzo University of
Florence

2. +
0. Agenda
1. Theoretical framework
2. The research questions
3. Methodology
4. Startups: first results
5. Limitations and next steps
6. Conclusions

3. +
Why Startups should live in the city?
Theoretical background
Cities as places of innovation
n Relational factors:
n Formal and informal interactions among professionals that favour
the diffusion and contamination of knowledge (Storper &
Venables 2004, Asheim et al 2007)
n Dialogue and development:“conversations” that give birth to
new ideas, innovation both radical and incremental (Lester &
Piore 2004)
n Involuntary factors: Buzzing as non-intentional exchange of
information and practices (Bathelt et al 2004, Asheim et al 2007)
n Infrastructural advantage: Material (transport) and immaterial
(broadband)
n Links to Universities and Research institutions:
n Scientific entrepreneurship (spin-offs)
n Strategic guidance of research
n Human capital formation

4. +
The research questions
1. What kind of capital (human, social, etc..) is mobilized by
those who are creating these companies?
2. What is the role of the collaboration networks (formal and
informal)?
3. What is the role of the territorial context?
4. What is the role of regulation?

5. +
Methodology
n We created a map and invited startups to join. 440 startup joined by
May-June 2012 (at present they are 603)
n All participants were given a questionnaire (CAWI method) and we
gathered 305 responses (July-September 2012)

6. +
Features of the Companies
n Sectors:
n apps.
n consulting and business services
n social media
n Business opportunity:
n new needs of the consumer / customer;
n new technology
n exploitation of undervalued resources
n Clients:
n 48% individual consumers and families
n 46% other companies
n 4% public institutions
n 2% no-profit
n Factors of competitiveness:
n innovation of products / services
n high quality
n process innovation

7. +
Results: Individual level (1)
n Gender
n Startuppers are men: 89%
n 11% are women
(in Italy female enterpreneurs
are 24%)
n Age
n More than half (52%) belings
to the «post» generation
(under 33)
n only 5% «boomers» (over 46)

8. +
Results: Individual level (2)
n High human capital:
n 73% has a university degree
n 22% has a Master or PhD
n 27% has attended courses
for startuppers
n Motivations:
n To give shape to an idea
(72%)
n To be autonomous (44%)
n To put themselves to test
(40%)
n Other features of
startuppers:
n 78% has other activities
n freelance 31%,
n other startups 15%,
employee 13%
n student 9%)
n Serial entrepreneurs:
n 31% has already created
other companies
n only 16% of the total
bankrupt or closed

9. +
Results: Relations / internal
n Families with high human capital
but no entrepreneurial tradition
(12% father, mother 4%)
n 84% of respondents have at least
an associate (on average,
associates are 3), with personal
characteristics similar to those of
the respondents: these are mainly
former colleagues or former
classmates.
n The size of the company is very
limited:
n it is not uncommon that the
workforce of the company is
constituted just by the shareholders
(59%)
n on average, startups have 1
employee, 2 stable collaborators and
3 occasional collaborators.
n The channels of recruitment of
employees and collaborators are
very open:
n word of mouth in a professional
environment (32%)
n online (13%)
n Relational skills are the most
highly valued.Technical expertise
was chosen by only 3% of
respondents.
n The most important features to
make the team working:
n shared vision
n passion
n trust

10. +
Results: Relations / external
n The reference system of the
respondents is "profane":
n It is important to be
appreciated by the clients
(47%), followed by employees
(21%).The relationship with
other entrepreneurs (12%) is
higher than even the one with
with shareholders (10%).
n Major problems:
n finding resources (financial,
human, physical)
n development of the idea
n administrative procedures.
n Weak networks of financing:
n 45% self-financed and looking
for funding
n 12% self-financed not looking
for funding,
n 9% venture capital and business
angels,
n 6% public funding,
n 5% relatives
n 4% banks
n 2% friends
n 1% crowdfunding
n Participation to firms’
associations: 21%

11. +
Results: Relations / networks
n Informal
exchanges:
n information on
technology
n information on
markets
n information on
business
management
n Formal exchanges:
n information on
markets
n technology
n information on
technology
0 2 4 6 8 10
consulting
business service centers
financial institutions
associations
public bodies
universities, research
centers
clients
suppliers
competitors
quality frequency

12. +
Results: Relations / networks
Nodes Ties Density
formal 156 109 0.0045
informal 175 144 0.0047
Mean Median
formal 813 Km 85 Km
informal 810 Km 75 Km

13. +
Results:The territorial dimension (1)
n Fundamental criteria in the
choice of headquarters:
1. Low cost
2. Proximity to home
3. Proximity to universities or
research centers
n Where are the HQs
n 11% coworking
n 7% university incubators
n 6% accelerators
n 5% other incubators
n 3%technology parks
n Market:
n Regional 8%
n Domestic 46%
n Foreign (Europe) 19%
n Foreign (non-European) 28%
n Link between the startups and
traditional activities of the
territory
n Rome: Music, Arts, Cinema
n Milan: Consulting, Advertising
and Social Commerce
n Turin:“Makers” and Media
n Naples: Civil Society and
Participatory Labs

14. +
Results: Regulation (1)
n Law n.221/2012 (Decree Law Growth 2.0), Section IX
innovative startup: exemptions, tax breaks, exemptions from
the corporate law governing special working relationships
n Special section of the register of companies devoted to
innovative startups
n June 10, 2013: 853 companies.
n Among the companies we interviewed only 13% has now
entered in the register of innovative startups

15. +
Results: Regulation (2)
Listed on the register of innovative companies:Who did it?
n 12.5% women vs 10.5% men did
n 16% graduated vs 7% with secondary school diplomas
n 23% among boomers (over 46) vs. 12% among the post
(under 33)
n 15% startup based in the provincial capital vs. 7% based
elsewhere

16. +
Conclusions
1. What kind of capital (human, social, etc..) is mobilized by
those who are creating these companies? Mainly human
capital (opposite result than the rhetoric that accompanies
startup).
2. What is the role of the collaboration networks (formal and
informal)? Weak, with consequences on the availability of
social and financial capital
3. What is the role of territorial context? The most important
factor, enables different forms of capital
4. What is the role of regulation? Low effectiveness,
strengthens existing allocations of capital

17. +
Limitations and next steps
n Phenomenon in its nascent state, exploratory analysis à this
survey allows to build hypotheses to be tested
n Self-selected sample à new analysis of the register of
innovative startups
n Integration and comparison with analysis of digital
relationships (e.g. network of followers on Twitter)
n Policy indications

18. +
@ivanapais
@ceciliamanzo
cecilia.manzo@unifi.it
ivana.pais@unicatt.it
Thanks!