Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The enforceability of non-compete agreements and different types of entrepreneurship: evidence from Utah and Massachusetts

The enforceability of non-compete agreements and different types of entrepreneurship: evidence... The purpose of this paper is to expand the empirical literature on the association between non-compete agreement (NCA) enforceability and entrepreneurship by investigating how NCA policies affect different types of entrepreneurship with incorporated and unincorporated businesses.Design/methodology/approachThe authors estimate difference-in-differences regressions based on individual-level data. This allows to control for heterogeneity at the individual level. Additionally, the authors provide graphical evidence using the synthetic control method (SCM).FindingsThe authors' findings show that the decrease in the enforceability of NCAs in Massachusetts resulted in a higher rate of unincorporated entrepreneurship among low-wage workers. At the same time, there was no sizable effect on the rate of incorporated entrepreneurship. For Utah, the authors' results indicate that the reform increased both types of entrepreneurship. The findings imply that states can promote entrepreneurial activity by reducing the enforceability of NCAs. The way of changing the enforceability of NCAs matters, as different provisions encourage different types of entrepreneurship in a given state.Originality/valueThe authors contribute to the literature on NCA enforceability effects on entrepreneurship in three ways. First, the authors utilize two quasi-experiments, the NCA policy changes in Utah in 2016 and Massachusetts in 2018, limiting NCAs to one year for all workers. Second, to the authors' knowledge, this is the first individual-level analysis that separates self-employment with incorporated and unincorporated businesses as two different types of entrepreneurship to analyze potentially heterogeneous effects of NCAs. Third, this is the first study to utilize American Community Survey (ACS) data in this literature. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Enterpreneurship and Public Policy Emerald Publishing

The enforceability of non-compete agreements and different types of entrepreneurship: evidence from Utah and Massachusetts

Download PDF
30 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/the-enforceability-of-non-compete-agreements-and-different-types-of-UE3cbRI1mO
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
2045-2101
DOI
10.1108/jepp-04-2022-0055
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to expand the empirical literature on the association between non-compete agreement (NCA) enforceability and entrepreneurship by investigating how NCA policies affect different types of entrepreneurship with incorporated and unincorporated businesses.Design/methodology/approachThe authors estimate difference-in-differences regressions based on individual-level data. This allows to control for heterogeneity at the individual level. Additionally, the authors provide graphical evidence using the synthetic control method (SCM).FindingsThe authors' findings show that the decrease in the enforceability of NCAs in Massachusetts resulted in a higher rate of unincorporated entrepreneurship among low-wage workers. At the same time, there was no sizable effect on the rate of incorporated entrepreneurship. For Utah, the authors' results indicate that the reform increased both types of entrepreneurship. The findings imply that states can promote entrepreneurial activity by reducing the enforceability of NCAs. The way of changing the enforceability of NCAs matters, as different provisions encourage different types of entrepreneurship in a given state.Originality/valueThe authors contribute to the literature on NCA enforceability effects on entrepreneurship in three ways. First, the authors utilize two quasi-experiments, the NCA policy changes in Utah in 2016 and Massachusetts in 2018, limiting NCAs to one year for all workers. Second, to the authors' knowledge, this is the first individual-level analysis that separates self-employment with incorporated and unincorporated businesses as two different types of entrepreneurship to analyze potentially heterogeneous effects of NCAs. Third, this is the first study to utilize American Community Survey (ACS) data in this literature.

Journal

Journal of Enterpreneurship and Public Policy – Emerald Publishing

Published: Oct 25, 2022

Keywords: Entrepreneurship; Non-compete agreements; Incorporated business; Unincorporated business; Low-wage workers; L26; O38; J23

