Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
20 KAUFFMAN
16 INDEX
growth
entrepreneurship
NATIONAL TRENDS
M AY 2 0 1 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword by Steve Case............................................................................................................................................................................4
About the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurship Series..........................................................................................................................6
Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................................................................6
Understanding Growth EntrepreneurshipA Look at the Indicators...................................................................................................8
A Big Tent Approach to Entrepreneurship.............................................................................................................................................11
Table B: Top Five Industries with Highest Share of High-Growth Companies (2015)............................................................. 20
Figure 3: Top Five Industries with Highest Share of High-Growth Companies (2007, 2010, 2012, 2015)....................... 21
Figure 10: Construction and Real Estate Industries Profile (Housing-Associated Industries) (20072015)........................ 25
Figure 11: Manufacturing and Computer Hardware Industries Profile (Maker Industries) (20072015)........................ 26
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
National Profile..................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Table B: Top Five Industries with Highest Share of High-Growth Companies (2015)............................................................. 35
Figure 3: Top Five Industries with Highest Share of High-Growth Companies (2007, 2010, 2012, 2015).............................. 36
Table 3: Top Five Industries with Highest Share of High-Growth Companies (2007, 2010, 2012, 2015)............................... 36
Figure 10: Construction and Real Estate Industries Profile (Housing-Associated Industries) (20072015)............................... 43
Table 10: Construction and Real Estate Industries Profile (Housing-Associated Industries) (20072015)................................ 43
Figure 11: Manufacturing and Computer Hardware Industries Profile (Maker Industries) (20072015)............................... 44
Table 11: Manufacturing and Computer Hardware Industries Profile (Maker Industries) (20072015)................................ 44
2 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
THE
20 KAUFFMAN
16 INDEX
growth
entrepreneurship
Arnobio Morelix | E.J. Reedy | Joshua Russell
The authors would like to thank Barb Pruitt, Betsy Dierker, Chris Jackson, Chris Newton, Dane Stangler, Derek Ozkal,
Donald Patton, Emily Fetsch, Jason Wiens, Jay R. Ritter, Jorge Guzman, Keith Mays, Lacey Graverson, Michael Hendrix,
Rhett Morris, and Robert W. Fairlie for their feedback, support, and advice.
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
Foreword
By Steve Case
4 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
Growth Entrepreneurship
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
Growth Entrepreneurship
Executive Summary
Share of Scaleups
6 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
Share of Scaleups
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
Understanding Growth
EntrepreneurshipA
Look at the Indicators
Growth Entrepreneurship can take many forms. Here
we define and measure it based on job and revenue
growth.
Businesses grow in different ways. Some grow rapidly
and very publiclythink Uber or any of the prominent
tech unicorns. Others are born and grow for longer
periods below the public radar, perhaps in industries
or regions that are less visible to the general public
and media. Here think Chobani, which has become a
household brand with its Greek yogurt with over $1B in
revenue and more than a thousand employeesbut is not
a stereotypical growth company. It was founded in 2005,
8 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
The Components of
the Kauffman Index of
Growth Entrepreneurship
NSITY
DE
OMPA
TH C
N
W
Rate of Startup
Growth
THE
NSITY
DE
RAT
E
OMPA
TH C
N
W
TARTUP GR
FS
O
TH
W
O
20 KAUFFMAN
16 INDEX
TARTUP GR
FS
O
TH
W
O
RAT
E
HIGH-G
RO
HIGH-G
RO
NSITY
DE
SH
HIGH-G
RO
OMPA
TH C
N
W
TARTUP GR
FS
O
IPO SHARE
E OF SCALEU
AR
PS
SH
Share of Scaleups
TH
W
O
RAT
E
PS
growth
entrepreneurship
IPO SHARE
E OF SCALEU
AR
High-Growth
Company Density
IPO SHARE
E OF SCALEU
AR
PS
SH
1. We normalize each of three measures by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation for that measure (i.e., create a z-score for each variable). This creates
a comparable scale for including the three measures in the Growth Entrepreneurship Index. We use annual estimates from 2007 to the latest year available (2013 or 2015) to
calculate the mean and standard deviations for each component measure (see Methodology and Framework for more details).
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
Share of Scaleups
10 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
11
RA
TE
S
ER
N
N
BUSI ESS OW
OF
Table A
HIGH-G
RO
RAT
E
SH
HIGH-G
HIGH-G
RO
RO
RAT
E
SH
SH
RA
TE
ESTABL
ISH RAT
E
RAT
EO
RAT
EO
PORTUNIRAT PPORTUNI
OP
TYOE
TY
O
PORTUNI
OP
TY
RA
TE
ESTABL
ISH
High-Growth
Company
Density
The number of fastgrowing companies
with at least
$2 million dollars
in annual revenue
normalized by
business population
IPO SHARE
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
NSITY
DE
The number of
businesses that started
IPO SHAR
small and grew to E
employ at least fifty
people by their tenth
year of operation as
a percentage of all
businesses ten years
and younger
2. Approximately half of startups remain in operation five years later, according to our calculations for U.S. Census Bureaus Business Dynamics Statistics data.
