New evidence in the pursuit of locating new businesses

Abstract Finding good, generalizable samples has long been an Achilles heel for those interested in entrepreneurship-related phenomena. Practitioners, policy makers, and researchers frequently desire to take the pulse of entrepreneurial activity but struggle in doing so. For example, Friedman (1995) reported that California overestimated job loss by 2.4 times because of failure to account for newer, more robust firms. With the goal of being able to better identify new businesses, this research addresses the following questions: (1) Which sample sources best identify new businesses? (2) Are the characteristics of a sample drawn from one source similar to those drawn from a different source? (3) How accurate are the different sample sources in the information they report? and (4) How practical and cost effective are the different sample sources? We pursued answers to these questions by examining the state sales tax file and comparing it with the previously examined sources of the state unemployment insurance file (ES202) and Dun & Bradstreet's Dun's Market Indicator file (DMI) (Birley 1984; Aldrich et al. 1989). The phonebook was also used to examine its overlap with the three primary sources. In making these comparisons, we evaluate generalizability issues, accuracy of founding date, cost, practicality, and other auxiliary information. Sales Tax File Our findings suggest that the sales tax file is a rich source for identifying generalizable samples. The accuracy of the founding data was correct over 70% of the time, and it appears to identify businesses very early in the start-up phase. The data also are available in machine readable format, give some helpful auxiliary information, and the cost of obtaining the file was negligible. Another advantage of the sales tax file is its ability to identify new businesses that do not have visible on-street locations. Thus, the sales tax file appears to be a very credible source for identifying firms early in the start-up process. ES202 File, DMI File, and Phone Book Our study affirms earlier studies that found major limitations with both the ES202 and DMI files. More specifically, this study found that both sources have substantial limitations in identifying new start-up firms, and they both appear to be slow in removing firms from their records once they have moved or gone out of business. As for the phonebook, as it is only issued annually, it takes some time for new businesses to be listed in the directory. Furthermore, because so many of the new businesses identified by the sales tax file initially operate out of the entrepreneur's home (58% in our survey sample), the enumeration/phonebook method would miss many new businesses unless they had a business phone listing and a business sign on their residential property. Thus, we do not consider the enumeration/phonebook method to be very practical, nor the best method for identifying new firms. In sum, these findings give renewed hope in locating generalizable samples of new businesses. Although the sales tax file is not a perfect source, it represents a very attractive alternative for those interested in identifying entrepreneurial firms early in the start-up phase. These findings should assist practitioners, policy makers, and researchers in making better sample selections, which should lead to more accurate indicators of new business start-ups, fewer sample biases, and ultimately, to a better understanding of the determinants of new venture failure and success.