References

  • Using synthetic controls: feasibility, data requirements, and methodological aspects
    Abadie, A.
  • Economic costs of conflict: a case study of the Basque Country
    Abadie, A.; Gardeazabal, J.
  • Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: estimating the effect of California's tobacco control program
    Abadie, A.; Diamond, A.; Hainmueller, J.
  • Comparative politics and the synthetic control method
    Abadie, A.; Diamond, A.; Hainmueller, J.
  • The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship
    Acs, Z.J.; Braunerhjelm, P.; Audretsch, D.B.; Carlsson, B.
  • Gross, net, and new job creation by entrepreneurs
    Astebro, T.; Tag, J.
  • Locked In? The enforceability of covenants not to compete and the careers of high tech-workers
    Balasubramanian, N.; Chang, J.W.; Sakakibara, M.; Sivadasan, J.; Starr, E.
  • Massachusetts noncompete: consideration happens, but not during garden leave
    Beck, R.
  • Fifty ways to leave your employer: relative enforcement of covenants not to compete, trends, and implications for employee mobility policy
    Bishara, N.
  • Effects of the United States tax system on transitions into self-employment
    Blau, D.
  • A time-series analysis of self-employment in the United States
    Bruce, D.
  • Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship
    Bruyat, C.; Julien, P.
  • Non-compete clauses, employee effort and spin-off entrepreneurship: a laboratory experiment
    Buenstorf, G.; Engel, C.; Fischer, S.; Gueth, W.
  • Income taxation, entrepreneurship, and incorporation status of self-employment
    Can, E.
  • Do non-compete covenants influence state start-up activity? Evidence from the Michigan experiment
    Carlino, G.
  • Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship
    Cohen, B.; Winn, M.
  • The dynamics of entrepreneurship: hysteresis, business cycles and government policy
    Congregado, E.; Golpe, A.; Parker, S.
  • Do non-competition agreements lead firms to pursue risky R&D projects?
    Conti, R.
  • Water cooler guide: a brief history of non-compete laws in Massachusetts
    DeLuca, N.
  • Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship
    Evans, D.; Leighton, L.
  • Founder replacement and start-up performance
    Ewens, M.; Marx, M.
  • Defining opportunity versus necessity entrepreneurship: two components of business creation
    Fairlie, R.; Fossen, F.
  • Job-hopping in Silicon Valley: some evidence concerning the microfoundations of a high-technology cluster
    Fallick, B.; Fleischman, C.; Rebitzer, J.
  • Self-employment over the business cycle in the USA: a decomposition
    Fossen, F.M.
  • Digitalization of work and entry into entrepreneurship
    Fossen, F.M.; Sorgner, A.
  • House approves limits on noncompete clauses
    Gehrke, R.
  • The legal infrastructure of high technology industrial districts: silicon Valley, Route 128, and covenants not to compete
    Gilson, R.
  • Physician concentration and negotiated prices: evidence from state law changes
    Hausman, N.; Lavetti, K.
  • The impact of restricting labor mobility on corporate investment and entrepreneurship
    Jeffers, J.
  • The labor market effects of legal restrictions on worker mobility
    Johnson, M.; Lavetti, K.; Lipsitz, M.
  • Why are low-wage workers signing non-compete agreements?
    Johnson, M.; Lipsitz, M.
  • Non-competes, business dynamism, and concentration: evidence from a Florida case study
    Kang, H.; Fleming, L.
  • Financial contracting theory meets the real world: an empirical analysis of venture capital contracts
    Kaplan, S.; Stromberg, P.
  • CEO non-compete agreements, job risk, and compensation
    Kini, O.; Williams, R.; Yin, D.
  • Spin-offs: a review and synthesis
    Klepper, S.
  • Entry by spin-offs
    Klepper, S.; Sleeper, S.
  • Disagreements and intra-industry spin-offs
    Klepper, S.; Thompson, P.
  • The impacts of restricting mobility of skilled service workers
    Lavetti, K.; Simon, C.; White, W.
  • Smart and illicit: who becomes an entrepreneur, and do they earn more?
    Levine, R.; Rubinstein, Y.
  • Low-wage workers and the enforceability of non-compete agreements
    Lipsitz, M.; Starr, E.
  • Postemployment noncompete agreements: why Utah should depart from the majority
    Mack, C.
  • The firm strikes back: non-compete agreements and the mobility of technical professionals
    Marx, M.
  • Employee non-compete agreements, gender, and entrepreneurship
    Marx, M.
  • Non-compete agreements: barriers to entry and exit?
    Marx, M.; Fleming, L.
  • Mobility, skills, and the Michigan non-compete experiment
    Marx, M.; Strumsky, D.; Fleming, L.
  • Regional disadvantage? Employee non-compete agreements and brain drain
    Marx, M.; Singh, J.; Fleming, L.
  • Federal judge confirms that Massachusetts' new non-compete law does not require garden leave or Massachusetts Choice of Law
    Mertineit, D.; Dunne, A.
  • MA legislature passes non-compete reform bill
    Rosen, M.
  • IPUMS USA: version 10.0 [dataset]
    Ruggles, S.; Flood, S.; Goeken, R.; Grover, J.; Meyer, E.; Pacas, J.; Sobek, M.
  • Venture capital, entrepreneurship, and economic growth
    Samila, S.; Sorenson, O.
  • Theory of economic development
    Schumpeter, J.
  • Consider this: training, wages, and enforceability of covenants not to compete
    Starr, E.
  • Screening spinouts? How non-compete enforceability affects the creation, growth, and survival of new firms
    Starr, E.; Balasubramanian, N.; Sakakibara, M.
  • Non-compete agreements in the US labor force
    Starr, E.; Prescott, J.; Bishara, N.
  • Liquidity events and the geographic distribution of entrepreneurial activity
    Stuart, S.; Sorenson, O.
  • Mass. General laws C.149 x 24L
  • Post-employment restrictions Act
  • Post-employment restrictions Act
  • The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national economic growth
    Van Stel, A.; Carree, M.; Thurik, R.
  • The latest east coast/west coast conflict: massachusetts courts consider the application of California Law in non-compete litigation
    Weibust, E.; Wilson, D.
  • Geographically localized knowledge: spillovers or markets?
    Zucker, L.; Darby, M.; Armstrong, J.