12 |
PS
E OF SCALEU
AR
NSITY
DE
The number of
businesses older than
five years with less
than fifty employees
normalized by
population
OMPA
TH C
N
W
Established
Small
TARTUP GR
FS
Business
O
Density
NSITY
DE
ALL BUSIN
SM
E
TH
W
O
ED
Startup Density
E OF SCALEU
AR
N
BUSI ESS OW
OF
NSITY
DE
SS
TUP DENSI
AR
TY
ST
OMPA
TH C
N
W
Rate of Startup
Growth
Share of Scaleups
IPO SHARE
E OF SCALEU
AR
S
ER
N
ENEURS
EPR
TR
N
OF NEW
ARE
SH UP DEN E
T
SIT
AR
T
Y
S
The percentage of
new entrepreneurs
driven primarily by
opportunity vs.
necessity
N
BUSI ESS OW
OF
L
BUS
L
A
IN
SM
E
ED
TARTUP GR
FS
O
PS
TUP DENSI
AR
TY
ST
Opportunity Share
of New Entrepreneurs
OMPA
TH C
N
W
Growth Entrepreneurship
PS
N
EW E TREPR
F N RE OF NEW E
A
E
SH
Rate of Business
Owners
NSITY
S
ER S DE
N
S
ENEURS RS PRENEURS
EPR
EU RE
TR
N NT
N
OF NEW
ARE
E
SH
The percentage of
adults transitioning
into entrepreneurship
at a given point in
time
N
BUSI ESS OW
OF
TARTUP GR
FS
O
TH
W
O
RS
EU
N
N
EW E TREPR
E
FN
Rate of New
Entrepreneurs
S
ER
N
RS
EU
N
N
EW E TREPR
E
FN
TH
W
O
Startup Activity
RAT
E
he conversation around entrepreneurship measurement has increased in the last year with Guzman and
Sterns recent research attempting to use predictive techniques to connect aspects of a new firms business
registration to later growth outcomes, specifically reaching a meaningful exit (IPO or M&A) within six years
of founding (Guzman and Stern 2016). This research holds much promise for the future of entrepreneurship research,
as it may hold the possibility of even finer-grain geographic analysis and better predictive techniques beyond just
counting business registrations. However, while compellingand, indeed, Kauffman Foundation activities have
supported, financially and otherwise, this work in many waysthe data measuring startup growth potential has not
reached national coverage, although it may spread to other geographies in the near future. With that, the Growth
Entrepreneurship Index focuses on actual observed growth outcomes rather than ex ante growth potential of startups.
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
13
National Trends in
Growth Entrepreneurship
Activity
Growth Index
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
Kauffman Foundation
-1.20
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations using the BDS and Inc. 500|5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
14 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
National Trends
in Rate of Startup
Growth
Figure 1A
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
2006
Kauffman Foundation
0%
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations using the BDS. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
15
Figure 1B
Kauffman Foundation
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
2008
(Startup)
2009
(Age 1)
2010
(Age 2)
2011
(Age 3)
2012
(Age 4)
2013
(Age 5)
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations using the BDS. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
16 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
National Trends
in Share of
Scaleups
Figure 1C
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
2007
Kauffman Foundation
0.00%
1987
Share of Scaleups
1.30%
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations using the BDS. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
17
National Trends
in High-Growth
Company Density
The High-Growth Company Density has no upperbound restriction on firm age, though it does require firms
to be at least three years old. As such, the age of highgrowth firms spans a wide range, although these firms
skew young. A plurality of high-growth companies
(31.5 percent) are aged between five and seven years old,
and 59.1 percent are ten years old and younger.
Figure 1D
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Kauffman Foundation
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations using the BDS and Inc. 500|5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
18 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
2015
ittle more captures making it in business than the day a company starts being publicly traded.
Ringing the bell, the making of millionaires (and often billionaires), and the transformation from
being a privately held company into a publicly owned one. Initial public offerings are among the
most visible indicators of growth companies; however, the small number of IPOs in any given year makes it a difficult
metric to comprehensively integrate into the Growth Index. So, for now, we present statistics on Initial Public Offerings as
an appendix to the Growth Entrepreneurship indicators.
Using preliminary data from 19802015, we present historical trends for IPO density in the United Statescalculated
as the number of IPOs in a year per every 100,000 employer businesses in the country.4, 5 For our purposes, not all
IPOs are created equal. We focus on IPOs that are related to emerging growth companies or de novo IPOs and not IPOs
that are new legal entities of existing companies. Also, IPOs are a global phenomenon with many foreign offerings on
U.S. markets and some U.S. offerings on foreign exchanges. The data presented here attempt to only count domesticheadquartered, emerging growth, and domestic-IPOed firms in a given year.
