您的当前位置：首页 industrial cluster

industrial cluster

来源：抵帆知识网

www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddevdoi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2002.12.001

WorldDevelopmentVol.32,No.2,pp.305–326,2004

Ó2003ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved

PrintedinGreatBritain0305-750X/$-seefrontmatter

IndustrialClusters,KnowledgeIntegration

andPerformance

PIEROMOROSINI*InternationalInstituteforManagementDevelopment(IMD),Lausanne,Switzerland

Summary.—Scholarsexaminingthephenomenonofindustrialclustershavebeguntoregardthemassocialcommunitiesspecializingineﬃcientknowledgecreationandtransfer,inadditiontoneo-classicalargumentsfocusingontheadvantagesoflocalization.Weseektocontributetothisbodyofworkbydevelopingtheargumentthatboththedegreeofknowledgeintegrationbetweenanindustrialcluster’sagentsandthescopeoftheireconomicactivitiesarekeydimensionsbehindtheireconomicperformance.Wepresentamodelthatincorporatesahypothesizedrelationshipbetweenthesethreedimensionsandarguethataformaltestofthishypothesisconstitutesapromisingareaoffutureempiricalresearchinthisﬁeld.Ó2003ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.

Keywords—industrialclusters,knowledgeintegration,socialfabric,economiclinkages,businesscompetition,regionalpolicy

1.INTRODUCTION

Thateconomicagentsgathertogetherinclosegeographicproximityandestablishrela-tionshipswithoneanotherinordertobetterperformcertaineconomicactivitiesisafactthatcanbetracedbacktotheearliesturbandevelopments.1Close-knitgeographicclustershaveremainedarelevanteconomicphenome-nonevenatthedawnofthe21stcentury,nurturingsomeofthemostsuccessfulplayersacrossabroadarrayofglobalindustries,including––somewhatparadoxically––thesameinformationtechnologyindustriesthatgiveustheabilitytoworkandcommunicatevirtually.Activemembershipofanindustrialclusterduringthesecondhalfofthe20thcenturyprovidedoneofthebestopportunitiesforsmallandmedium-sizedenterprisestosurviveandstaycompetitiveonaregional,internationalandevenglobalscale.Atthesametime,largeinternational,multinationalandglobalcom-paniesriskedlosingentirepartsofthevaluechaininthekeyareasinwhichtheycom-peted––suchasmanufacturing,productdesignandResearchandDevelopment(R&D)––tonimble,formidablecompaniescloselyclusteredinspeciﬁcgeographiclocations.Someoftheselargecompanieswerealsoabletoleveragetheenormouspotentialandcapabilitiesthat

305

industrialclustersoﬀer.Typicallytheydidthisbylocatingkeycompanyoperationsincare-fullyselectedindustrialclustersaroundtheworld,orbyusingtheseindustrialclustersascriticalinnovators,e.g.,fromtheR&D,sup-plierorcustomerperspective.

Inthispaperweoﬀeraknowledge-basedframeworktofacilitateunderstandingofthekeyfactorsgoverningthewayaclusterfunc-tionsanditsinternationalsuccess.Althoughtherearemanypublicationsonthesubject––orperhapsbecauseofthis––boththeuseofthetermandtheexistingexplanationsoftheunderlyingphenomenaofclusterscanberatherconfusing.Asaresult,regionalpolicymakersandbusinessmenalikeoftenﬁnditdiﬃculttoaddressthepotentialthreatsaswellasthepromisingopportunitiesthattheseclustersprovide.

Inessence,wearguethattwofundamen-taldimensionswillallowbothanalystand

*TheauthorwouldliketoexpresshisthankstoIMD

ResearchAssociatesDeepakKhandpurandSophieLingurifortheirassistancewiththispaper.TheauthoralsothanksCarlosAlbertoSchneiderandMarceloOtteatCERTIFoundation,Florianopolis,Brazil,fortheirhelpandsupporttoourﬁeldresearchwork.Finalrevisionaccepted:31December2002.

306WORLDDEVELOPMENT

practitionertogainarealgraspoftheclusterphenomenon.Ontheonehand,bylookingatthenatureandqualityofacluster’sunderlyingsocialfabric,itispossibletounderstanditspotentialforknowledgecreationandinnova-tion.Ontheotherhand,byassessingthereachandscopeofacluster’seconomicactivities,itispossibletounderstandtheforcesdrivingitscompetitiveandbusinesslogic.Altogether,socialknowledge,economicfactorsandtheforcesofbusinesscompetitionprovideafun-damental––ifnotexhaustive––understandingofclustersinadynamicsense.Theimplicationsofthisunderstandingformacro-andmicro-economicpolicydesignandimplementationcannotbeoveremphasized.Inaddition,anunderstandingofwhatmakesclustersworkinpracticeisalsocriticalforallﬁrmscompetingintheglobalarena.

Thepaperisorganized,asfollows.InSection2,weprovideadeﬁnitionofindustrialclustersbasedonacomprehensivereviewofthemajorliteraturesources,fromtheearly20thcenturytomorerecentcontributions.Signiﬁcantly,inourdeﬁnitionofindustrialclusters,socialandknowledge-basedelementsarebroughttoge-thermoreexplicitlythantheyhaveinpreviousdiscussions.

