Call for Papers

Call for short papers (pdf)

Scholars across disciplines have long recognized that the organization of economic and social activity is shaped by the geographic environments in which it unfolds. From industrial districts in Northern Italy to innovation hubs in East Asia and local markets in sub-Saharan Africa, the spatial clustering of economic activity has drawn attention for its role in enabling knowledge spillovers, supplier-producer linkages, and labor market pooling – externalities collectively referred to as the “advantages of place” (Marshall, 1920). Across diverse national contexts – whether in established urban centers, rapidly developing regions, or rural peripheries – the local embeddedness of organizations continues to influence firms and entrepreneurs.
 
Despite widespread digitization and globalization, social interaction remains deeply shaped by physical co-presence, making micro-geographic dynamics a persistent and cross-contextual phenomenon. In this second edition of the EGOS Standing Working Group (SWG) 07 on “Organizations and Place-Based Communities”, we extend the conversation by examining how microgeographic dynamics interact or contribute to institutional processes, community-based initiatives, and place-based governance structures that lay the ground for the foundations of entrepreneurship, innovation, and competition.
 
Recognizing the persistent importance of locality, a micro-geographic perspective is increasingly being applied in management research. Communities and local patterns of physical interaction that connect and influence firms can vary drastically across space, given that neither resources, the built environment, nor socio-cognitive influences are uniformly distributed across geography (e.g., Grannis, 1998; Samila & Sorenson, 2017; Cruz et al., Wezel, 2018; Small & Adler, 2019). For example, micro-geography can spark innovation by unplanned social encounters facilitated by physical proximity (Roche et al., 2024; Roche, 2020; Sorenson, 2023), it can influence market competition by localized mental models (Dupin & Wezel, 2023; Porac et al., 1995), or shape entrepreneurial activity through infrastructure, such as streets and sidewalks (Audretsch et al., 2015; Dutta et al., 2022). Likewise, localized institutions and collective action can shape which types of firms emerge in an area or are rejected (Aversa et al., 2022; Brandtner, 2022). Micro-geography bridges social, institutional and cognitive mechanisms, providing critical insights into the foundations of how individuals come together to cooperate and compete, find new organizational solutions, and discard institutional constraints.
 
Yet, the range of research across different research streams of entrepreneurship, innovation and competition has hampered a thorough understanding of the underlying mechanisms, especially those of a spatial nature. For example, local actors’ social and cognitive convergence/divergence seem to have varying effects. On one hand, local innovation and entrepreneurship benefit from social and cognitive spatial diversity (Sorenson, 2023). On the other hand, local identities and competition are influenced by social and cognitive spatial conformity (Romanelli & Khessina, 2005). Empirically, the frontier of spatial analyses is expanding with diverse data sources that usher in exciting methodological opportunities as well as challenges pertaining to causal inference. Rich qualitative work is increasingly needed to get closer to understanding how micro-geography is experienced and interpreted, particularly in understanding how spatial inequalities shape entrepreneurial opportunities and outcomes across different socioeconomic contexts.
 
This sub-theme will pursue three topics of conversation:
 