More than other indicators we present in the Kauffman Index of Growth Entrepreneurship, U.S. IPOs and IPO density vary
dramatically across time. Since experiencing the lowest number of IPOs in 2008only eighteen American companies
went public in that yearthe number of U.S. IPOs has recovered. Nonetheless, it still remains well below pre-2000 levels
of IPO activity.
Figure 2
700
14.0
600
Domestic IPOs
10.0
400
8.0
300
6.0
200
IPO Density
12.0
500
4.0
100
2.0
0.0
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.0
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations using Jay Ritters Initial Public Offerings: Foreign IPOs in the U.S., 19802015 and the BDS.
4. The source for the number of employer firms is the U.S. Census Bureaus Business Dynamics Statistics (BDS), and we use the latest available BDS number (2013) to
normalize the 2014 and 2015 IPO activity.
5. The IPO data used here comes from Jay Ritters Initial Public Offerings: Foreign IPOs in the U.S., 1980-2015 summary. It includes American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) as
well as other IPOs; and excludes IPOs with an offer price below $5.00 per share, unit offers, REITs, closed-end funds, natural resource limited partnerships, small best efforts
IPOs, banks and S&Ls, and IPOs not listed on CRSP (this last screen limits the sample to NASDAQ, Amex, and NYSE-listed issues) within six months of the offer date. For more
on this, please see Ritter, Jay R. Initial Public Offerings: Foreign IPOs in the U.S., 1980-2015. March 8, 2016. Accessed April 21, 2016. https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter/
files/2016/03/Initial-Public-Offerings-Foreign-IPOs-in-the-US-1980-2015-2016-03-08.pdf.
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
19
Industry Trends
for High-Growth
Companies
The detailed industry data from Inc. allows us to
explore industry trends for high-growth companies. In this
section, we look at industries with the highest shares of
high-growth companies and present industry profiles over
time for select industries. See Table B.
Table B
Rank
1
Industry
IT Services
High-Growth Companies
Share (%)
521
13.0%
397
9.9%
367
9.2%
Health
315
7.9%
Software
289
7.2%
Rank
Industry
High-Growth Companies
Share (%)
IT Services
521
13.0%
397
9.9%
367
9.2%
Health
315
7.9%
Software
289
7.2%
Financial Services
195
4.9%
Construction
195
4.9%
Government Services
193
4.8%
188
4.7%
10
Human Resources
147
3.7%
11
Real Estate
134
3.3%
12
Retail
131
3.3%
13
123
3.1%
14
113
2.8%
15
Manufacturing
111
2.8%
16
Telecommunications
89
2.2%
17
Energy
88
2.2%
18
Security
71
1.8%
19
Engineering
63
1.6%
20
Education
58
1.4%
21
Insurance
55
1.4%
22
52
1.3%
23
Media
51
1.3%
24
Environmental Services
39
1.0%
25
Computer Hardware
23
0.6%
20 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
Figure 3
2007
14.0%
2012
2010
2015
Kauffman Foundation
13.0%
12.0%
11.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
Software
Health
IT Services
Software
Health
IT Services
Health
Government Services
IT Services
Manufacturing
Construction
0.0
IT Services
Industry Share
10.0%
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 500|5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
21
Figure 4
15.0%
14.0%
550
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
22 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
Industry Share
600
16.0%
Kauffman Foundation
Figure 5
15.0%
14.0%
550
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
Industry Share
600
16.0%
Kauffman Foundation
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Figure 6
15.0%
14.0%
550
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
Industry Share
600
16.0%
Kauffman Foundation
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
23
Figure 7
15.0%
14.0%
550
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
Industry Share
600
16.0%
Kauffman Foundation
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Figure 8
15.0%
14.0%
550
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
24 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
Industry Share
600
16.0%
Kauffman Foundation
Figure 9
15.0%
14.0%
550
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
Industry Share
600
16.0%
Kauffman Foundation
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Figure 10
SOURCE: Authors calculations using the CPS, BDS, and BEA. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
650
15.0%
14.0%
550
16.0%
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
Industry Share
600
Kauffman Foundation
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
25
Figure 11
15.0%
14.0%
550
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
26 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
Industry Share
600
16.0%
Kauffman Foundation
Appendix:
National Data, Select Industry Profiles,
and Charts
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
27
THE
20 KAUFFMAN
16 INDEX
growth
entrepreneurship
National Profile
United States of America
Rate of Startup Growth
2016
120%
2015
Component
58.54% 46.90%
Measures how much startups
have grown as a cohort, on
average, five years after
founding - measured by
change in employment.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
1983
1988
1993
1998
Year
2003
2008
2013
Share of Scaleups
Share of Scaleups
1.8%
2016
Component
1.6%
2015
Component
1.08% 1.01%
Measures the number of
firms that started small but
grew to employ fifty people
or more by their tenth year
of operation as a percentage
of all employer firms ten
years and younger.