Buildingonthisdeﬁnition,wediscussthemajorcharacteristicsofindustrialclustersindetailinSections3–8.Theseinclude:thesocialnatureofanindustrialcluster’sknowledgeinteractions;thebroaddiversityoftheirsocialfabric––includingmuchmorethanpurelyeco-nomicagents;thekeyimportanceoflocallyconﬁnedrelationshipsandspecializedeco-nomiclinkagesforeﬃcientknowledgecreationandtransfer;the‘‘commonglue’’thatbindsindustrialclusterstogether;andthecompetitivescopeofindustrialclustersintoday’sincreas-inglyinterconnected,globalmilieu.

InSection9,weintroduceaknowledge-basedtaxonomyofindustrialclustersthatbringstogetherthemainelementsexaminedinourpreviousdiscussions.Thisclassiﬁcationprovidesawaytoassessthedegreeofknowl-edgeintegrationofindustrialclusters,whichisunderstoodtobeacriticaldimensionbehindtheireconomicperformance.InSection10,wearguethatthescopeofcompetitionofindus-trialclustersconstitutesasecondcriticaldimensioninunderstandingtheireconomicperformance.Basedonmainstreamstrategicmanagementconcepts,wedevelopaframe-worktoappraisethescopeofanindustrialcluster’scompetitivedynamicsfromexternal

(market),internal(ﬁrm)andsocial(learning)dimensions.

Finally,inSection11,webuildonthefoundationslaidintheprevioussectionsinordertopostulatethehypothesisthatiscentraltothispaper,makingacaseforthelinkbetweenknowledgeintegration,thescopeofcompetitionandtheeconomicperformanceofindustrialclusters.Weconcludebyarguingthataformaltestofthishypothesisconstitutesapromising,long-overdueareaoffutureempir-icalresearchinthisﬁeld.

2.WHATAREINDUSTRIALCLUSTERS?Duringthe1990stheexplosionofspecializedandpopularliteratureonindustrialclustersgavethemanunprecedentedrelevanceacrossarangeofareas,includingbusinessmanagementandeconomic,political,publicandsocialpol-icy.Therewasalsoadegreeofconfusionoverwhatthevariousauthorsmean––anddonotmean––byindustrialclusters.Ourﬁrstconsid-erationthereforeisterminology.

Itisimportanttopointoutfromtheoutsetthatwearenotconcernedherewiththekindsofeconomicagglomerationsfoundinlargecitiesandurbandevelopmentsofacertainsize.Asvariousauthorshavenoted,largeurbanrealitiesofnecessityandalmostinevitablyprovideopportunitiesforagglomerationsofsortstoemerge,humanﬁrst,socialandeco-nomicnext(Gordon&McCann,2000).Indeed,itisobvioustothosefamiliarwithlargecitiesandurbanrealitiesthateconomicinteractionswithinthesekindsofagglomerationsaretypi-callygovernedbythelogicoflargenumbersandrandomevents.But,twobasickindsofeconomicbeneﬁtsthatareimportanttoourunderstandingofindustrialclusterscanalsousuallybefoundhere.

Ontheonehand,largecitiesandsimilaragglomerationsnurtureurbanizationecono-mies––inotherwords,economicadvantagesthatstemfromfactorsorconditionsthatbene-ﬁtalleconomicentitiesandagentsthatarepartoftheagglomeration.Forexample,theimpressiveairtransportationfacilitiesandinfrastructureofacitysuchasLondon,thestrategicgeographiclocationofAthensforwest–eastlogisticallinksandthemultiplicityoflinguisticskillspresentinSingaporecanleadtoeconomicadvantagesthatcanbeenjoyedbyallentitieslocatedin––ornear––theselargecities.

INDUSTRIALCLUSTERS307

Ontheotherhand,urbanagglomerationsleadtolocalizationeconomiesofscale.Thesearespecializedeconomicadvantagesstemmingfromclosegeographicproximitythatbeneﬁtspeciﬁcindustriesonly.Tofollowthepreviousexamples,theCityofLondonisoneoftheworld’spremiercentersofﬁnancialtalentintheformoftens––perhapshundreds––ofthousandsofhighlyskilledﬁnanceprofessionals.Thisworld-classtalentpoolpresentsobviousbene-ﬁtsforallﬁnancialservicesﬁrmsthatdecidetolocatethemselvesinLondon.Similarly,Athensanditsclosesurroundingsisoneoftheworld’sleadinghubsofpeople,ﬁrms,assetsandinfrastructurespeciﬁcallyrelatedtotheship-pingindustry.ThesamecanbesaidofSinga-pore,exceptthatitsshippinghubisperhapsevenlargerthanthatofAthens,withagreaterglobalreach.

Theideaoflocalizedeconomiesofscaleingeographicagglomerationshasalonghistoryineconomics,goingbacktoAdamSmith’searlyobservationsoflaborspecializationandtoMarshall’s(1925)explanationsofwhyﬁrmscontinuetolocalizeinthesameareas.Marshallhighlightedthreekeyexplanations.First,ﬁrmsgetclosetogethergeographicallybecausethisallowsthemtodevelopapoolofspecializedlaborthatishighlyskilledforthespeciﬁcneedsofanindustryandrelativelyeasyfortheﬁrmsinneedoftheseskillstoaccess.Second,theseﬁrmscanprovidenontradedinputspeciﬁctoanindustry,i.e.bylocalizingthemselvesinclosegeographicproximity,theﬁrmscanexperienceeconomiesofscaleindevelopingandusingcommontechnologiesoraparticularcapitalinfrastructure.Third,ﬁrmsthatjointogethergeographicallycangenerateamaximumﬂowofinformationandideas.Inotherwords,prod-uct,marketandtechnologicalknowledgecanbemoreeasilysharedandmoreeﬀectivelyturnedintovaluableinnovationsbetweenagentsthatareinclosegeographicproximitythanbetweenagentsthataremoregeographi-callydispersed.

