Spatial familiness and family spatialities—searching for fertile ground between family business and regional studies

Basco, Rodrigo; Suwala, Lech Book Part — Published Version Spatial familiness and family spatialities—searching for fertile ground between family business and regional studies Suggested Citation: Basco, Rodrigo; Suwala, Lech (2021) : Spatial familiness and family spatialities —searching for fertile ground between family business and regional studies, In: Basco, Rodrigo Stough, Roger Suwala, Lech (Ed.): Family Business and Regional Development, ISBN 9780429058097, Routledge, London, pp. 7-32, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058097-3 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/232281 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/de/ 1 Spatial familiness and family spatialities—searching for fertile ground between family business and regional studies Rodrigo Basco and Lech Suwala Introduction Although family business and regional studies remained unconnected until a few years ago, key thinkers in both felds reminded us early on about the value added by considering space in family frms and the embeddedness of families and their frms in territories. Indeed, just in the second issue of Family Business Review in 1988, referring to family frms and community culture, Joseph Astrachan emphasised that space can act as an integrative factor in the family frm’s success: ‘Family businesses acquired in a manner that is at odds with the local culture will suffer, while frms that are acquired and managed in harmony with the local culture will have a higher level of morale and long-run productivity’ (Astrachan, 1988, 165). Walther Isard (considered the father of regional science) formulated thoughts on future directions for the discipline by saying that a general theory of human society (as a response to Masahisa Fujita) should consider family, social group, and political decision-making and policy formulation. The optimization type of decision-making involving the family as a basic social organization and the behavior of political groups (parties) [,] which I explored in my General Theory: Social, Political, Economic and Regional (1969) from an economist’s standpoint would need to be extended greatly to be made much more realistic. (Isard, 1999, 388) Family frms are the most common form of organisation around the world, existing in different sizes, sectors, and locations (Basco & Bartkevičiūtė, 2016). Regardless of whether they were investigating gigantic multinational conglomerates in North America, the Middle East, and far-East Asia; small and medium Mittelstand family frms in Germany; or the vast number of family-based micro-businesses in Africa, researchers have observed that family frms (as legal, social, and economic entities) are characterised by family involvement in ownership, governance, and management, which in turn affects frm behaviour and performance (Basco, 2013). In the last 8 Rodrigo Basco and Lech Suwala few decades, research in family business studies has extended beyond the aforementioned classical internal variables and has begun considering external and/or surrounding variables (Discua Cruz & Basco, 2018; GomezMejia, Basco, Müller, & Gonzalez, 2020; James et al., 2020; Krueger, Bogers, Labaki, & Basco, 2020). For instance, context plays an important role when understanding the idiosyncrasies of family frms, including their economic positions (Steier, Chua, & Chrisman, 2009), the cultural imprints of society (Astrachan, 1988), their embeddedness in wider social networks (Le Breton-Miller & Miller, 2009), and their integration into institutional and political frameworks (Berrone, Cruz, Gomez-Mejia, & Larraza-Kintana, 2010). Although every economic entity is somehow situated or embedded in different contexts (Granovetter, 1985) and those different contexts (e.g., organisational, cultural, social, institutional) have been analysed by family business scholars in a variety of ways, the spatiality aspect of context has received little academic attention in this realm (with some exceptions, such as Seaman, 2012, 2013, 2015; Basco, 2015; Stough et al., 2015; Basco, Stough, & Suwala, 2020; Basco & Suwala, 2020). On the other hand, in regional studies (including regional science, urban and regional economics, economic geography, urban and regional planning and management, etc.), research on frms has experienced a renaissance in the last 25 years (e.g., Dicken & Malmberg, 2001; Taylor & Asheim, 2001; Taylor & Oinas, 2006). The origins of this interest can be traced back to Robert B. McNee’s (1958) seminal contribution ‘Functional Geography of the Firm’. The following years were characterised by studies on the increasingly global geography of large interand multinational conglomerates (e.g., in the petroleum industry) (Krumme, 1969; Taylor, 1975; Dicken, 1976). The crisis of the Fordist formation in the 1970s and 1980s brought research on frms and regional decline to the fore (Hayter & Watts, 1983; Laulajainen & Stafford, 1984; Malecki, 1985), while paving the way for the resurgence and re-examination of small and medium enterprises in (mature) industrial districts of the Third Italy (Becattini, 1978). Later, frms were seen as a forge of innovation situated in new industrial spaces and technology parks with an accompanied interest in regional entrepreneurship and a new wave of high-tech activities. In this vein, scholars from regional studies also focused on specifc types of frms (e.g., new-born, small, medium, large, and foreign frms) when dismantling the role they play in regional and economic development (Scott, 1986; Giaoutzi, Nijkamp, & Storey, 1988; Sternberg, 1989; Fritsch, 1992). Then, the network paradigm took over, which dealt with the increased complexities of horizontal and vertical (dis)integration and the rise of digital frms (Yeung, 2000; Taylor & Oinas, 2006). However, the phenomenon of family frms has not been seriously considered by regional study scholars, who have mainly observed the family (business) as a supporting condition of spatial contexts with no systematic approach until recently (Stough et al., 2015; Suwala, 2019). Considering the aforementioned evolution in each feld of research, this chapter takes different theoretical perspectives and searches for a common Spatial familiness 9 fertile conceptual ground between family frm and regional studies. To address this aim, we frst provide an overview of studies from the former, dealing with spatial entities, as well as investigations from the latter, dealing with family business issues. Second, we present two conceptual models— the spatial family management model (Suwala & Oinas, 2012; Suwala, 2019) from regional studies and the regional familiness model (Basco, 2015) from family business studies—which are the seedbeds for that fertile ground between both disciplines. Finally, we juxtapose both felds according to different types of spatial entities. Searching for fertile ground between family business studies and regional studies Family business scholars dealing with spatial entities Even though mainstream research in the feld has focused on the internal