1. Localized institutions, identities, and competitive dynamics. Local places often develop distinct organizational identities and institutional environments that influence how competition unfolds (Romanelli & Khessina, 2005; Jones & Svejenova, 2017; Dacin et al., 2024). Relatedly, a growing literature points to the socio-cognitive roots that shape market competition via localized shared mental models that impact and shape notions of competition (Li & Khessina, 2023; Dupin & Wezel, 2023). Geography can influence the “cognitive infrastructure” of markets, influencing competitive sensemaking, resources acquisitions, and social evaluations. In addition, localized institutions, such as industry associations or municipalities, can reinforce shared understandings of competition and norms (benefiting incumbents), or conversely can introduce new rules or regulations (encouraging new entrants). We invite scholars to submit work that examines how localized institutions and identities shape competitive dynamics.
2. Community-based entrepreneurship and local collective action. Entrepreneurship has roots in community and place. The social composition of geographic spaces has long been acknowledged as sources of ideas, resources, and routines of creating new ventures (e.g., Saxenian, 1996; Lippmann & Aldrich, 2016; Sorenson, 2017). Across contexts, social processes of homophily and preferential sorting – by ethnicity, class, education, or worldview – often lead to spatial clustering of similar groups (Schelling, 1978), whether organically or as a legacy of state or institutional interventions (Rothstein, 2017). In both Global North and South settings, this can create an entrepreneurial dilemma: in socially homogeneous communities, entrepreneurs benefit from trust and shared understandings from local ties, but they may lack exposure to novel ideas and perspectives allowing them to engage in more innovative entrepreneurship (Dutta, 2017; Samila & Sorenson, 2017). Beyond variation in diversity, communities can also differ in their civic fabric – the presence of neighborhood associations, grassroots movements, cooperatives and other forms of collective agency. Collective action can critically shape entrepreneurial outcomes: for example, strong community networks can incubate and legitimize new businesses (Baum & Oliver, 1992), or residents might repel certain kinds of entrepreneurship to an area. We encourage submissions that speak to this enduring debate with insights from new kinds of data or exploring the impact of alternative forms of spatial diversity and integration on entrepreneurship
3. Place-based innovation and infrastructure. Innovative ideas and collaborations are catalyzed by the conditions under which people meet and interact. An emerging body of work examines how concrete features of physical and social environments shape interpersonal interactions and, consequently, innovative outcomes (Roche, 2020; Roche et al., 2024; Marinoni & Roche, 2025). Innovation often hinges on the diffusion and recombination of tacit and complex knowledge, processes that are facilitated by face-to-face interactions (Gaspar & Glaeser, 1998). As knowledge production increasingly relies on collaborative teams (Wuchty et al., 2007), it becomes critical to understand how physical and social structures facilitate or constrain such collaboration. Existing research highlights the localized nature of information flows (Arzaghi & Henderson, 2008) and the importance of physical proximity, with impacts observable over distances as short as a few hundred meters (Catalini, 2018). Social proximity and prior ties further influence knowledge exchange and peer effects (Granovetter, 1973; Hasan & Koning, 2019). Research exploring how marginalized communities navigate or reconfigure spatial and institutional boundaries is crucial to understanding the full landscape of innovation. We invite scholars to submit work that pays attention to the intersection of interactions, innovation, infrastructure and physical space.

 
To this aim, we invite submissions from scholars with different theoretical backgrounds and methodological approaches – including organizational theory, economic geography, innovation, sociology of communities, urban studies, and beyond. Questions that may be addressed include, but are not limited to, the following:

• What is the role of unplanned social encounters facilitated by spatial proximity, in fostering innovation, entrepreneurship and creativity?

• Under what conditions does local collective action amplify the capacity of an area to attract investment and spur innovation?

• What types of infrastructure and built environments are most conducive to fostering diverse entrepreneurial ecosystems?

• How can organizations strategically leverage their geographic positioning and local identity to affect audiences’ perceptions, mobilize community support, or gain competitive advantage?

• How do different forms of geographic data (e.g., mobility data, street-level images, ethnographic mapping of communities) provide new insights into the relationship between place and organizations?

• How do infrastructure constraints and spatial inequalities impact entrepreneurship and innovation in low- and middle-income countries?

• How do informal institutions or traditional knowledge systems interact with modern spatial organizing principles in emerging economies?

• How do firms or communities navigate the tension between local identity preservation and openness to global flows of knowledge?