Itisinteresting––andtosomedegreequiteparadoxical––thatvirtualcommunicationtech-nologiesanddevelopmentsinglobaltrans-portationandlogisticsduringthe20thcenturyhavemadelocalizationeconomiesmore––notless––criticaltothecompetitiveperformanceofﬁrms.Ontheonehand,virtualcommuni-cationsandsimilartechnologieshavehigh-lightedtacitknowledgeandclosepersonalrelationshipsbetweeneconomicagentsaskeydeterminantsforthecompetitivesuccessof

ﬁrms.Ontheotherhand,globallogisticsmeanthataccesstobasicproductionfactorssuchascapitalandnonspecializedlaborarelargelyopentoall,whereasﬂowsofspecializedknowledgeandrichknowledgeinteractionsthatleadtovaluableinnovationsremainstrongerbetweenagentsinthesamespatialgroupthanamonggeographicallydispersedﬁrms.

Ourdeﬁnitionof‘‘industrialcluster’’includestheMarshalliannotionsofurbanizationandespeciallylocalizationeconomiesofscale,butitclearlydepartsfromtheconceptofagglomer-ationsinthattheknowledgeinteractionswithintheclusterarenotrandombutratherdeliber-ate,sociallyconstructedanddeterminantforitscompetitivesurvival:

Anindustrialclusterisasocioeconomicentitycharac-terizedbyasocialcommunityofpeopleandapopula-tionofeconomicagentslocalizedincloseproximityinaspeciﬁcgeographicregion.Withinanindustrialclus-ter,asigniﬁcantpartofboththesocialcommunityandtheeconomicagentsworktogetherineconomi-callylinkedactivities,sharingandnurturingacommonstockofproduct,technologyandorganizationalknowledgeinordertogeneratesuperiorproductsandservicesinthemarketplace.

3.INDUSTRIALCLUSTERSARESOCIAL

ENTITIESTheﬁrstthingtonoteisthatourdeﬁnitionofindustrialclustersstatesthatitisthenature,qualityandstrengthofacluster’sunderlyingsocialfabricthatdetermineshowitintegratesexistingandnewknowledgeinordertocreatesuperiorproductsandservices.Inessence,thisiswhatmoreclearlydiﬀerentiatesindustrialclustersfromsimplegeographicagglomerationsofeconomicagents.GordonandMcCann(2000,p.520)observe:

Thestrengthof[anindustrialcluster’s]relationshipsisdescribedasthelevelof‘‘embeddedness’’oftheso-cialnetwork.Infact,alleconomicrelations(eventhe‘‘pure’’marketrelationsoftheagglomerationmodel)aresociallyembeddedinthesensethatthesedependuponnorms,institutionsandsetsofassump-tionssharedamongagroupofactorsandarenot,inthemselves,simplytheoutcomeofeconomicdeci-sions.[...]Industrialclusters(whetherspatialornot)diﬀerfromtheagglomerationmodelinthatthereisabeliefthatsuchclustersreﬂectnotsim-plyeconomicresponsestothepatternofavail-ableopportunitiesandcomplementarities,butalsoanunusuallevelofembeddednessandsocialintegra-tion.

308WORLDDEVELOPMENT

Thereisnothinginherentlyspatialaboutthesocial-networkmodelalthoughithasexplicitspatialapplica-tions.Thisisbecausesocialnetworksareaformofdurablesocialcapital,created(andmaintained)throughacombinationofsocialhistoryandongoingcollectiveaction.

Someauthorsinthesociologicalliterature(Granovetter,1992)havearguedthatindustrialclusterscanbeconsideredasdistinctfrom‘‘socialnetworks.’’Whereastheformerarelargelydominatedbyconstellationsofeco-nomicagentslinkedbycontracts(Pitelis,1993;Williamson,1985),thelatter––theseauthorsargue––aredominatedbyintensiveknowledgeinteractionsbetweenﬁrmsthatareoftenstrongerthanintra-ﬁrminteractions.Althoughtheseviewscanbeseenasasociologicalresponsetoneo-classicaleconomicargumentsinthisarea,conceptualparsimonywouldappeartobedesirableforthepurposesofthepresentstudy.Thus,inthisresearchweprefertoconsidersocialnetworkslargelyasaparti-culartypeofindustrialcluster,inwhichknowledgeintegrationbetweenﬁrmsaswellasinstitutionalizedtrustandpersonalinteractionsbetweeneconomicagentsareespeciallystrong.Furthermore,diﬀerentiatingthequalityandcomplexityofknowledgeinteractionswithinindustrialclustersaccordingtothetypeofindustry––i.e.‘‘high-tech’’vs.‘‘basic’’or‘‘mature’’––seemstobebasedonratherfeebleargumentsandlittleempiricalevidence.Indeed,anumberofauthorssuggestthatindustrialclustersincentralItalyformedaroundseem-inglybasictechnologiessuchastilemanufac-turingdemonstrateknowledgeinteractionsthatareassociallycomplex,pervasiveandinnova-tiveasanyfoundinthebiotechnology,tele-communicationsorcomputersoftwareclusters(Gordon&McCann,2000).Thecrucialdiﬀer-enceinthiscontextseemstostemfromthedegreetowhichtheeconomicagentsinanindustrialclusterdecidetoengageinpurposefulcollaborationandcontinuouscooperationacrosscriticalactivitiesthatareofcommoninteresttoall––whilekeepingthecompetitivemarketdynamicsintact.Simultaneouscooper-ationandcompetitioninaclearlydeﬁnedgeographicareainturnrequiresahighlydevelopedsocialfabricthatengagesandfacil-itatestheintegrationofknowledgeandcom-municationexchangesaswellasthefosteringofacommonsenseofidentityamongecono-micagents.Asaresult––almostirrespectiveofthetechnologicalcharacteristicsofanygivenindustry––thedegreeofknowledgeintegration

