“ To put this more simply: opening a Starbucks in a neighborhood creates start-ups in that neighborhood. And that’s because Starbucks acts as a third place, creating opportunities for felicitous connection and fruitful cooperation. After all, if you want to meet and talk about a business idea, but you don’t have an office yet, where do y…
“ To put this more simply: opening a Starbucks in a neighborhood creates start-ups in that neighborhood. And that’s because Starbucks acts as a third place, creating opportunities for felicitous connection and fruitful cooperation. After all, if you want to meet and talk about a business idea, but you don’t have an office yet, where do you go?”
“ Importantly, when Starbucks enters neighborhoods with existing coffee shops, there is no significant effect on entrepreneurship, suggesting the impact is specific to areas with few such “third place” institutions. The effect also decreases quickly with distance from the Starbucks location, implying a localized network mechanism”
Are you sure we’re not just measuring a signpost of an area that was poised for takeoff?
I think in part the fact that rejected Starbucks openings are factored in as a control that this is partially counted into the measurement. Additionally, it appears that startup density per year increases with time since the space opens, which indicates that it is partially a causal, or at least time-correlated factor.
A logical counter explanation, to your point, would be that geographic locations sponsoring the opening of a Starbucks may also be making a general investment in local businesses, and as a result we see startup density in general increase.
“ A logical counter explanation, to your point, would be that geographic locations sponsoring the opening of a Starbucks may also be making a general investment in local businesses, and as a result we see startup density in general increase.”
Yes, and you also need to explore whether rejected Starbucks openings are really random and whether those neighborhoods are in fact good controls.
“ To put this more simply: opening a Starbucks in a neighborhood creates start-ups in that neighborhood. And that’s because Starbucks acts as a third place, creating opportunities for felicitous connection and fruitful cooperation. After all, if you want to meet and talk about a business idea, but you don’t have an office yet, where do you go?”
“ Importantly, when Starbucks enters neighborhoods with existing coffee shops, there is no significant effect on entrepreneurship, suggesting the impact is specific to areas with few such “third place” institutions. The effect also decreases quickly with distance from the Starbucks location, implying a localized network mechanism”
Are you sure we’re not just measuring a signpost of an area that was poised for takeoff?
I think in part the fact that rejected Starbucks openings are factored in as a control that this is partially counted into the measurement. Additionally, it appears that startup density per year increases with time since the space opens, which indicates that it is partially a causal, or at least time-correlated factor.
A logical counter explanation, to your point, would be that geographic locations sponsoring the opening of a Starbucks may also be making a general investment in local businesses, and as a result we see startup density in general increase.
“ A logical counter explanation, to your point, would be that geographic locations sponsoring the opening of a Starbucks may also be making a general investment in local businesses, and as a result we see startup density in general increase.”
Yes, and you also need to explore whether rejected Starbucks openings are really random and whether those neighborhoods are in fact good controls.