1.4%
1.2%
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
1989
High-Growth
Company Density
79.3
80.5
2016
2005
2009
2013
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2007
28 |
2001
Year
80
2015
Component
1997
90
2016
Component
1993
2009
2011
Year
|
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
2013
2015
Figure 1
Growth Index
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
Kauffman Foundation
-1.20
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations using the BDS and Inc. 500|5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Table 1
Index
Rate of
Startup Growth
Share of
Scaleups
High-Growth
Company Density
2008
0.73
64.51%
1.23%
71.3
2009
0.87
61.96%
1.25%
76.6
2010
0.45
58.27%
1.30%
67.0
2011
0.31
64.86%
1.24%
58.9
2012
-0.53
53.51%
1.15%
58.7
2013
-1.1
49.65%
1.00%
59.7
2014
-0.66
47.75%
0.96%
76.4
2015
-0.39
46.90%
1.01%
80.5
2016
0.32
58.54%
1.08%
79.3
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
29
Figure 1A
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Year
NSITY
DE
HIGH-G
RO
OMPA
TH C
N
W
TARTUP GR
FS
O
TH
W
O
RAT
E
SOURCE: Authors calculations using the BDS. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Table 1A
2016
Year
1982
94.5%
1998
78.0%
1983
62.0%
1999
1984
63.6%
1985
71.6%
1986
1987
SH
E OF SCALEU
AR
2000
PS
30 |
Year
74.1%
IPO SHARE
78.0%
2001
80.0%
82.0%
2002
67.6%
65.5%
2003
77.5%
1988
99.3%
2004
70.1%
1989
89.4%
2005
64.5%
1990
93.0%
2006
62.0%
1991
71.6%
2007
58.3%
1992
104.1%
2008
64.9%
1993
67.8%
2009
53.5%
1994
57.7%
2010
49.6%
1995
59.8%
2011
47.7%
1996
70.8%
2012
46.9%
1997
75.1%
2013
58.5%
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
2006
Kauffman Foundation
0%
Figure 1B
Kauffman Foundation
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
2008
(Startup)
2009
(Age 1)
2010
(Age 2)
2011
(Age 3)
2012
(Age 4)
2013
(Age 5)
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations using the BDS. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Table 1B
2008 (Startup)
5.8
2009 (Age 1)
6.7
2010 (Age 2)
7.2
2011 (Age 3)
7.8
2012 (Age 4)
8.7
2013 (Age 5)
9.2
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
31
Figure 1C
RAT
E
0.40%
OMPA
TH C
N
W
NSITY
DE
0.50%
TARTUP GR
FS
O
TH
W
O
0.60%
HIGH-G
RO
0.70%
Share of Scaleups
1.30%
0.30%
0.20%
0.10%
Year
IPO SHARE
E OF SCALEU
AR
PS
SH
SOURCE: Authors calculations using the BDS. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Table 1C
32 |
2016
Year
Share of Scaleups
Year
Share of Scaleups
1987
1.61%
2001
1.44%
1988
1.56%
2002
1.30%
1989
1.59%
2003
1.23%
1990
1.60%
2004
1.25%
1991
1.53%
2005
1.23%
1992
1.40%
2006
1.25%
1993
1.35%
2007
1.30%
1994
1.31%
2008
1.24%
1995
1.31%
2009
1.15%
1996
1.29%
2010
1.00%
1997
1.27%
2011
0.96%
1998
1.24%
2012
1.01%
1999
1.26%
2013
1.08%
2000
1.35%
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
2007
Kauffman Foundation
0.00%
Figure 1D
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Kauffman Foundation
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
NSITY
DE
HIGH-G
RO
OMPA
TH C
N
W
TARTUP GR
FS
O
TH
W
O
RAT
E
SOURCE: Authors calculations using the BDS and Inc. 500|5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Table 1D
O SHA
RE
IP
High-Growth
Company Density
PS
SH
80
2007
71.3
2008
76.6
2009
67.0
2010
58.9
2011
58.7
2012
59.7
2013
76.4
2014
80.5
2015
79.3
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
33
Figure 2
700
14.0
600
Domestic IPOs
10.0
400
8.0
300
6.0
200
IPO Density
12.0
500
4.0
100
2.0
0.0
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
0.0
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations using Jay Ritters Initial Public Offerings: Foreign IPOs in the U.S., 19802015 and the BDS.
