This paper provides an evaluative overview of the new venture survival literature. Since Stinchcombe's primary attempt to explain the mortality rates of new ventures, different research fields, including entrepreneurship, management and sociology, have devoted considerable attention to the antecedents of new venture survival. Despite this lively research commitment, a comprehensive review of the literature on new venture survival-as one of the most essential performance measures for new ventures-is missing. Covering 54 years of research, this paper provides an overview of the factors affecting new venture survival and highlights important methodological aspects in this research field. The review concludes by discussing opportunities for future research.

Investors increasingly use machine learning (ML) algorithms to support their early stage investment decisions. However, it remains unclear if algorithms can make better investment decisions and if so, why. Building on behavioral decision theory, our study compares the investment returns of an algorithm with those of 255 business angels (BAs) investing via an angel investment platform. We explore the influence of human biases and experience on BAs’ returns and find that investors only outperformed the algorithm when they had extensive investment experience and managed to suppress their cognitive biases. These results offer novel insights into the role of cognitive limitations, experience, and the use of algorithms in early stage investing.

No abstract

No abstract

In our paper ‘New venture survival: A review and extension’ in the International Journal of Management Reviews, we synthesized more than five decades of entrepreneurship, management and sociology research on the reasons why some new ventures survive and others fail. Based on our review and analysis, we provided an up‐to‐date systematization of the literature and a framework that includes important extensions to Stinchcombe's seminal work. Coad and Storey criticized our framework for basing venture outcome on skill—something that can be influenced by entrepreneurs and other stakeholders. In this paper, we argue that: (i) the distinction between survival and performance matters when thinking about the antecedents of these constructs; (ii) gambling is an incompatible analogy for entrepreneurship; and (iii) psychological processes cannot be ignored when studying new ventures’ survival. We also correct some points made by Coad and Storey about our findings. We encourage future studies on new venture survival to be cautious of adopting a view of venturing as a ‘game of chance’—which is, in our perspective, a potentially discouraging view for people pursuing entrepreneurship.