Abstract
Can accelerators pick the most promising startup ideas no matter their provenance? Using unique data from a global accelerator where judges are randomly assigned to evaluate startups headquartered across the globe, we show that judges are less likely to recommend startups headquartered outside their home region by 4 percentage points. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest this discount leads judges to pass over 1 in 20 promising startups. Despite this systematic discount, we find that—in contrast to many past studies—judges can discern startup quality and are no better at evaluating local firms. These differences emerge because the pool of startups accelerator judges evaluate is both broader and less “local,” suggesting that judging ability depends on the composition of the companies they are tasked with evaluating.