thatcanbefounddevelopinginindustrialclusterscanberathercomplex.

Therearecertaincostsassociatedwithindustrialclustersthatsometimesserveasobstaclestogrowth.Althoughthereiscertainlyadegreeofincreasedcompetitionandconges-tiononboththedemandandsupplysides,industrialclusterscanalsoexperiencehighratesofemployeeturnoverandnoncooperationbetweenﬁrms,whichcanjeopardizetheentirecluster.Asmentioned,thewayinwhichanindustrialcluster’sagentsmanagetoorches-tratemutualcooperationwhileatthesametimefosteringgreatercompetitionmightbecomecrucialtothecluster’slong-termeconomicsurvival(Swann&Prevezer,1996).

4.WHOBELONGSTOINDUSTRIAL

CLUSTERS?Ourdeﬁnitionofindustrialclustersincludesaclose-knitsocialcommunityofpeopleandabroadsetofeconomicagents,notjustﬁrms.StudiesthatlookatEmiliaRomagna’sindus-trialdistrictsinItalyoﬀersomeofthemoststrikingcharacterizationsofcohesivesocialcommunitiesactivelyunderpinningtheeco-nomicstrengthofclusters(Becattini,1990,p.39):

Themostimportanttraitof[anindustrialdistrict’s]localcommunityisitsrelativelyhomogenoussystemofvaluesandviews,whichisanexpressionofanethicofworkandactivity,ofthefamily,ofreciprocity,andofchange.Tosomeextentallthemainaspectsoflifeareaﬀectedbythis.Thesystemofvalueswhichprevailsinthedistrictdevelopsmoreorlessquicklythroughtime,inwayswhicharestilltobeexplored:itconsti-tutesoneofthepreliminaryrequirementsforthedevelopmentofadistrict,andoneoftheessentialcon-ditionsofitsreproduction.Thisdoesnotimplythatonlyonecombinationofvaluesiscompatiblewiththebeginningandthegrowthofthedistrict,butratherthatsomecombinationsareapparentlyadmissible,whileothersarenot.Undernocircumstance,how-ever,canthesystemofvaluesbesuchastodiscourageenterpriseortheintroductionoftechnicalchange.Ifthatwerethecase,thedistrictcouldnotbeanentitywhichpersistedthroughtime,andwewouldhavein-steadanareaofsocialstagnation.

Paralleltothissystemofvalues,asystemofinstitu-tionsandrulesmusthavedevelopedinsuchawayastospreadthosevaluesthroughoutthedistrict,tosupportandtransmitthemthroughgenerations.Themarket,theﬁrm,thefamily,thechurchandtheschoolaresomeoftheseinstitutions;buttheyalsoincludethelocalauthorities,thelocalstructuresofpolitical

INDUSTRIALCLUSTERS

309

partiesandofunions,andmanyotherpublicandpri-vate,economicandpolitical,culturalandcharitable,religiousandartisticbodies.

Industrialclustersalsoincludeapopulationofeconomicagents––ﬁrmsaswellasindividu-als––withspecializedskillsorknowledgerele-vanttothelinkedeconomicactivitiesthatarecarriedout.Inaddition,theseeconomicagentscompriseinstitutionssuchasuniversities,researchcenters,industryassociationsandtechnologicalinstitutes,whichfostermutualeconomiccooperationandthesharingoftechnologicalknowledgeamongthemembersofanindustrialcluster.Thesekindsofinstitu-tionshavebeenreferredtoascomprisingan‘‘associationaleconomy’’(Schmitz,2000)orconstitutinga‘‘meso-level’’(Meyer-Stamer,1999)betweenthemacro-levelofeconomicpolicy2andthemicro-levelofaﬁrm’scompeti-tion.Theavailableempiricalevidencesuggeststhatclose-knitsocialcommunitiesareasigni-ﬁcantfactorbehindtheeconomicstrengthandsustainabilityofindustrialclusters(Pyke,Becattini,&Sengenberger,1990).Inaddition,associationalormeso-levelagentshavebeenfoundtobeeﬀectiveinpromotingcooperationfor‘‘goodpurposes’’whichisconsideredtohaveasigniﬁcantperformance-enhancingeﬀectforﬁrmslocatedinadvancedcountryregions.Thisisparticularlythecaseforﬁrmsseekingtocompetesuccessfullyininternationalandglobalmarkets(Hudson,1998).