aspects of the family-business relationship, family business studies explored topics related to space (context) relatively early in the discipline’s formation. For instance, early studies tried to invoke location or spatial distribution as a determining factor when defning family frms. Westhead and Cowling (1998), in a bivariate analysis, found that family frms are over-represented in rural locations and under-represented in resource-rich core regions in the United Kingdom (Westhead & Cowling, 1998, 54). Probably, the frst attempt to deal with spatial entities, or more precisely spatial factors, was Kahn and Henderson’s (1992) work investigating family frms and locational factors. The general idea underlying this study is that family frms have to balance both the family and business perspectives in strategic decision-making, such as when choosing their location (see also Hollander & Elman, 1988). In a sample comparing family frms and nonfamily frms, Kahn and Henderson (1992) found only mixed support for the assumption that family frms prefer soft locational factors (e.g., quality of life and amenities, among others) in relation to non-family frms, highlighting the importance of rational hard locational factors in frms’ decision-making (e.g., proximity to markets and facility costs among others). However, they found that family frms are more concerned with spatial proximity to their residence than non-family frms (Kahn & Henderson, 1992). In general, family ownership seems to affect business decisions; whether this infuence is adverse or benefcial will require further investigation (Scranton, 1993; Getz & Petersen, 2004; Ingstrup, Jensen, & Lüthje, 2016). Today, this research stream mostly investigates locational factors for family businesses in specifc countries (e.g., Heinemann et al., 2019). Apart from family frms’ locational preferences, some studies have focused on the spatial structure and distribution of family frms and their impact on local and regional economies (Pérez & Raposo, 2007; Spiegel & Block, 2011; Scholes, Wilson, Wright, & Noke, 2012). Exploring West Germany at the district level (NUTS-3), Spiegel and Block (2011) emphasised that family 10 Rodrigo Basco and Lech Suwala frms tend to be located in rural areas in proximity to regional metropoles. They found that North Rhine-Westphalia and Baden-Württemberg (two economic powerhouses in Germany) have the highest densities of family frms, confrming the assumption that they are located in economically strong regions (Spiegel & Block, 2011). Taking the spatial distribution of 245 large Spanish family frms into account, Pérez and Raposo (2007) confrmed the hypothesis that family frms are located in the most important economic centres (traditional industrial areas) with headquarters in Catalonia, Madrid, Aragon, the Basque Country, and Valencia. The third and probably most popular research stream up to today focuses on family frms’ internationalisation, which could be considered a spatial processes. Starting with Gallo and Sveen’s (1991) seminal study on factors hindering and favouring this process, the topic of internationalisation has become popular among family business scholars. Most studies have focused on either searching for key determinants or ideal pathways (process view) to explain it (e.g., Gallo & Pont, 1996; Okoroafo, 1999; Graves & Thomas, 2008) or analysing the infuence of family resources, ownership, heterogeneity, and networks (Calabrò, Campopiano, Basco, & Pukall, 2017) (for a detailed literature overview, see Kontinen & Ojala, 2010; Pukall & Calabrò, 2014, and for a review of theoretical frameworks, see Kraus et al., 2016; Reuber, 2016; Arregle, Duran, Hitt, & Van Essen, 2017) on family frms’ internationalisation. The fourth research stream, which is a bit far-fung, focuses on family frms across various spatial contexts. Studies on spatial contexts encompass different perspectives by considering emerging markets (Basco, 2018; Suwala, Kulke, & Gade, 2018; Rienda, Claver, Quer, & Andreu, 2019), transition economies (e.g., Donckels & Lambrecht, 1999; Banalieva, Eddleston, & Zellweger, 2014; Stangej & Basco, 2017), home regions (Banalieva & Eddleston, 2011; Pongelli, Calabrò, & Basco, 2019), urban versus rural locations (Backman & Palmberg, 2015; Baù et al., 2019), specifc countries (e.g., Kowalewski, Talavera, & Stetsyuk, 2010; Daszkiewicz & Wach, 2014), and specifc regions (e.g., Müller, Botero, Cruz, & Subramanian, 2018). The main rationale behind these investigations is that context can be related to family frms’ wellbeing, functional logic, and success factors. Context leads to idiosyncratic practices. Therefore, it is not surprising that family frms are often tied to a specifc spatial entity, such as their home region (e.g., Hennart, Majocchi, & Forlani, 2019). For example, Donckels and Lambrecht (1999) found that the re-emergence of family frms in East Central Europe in the 1990s was mostly driven by frms’ implementation of crucial management functions and their growth aspirations. In other words, these studies account for spatial varieties of family frms. The ffth research stream highlights the spatial scales of family frms, such as local (Seaman, McQuaid, & Pearson, 2017; Baù et al., 2019), regional (Chang, Chrisman, Chua, & Kellermanns, 2008; Bird & Wennberg, 2014),  Spatial familiness 11 and global (De Massis, Frattini, Majocchi, & Piscitello, 2018). Most newer studies have considered these different scales not solely as passive surroundings but rather as active spatial frames that provide unique embeddings enabling family frms to thrive. The recursive relationship between family frms and location can have many dimensions: local embeddedness; family corporate local responsibility; family frm-led place leadership (Albers & Suwala, 2020a–c; Graffenberger & Görmar, 2020); family frm-led regional economic growth and development (Basco, 2015); and family frm-led local persistence, resilience, and sustainably (Brewton, Danes, Stafford, & Haynes, 2010; Ljungkvist & Boers, 2016). Therefore, local (i.e., socio-spatial) embeddedness is a particularly important feature of family frms (Basco, 2018; Selcuk & Suwala, 2020). In this realm, Bird and Wennberg (2014, 424) conclude that ‘family businesses are more embedded within the regional community than their non-family counterparts’. The sixth research stream deals with family frms’ spatial settings. This refers to the spatial confgurations that make places unique. For instance, the territorial innovation models (i.e., industrial districts, local networks, clusters, or regional innovation systems) (e.g., Block & Spiegel, 2013; Cucculelli & Storai, 2015; Lopes, Branco, Parejo, & Rangel, 2016; Basco & Calabrò, 2016; Seaman et al., 2017; Konsti-Laakso et al., 2019; Amato, Basco, Backman, & Lattanzi, 2020). All territorial innovation models ‘emphasize the importance of spatial proximity … in generating production, knowledge, learning processes and/or innovation in certain locales’ (Brinkhoff, Suwala, & Kulke, 2015, 129). With regard to industrial districts in the Italian manufacturing industry, Cucculelli and Storai (2015) concluded that the family