Table 2
34 |
2016
Year
Domestic IPOs
IPO Density
Year
Domestic IPOs
IPO Density
1980
70
1.9
1998
256
5.3
1981
191
5.4
1999
451
9.3
1982
76
2.1
2000
336
6.9
1983
446
12.1
2001
74
1.5
1984
170
4.4
2002
63
1.3
1985
184
4.6
2003
60
1.2
1986
392
9.6
2004
160
3.1
1987
281
6.7
2005
142
2.7
1988
100
2.4
2006
138
2.6
1989
110
2.6
2007
138
2.6
1990
107
2.5
2008
18
0.3
1991
278
6.4
2009
38
0.7
1992
393
9.0
2010
80
1.6
1993
487
10.9
2011
70
1.4
1994
386
8.5
2012
85
1.7
1995
436
9.4
2013
139
2.7
1996
646
13.8
2014
177
3.5
1997
430
9.0
2015
103
2.0
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
Table B
Rank
Industry
High-Growth Companies
Share (%)
IT Services
521
13.0%
397
9.9%
367
9.2%
Health
315
7.9%
Software
289
7.2%
Table C
Rank
Share (%)
IT Services
Industry
521
13.0%
397
9.9%
367
9.2%
Health
315
7.9%
Software
289
7.2%
Financial Services
195
4.9%
Construction
195
4.9%
Government Services
193
4.8%
188
4.7%
10
Human Resources
147
3.7%
11
Real Estate
134
3.3%
12
Retail
131
3.3%
13
123
3.1%
14
113
2.8%
15
Manufacturing
111
2.8%
16
Telecommunications
89
2.2%
17
Energy
88
2.2%
18
Security
71
1.8%
19
Engineering
63
1.6%
20
Education
58
1.4%
21
Insurance
55
1.4%
22
52
1.3%
23
Media
51
1.3%
24
Environmental Services
39
1.0%
25
Computer Hardware
23
0.6%
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
35
Figure 3
2007
14.0%
2012
2010
2015
Kauffman Foundation
13.0%
12.0%
11.0%
Industry Share
10.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
Software
Health
IT Services
Software
Health
IT Services
Health
Government Services
IT Services
Manufacturing
Construction
IT Services
0.0
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 500|5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Table 3
Top Five Industries with Highest Share of High-Growth Companies (2007, 2010, 2012, 2015)
2007
36 |
2016
2010
2012
2015
Industry
Industry
Share
Industry
Industry
Share
Industry
Industry
Share
Industry
Industry
Share
IT Services
10.4%
IT Services
12.4%
IT Services
14.1%
IT Services
13.0%
Construction
10.1%
Government Services
9.2%
8.9%
Advertising &
Marketing
9.9%
Manufacturing
8.7%
8.9%
Advertising &
Marketing
8.8%
9.2%
7.4%
Advertising &
Marketing
8.8%
Health
8.2%
Health
7.9%
Advertising &
Marketing
7.1%
Health
8.4%
Software
7.1%
Software
7.2%
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
Figure 4
15.0%
14.0%
550
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
Industry Share
600
16.0%
Kauffman Foundation
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Table 4
High-Growth Companies
Industry Share
2007
391
10.4%
2008
509
12.7%
2009
483
14.2%
2010
364
12.4%
2011
366
12.6%
2012
422
14.1%
2013
587
15.2%
2014
604
14.9%
2015
521
13.0%
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
37
Figure 5
15.0%
14.0%
550
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Table 5
38 |
2016
Year
High-Growth Companies
Industry Share
2007
267
7.1%
2008
299
7.5%
2009
286
8.4%
2010
258
8.8%
2011
262
9.0%
2012
265
8.8%
2013
372
9.6%
2014
376
9.2%
2015
397
9.9%
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
Industry Share
600
16.0%
Kauffman Foundation
Figure 6
15.0%
14.0%
550
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
Industry Share
600
16.0%
Kauffman Foundation
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
SOURCE: Authors calculations using the CPS, BDS, and BEA. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Table 6
High-Growth Companies
Industry Share
2007
280
7.4%
2008
418
10.4%
2009
304
9.0%
2010
263
8.9%
2011
265
9.1%
2012
267
8.9%
2013
326
8.4%
2014
320
7.9%
2015
367
9.2%
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
39
Figure 7
15.0%
14.0%
550
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Table 7
40 |
2016
Year
High-Growth Companies
Industry Share
2007
177
4.7%
2008
165
4.1%
2009
230
6.8%
2010
246
8.4%
2011
253
8.7%
2012
246
8.2%
2013
281
7.3%
2014
315
7.7%
2015
315
7.9%
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
Industry Share
600
16.0%
Kauffman Foundation
Figure 8
15.0%
14.0%
550
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
Industry Share
600
16.0%
Kauffman Foundation
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Table 8
High-Growth Companies
Industry Share
2007
240
6.4%
2008
239
6.0%
2009
198
5.8%
2010
194
6.6%
2011
203
7.0%
2012
213
7.1%
2013
269
7.0%
2014
297
7.3%
2015
289
7.2%
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
41
Figure 9
15.0%
14.0%
550
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
SOURCE: Authors calculations using the CPS, BDS, and BEA. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Table 9
42 |
2016
Year
High-Growth Companies
Industry Share
2007
102
2.7%
2008
122
3.0%
2009
192
5.7%
2010
272
9.2%
2011
232
8.0%
2012
193
6.4%
2013
169