5.WHYISGEOGRAPHICCLOSENESSSO

IMPORTANT?Furthermore,ourdeﬁnitionofindustrialclustersstressesthenotionthatthemembersofsuchaclusterarelocalizedincloseproximitywithinaparticulargeographicregion.Wearethereforeconcernedherewiththetypesofeconomicadvantagesstrictlystemmingfromahighdegreeofgeographicconcentrationamongﬁrms.Thesetypesofeconomicadvantageshavebeenwelldescribedintheclassicalandneo-classicaleconomictraditionexaminingindus-trialcomplexes(Czamanski&Ablas,1979;Feser&Bergman,2000).Asinthecaseofindustrialclusters,industrialcomplexescandevelopinternaleconomiesofscaleintermsofspeciﬁctradinglinksandcustomer–supplierrelationships.Conversely,innovativeﬁrmscanbeheavilydependentonlocalnetworkingor

linkagestosupporttheirnovelproductsandservices.Notethatbothoftheseadvantagesarestrictlydependentupontheclosegeographicproximityoftheﬁrmslocalizedwithinanindustrialcluster.Thisisdiﬀerentfromthetypicalglobalizationeconomies,whichreducetheimportanceoftraditionallocalizedfactorsofproduction,orfromthetypesofinnovationsrelyingoninputsthatareunlikelytobelocallyconﬁned(Simmie&Sennett,1999).

Itmustbenoted,however,thatgeographicproximitycouldbringasmanydisadvantagestothemembersofindustrialclustersasitpro-videsadvantages.Disadvantagesincludethepoachingofspecializedlaborbetweenﬁrms,greatercompetition(whichcanalso,however,beanadvantage),fasterimitationofbothtechnologyandproductinnovationsbycom-petitors,andsharedmarketintelligenceamongﬁrms.GordonandMcCann’s(2000)studyoftheeﬀectsofgeographicproximityonrelatedactivitiesbyindustrialsectorinLondoncon-cludesthat––outof17sectorsexamined––onlyprintingandpublishingandﬁnancialservicesshowclearnetadvantagesofproximity.Thistypeofempiricalevidenceraisesafundamentalissue:howdomembersofindustrialclustersworktogethertobalancethedisadvantagesandadvantagesofgeographicproximity?

6.HOWDOMEMBERSOFINDUSTRIAL

CLUSTERSCOMBINE?Ourdeﬁnitionofindustrialclustershigh-lightsthatitsmembersworktogetherinrelatedorlinkedbusinessactivities.Indeed,thescale-andknowledge-basedadvantagesgeneratedwithinanindustrialclusterstemfromboththenumberandthenatureoftheparticularlink-agesbetweenitsmembers.Inawell-developedindustrialcluster,theselinkagescanbenumer-ous,uniqueandspecializedtotheindustrialcluster,including:

––commoncustomers(bothﬁrmsandindi-viduals);

––commonsuppliersandserviceproviders;––commoninfrastructuresuchastranspor-tation,communicationsandutilities;

––commonpoolofhumantalentsuchasskilledprofessionalsorspecializedlabor;––commoneducational,trainingandcoach-ingfacilitiesandapproachesforworkers;––commonuniversity,researchcenterandtechnologyinstitutespecializations;––commonriskcapitalmarkets.

310WORLDDEVELOPMENT

Ithasbeenshownthatthenumberandeconomicvalueofthesekindsoflinkscanprovideanadequateindicationofanindus-trialcluster’sstrength(Feser&Bergman,2000).Forexample,empiricalresearchbySwannandPrevezer(1996)suggeststhatclustersinindustrieswheremultiplelinkagescanbecreatedamongthememberﬁrms(suchasthecomputerindustry)presentsigniﬁcantlystrongergrowthpatternsthanclustersinindustrieswithmuchlowerlinkagesbetweenmemberﬁrms(suchasthebiotechnologyindustry).

7.WHATBINDSINDUSTRIALCLUSTERSTOGETHER?Next,ourdeﬁnitionstressesthatmembersofanindustrialclustermustshareandnurtureacommonstockofproduct,technologyandorganizationalknowledge.Indeed,someauthorshavedescribedthiscriticalcharacter-isticofindustrialclustersasconstitutinga‘‘socialglue’’(Porter,1998)thatbindstheclustertogether.Othershavereferredtoa‘‘commonglue’’oran‘‘organizationalglue’’thatsociallyamalgamatesdiversestructuralagentsandintegrateskeyknowledgeacrosscultural,organizationalandfunctionalbound-aries(Evans,1993;Morosini,2002).

Ontheonehand,Porter(1998,p.88)high-lightsthat:

Thesocialgluethatbindsclusterstogetheralsofacilitatesaccesstoimportantresourcesandinfor-mation.Tappingintothecompetitivelyvaluableassetswithinaclusterrequirespersonalrelation-ships,face-to-facecontact,asenseofcommoninter-est,and‘‘insider’’status.Themerecollocationofcompanies,suppliers,andinstitutionscreatesthepotentialforeconomicvalue;itdoesnotnecessarilyensureitsrealization.