effect and the district effect both act as substitutes and complements depending on the size of Italian manufacturing frms. Block and Spiegel (2013) investigated the effect of family frms and regional innovation systems, fnding evidence that the higher the density of family frms, the higher the level of innovation outputs, which in turn enhances regional patent outputs. Apart from that, Seaman et al. (2017) showed that family-owned frms make considerable contributions towards local economies through manifold linkages manifested via family, business, and friendship networks. The seventh research stream comprises thoughts about spatial concepts. Seaman (2012 and 2013) developed an interesting framework of four types of spaces for business development that combines three types of inner space and one type of outer. Conceptual space refers to a cognitive superstructure that includes the idea of the family frm as a desirable activity as well as initial ideas supporting business development. Cultural space refers to the space created within the family by social and fnancial capital. Contingency space is about the help the family provides to the frm during the start-up phase, including both hands-on assistance and a pool of individuals with tacit knowledge and emotional commitment to the business. As a result of these different types of spaces, families and businesses create idiosyncratic 12 Rodrigo Basco and Lech Suwala knowledge that is deeply interwoven and mediated through networks in an additional space—called community space—and thus facilitates (regional) development. Additionally, different topics related to spatial policies and planning have been investigated with less research intensity (Glassop & Graves, 2010; Basco & Bartkevičiūtė, 2016). Even though family frms play an important role in regional and national economies, studies on regional policy have generally only focused on policies aimed at supporting family business, such as tax benefts or advice about ownership and management succession (Basco & Bartkevičiūtė, 2016). This poor state of scientifc studies exists despite policymakers’ knowledge of family frms’ idiosyncratic needs and challenges in terms of intergenerational business transfer, fnancial obligations, business-family balance, lack of specifc education, access to fnance for growth, and ability to maintain a skilled workforce (Glassop & Graves, 2010). Ricotta, Golikova, and Kuznetsov (2017) found no notable differences affecting the innovative performance of family frms versus non-family frms in seven European countries and Russia despite different development phases of the economy and institutional environments among countries (as a proxy for spatial policies). For South Asia, Samphantharak (2019) reported that ownership and control are concentrated among a handful of prominent families that have formed business groups. These family business groups maintain extensive connections with politicians and bureaucrats and therefore indirectly exert power over relevant local and regional policies in favour of family businesses (e.g., ‘guanxi capitalism’ and ‘bamboo networks’) (Samphantharak, 2019). Regional studies scholars dealing with family businesses Although regional studies scholars emphasised early on that the family is a crucial factor when an individual frm’s locational choice is at stake (Townroe, 1969), the phenomenon of the family frm was mostly disconnected from spatial scales and from any internal and idiosyncratic spatialities (Taylor & Asheim, 2001). Since space (and time) are abstract variables that dominate the discourse in regional studies, it is not surprising that the family has been a less important and often neglected dimension. The contributions of regional studies scholars in relation to family frms are scarce and fragmented in term of zeitgeist, research methods, theoretical concepts, and policy interventions. The frst research stream we can highlight, probably the strongest attempt to broach the subject of the family in regional studies, was the (re-)discovery of the Marshallian industrial districts (MIDs)—a particular spatial setting (Bagnasco, 1977; Becattini, 1978). Industrial districts are ‘clusters of small familyand craft-based frms in the rural areas of the Third Italy … with petit bourgeois traditions, community-wide social and economic rules, and municipal mercantilist traditions, which are historically sedimented Spatial familiness 13 in particular areas’ (Trigilia, 1990, 199). These family frm–based spatial settings were viewed as a new regional remedy in the Fordist crisis of the 1970s and 1980s (Paci, 1980; Pyke, Becattini, & Sengenberger, 1990). In this sense, the link between economic spaces and family frms emerges when one considers that ‘the spatial integration of productive and reproductive spheres also permits artisans to rely on the casual labour of family members, particularly women and pensioner[s]’ (Lazerson, 1990, 121). Family in business is the crucial argument for family-based spatial settings, with Marshallian theory initially being extended to analyse the successful performance of regionally concentrated systems of production based on family-owned and highly specialised small and medium-sized enterprises. Moreover, industrial districts orchestrate market mechanisms and social institutions, such as families, kinship networks, and local communities, capitalising on external economies of scale (Trigilia, 1986). However, the family as an important ingredient in spatial settings was picked up randomly in studies investigating the spatial organisation patterns of post-Fordist formation in relation to new business formation (Garofoli, 1994) and the advantages of small and medium-sized enterprises (Bryson, Wood, & Keeble, 1993) due to cooperation, trust, and reciprocity among spatially proximate economic entities (Hansen, 1992). Apart from the Italian industrial district, the Wenzhou model (Yeung, 2000; Wei et al., 2007) and the Gnösjo Spirit (Wigren, 2003) became popular research frameworks for exploring family frm–driven regional development, wherein business, family, and spatial context were heavily intertwined. In these frameworks, family frms or kinship ties serve as the ‘glue’ for socio-spatial proximity, holding together spatial arrangements and localized social relationships in socalled territorial innovation models (innovative milieus, clusters, regional innovation systems, and new industrial spaces) (Sforzi, 1989; Pypłacz, 2013; Brinkhoff et al., 2015). Therefore, in regional studies, the frm is frequently considered ‘an organisational unit bringing together diverse social relations in which actors are embedded … [and] these relationships may be inter-personal relationships, family linkages or simply social ties’ (Yeung, 2000, 311). In other words, the frm and its (family) management orchestrate spatial locations and networks, all of which are stabilised by family ties (Suwala & Oinas, 2012; Suwala, 2019). A second research stream considers the family and family frms as (un-)favourable spatial factors or structures in local decisions. While Malecki (2000) subsumed the family as a soft factor in regional science, Zhou (1996) and Suwala and Kitzmann (2019) emphasised the benefts of spatially-concentrated ethnic and migrant family frms. Moreover, research has shown that founders/owners tend to locate near their families and friends in general (Schamp, 2005; Stam, 2007; Martyniuk & Gierusz, 2016) as these soft locational factors are important for frm performance and survival (Martyniuk-Peczek, Martyniuk, Gierusz, & Peczek, 2017; Suwala, 2019). Based on a study of 251 Polish frms, Martyniuk and Gierusz (2016) confrmed that in the case of family business, when deciding on the location for their business activity, the majority of owners choose a location near their home/residence. 