4.4%
2014
184
4.5%
2015
193
4.8%
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
Industry Share
600
16.0%
Kauffman Foundation
Figure 10
650
15.0%
14.0%
550
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
Industry Share
600
16.0%
Kauffman Foundation
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Table 10
High-Growth Companies
Industry Share
2007
479
12.7%
2008
411
10.2%
2009
266
7.8%
2010
138
4.7%
2011
138
4.7%
2012
153
5.1%
2013
218
5.6%
2014
285
7.0%
2015
329
8.2%
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
43
Figure 11
15.0%
14.0%
550
13.0%
500
12.0%
450
11.0%
400
10.0%
9.0%
350
8.0%
300
7.0%
250
6.0%
200
5.0%
4.0%
150
3.0%
100
2.0%
50
1.0%
0.0
0.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations from Inc. 5000 data. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
Table 11
44 |
2016
Year
High-Growth Companies
Industry Share
2007
416
11.0%
2008
379
9.4%
2009
222
6.5%
2010
111
3.8%
2011
116
4.0%
2012
126
4.2%
2013
211
5.5%
2014
179
4.4%
2015
134
3.3%
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
Industry Share
600
16.0%
Kauffman Foundation
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
45
RAT
E
HIGH-G
RO
HIGH-G
RO
OMPA
TH C
N
W
Rate of Startup
Growth
THE
NSITY
DE
RAT
E
NSITY
DE
TH
W
O
TARTUP GR
FS
O
OMPA
TH C
N
W
TH
W
O
20 KAUFFMAN
16 INDEX
TARTUP GR
FS
O
SH
SH
46 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
HIGH-G
RO
SH
NSITY
DE
PS
E OF SCALEU
AR
OMPA
TH C
N
W
TARTUP GR
FS
O
IPO SHARE
E OF SCALEU
AR
PS
RAT
E
Share of Scaleups
TH
W
O
Methodology and
Framework
PS
growth
entrepreneurship
IPO SHARE
E OF SCALEU
AR
High-Growth
Company Density
Component A:
Rate of Startup Growth
The Rate of Startup Growth
component of the Kauffman Index of Growth
Entrepreneurship uses U.S. Census Bureau data from
the Business Dynamics Statistics to measure the average
change in employment size of all startupsdefined here
as new employer firmsfrom the year of founding to
their fifth year of operation. It captures all new U.S.
employer firms, regardless of industry. This is a yearly
estimate where startups are new employer firms that
are younger than one year old in a given year. Data for
this measure are available from 1982 to 2013, the latest
year for which information on five-year-old companies is
published.
This proxy measure examines cohorts of new
businesses, a common practice among researchers
examining business demography. Much like cohorts of
people born around the same timethink Baby Boomers
or Millennialsexhibit similar traits, businesses are
imprinted by the economic environment they enter into
| NATIONAL TRENDS
Rate of
Startup
Growth
Figure 1B
Kauffman Foundation
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
2008
(Startup)
2009
(Age 1)
2010
(Age 2)
2011
(Age 3)
2012
(Age 4)
2013
(Age 5)
Year
SOURCE: Authors calculations using the BDS. For an interactive version, please see: www.kauffmanindex.org.
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
47
Share of
Scaleups
Component C: High-Growth
Company Density
Each of the first two components
for the Growth Entrepreneurship Index
is based on U.S. Census Bureau data and has different
elements of firm age incorporated into its construction.
Our third and final component for the Growth
Entrepreneurship IndexHigh-Growth Company Density
attempts to provide data from an alternative sourcethe
Inc. 500|5000 annual list of high-growth companies
and to look at private firms more broadly, not just those
companies that are young or small.
Inc. magazine has been compiling the Inc. 500 list
every year since 1982, and some of the firms included
on the lists have grown further to become Fortune 500
companies and experience initial public offerings and/
or acquisitions. Inc. magazine added the Inc. 5000 list in
2007. To achieve wide geographic coverage of companies
from year-to-year for the Kauffman Index, we limit our
analysis to the years after the implementation of the
Inc. 5000 list.
At the higher section of the distribution, Inc. highgrowth companies have up to multi-billion-dollar revenues
6. European Union (2003): Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (Text with EEA relevance)
(notified under document number C(2003) 1422). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32003H0361.
48 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
High-Growth
Company
Density
The High-Growth Company Density has no upperbound restriction on firm age, though it does require firms
to be at least three years-old. As such, the age of highgrowth firms spans a wide range, although these firms
skew young. A plurality of high-growth companies
(31.5 percent) are aged between five and seven years old,
and 59.1 percent are ten years old and younger.
