MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W144608250

The Role of Returnee-Entrepreneurs in Cluster Emergence: The Case of Shanghai’s Semiconductor-Design Industry

2012· article· en· W144608250 on OpenAlexaff
Elena Obukhova

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationCompetition (biology)Cluster (spacecraft)Economic geographyBusinessSemiconductor industryEmerging marketsIndigenousBusiness clusterIndustrial organizationEconomicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While industry clusters are an important part of the global economy, our understanding of the factors that lead to their emergence is still lacking. A recent stream of research suggests that returnee-entrepreneurs can dramatically accelerate the emergence of high-tech clusters in developing economies (Hsu 1997; Saxenian and Hsu 2001; Saxenian 2002, 2006). But that is only one factor important to cluster emergence; this stream of research has not examined how another factor — competition with MNCs — might alter the effects returnee-entrepreneurs have on cluster emergence. To fill this literature gap, I focus on the competition for experienced engineers between returnee firms and MNCs in one newly emergent cluster. Drawing on 50 interviews in Shanghai’s semiconductor-design industry, I found that returnee-entrepreneurs played an important role in stimulating cluster emergence by transferring knowledge to local engineers. I also discovered that, as the cluster develops, the en masse entry of MNCs increases competition for experienced engineers at the expense of returnee firms. The results of this study have important implications for our understanding of high-tech cluster emergence and of the role of returnee firms in fostering indigenous firms’ technological upgrading.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207