Ontheotherhand,Morosini(2002)identiﬁesﬁvekeycapabilitiesthatneedtobeinplacetobuildthis‘‘commonglue’’thatrealizeseco-nomicvaluewithin––andacross––economicorganizations.Whenappliedtoindustrialclusters,thesekeycapabilitiescanbecharac-terizedasfollows:

(a)Leadership––Well-functioningindustrialclustersaredeliberatelyamalgamatedbygroupsofkeyindividualswithexplicitrolesfosteringmutualcooperation,knowledgesharing,leadershipcoachingandarbitration

ofdisputesthatareseenasbeneﬁtingthecommoninterestsofthemembersofthecluster.Theseindividualsareidentiﬁedandtheirrolesareexplicitlyacceptedbyalltheagentsthatbelongtothecluster.Manyauthorshavedocumentedtheseleadershiprolesinthecontextofdiﬀerentindustrialclusters.Forexample,inhisroleasindustryassociationrepresentativeduringthe1990s,thepresidentofalargetextilemanufacturingcompanyinsouthernBrazil’sSantaCata-rinaregionledaﬁve-yearradicaltransfor-mationthatturnedtheareafromaﬁercelycompetitivetoacloselycollaborativeindus-trialclusterinthissector(Meyer-Stamer,1999).OtherauthorshaveobservedthatCEOsandseniorexecutivesofestablishedtechnologyﬁrmsinSiliconValleycontinu-ouslyidentifypromisingyoungentrepre-neursandspendtimecoachingandgrowingtheirleadershiptalents––oftenhelp-ingtoappointthemtoseniorpositionsincompetingﬁrms(Leonard&Swap,2000).Moreover,leadersoflargeandsmallﬁrmsinMexico’sGuadalajarafootwearclusterwereseentohaveworkedcloselytogetherinthe1980sand1990stodesignandimple-mentacomprehensivejointeﬀorttoover-comethedramaticeﬀectsofaseriesofmacro-economicshockssuchaslargecur-rencydevaluations(Rabellotti,1999).

(b)Buildingblocks––Well-functioningin-dustrialclustershavetypicallydevelopedaclear,commonstockoforganizationalknowledgethatissharedbyallmembers,acrossfunctional,culturalandﬁrm-speciﬁcboundaries.Thesebuildingblockstypicallyincludestrongsocioculturaltiesamongthelocaleconomicagents,creatingacommoncodeofbehaviorthatfacilitatestrustandac-tivecollaboration;acommonlanguage,notjustintheliteralsensebutalsoencompass-ingcommontechnological,businessandorganizationalterminology;acommonindus-trialcultureandatmosphere;acommonphi-losophyandapproachtodevelopinghumantalentandspecializedlabor;acommonbusi-nessunderstandingofthebasiccompetitivedynamicsoftheirindustry;andcommonap-proachestocompetitiveperformancemea-surement(Meyer-Stamer,1998;Rabellotti,1995;Simmie&Sennett,1999).Empiricalevidencesuggeststhatacommonsystemofsocioculturalandeconomicvalues,alongwithawell-deﬁnedsystemofinstitutionsthatsupportsandspreadsthosevalues,is

INDUSTRIALCLUSTERS311

associatedwitheconomicallystrongandmoreinnovativeﬁrmsinanindustrialcluster(Pykeetal.,1990).

