do cities substitute for internal firm resources? a study of advanced internet technology adoption...
TRANSCRIPT
Do Cities Substitute for Internal Firm Resources? A Study of Advanced Internet Technology Adoption
Chris Forman
Avi Goldfarb
Shane Greenstein
Location, Firm Resources, and Internet Investment Location
Are the costs of Internet investment lower in large cities? Firm Resources
How do resources available through internal channels shape adoption of frontier IT?
Substitution between cities and internal firm resources How do internal and external channels substitute for one
another in reducing the costs of adopting frontier IT?
Broad Overview
Examine how internal and external channels shape the adoption of new IT Examine how external channels shape Internet
adoption Examine how local establishment capabilities and
mobile firm capabilities shape adoption Measure the extent of substitution between
External and internal channels Local and mobile firm channels
Why care?
Contributes to understanding the factors that nurture technological development and their mobility
Further builds on our research program to alter the conversation about the Digital Divide How does the affect of location on Internet use
vary across economic units?
Bottom line
External resources found in cities play a significant role in decreasing the adaptation costs of complex Internet technology
Internal channels also play a role This is true for both establishment capabilities and mobile
firm capabilities Internal and external channels substitute for one
another in lowering the costs of adopting frontier Internet
Moreover, establishment capabilities and firm capabilities are substitutes
Implications
Large companies in major cities are the biggest adopters of all. Single establishment companies in isolated locations do worst of all. If these types of investments matter for competitive survival, then
the single establishments in isolated locations are at a disadvantage
Establishments from major companies in isolated locations do better than those not from major companies, but not as well as single-establishment companies located in cities A major company can be in an isolated location and draw on
resources from its other locations, but that will mostly, not fully, makes up for poor locations
Large single establishment companies in isolated locations do better than small single-establishment companies in large locations Organizational capabilities are only partially mobile
Local Supply Conditions for IT Projects
IT Projects atEstablishment 2
Other projects atEstablishment 1
IT Project at Establishment 1
Physical infrastructureLabor poolingConsultant availabilityKnowledge Spillovers
Shared human capitalShared physical capitalEconomies of Scale and ScopeLearning economiesKnowledge Spillovers
Shared human capitalShared physical capitalEconomies of Scale and ScopeLearning economiesKnowledge Spillovers
How Internal and External Channels Influence Diffusion
Location and Internet Adoption We examine adoption of Internet technologies that
involve within-firm communication and where benefits of adopting do not depend on location We label these technologies within-establishment Internet
(WEI) As a result, we expect urban leadership to hold:
adoption costs decrease as population size and density increase Our results are robust to other measures of Internet
investment
Hypotheses: Internal Capabilities and Adoption H1A: Firms with greater organizational
capabilities will be more likely to adopt Internet technology at any of their establishments
H2A: Establishments with greater establishment capabilities will be more likely to adopt Internet technology
Hypotheses: Interactions
H1B: The sensitivity of Internet adoption to increases in location size will be declining in the internal organizational capabilities found in other establishments within the same firm.
H2B: The sensitivity of Internet adoption to increases in location size will be declining in the internal establishment capabilities.
H3: Establishment Capability and Organizational Capability are substitutes
Understanding the hypotheses
Ado
ptio
n R
ate
Organizational Capability Establishment Capability
Establishment in urban area
Establishment in rural area
Data
Survey of 86,879 business establishments in the US with 100+ employees in 3Q-4Q,2000 Only private, non-farm Approx half of all such establishments in US Two-thirds of US labor force work in such
establishments Detailed information about IT capabilities.
Data Endogenous Variables
Within-Establishment Internet Involves Internet protocols in the input and output of data to
and from business applications software. E.g. ERP, CRM. Robustness:
CEI adoption, Internet language use, PC server adoption
Exogenous Variables Capabilities
# Programmers Factor analysis of programmers, employees, software
City dummy (MSA population >500,000) Controls for industry (NAICS dummies), multi-
establishment firm, establishment employment
Econometric Methodology
Probit model of Internet adoption At the level of the establishment Interpret as “Net benefit” to an establishment of
Internet adoption Weight by 1999 County Business Patterns
Generally already representative of industry/location of US business establishments, so weighting not too important to the results.
