An Examination of Business Occupier Relocation Decision Making: Distinguishing Small and Large Firm Behaviour

Abstract

This paper explores how business occupiers decide whether and where to relocate. It captures the experience and behaviour of a range of sizes and types of business occupier and subjects their decision‐making processes to detailed scrutiny. A linear three‐stage decision model is used to sequence and structure interviews with individuals who have intimate involvement with the relocation of 28 firms and organizations in Tyne and Wear, in the north‐east of England.

The ‘constant comparative’ method is used to analyse the interview data, from which emerges 18 key concepts, comprising 51 characteristic components. Using an axial approach, these are organized into 10 cross‐cutting themes that represent the main areas of consideration or influence on the thinking of the people involved in determining whether a firm or organization should relocate and, if so, where to.

The resulting analysis finds that organizations adopt varying degrees of sophistication when making relocation decisions; small firms are more inclined to make decisions based on constrained information; larger organizations adopt a more complex approach. Regardless of firm size, key individuals exert considerable influence over the decision‐making process and its outcome.

Keywords:

• Business occupier
• decision making
• behavioural
• relocation
• small business operator

Acknowledgement

I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by the referees to the refinement of this paper.

Notes

1. For detailed contemplation and critique of normative location theory see:

	Chapman and Walker's (1987) comprehensive summary of the development of location theory.
	Barnes' (2003) identification and interpretation of three distinct periods of locational analysis: the German School of Von Thünen, Weber and Lösch; American spatial science of the mid 1950s; new economic geography associated with Krugman.
	McCann and Sheppards' (2003) critique of neo‐classical location theory.

2. See Wyatt (1999) for a circumspect summary of the criticisms of neo‐classical economic theories of urban land use and value and McCann (1999) for a critique of the implicit assumptions underpinning neo‐classical location models. McCann (1999) concludes that, when discussing real‐world spatial phenomena, it is necessary to make explicit assumptions in order to determine the conditions under which models can be used; such conditions, he believes, are so restrictive as to make the models inapplicable to most real‐world cases.