(c)Communicationrituals––Withinwell-developedindustrialclusters,thereareregu-larcommunicationevents,interactionsandapproachesthatcontinuouslyfosteracom-monsenseofidentityamongallmembersofthecluster.Meyer-Stamer(1999)de-scribessomeofthesecommunicationeventsinthecontextofBrazil’sSantaCatarinatex-tilemanufacturingindustrialcluster,whicharefairlytypicalofsucheventsinsimilarclusterselsewhere(Porter,1998;Schmitz&Nadvi,1994).In1996,forexample,thepres-identofoneofthelargesttextilemanufac-turingﬁrmsinthearea(mentionedearlier)organizedkeyeventssuchasvisitsforlocalownersandmanagersoftextileﬁrmstoItaly’stextileclustersinordertolearnbestpracticesininterﬁrmrelationsandseeworld-classexamplesofsupportivemeso-levelinstitutions.Communicationinteractionsthatsupportthedevelopmentofacommonsenseofidentityinindustrialclustersincludeproactiveindustryassociations,commoninterestgroupstolobbylocalornationalgovernmentsandbuildingacommonimagethroughpublicrelationsinitiativesandthelike.Finally,typicalcommunicationap-proachesthatfosteracommonsenseofiden-tityamongthemembersofanindustrialclustervis-󰀁a-vistheoutsideworldincludedevelopingacommonproduct-orquality-brand,aswellascommonandexplicitqual-itystandards.Empiricalstudieshavefoundthatindustrialclusterswithwell-developedcommunicationevents,interactionsandap-proacheshavehigherlevelsofinterﬁrmcooperationandaremoreadaptabletoabruptchangesinthemacro-economicandcompetitiveenvironment(Pykeetal.,1990).(d)Knowledgeinteractions––Well-function-ingindustrialclustersmusteraseriesofregular,explicitandhighlydevelopedmech-anismsforsharingkeytechnologicalandbusinessknowledgeamongallmembers.Typicalexamplesincludecontinuousbench-markingtaskforces(bothwithintheclusterandacrossclusters);researchcenters,tech-nologicalinstitutes,universities,think-tanks,executiveeducationandworkertrainingschoolsthatactivelypromotemutualcoop-erationandtechnologytransferswithintheindustrialclusterandbetweenﬁrms;jointR&D,productdesign,manufacturingorco-marketingeﬀortsbetweenﬁrms;andex-portandtradingorganizationsbothlocallyandabroad.Inwell-developedindustrialclusters,meso-levelinstitutionssuchasindustryassociationsusuallyplayakeyroleasbothinitiatorsandmanagersofthesecoordinationmechanisms.Itisimportanttonote,however,thatthisroleissubstan-tiallydiﬀerentfromtheconventionalcollec-tivebargaining,politicallobbyistorcontactandnetworkingrolesthatthesekindsofassociationstypicallyplaywithinindustriesorinsidelessdevelopedindustrialclusters(Swann&Prevezer,1996).Theavailableempiricalevidencesuggeststhatindustrialclusterswithwell-developedcoordinationmechanismsshowasigniﬁcantlyhigherlevelofcooperationbetweenﬁrms.Inturn,co-operatingﬁrmswithintheclustertendtoperformbetterthannoncooperatingones(Schmitz,2000).Cooperationbetweenﬁrmscanoftenbefacilitatedbytheeconomiccomplementaritybetweenacluster’sagents,whichcanextendupstreamtosuppliers,downstreamtocustomersorlaterallytomanufacturers(Porter,1998).Thisallowsforincreasedeﬃciencies(e.g.technologies,marketingchannels),aswellasadditionalbeneﬁts(e.g.,thereputationofcertainre-gionsforindustryexcellencebeneﬁtsallofitsmembers)andsynergies(e.g.,consumersofhotelserviceswillvaluetheentireexperi-enceaccordingtothequalityofeachcompo-nent).3(e)Professionalrotations––Withinhighlycompetitiveindustrialclusters,thereistypi-callyasigniﬁcantpoolofhumantalentspe-cializedaroundbusinessandtechnologicalknowledgethatisspeciﬁctothecluster’smaineconomicactivities.Thedegreeofcrossﬁrmmobilityoftheseprofessionalslar-gelytakesplacewithinthegeographicboundariesoftheindustrialcluster.Perhapsthemostconspicuousexampleofthisphe-nomenonisinSiliconValley,wherethetal-entedandentrepreneurialindividualsthatseemtoaboundinthisclustertendtobeex-tremelymobile,eitheracrossﬁrms(afterrel-ativelyshortworkexperience,onaverage,inanygivenorganization)orinordertostartuptheirownenterprises.But,thesemovesusuallytakeplacewithinthegeographicboundariesoftheValley(Leonard&Swap,2000).ThesecharacteristicshavecertainlyhelpedgiveSiliconValleysomeofitslegend-arycloutandreputationinmostpeople’s

312WORLDDEVELOPMENT

minds.Aﬂowoftalentedandskilledprofes-sionalscontinuallymovingwithinanindus-trialclusterprovidesaneﬀectiveandeﬃcientvehicleforsharingtacitexpertise(Bortagaray&Tiﬃn,2000),bestpracticesandexperientialknowledgeacrossﬁrms.Nolessimportantly,itcontributestothedevelopmentofnewknowledgeaswellastechnologytransfers,combinationsandrep-licationsacrossthecluster’seconomicagents.Indeed,inthisareaempiricalstudiessuggestthatﬁrmsinindustrialclustersaremorelikelytobeinnovativewhenthereisahighdegreeofown-sectoremploymentinthecluster’shomeregion(Baptista&Swann,1998).48.THEGLOBALSCOPEOFTODAY’S

INDUSTRIALCLUSTERSFinally,ourdeﬁnitionstressesthattheulti-mategoalofindustrialclustersistogeneratesuperiorproductsandservicesthatarevaluabletocustomersinthemarketplace.Thereareatleasttwocrucialpointstobemadeaboutthisnotion.First,althoughanindustrialclustermightbeneﬁtfromsomeprotectivemeasuresattheoutset,inthelong-term,selectionmecha-nismsthatreﬂectthedynamicsofbusinesscompetitionmustbeinplace(Porter,1998).Otherwise,anindustrialclusterwillsimplynotsurvive,oritwilldosoasaresultofeconomictransfersthatarenotnecessarilymarketrela-ted,e.g.,intheformofstatesubsidiesorﬁscalincentives.

Second,industrialclustershavenotonlyprovedextremelysuccessfulatcreatingrealeconomicvaluenearlyeverywherebuthavealso––duringthesecondhalfofthe20thcen-tury––emergedasformidableglobalplayersintheirownrightacrossanastonishingvarietyofindustries.Therefore,althoughtheseindustrialclustersaretightlyconﬁnedgeographically,theirscopeofcompetitionisincreasinglyglobal,notlocal.Whereasthemarketfocusofsomeoftheseindustrialclustersmightremainlocal,globalcompetitioncanneverthelesstakeplaceintheformofnewentrants––whichoftenincludeindustrialclustersaswell.Rabellotti(1999)describesthecaseofaMexicanshoe-makingclusterwhichduringthe1990swaspartlydisplacedinitsmain(local)marketbycheapcompetingproductsfromChineseshoe-makingclusters.