Econometric Assumptions Location is predetermined (exogenous to
technology adoption) Decisions are made at the establishment
level. Capabilities are exogenous to the adoption
decision. Robustness checks examine these
assumptions
Main Results
Present results using number of programmers, results using composite measure of capabilities are qualitatively similar
Direct Effects: all results are statistically and economically significant (average adoption rate 11.9%) Establishments located in cities are 1.3% more likely to
adopt (urban leadership) One SD increase in log of establishment programmers
increases likelihood of adoption by 3.6% One SD increase in log of organization programmers
increases likelihood of adoption by 0.45%
Main Results
Interaction Effects: All results are statistically and economically significant One SD increase in log of establishment programmers decreases the likelihood of adoption by 1.1% for establishments located in cities
One SD increase in log of organization programmers decreases the likelihood of adoption by 0.9% for establishments located in cities
While establishment programmers have a much stronger direct effect on adoption, substitution between cities and internal capabilities is similar at establishment and organization level
Table 2: Main ResultsDirect Effect Only Direct Effect and
Interaction Effect
CapabilityDefined byProgrammers
Capability Defined byFactors
Capability Defined by Programmers
Capability Defined by Factors
OC 0.0021** 0.0062 ** 0.0054 ** 0.0118 **
EC 0.0361** 0.0303 ** 0.0457 ** 0.0550 **
OC * City -0.0038 ** -0.0069 *
EC* City -0.0108 ** -0.0266 **
City 0.0129 ** 0.0180 ** 0.0256 ** 0.0188 **
Multiestablishment Firm Dummy
0.0154 ** 0.0217 ** 0.0149 ** 0.0213 **
Log(Establishment Employment)
0.0313 ** 0.0309 **
Observations 86871 86871 86871 86871
LL -24550.40 -25914.41 -24528.56 -25861.03
Table 3: Predictions Using Organizational Capabilities
Low Organization Capability
Medium Organization Capability
High Organization Capability
Low density location
13.44% 15.00% 17.23%
High density location
18.44% 18.97% 19.69%
Table 3: Predictions Using Establishment Capabilities
Low Establishment Capability
Medium Establishment Capability
High Establish Capability
Low density location
13.44% 17.55% 27.87%
High density location
18.44% 22.17% 30.76%
Substitution between establishment and organization capabilities There is significant substitution between
establishment and organization capabilities No matter how we measure them, the
interaction of establishment and organization capabilities is negative and significant
A one SD increase in the log of organization programmers will decrease the marginal effect of establishment capabilities by 0.42%
Table 5: Are Establishment Capabilities and Organizational Capabilities Substitutes?
Capability Defined by Programmers
Capability Defined by Factors
OC 0.0069** 0.0089** 0.0111** 0.0144**
EC 0.0446** 0.0527** 0.0335** 0.0566**
OC*EC -0.0033** -0.0036** -0.0066** -0.0084**
OC*City -0.0026* -0.0042
EC*City -0.0098** -0.0251**
OC*EC*City 0.0005 0.0023
City 0.0174** 0.0184** 0.0091** 0.0198**
Multiestablishment Firm Dummy 0.0197** 0.0194** 0.0096** 0.0095**
Log(Establishment Employment) 0.0351** 0.0347**
Observations 86871 86871 86872 86872
LL -25823.42 -25778.86 -25199.06 -25185.64
Robustness
Results are not isolated in any particular industry
Results are robust to Instruments for EC, OC, EC*City, and OC*City Subset of establishments that explicitly claim in
the survey that they conduct the adoption decision Different city definitions Different adoption measures Controls for competition
Conclusions
External resources found in cities decrease the costs of technology adoption
Internal resources decrease the costs of technology adoption. IT capabilities are mobile within firms.
These resources substitute for each other Therefore, complementary resources found in cities
will be most important for single-establishment firms that do not have such internal resources Implication is that geographic digital divide in business
Internet use, where it exists, will be most apparent in small firms