This measure is based on previous research by the
Kauffman Foundation examining the geography of
Inc. 500 companies over time (Motoyama and Danley
2012). It also is based on the entrepreneurship fluidity
measure suggested by our Kauffman Foundation
colleagues Stangler and Bell-Masterson (2015).
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
49
7. This is one of the normalization methods recommended by the OECD and the Joint Research Centre from the European Commission in the Handbook on Construction
Composite Indicators (2008).
50 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
The High-Growth Company Density has no upperbound restriction on firm age, though it does require firms
to be at least three years-old. As such, the age of highgrowth firms spans a wide range, although these firms
skew young. A plurality of high-growth companies
(31.5 percent) are aged between five and seven years old,
and 59.1 percent are ten years old and younger.
At the higher section of the distribution, Inc. highgrowth companies have up to multi-billion-dollar revenues
and growth rates of many orders of magnitude after three
years. At the lower section, the data have been filtered by
the authors to only include firms with at least 20 percent
annualized growth over three years and $2 million dollars
in annual revenue by the third year of growth. Applying a
consistent growth threshold to the list allows us to track
trends in the population of Inc. 500|5000 companies
over time. These firms come from a wide range of
industries, from high-tech to everyday retailers. Examples
of companies on the Inc. 500|5000 list have included
stereotypical high-growth tech firms, such as Facebook,
Microsoft, Oracle, Go Pro, and Zappos, as well as firms
in less top-of-mind industries, such as Dominos Pizza,
Planet Fitness, and Jamba Juice (Motoyama and Danley
2012).
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
51
code. In the case when there was a tie, we used the ratio
of business addresses, residential addresses, and other
addresses, in that order, to untie. When there was still
a tie (only five ZIP codes in the country), we picked one
county for a match. The HUD crosswalk is extensive but
not comprehensive, so we complemented it by merging
it with the with University of Missouri ZIP-to-County data
geocoder for ZIPs not included in the HUD file.9 Similarly,
when a ZIP code crossed county boundaries, we matched
it to the county with the highest population for that
ZIP code in 2010. Second, we matched Inc. 500|5000
entries that contained ZIP code location to the ZIP-toCounty combined crosswalk file we created. Most of the
companies in the data (approximately 94.4 percent of
the 45,000 companies in the dataset) had ZIP location
information that matched to a county. Third, for the
approximately 2,500 unmatched companies, we did two
rounds of geocoding using the HERE API to identify ZIP
codes for these firms. The first round used the structured
street level address and state for matching. Almost all
2,500 businesses were matched in that way, with only
forty-nine businesses remaining unmatched. The second
round of geocoding with the HERE API did a free text
search on the location data available of these companies,
and identified the location of thirty-two of the fortynine.10 Fourth, for the remaining seventeen companies,
we manually searched for their ZIP codes on their websites
and through internet searches.
9. University of Missouri Census Data Center. MABLE/Geocorr12: Geographic Correspondence Engine. http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/geocorr12.html. Accessed in
April 13, 2016.
10. For full documentation on the differences in free text versus structured geocoding on the HERE API, please see full documentation of HERE Geocoder API https://developer.
here.com/rest-apis/documentation/geocoder/topics/overview.html.
52 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
53
REFERENCES
Bhide, Amar V. 2000. The origin and evolution of new businesses. New York: Oxford University Press.
Birch, David L. and James Medoff. 1994. Gazelles. In Labor, Employment Policy, and Job Creation, edited by Lewis
C. Solmon and Alec R. Levenson, 15968. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Decker, Ryan A., John Haltiwanger, Ron S. Jarmin, and Javier Miranda. Where has all the skewness gone? The
decline in high-growth (young) firms in the US. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper
w21776.
Department of Housing. HUD USPS ZIP Code Crosswalk Files. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/usps_
crosswalk.html. Accessed in April 13, 2016.
European Union. 2003. Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and
medium-sized enterprises. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32003H0361.
Eurostat and OECD. 2007. Eurostat-OECD Manual on Business Demography Statistics.
Fairlie, Robert W, Arnobio Morelix, E.J. Reedy, and Joshua Russell. 2015. Kauffman Index of Startup Activity |
National Trends, Kansas City: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Fairlie, Robert W, Joshua Russell, Arnobio Morelix, and E.J. Reedy. 2015. Kauffman Index of Main Street
Entrepreneurship | National Trends, Kansas City: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Feld, Brad. 2011. The Silent KillersFeld Thoughts. http://www.feld.com/archives/2011/12/the-silent-killers.html.
Accessed April 21, 2016.
Feld, Brad. 2012. Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Your City. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Feld, Brad. 2013. Shifting My Focus To Scaling UpFeld Thoughts. http://www.feld.com/archives/2013/03/scalingup.html. Accessed April 21, 2016.