14 Rodrigo Basco and Lech Suwala The increased availability and accessibility of family business-specifc and regionally dis-aggregated data has enabled new research on the spatial structures of family-based economic activities and their recursive relationship with the context (e.g., Adjei et al., 2016; Berlemann & Jahn, 2016; Majocchi, D’Angelo, Forlani, & Buck, 2018; Amato, 2019). Amato (2019) provided a fne-grained look into the generally positive association between family-managed frms and employment growth within a large panel dataset of Spanish manufacturing frms during the economic recession between 2007 and 2008. He concluded that when location is considered, municipality size positively affects employment growth within family-managed frms. Moreover, the results reveal that during the economic crisis, the reduction in employment level was less pronounced for family-managed frms located in small municipalities due to their stronger socioeconomic ties than for those in larger urban settings (Amato, 2019). The rationale here is that spatial structures make a difference for family frms. A third research stream takes the availability of new data to explore the phenomenon of family frm at different spatial scales, ranging from local (e.g., Yanagisako, 2002; Baschieri, Carosi, & Mengoli, 2017) to global (e.g., Yeung & Soh, 2000; Majocchi et al., 2018). Interestingly, the widely acknowledged local home bias of family frms could not be confrmed in the study by Baschieri et al. (2017). Using a dataset of Italian frms (half of them family frms) over the 1999–2011 period, they concluded that local home bias was not a common phenomenon among the entire sample and mainly occurred in family frms in which the founder led the business. Local home bias did not occur in non-family frms and in family frms in which the owner had acquired control through a market transaction. Moreover, the results suggest that locally committed family frms elicit investor preference for local stocks and, in doing so, exploit local clientele to lower the cost of funding. This means that family frms’ social contributions to their local communities may have an opportunistic effect (Baschieri et al., 2017). A fourth research stream links family frms to spatial processes such as regional learning, innovation, and internationalisation (Yeung, 2000; Wei et al., 2007; Berlemann & Jahn, 2016; Adjei, Eriksson, Lindgren, & Holm, 2019; Amato, 2019). This stream mostly investigates different dimensions of social capital and proximities that infuence frm performance and thus regional prosperity (Karakayaci, 2013; Pucci, Brumana, Minola, & Zanni, 2017; Suwala & Micek, 2018). For example, studies have shown that the family and different forms of entrepreneurial family relationships can be considered sources of effective learning or skills and thereby contribute to differences in frm performance across regions (Adjei et al., 2016, 2019). With regard to innovation, for Italy, Pini (2019) showcased that while external management signifcantly affects frms’ propensity for innovation in the more advanced area (centre-north), in the less developed area (south), it requires an additional simultaneous investment in research and development to drive frms’ innovation in family management. However, it is unclear whether a strong presence of family frms in certain spatial settings always Spatial familiness 21 Concluding remarks for fertile ground between family business studies and regional studies The spatial family management and regional familiness models can be combined to create a big picture that links all spatial scales (micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of analysis) and connects family business studies and regional studies. While the spatial family management model incorporates spatialities into family management decision making (family spatialities), the regional familiness model unpacks the role family frms play in regional economic and social development. What a combined model might look like is subject to further research in the near future (see also Basco & Suwala, 2020). Table 1.1 summarises the main outcomes of the stock-taking studies in both disciplines and their relationships with the analysed spatial entities— factors, structures, processes, contexts, scales, settings, policies, and concepts. Table 1.1 Key fndings linking the felds of family business studies and regional studies Family business studies Regional studies Spatial factors Spatial structures Spatial scales Spatial contexts Family frm founders choose locations closer in proximity to their residences than nonfamily frm owners (Kahn & Henderson, 1992). Family frms are located in rural and economically strong regions (Pérez & Raposo, 2007; Spiegel & Block, 2011). Spatial scales serve as active frames: local (Seaman et al., 2017; Amato et al. 2020), regional (Chang et al., 2008; Bird & Wennberg, 2014), global (De Massis et al., 2018), and home region (Banalieva & Eddleston, 2011). Spatial context can be related to family frms’ well-being, functional logic, and success factors (Backman & Palmberg, 2015; Basco, 2018; Baù et al., 2019). Family frm owners tend to locate near their families and friends (Schamp, 2005; Martyniuk & Gierusz, 2016) and favour soft locational factors (Martyniuk-Peczek et al., 2017; Suwala, 2019). Family frms and specifc business functions are located inside founding regions (Röhl, 2008; Ermann, Lang, & Megerle, 2011; Mahr, 2017). There is mixed evidence regarding family frms’ local (e.g., Yanagisako, 2002) and global structures (e.g., Yeung & Soh, 2000; Majocchi et al., 2018). The widely acknowledged home bias of family frms loses signifcance (Baschieri et al., 2017). Spatial context is seen as socio-spatial embeddedness interwoven in personal networks (Mahr, 2017; Selcuk & Suwala, 2020). (Continued) 22 Rodrigo Basco and Lech Suwala Table 1.1 Continued Family business studies Regional studies Spatial settings Spatial processes Spatial policies Spatial concepts Multiple spatial entities There is mixed evidence for the ‘family effect’ and the ‘spatial setting effect’ in networks, districts, and clusters (Cucculelli & Storai, 2015; Basco & Calabrò, 2016; Lopes et al., 2016; Seaman et al., 2017). There is mixed evidence regarding the pathways family frms’ internationalisation (Gallo & Sveen, 1991; Graves & Thomas, 2008; Calabrò et al., 2017; Amato, Basco, Gómez-Ansón, & Lattanzi, 2020). Family frms are underrepresented in regional policies based