06Appendix

Linear (OLS) results

This report uses four OLS models to assess the role of different factors on the amount of new economy and clustered new economy activity across TTWAs. The dependent variable in Model 1 and Model 2 is the number of new economy firms per 10,000 working-age residents in a TTWA. The dependent variable in Model 3 and Model 4 is the number of clustered new economy firms per 10,000 working-age residents.

Table 4: Linear regression results

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
University campuses -0.077*

(0.045)

0.152***

(0.016)

TRAC-A university campuses -1.338**

(0.664)

1.453***

(0.279)

L4+ workers (share) 0.165***

(0.048)

0.177***

(0.047)

0.076***

(0.021)

0.070***

(0.020)

log(number of L4+ workers) 1.238***

(0.296)

1.378***

(0.311)

0.580***

(0.077)

0.536***

(0.076)

TTWA jobs density 27.545***

(3.855)

27.316***

(3.812)

3.880***

(1.406)

4.145***

(1.422)

Greater South East dummy 4.516***

(0.594)

4.340***

(0.610)

1.012***

(0.344)

1.200***

(0.350)

Constant -21.103***

(3.385)

-22.693***

(3.522)

-10.573***

(1.291)

-10.133***

(1.360)

Number of observations 218 218 218 218
R2 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.58
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Robust standard errors, clustered at the TTWA level, given in brackets

Logistic regression results

This report uses logistic regression models to assess the degree to which different factors alter the odds that an LSOA has a hotspot. In all models, the dependent variable is therefore a binary outcome reflecting whether or not an LSOA has a hotspot. The coefficients reported in the table are odds ratios.

In Models 2 to 4, the impact of the urban and Greater South East dummies (included as controls) on hotspot formation appear negative. This is because the other independent variables, such as jobs density or access to skilled workers by trains, contain the bulk of the advantages offered by cities and Greater South East locations. Without them, as can be seen in Model 1, the advantages of urban and Greater South East locations are substantial.

Some of the analysis of the impact of universities, and the results displayed in Figure 12 and Figure 14, originate in marginal effects (calculated in STATA) derived from these models.

Table 5: Logisitic regression results

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
TRAC-A university campus in TTWA dummy 1.002

(0.148)

1.326

(0.331)

TRAC-A university campus within 5km dummy 1.483**

(0.243)

TRAC-A university campus beyond 5km dummy
Distance to nearest TRAC-A university campus (km) 0.997

(0.004)

Interaction: university dummy*distance 0.968**

(0.015)

L4+ workers (share TTWA) 1.060***

(0.013)

1.058***

(0.012)

1.060***

(0.013)

L4+ workers within 30 mins of best nearby station 1.000***

(0.000)

1.000***

(0.000)

1.000***

(0.000)

Distance to nearest large high-technology employer (km) 0.847***

(0.029)

0.854***

(0.029)

0.855***

(0.029)

Jobs density 1.531***

(0.048)

1.529***

(0.047)

1.528***

(0.048)

Urban dummy 2.149***

(0.225)

0.738**

(0.099)

0.694***

(0.092)

0.670***

(0.099)

Greater South East dummy 2.812***

(0.271)

0.966

(0.186)

1.039

(0.188)

1.032

(0.198)

Constant 0.005***

(0.001)

0.001***

(0.000)

0.001***

(0.000)

0.001***

(0.000)

Number of observations 34,753 34,753 34,753 34,753
Pseudo R2 0.037 0.261 0.263 0.263
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Robust standard errors given in brackets