Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Technological Forecasting & Social Change journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore Austin, Boston, Silicon Valley, and New York: Case studies in the location choices of entrepreneurs in maintaining the Technopolis ☆ Bryan Stephens a, ⁎ , John Sibley Butler b , Rajiv Garg b , David V. Gibson c a Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, United States of America b McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, United States of America c IC 2 Institute, The University of Texas at Austin ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Entrepreneurship Regional advantage Social networks Geography High tech ABSTRACT This study uses institutional theory and the “Technopolis” wheel to investigate the movement of technology entrepreneurs and why they “stick” to well-established entrepreneurial ecosystems in Silicon Valley, Austin, Boston, and New York City. We detail the historical development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem in each location, with a particular focus on the institutions and support structures that link and sustain key resources that are central to technology clusters. We operationalize key segments of the Technopolis wheel including (1) networks and connectedness, (2) investment capital, and (3) innovation and R&D. The empirical analysis spe- cifies models testing for location-specific variation in the influence of these factors on entrepreneur location choice. We supplement this with analysis of interview data from 45 technology entrepreneurs with direct ex- perience in these locations. We find that higher degrees of connectedness in Austin and Silicon Valley are an important factor in retaining potential entrepreneurs and several institutions were linked to facilitating tie formation and accessing key resources within the Technopolis. We also find that the frequency of funding op- portunities positively influences entrepreneurs moving to Austin, Boston, and Silicon Valley to immediately start a company. In Boston, we find a positive association between patents and staying in Boston to launch a startup and we find that older entrepreneurs living in New York and Silicon Valley are less likely to remain and start a company. 1. Introduction The literature on regional advantage offers several explanations for why particular regions have prospered. The relationship between creative environments and creative regions can be traced to the analysis of regional clustering of firms (Marshall, 1920; Porter, 1990) and the innovation-centered business clusters (Dorfman, 1983; Feldman, 2000; Hellmann, 2000; Kenney and Burg, 1999; Saxenian, 1994; Steiner, 1998). Regional advantage stems from the geographic concentration of innovative industries that constantly yield spin-offs that refuel the hub. Geographically concentrated business clusters offer several advantages to new ventures. Clusters often specialize in a particular industry or technology and in turn attract key suppliers and labor talent to the area (Sorenson and Audia, 2000). This provides new firms with lower cost access to material and human resources, providing competitive ad- vantages that stem from economies of scale, reduction of transaction costs, and capturing spillover demand (Krugman and Obstfeld, 1997; Porter, 1990). Research on high technology regions increasingly uses institutional theory as a guiding framework to help to explain entrepreneurial suc- cess (Foss and Gibson, 2015). Institutional theory is concerned with the resilient, lasting aspects of social structure (Blau, 1955; Merton, 1940; Parsons, 1956). The institutionalist view recognizes these clusters de- velop robust networks of institutional support corresponding to the cluster's industry focus. In an important conceptual work, Smilor et al. (1989) developed the framework of the Technopolis wheel (see Fig. 1), which outlined the importance of institutions in the academic, business, and government sectors and explained how institutional alliances could drive strategy and tactics for technology-based economic development (Gibson and Rogers, 1994). Building on this foundation, the purpose of this paper is to leverage institutional theory and the Technopolis Wheel to empirically https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.030 Received 31 March 2018; Received in revised form 24 May 2019; Accepted 28 May 2019 ☆ This article belongs to the special section on Global Shifts in Technological Power. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: bryan.stephens@duke.edu (B. Stephens), john.butler@mccombs.utexas.edu (J.S. Butler), rajiv.garg@mccombs.utexas.edu (R. Garg), davidg@ic2.utexas.edu (D.V. Gibson). Technological Forecasting & Social Change 146 (2019) 267–280 0040-1625/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. T