on their importance in economies (Glassop & Graves, 2010; Basco &Bartkevičiūtė, 2016) and their commitment towards their home regions (Kim, Haider, Wu, & Dou, forthcoming). The conceptual space, cultural space, community space, and contingency space in family frms are linked by networks (Seaman, 2012, 2013, 2015). The regional familiness model explains the spatial factors, contexts, and processes (consequences) necessary to enhance regional development across different spatial scales (Basco, 2015). Family frms and family ties serve as the ‘glue’ for socio-spatial proximity in territorial innovation models (Bagnasco, 1977; Yeung, 2000; Wigren, 2003). There is mixed evidence regarding family frms’ regional learning, innovation, and internationalisation (Wei et al., 2007; Berlemann & Jahn, 2016; Adjei et al., 2019; Amato, 2019; Felzensztein, Deans, & Dana, 2019; Lenz, 2020). Family frms have corporate spatial responsibilities related to educational, social, and cultural issues (Jahn, 2015; Albers & Suwala, 2018; Graffenberger & Görmar, 2020). The existing research is focusing on management of the relative space, relational space, and topical space in family frms (Suwala, 2014, 2020; Amato, 2019). The spatial family management model explains multispatial coordination tasks incorporating spatial factors, structures, contexts, settings, and processes in decision making (Suwala & Oinas, 2012; Suwala, 2019). Concerning the research on spatial factors, we see a great deal of coherence in the results between both disciplines. The main idea is that family frm owners tend to locate near their families and friends and favour soft locational factors in comparison to non-family frm owners, who tend to make locational decisions based on rational cost-beneft considerations. In addition, family business research reveals the complicated relationship Spatial familiness 23 between the family’s perspective and the business’s perspective in locational choices. With regard to research on spatial structures and distribution, there is also an overlap between both streams. Family frms and their accompanying business functions are generally located inside founding regions, which indicates the spatial persistence of family frms. Moreover, family frms often provide both stability and breeding grounds for prosperous economic and social development. All of this happens not only in urban centres but also in rural areas in proximity to metropoles and outside of high-tech agglomerations (e.g., Germany’s so-called ‘hidden champion’ frms). Furthermore, spatial scales are perceived as active surroundings in both disciplines rather than passive frames. Although unlimited in variety depending on the research interest at hand, home region (i.e., local region) bias still dominates the research, albeit with declining intensity. Spatial contexts still act as a lens to investigate family frms’ wellbeing, functional logic, and success factors. This selection mechanism makes spaces and family frm practices unique. There is no ‘one location fts all’ approach, as both disciplines agree, because family frms, their locational imprints, their people, their practices, and their images are embedded in particular spaces. Here, research interests in both disciplines differ. Whereas regional studies scholars consider family frms and family ties the ‘glue’ necessary for socio-spatial proximity in territorial innovation models, there is mixed evidence within family business studies concerning the ‘family effect’ and the ‘spatial settings effect’ in networks, districts, and clusters. There are also pertinent research approaches with regard to spatial processes. Whereas family business scholars mostly deal with the capabilities and pathways necessary for family frms to internationalise, regional studies scholars focus on regional learning and innovation processes. Research on spatial policies and planning measures is predominantly in the early stages in both disciplines, with various approaches treating family frms as both targets and initiators of policy interventions. In terms of spatial concepts, research has focused on both internal and external aspects: ‘spaces of familiness’ and ‘family spatialities’. Finally, the two presented models bridge multiple spatial entities: the regional familiness model, which outlines the spatial factors, contexts, and processes (consequences) necessary to enhance regional development by family frms across different spatial scales, and the spatial family management model, which suggests multi-spatial coordination tasks incorporating spatial factors, structures, contexts, settings, and processes into family frm managers’ decision processes. Both models complement each other quite well since the latter describes the micro-foundations of managerial decision making that can be scaled upward through aggregated views by the former. Both research streams have overlaps but also idiosyncrasies originating from their felds. Therefore, we call for more interdisciplinary work to address research gaps and exchange insights on theoretical, empirical, and practical grounds to better investigate the phenomena of ‘spatial familiness’ and ‘family spatialities’. 24 Rodrigo Basco and Lech Suwala Note 1 Sometimes also called ‘managerial geography’ (Laulajainen, 1998) or ‘economic geographies of management’ (Jones, 2016). References Adjei, E. K., Eriksson, R. H., & Lindgren, U. (2016). Social proximity and frm performance: The importance of family member ties in workplaces. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 3(1), 304–320. Adjei, E. K., Eriksson, R. H., Lindgren, U., & Holm, E. (2019). Familial relationships and frm performance: The impact of entrepreneurial family relationships. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(5–6), 357–377. Albers, H.-H., & Suwala, L. (2018). Unternehmensengagement als Standortfaktor – mit der Wirtschaft attraktive (Klein-)Städte schaffen. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, 6, 50–57. Albers, H.-H., & Suwala, L. (2020a). Place leadership and corporate spatial responsibilities. In M. Sotarauta & A. Beer (Eds.), Handbook on City and Regional Leadership. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Albers, H.-H., & Suwala, L. (2020b). Family frms and corporate spatial responsibilities in Germany – implication on urban and regional planning and management. In R. Basco, R. Stough, & L. Suwala (Eds.), Family Business and Regional Development. London: Routledge. Albers, H.