References

• Arzaghi, M., & Henderson, J.V. (2008): “Networking off Madison Avenue.” The Review of Economic Studies, 75 (4), 1011–1038.
• Audretsch, D.B., Heger, D., & Veith, T. (2015): “Infrastructure and entrepreneurship.” Small Business Economics, 44 (2), 219–230.
• Aversa, P., Bianchi, E., Gaio, L., & Nucciarelli, A. (2022): “The grand tour: The role of catalyzing places for industry emergence.” Academy of Management Journal, 65 (6), 2058–2091.
• Baum, J.A.C., & Oliver, C. (1992): “Institutional embeddedness and the dynamics of organizational populations.” American Sociological Review, 57 (4) 540–559.
• Brandtner, C. (2022): “Green American City: Civic Capacity and the Distributed Adoption of Urban Innovations.” American Journal of Sociology, 128 (3), 627–679.
• Catalini, C. (2018): “Microgeography and the Direction of Inventive Activity.” Management Science, 64 (9), 4348–4364.
• Cattani, G., Porac, J.F., & Thomas, H. (2017): “Categories and competition.” Strategic Management Journal, 38 (1), 64–92.
• Cruz, M., Beck, N., & Wezel, F.C. (2018): “Grown Local: Community Attachment and Market Entries in the Franconian Beer Industry.” Organization Studies, 39 (1), 47–72.
• Dacin, M.T., Zilber, T.B., Cartel, M., & Kibler, E. (2024): “Navigating Place: Extending perspectives on place in organization studies.” Organization Studies, 45 (8), 1191–1212.
• Dupin, L., & Wezel, F.C. (2023): “Artisanal or Just Half-Baked: Competing Collective Identities and Location Choice Among French Bakeries.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 68 (3), 867–909.
• Dutta, S. (2017): “Creating in the Crucibles of Nature’s Fury: Associational Diversity and Local Social Entrepreneurship after Natural Disasters in California, 1991–2010.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 62 (3), 443–483.
• Dutta, S., Armanios, D.E., & Desai, J.D. (2022): “Beyond Spatial Proximity: The Impact of Enhanced Spatial Connectedness from New Bridges on Entrepreneurship.” Organization Science, 33 (4), 1620–1644.
• Gaspar, J., & Glaeser, E.L. (1998): “Information Technology and the Future of Cities.” Journal of Urban Economics, 43 (1), 136–156.
• Grannis, R. (1998): “The Importance of Trivial Streets: Residential Streets and Residential Segregation.” American Journal of Sociology, 103 (6), 1530–1564.
• Granovetter, M.S. (1973): “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–1380.
• Hasan, S., & Koning, R. (2019): “Prior ties and the limits of peer effects on startup team performance.” Strategic Management Journal, 40 (9), 1394–1416.
• Jones, C., & Svejenova, S. (2017): “The Architecture of City Identities: A Multimodal Study of Barcelona and Boston.” In: M.A. Höllerer, T. Daudigeos, & D. Jancsary (eds.): Multimodality, Meaning, and Institutions. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, 227–258.
• Li, Y., & Khessina, O.M. (2024): “Before birth: How provisional spaces shape the localized emergence of new organizational forms.” Academy of Management Journal, 67 (2), 494–525.
• Lippmann, S., & Aldrich, H.E. (2016): “A Rolling Stone Gathers Momentum: Generational Units, Collective Memory, and Entrepreneurship.” Academy of Management Review, 41 (4), 658–675.
• Marinoni, A., & Roche, M.P. (2025): “You’ve Got Mail! The Late 19th-Century U.S. Postal Service Expansion, Firm Creation, and Firm Performance.” Management Science (forthcoming), first published online on January 15, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.03369.
• Marshall, A. (1920): Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.
• Porac, J.F., Thomas, H., Wilson, F., Paton, D., & Kanfer, A. (1995): “Rivalry and the Industry Model of Scottish Knitwear Producers.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (2), 203–227.
• Roche, M.P. (2020): “Taking Innovation to the Streets: Microgeography, Physical Structure, and Innovation.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 102 (5), 912–928.
• Roche, M.P., Oettl, A., & Catalini, C. (2024): “Proximate (Co-)Working: Knowledge Spillovers and Social Interactions.” Management Science, 70 (12), 8245–8264.
• Romanelli, E., & Khessina, O.M. (2005): “Regional Industrial Identity: Cluster Configurations and Economic Development.” Organization Science, 16 (4), 344–358.
• Samila, S., & Sorenson, O. (2017): “Community and Captial in Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth.” American Sociological Review, 84 (4), 770–795.
• Saxenian, A. (1996): Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Schelling, T.C. (1978): Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
• Small, M.L., & Adler, L. (2019): “The Role of Space in the Formation of Social Ties.” Annual Review of Sociology, 45 (1), 111–132.
• Sorenson, O. (2017): “Regional ecologies of entrepreneurship.” Journal of Economic Geography, 17 (5), 959–974.
• Sorenson, O. (2023): “Does diversity influence innovation and economic growth? It depends on spatial scale.” Research in Organizational Behavior, 43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2023.100190.
• Wuchty, S., Jones, B.F., & Uzzi, B. (2007): “The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge.” Science, 316 (5827), 1036–1039.
•