Guzman, Jorge, and Scott Stern. 2016. The State of American Entrepreneurship: New Estimates of the Quantity and
Quality of Entrepreneurship for 15 US States, 19882014. National Bureau of Economic Research Working
Paper w22095.
Haltiwanger, John, Ron S. Jarmin, Robert Kulick, and Javier Miranda. High Growth Young Firms: Contribution to
Job, Output, and Productivity Growth. In Measuring Entrepreneurial Businesses: Current Knowledge and
Challenges. University of Chicago Press, 2016.
HERE Geocoder API. https://developer.here.com/rest-apis/documentation/geocoder/topics/request-first-geocode.
html. Accessed in April 13, 2016.
Inc. Magazine. 2015. Inc. 500|5000 list of fastest-growing private companies in America 2007-2015. Files received
from Inc. Magazine.
Isenberg, Daniel. 2012. Focus Entrepreneurship Policy on Scale-Up, Not Start-Up. Harvard Business Review. https://
hbr.org/2012/11/focus-entrepreneurship-policy. Accessed April 21, 2016.
Jarmin, Ron S., and Javier Miranda. 2002. The Longitudinal Business Database, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census
Bureau.
Kedrosky, Paul. 2013. The Constant: Companies that Matter, Kansas City: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
54 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS
Kenney, Martin and Donald Patton. 2016. Firm Database of Emerging Growth Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) from
1990 through 2015 (Preliminary).
Kerr, William R., Ramana Nanda, and Matthew Rhodes-Kropf. 2014. Entrepreneurship as Experimentation. National
Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper w20358.
Kirchhoff, Bruce A. 1994. Entrepreneurship and dynamic capitalism: the economics of business firm formation and
growth. Westport, Conn: Praeger.
Moreira, Sara. 2015. Firm Dynamics, Persistent Effects of Entry Conditions, and Business Cycles. University of
Chicago Working Paper.
Motoyama, Yasuyuki, and Brian Danley. 2012. An Analysis of the Geography of Entrepreneurship: Understanding
the Geographic Trends of Inc. 500 Companies Over Thirty Years at the State and Metropolitan Levels,
Kansas City: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Motoyama, Yasuyuki, Brian Danley, Jordan Bell-Masterson, Kate Maxwell and Arnobio Morelix. 2013. Leveraging
Regional Assets: Insights from High-Growth Companies in Kansas City, Kansas City: Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation.
OECD and Joint Research CentreEuropean Commission. 2008. Handbook on Construction Composite Indicators.
Reedy, E. J., and R. L. Litan. 2011. Starting Smaller; Staying Smaller: Americas Slow Leak in Job Creation. Kauffman
Foundation Research Series: Firm Creation and Economic Growth, 2011, Kansas City: Ewing Marion
Kauffman Foundation.
Ritter, Jay R. 2016. Initial Public Offerings: Foreign IPOs in the U.S., 1980-2015. https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter/
files/2016/03/Initial-Public-Offerings-Foreign-IPOs-in-the-US-1980-2015-2016-03-08.pdf. Accessed April 21,
2016.
Ritter, Jay R. 2016. Initial Public Offerings: VC-backed IPO Statistics Through 2015. https://site.warrington.ufl.
edu/ritter/files/2016/02/Initial-Public-Offerings-VC-backed-IPO-Statistics-Through-2015-2016-01-06.pdf.
Accessed April 21, 2016.
Sarada and Javier Miranda. Productivity Growth. Kauffman Foundations State of the Field Site. http://www.
kauffman.org/microsites/state-of-the-field/topics/firm-and-industry-dynamics/productivity-growth. Accessed
April 21, 2016.
Siegel, Robin, Siegel, Eric, MacMillan, Ian C., 1993. Characteristics distinguishing high-growth ventures. J. Bus.
Venturing 8 (2), 169180.
Stangler, Dane. 2010. High-Growth Firms and the Future of the American Economy, Kansas City: Ewing Marion
Kauffman Foundation.
Stangler, Dane, and Jordan Bell-Masterson. 2015. Measuring an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem, Kansas City: Ewing
Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Ulukaya, Hamdi. 2013. Chobanis founder on growing a start-up without outside investors. Harvard Business
Review 91, no. 10 (2013): 4548.
University of Missouri Census Data Center. MABLE/Geocorr12: Geographic Correspondence Engine. http://mcdc.
missouri.edu/websas/geocorr12.html. Accessed in April 13, 2016.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. Business Dynamics Statistics (BDS), http://www.census.gov/ces/dataproducts/bds/
overview.html. Accessed in March 29, 2016.
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
NATIONAL TRENDS
2016
55
NOTES
56 |
2016
GROWTHENTREPRENEURSHIP
| NATIONAL TRENDS