-H., & Suwala, L. (2020c). Räumliches Unternehmensengagement (Corporate spatial responsibility) und Ortsführung (Place leadership) in Kleinstädten. Perspektiven für eine neue Ortsführung? Eine Zusammenführung von zwei Diskursen. In S. Döringer & J. Eder (Eds.), Schlüsselakteure der Regionalentwicklung: Welche Perspektiven bietet Entrepreneurship für ländliche Räume? (pp. 63–84). Wien: ISR Forschungsbericht. Band 51. Amato, S. (2019). Family Firms and Regional Economics: Current Debate and New Empirical Evidence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. Amato, S., Basco, R., Backman, M., & Lattanzi, N. (2020). Family-managed frms and local export spillovers: Evidence from Spanish manufacturing frms. European Planning Studies, Forthcoming. Amato, S., Basco, R., Gómez-Ansón, S., & Lattanzi, N. (2020). Family-managed frms and employment growth during an economic downturn: Does their location matter? Baltic Journal of Management, 15(4), 607–630. Arregle, J. L., Duran, P., Hitt, M. A., & Van Essen, M. (2017). Why is family frms’ internationalization unique? A meta–analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5), 801–831. Astrachan, J. H. (1988). Family frm and community culture. Family Business Review, 1(2), 165–189. Backman, M., & Palmberg, J. (2015). Contextualizing small family frms : How does the urban – rural context affect frm employment growth? Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(4), 247–258. Bagnasco, A. (1977). Tre Italie: La problematica territoriale dello sviluppo. Bologna: Il Mulino. Banalieva, E. R., & Eddleston, K. A. (2011). Home-region focus and performance of family frms: The role of family vs non-family leaders. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(8), 1060–1072. Spatial familiness 25 Banalieva, E. R., Eddleston, K., & Zellweger, R. (2014). When do family frms have an advantage in transitioning economies? Toward a dynamic institution-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9), 1358–1377. Baschieri, G., Carosi, A., & Mengoli, S. (2017). Family frm local involvement and the local home bias phenomenon. Long Range Planning, 50(1), 93–107. Basco, R. (2013). The family’s effect on family frm performance: A model testing the demographic and essence approaches. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(1), 42–66. Basco, R. (2015). Family business and regional development-A theoretical model of regional familiness. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(4), 259–271. Basco, R. (2018). Family business in emerging markets. In R. Grosse & K. E. Meyer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Management in Emerging Markets (pp. 527–545). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Basco, R., & Bartkevičiūtė, I. (2016). Is there any room form family business into European Union 2020 Strategy? Family business and regional public policy. Local Economy, 31(6), 709–732. Basco, R., & Calabrò, A. (2016). Open innovation search strategies in family and non-family SMEs: Evidence from a natural resource-based cluster in Chile. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administracion, 29(3), 279–302. Basco, R., & Suwala, L. (2020). Spatial familiness – A bridge between family business and economic geography. In A. Calabò (Ed.), A Research Agenda for Family Business: A Way Ahead for the Field, 185–202. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Cheltenham. Basco R., Stough R., & Suwala L. (2020). (Eds.), Family Business and Regional Development. London: Routledge. Baù, M., Chirico, F., Pittino, D., Backman, M., & Klaesson, J. (2019). Roots to grow: Family frms and local embeddedness in rural and urban contexts. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(2), 360–365. Becattini, G. (1978). The development of light industry in Tuscany: An interpretation. Economic Notes, 2(3), 107–123. Berlemann, M., & Jahn, V. (2016). Regional importance of mittelstand frms and innovation performance. Regional Studies, 50(11), 1819–1833. Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do familycontrolled frms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82–113. Bird, M., & Wennberg, K. (2014). Regional infuences on the prevalence of family versus non-family start-ups. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 421–436. Block, J. H., & Spiegel, F. (2013). Family frm density and regional innovation output: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(4), 270–280. Boschma, R. A. 2005. “Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment.” Regional Studies 39(1): 61–74. Brewton, K. E., Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., & Haynes, G. W. (2010). Determinants of rural and urban family frm resilience. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(3), 155–166. Brinkhoff, S., Suwla, L., & Kulke, E. (2012). What do you offer?: Interlinkages of universities and hightechnology companies in science and technology parks in Berlin and Seville. In R. Capello, A. Olechnicka, & G. Gorzelak (Eds.), Universities, Cities and Regions: Loci for Knowledge and Innovation Creation (pp. 121–146). London: Routledge. 26 Rodrigo Basco and Lech Suwala Brinkhoff, S., Suwala, L., & Kulke, E. (2015). Managing innovation in ‘localities of learning’ in Berlin and Seville. In G. Micek (Ed.), Understanding Innovation in Emerging Economic Spaces (pp. 11–31). Ashgate: Farmham. Bryson, J., Wood, P., & Keeble, D. (1993). Business networks, small frm fexibility and regional development in UK business services. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 5(3), 265–278. Calabrò, A., Campopiano, G., Basco, R., & Pukall, T. (2017). Governance structure and internationalization of family-controlled frms: The mediating role of international entrepreneurial orientation. European Management Journal, 35(2), 238–248. Chang, E. P. C., Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2008). Regional economy as a determinant of the prevalence of family frms in the United States: A preliminary report. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 559–573. Cucculelli, M., & Storai, D. (2015). Family frms and industrial districts: Evidence from the Italian manufacturing industry. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(4), 234–246. Daszkiewicz, N., & Wach, K. (2014). Motives for going international and entry modes of family frms in Poland. Journal of Intercultural Management, 6(2), 5–18. De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Majocchi, A., & Piscitello, L. (2018). Family frms in the global economy: Toward a deeper understanding of internationalization determinants, processes, and outcomes. Global Strategy Journal, 8(1), 3–21. Dicken, P. (1976). The multiplant business enterprise and geographical space: Some issues in the study of external control and regional development. Regional Studies, 10(4), 401–412. Dicken, P., & Malmberg, A. (2001). Firms in territories: A relational perspective. Economic Geography, 77(4), 345–363. Discua Cruz, A., & Basco, R. (2018). A family perspective on entrepreneurship. In N. Turcan & R. Fraser (Eds.), A Handbook of Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Entrepreneurship (pp. 147–175). Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Donckels, R., & Lambrecht, J. (1999). The re-emergence of family-based enterprises in East Central Europe: What can be learned from family business research in the western world? Family Business Review, 12(2), 171–188. Ermann, U., Lang, T., & Megerle, M. (2011). Weltmarktführer: Ein räumlicher und zeitlicher Überblick. Nationalatlas aktuell 5 (11.2011) 11 [30.11.2011]. Leipzig: Leibniz‐ Institut für Länderkunde (IfL). Felzensztein, C., Deans, K. R., & Dana, L. P. (2019). Small frms in regional clusters: Local networks and internationalization in the Southern Hemisphere. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(2), 496–516. Fritsch, M. (1992). Regional differences in new frm formation: Evidence from West Germany. Regional Studies, 26(3), 233–241. Gallo, M. A., & Pont, C. G. (1996). Important factors in family business internationalization. Family Business Review, 9(1), 45–59. Gallo, M. A., & Sveen, J. (1991). Internationalizing the family business: Facilitating and restraining factors. Family Business Review, 4(2), 181–190. Garofoli, G. (1994). New frm formation and regional development: The Italian case. Regional Studies, 28(4), 381–393. Getz, D., & Petersen, T. (2004). Identifying industry-specifc barriers to inheritance in small family businesses. Family Business Review, 17(3), 259–276. Spatial familiness 27 Giaoutzi, M., Nijkamp, P., & Storey, D. J. (1988). (Eds.), Small and Medium Size Enterprises and Regional Development. London: Routledge. Glassop, L., & Graves, C. (2010). Family-owned businesses: Perspectives on Australian policy. International Journal of Management Practice, 4(3), 293–305. Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Basco, R., Müller, C., & Gonzalez, A. C. (2020). Family business and local development in Iberoamerica. Cross-Cultural Management Journal, 27(2), 121–136. Grabher, G., Melchior, A., Schiemer, B., Schüßler, E., & Sydow, J. (2018). From being there to being aware: Confronting geographical and sociological imaginations of copresence. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(1), 245–255. Graffenberger M., & Görmar F. (2020), Family frms and corporate responsibility in peripheral regions. In R. Basco, R. Stough, & L. Suwala (Eds.), Family Business and Regional Development. London: Routledge. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. Graves, C., & Thomas, J. (2008). Determinants of the internationalization pathways of family frms: An examination of family infuence. Family Business Review, 21(2), 151–167. Hansen, N. (1992). Competition, trust, and reciprocity in the development of innovative regional milieux. Papers in Regional Science, 71(2), 95–105. Hayter, R., & Watts, H. D. (1983). The geography of enterprise: A reappraisal. Progress in Human Geography, 7(2), 157–181. Heinemann, F., Bräutigam, R., Bührle, A. T., Dutt, V., Fischer, L., & Kraus, M. (2019). Länderindex Familienunternehmen. 7 Aufage. Mannnheim: ZEW. Hennart, J. F., Majocchi, A., & Forlani, E. (2019). The myth of the stay-at-home family frm: How family-managed SMEs can overcome their internationalization limitations. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(5), 758–782. Hollander, B. S., & Elman, N. S. (1988). Family-owned businesses: An emerging feld of inquiry. Family Business Review, 1(2), 145–164. Ingstrup, M. B., Jensen, K. W., & Lüthje, T. (2016). Family frms and homeland production: Reasoning from agency theory and socio-emotional wealth theory. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, 8(4), 316–332. Isard, W. (1999). Further thoughts on future directions for regional science: A response to Fujita’s remarks on the general theory of location and space-economy. The Annals of Regional Science, 33(4), 383–388. Jahn, V. (2015). The importance of Mittelstand frms for regional apprenticeship activity: Lessons for policy (No. 158). Diskussionspapier, Helmut-SchmidtUniversität, Fächergruppe Volkswirtschaftslehre. James, A. E., Hadjielias, E., Guerrero, M., Discua Cruz, A., & Basco, R. (2020). Entrepreneurial families in business acorss generations, context, and cultures. Journal of Family Business Management, forthcoming. doi:10.1108/CCSM-02-2020-223 Jones, A. (2016). Geographies of production III: Economic geographies of management and international business. Progress in Human Geography, 42(2), 275–285. Kahn, J. A., & Henderson, D. A. (1992). Location preferences of family frms: Strategic decision making or “home sweet home”? Family Business Review, 5(3), 271–282. Karakayaci, O. (2013). Social capital and innovation in industrial clusters: An evidence from case of family and non-family frms in Turkey’. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(3), 313–329. 28 Rodrigo Basco and Lech Suwala Kim, K., Haider, Z. A., Wu, Z., & Dou, J. (2019). Corporate social performance of family frms: A place-based perspective in the context of layoffs. Journal of Business Ethics (forthcoming). Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71–89. Konsti-Laakso, S., Heikkilä, J., Rautiainen, M., Rinkinen, S., & Akhter, N. (2019). The contribution of family business groups to the local innovation environment. In M. Rautiainen, P. Rosa, T. Pihkala, M. J. Parada, A. D. Cruz (Eds.), The Family Business Group Phenomenon (pp. 287–314). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Kontinen, T., & Ojala, A. (2010). The internationalization of family businesses: A review of extant research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(2), 97–107. Kowalewski, O., Talavera, O., & Stetsyuk, I. (2010). Infuence of family involvement in management and ownership on frm performance: Evidence from Poland. Family Business Review, 23(1), 45–59. Kraus, S., Mensching, H., Calabrò, A., Cheng, C. F., & Filser, M. (2016). Family frm internationalization: A confgurational approach. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5473–5478. Krueger, N., Bogers, M., Labaki, R., & Basco, R. (2020). Advancing family business science through context theorizing: The case of the Arab world. Journal of Family Business Strategy, forthcoming. Krumme, G. (1969). Toward a geography of enterprise. Economic Geography, 45(1), 30–40. Lange, B., Power, D., & Suwala, L. (2014). Geographies of feld-confguring events. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 58(1), 187–201. Laulajainen, R. (1998). What about managerial geography? GeoJournal, 44(1), 1–7. Laulajainen, R., & Stafford, H. A. (1984). Corporate Geography: Business Location Principles and Cases. Switzerland: Springer Science & Business Media. Lazerson, M. (1990). Subcontracting in the Modena knitwear industry. In F. Pyke, G. Becattini, & W. Sengenberger (Eds.), Industrial Districts and Inter-frm Cooperation in Italy (pp. 108–133). Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies. Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2009). Agency vs. stewardship in public family frms: A social embeddedness reconciliation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(6), 1169–1191. Lenz, R. (2020). Family frms and their regional ties: A bond made for future? In R. Basco, R. Stough, L. Suwala (Eds.), Family Business and Regional Development. London: Routledge. Ljungkvist, T., & Boers, B. (2016). Structural crisis? Regional culture and resilience in family business-dominated regions in Sweden. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 10(4), 425–446. Lopes, J. C., Branco, A., Parejo, F. M., & Rangel, J. F. (2016). Determinants of success and failure in the internationalization of the cork business: A tale of two Iberian family frms. In M. H. Bilgin & H. Danis (Eds.), Entrepreneurship, Business and Economics. Proceedings of the 15th Eurasia Business and Economics Society Conference (vol. 2, pp. 417–440). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Mahr, A. L. (2017). Unternehmensnachfolge im Agribusiness-eine räumliche Perspektive. Vechta: Univeristy of Vechta. Majocchi, A., D’Angelo, A., Forlani, E., & Buck, T. (2018). Bifurcation bias and exporting: Can foreign work experience be an answer? Insight from European family SMEs. Journal of World Business, 53(2), 237–247. Spatial familiness 29 Malecki, E. J. (1985). Industrial location and corporate organization in high technology industries. Economic Geography, 61(4), 345–369. Malecki, E. (2000). Soft variables in regional science. Review of Regional Studies, 30, 61–69. Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of Economics. London: MacMillan. Martyniuk, O., & Gierusz, A. (2016). Location behavior of family frms evidence of Poland. Przedsiebiorczosc i Zarzadzanie, XVII (6/2), 283–295. Martyniuk-Peczek, J., Martyniuk, O., Gierusz, A., & Pczek, G. (2017). Determinants of SME location in a suburban area: Evidence from the Gdask–Gdynia– Sopot metropolitan area. Urbani Izziv, 28(1), 122–134. McNee, R. B. (1958). Functional geography of the frm, with an illustrative case study from the petroleum industry. Economic Geography, 34(4), 321–337. Müller, C. G., Botero, I. C., Cruz, A. D., & Subramanian, R. (2018). Family Firms in Latin America. London. Routledge. Okoroafo, S. C. (1999). Internationalization of Family Businesses: Evidence from Northwest Ohio, U.S.A. Family Business Review, 12(2), 147–158. Paci, M. (1980). Struttura e funzioni della famiglia nello sviluppo industriale periferico. In M. Paci (Ed.), Famiglia e mercato del lavoro in un’economia periferica (pp. 9–70). Milan: Franco Angeli. Pérez, P. F., & Raposo, N. P. (2007). Bonsais in a wild forest? A historical interpretation of the longevity of large Spanish family frms. Revista de Historia Económica– Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History, 25(3), 459–497. Pfeufer, N., & Suwala, L. (2020). Inwertsetzung von temporären Räumlichkeiten. Standortstrategien von Pop-up-Restaurants in Berlin. Spatial Research and Planning, 78(1), 71–87. Pini, M. (2019). Family management and Industry 4.0: Different effects in different geographical areas? An analysis of the less developed regions in Italy. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 15(3), 73–102. Pongelli, C., Calabrò, A., & Basco, R. (2019). Family frms’ international makeor-buy decisions: Captive offshoring, offshore outsourcing, and the role of home region focus. Journal of Business Research, 103, 596–606. Pucci, T., Brumana, M., Minola, T., & Zanni, L. (2017). Social capital and innovation in a life science cluster: The role of proximity and family involvement. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(1), 205–227. Pukall, T., & Calabrò, A. (2014). The internationalization of family frms: A critical review and integrative model. Family Business Review, 27(2), 103–125. Pyke, F., Becattini, G., & Sengenberger, W. (1990). (Eds.), Industrial districts and inter-frm co-operation in Italy. Genova: International Institute for Labour Studies. Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/63189?ln=en Pypłacz, P. (2013). Clusters as an opportunity for development of family enterprises. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 7, 212–220. Reuber, A. R. (2016). An assemblage – theoretic perspective on the internationalization processes of family frms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(6), 1269–1286. Ricotta, F., Golikova, V., & Kuznetsov, B. (2017). Innovation performance of family frms in comparative perspective: The role of regional corruption in Europe and Russia. Retrieved from https://www.siecon.org/sites/siecon.org/fles/oldfles/ uploads/2017/04/Ricotta-1.pdf Rienda, L., Claver, E., Quer, D., & Andreu, R. (2019), Family businesses from emerging markets and choice of entry mode abroad: Insights from Indian frms. Asian Business & Management, 18(1), 6–30.  30 Rodrigo Basco and Lech Suwala Röhl, K. H. (2008). Die Zukunft der Familienunternehmen in Deutschland: Potenziale und Risiken in der globalen Wirtschaft (No. 38). IW-Analysen. Samphantharak, K. (2019). Family Business Groups and Economic Development in Southeast Asia. Available at SSRN 3328861. Schamp, E. W. (2005). Decline of the district, renewal of frms: An evolutionary approach to footwear production in the Pirmasens area, Germany. Environment and Planning A, 37(4), 617–634. Schlunze, R., Baber, W., & Agola, N. (2012). (eds.), Spaces of International Economy and Management: Launching New Perspectives on Management and Geography. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Scholes, L., Wilson, N., Wright, M., & Noke, H. (2012). Listed family frms: Industrial and geographical context, governance and performance. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2002906. Scott, A. (2010). Cultural economy and the creative feld of the city. Geografska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 92(2), 115–130. Scott, J. (1986). Industrial organization and location: Division of labor, the frm, and spatial process. Economic Geography, 62(3), 215–231. Scranton, P. (1993). Build a frm, start another: The Bromleys and family frm entrepreneurship in the Philadelphia region. Business History, 35(4), 115–151. Seaman, C. (2012). The invisible bedrock: Four constructs of family business space. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 8(3), 297–307. Seaman, C. (2013). The invisible bedrock: Business families, networks and the creation of entrepreneurial space. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 9(1), 101–113. Seaman, C. (2015). Creating space for the business family: Networks, social capital & family businesses in rural development. Journal of Family Business Management, 5(2), 182–191. Seaman, C., McQuaid, R., & Pearson, M. (2017). Social networking in family businesses in a local economy. Local Economy, 32(5), 451–466. Selcuk, G., & Suwala, L. (2020). Migrant Family entrepreneurship – Mixed and multiple embeddedness of transgenerational Turkish family entrepreneurs in Berlin. Journal of Family Business Management. Forthcoming. Sforzi, F. (1989). The geography of industrial districts in Italy. In E. Goodman, et al. (Eds.), Small Firms and Industrial Districts in Italy (pp. 153–173). London: Routledge. Spiegel, F., & Block, J. H. (2011). Regionale bedeutung von familienunternehmen in Westdeutschland. Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, 61(1–2), 7–34. Stam, E. (2007). Why butterfies don’t leave: Locational behavior of entrepreneurial frms. Economic Geography, 83(1), 27–50. Stangej, O., & Basco, R. (2017). The entrepreneurial role of families in transitional economies. In A. Sauka & A. Chepurenko (Eds.) Entrepreneurship in Transition Economies. Diversity, Trends, and Perspective (pp. 345–365). Berlin: Springer. Steier, L. P., Chua, J. H., & Chrisman, J. J. (2009). Embeddedness perspectives of economic action within family frms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(6), 1157–1167. Sternberg, R. (1989). Innovation centres and their importance for the growth of new technology-based frms: Experience gained from the Federal Republic of Germany. Technovation, 9(8), 681–694.