Theglobalscopeachievedbyindustrialclustersduringthe1990swentfarbeyondtheexportpotentialandinternationalappealofaspeciﬁcproductrangethatinthepasttypi-callymadethefortunesofindustrialclusterssuchasnorthernItaly’stilemanufacturers,toolmachineryproducersorshoemakers.Atthedawnofthe21stcentury,industrialclustersweretakingoverentireareasofmanyglobalindustries,suchasmanufacturing,R&Dandproductdesign.Asaresult,leadingmultina-tionalsinindustriesrangingfromcomputerhardware,semiconductorsandautomotivemanufacturetotextiles,medicalequipmentandwatchmakingfoundthemselvesincreasinglyusingindustrialclusterstotheirbeneﬁtor––quiteoften––simplytoenhancetheirchancesofcompetitivesurvival.Thesemultinationalswouldtypicallyinvolveindustrialclusterseitherasleadingsuppliersoraskeycustomersandinnovatorsinkeyareasoftheirvaluechain.

9.AKNOWLEDGE-BASED

CLASSIFICATIONOFINDUSTRIAL

CLUSTERSSomeoftheapproachesdevelopedinthepasttounderstandthephenomenonofindustrialclustersincludetemplatesforappliedregionalclusteranalyses(Feser&Bergman,2000),descriptiveframeworksforstrategicandcom-petitiveanalyses(Carrie,2000)andempiricalclassiﬁcationmodels(Gordon&McCann,2000;Porter,1998).Whatappearstobeacommoncharacteristicoftheseapproachesisthattheyrelyonthenotionofeconomiclink-agesamongacluster’seconomicagentstocategorizeandanalyzebothitsnatureandstrength.Inaddition,authorssuchasCarrie(2000)lookatthenatureanddiversityoftheinstitutionalfabricoftheclustersunderstudy,whereasGordonandMcCann(2000)studytheneteconomicadvantagesstemmingfromgeo-graphicproximity.But,thesetypesofapproa-chesseldomincludeanindustrialcluster’sknowledge-basedelementsasanexplicitpartoftheirunderlyingframeworks,templatesorclassiﬁcatorymodels.

Arelativelydiﬀerentapproachlooksattheconceptofclustersasafactorincompetitiveadvantage(Porter,1998).Withthisapproach,thestrengthofaclusterdependsonaseriesofinteractingfactorsthatcanbegroupedunderthecategories:ﬁrmstrategy,structureand

INDUSTRIALCLUSTERS313

rivalry;ﬁrmconditions;relatedandsupportingindustries;andfactorconditionsrelatedtocli-mate,laborsupply,governmentﬁscalandincentivepolicies,etc.Althoughthisapproachpaysmoreattentiontoknowledge-basedele-mentsaskeydeterminantsofacluster’sstrength(asinPorter’s,1998notionof‘‘socialglue’’),itstilloverwhelminglyreliesonthenotionofeconomiclinkageswhencategorizingacluster’scompetitivedynamicsandcharac-teristics.

Knowledge-basedelementsaskeydetermi-nantsofacluster’sstrengthandperformancedoreceiveaconsiderableamountofattentionwithinqualitativeandcase-basedresearchstudies(Meyer-Stamer,1998;Rabellotti,1999).Althoughthesestudiesdonottypicallyprovideexplicitframeworksforastructuredunder-standingofacluster’sstrengthandperfor-mance,theydooﬀerboththenecessaryconceptualbasisandtheassociatedempiricalevidence.Basedontheexistingapproaches,inTable1wesummarizeaseriesofkeyvariablesthatoughttobeincludedinamoreholis-tic,knowledge-basedframeworkforunder-standinganindustrialcluster’sstrengthanddynamics.

10.SCOPEOFCOMPETITIONOF

INDUSTRIALCLUSTERSAspreviouslymentioned,asecondcriticaldimensionforunderstandingacluster’scom-petitiveandbusinesslogicisthereachandscopeoftheeconomicactivitiescarriedoutbyitsmemberﬁrms(Porter,1998).Theseactivitiescanbegroupedaccordingtothreebroadfac-tors(Morosini,1998):(a)thosethatarelargelyexternaltotheﬁrm,i.e.customers,productmarketsandthemacro-leveldemographic,regulatoryandlegalframeworksgoverningthesecustomersandmarkets;(b)factorsthatshapetheinternalcharacteristicsoftheﬁrm,suchasitsresources,processesandcapabilities;and(c)factorsthatgovernsocialapproachestolearning,articulatingknowledgeandcreatingadistinctsenseofidentityandculturalbehav-ior.

Aﬁrm’sexternal,internalandsocialfactorsareobviouslyconditioned,driventochangeandinﬂuencedbyaseriesofenvironmentalandcompetitiveforces(Rumelt,1984).Asprevi-ouslyobserved,withinanindustrialclustersomeofthesedriversareinherentlylocal––oratleasttheirscopeofinﬂuenceispredominantlylocal.Thus,externalfactorssuchascustomersandproductmarketscanbegeographicallylocalizedeitherwithintheclusterornearby.Inthesecases,therelevantdemographictrendsandregulatoryframeworkswillalsotendtobelocalones.Bythesametoken,manyofthekeyresourcesandcorecompetenciesthatareinternaltotheﬁrmcanbelargelydrivenbylocalforces(Prahalad&Hamel,1990).Forexample,inmanyindustrialclustersmostﬁrmsoverwhelminglyrelyonlocalsourcesforhumancapitalintheformofindividualswithspecializedknowledgeorknowledgeaboutkeycustomers.Similarly,innovationprocessesbyﬁrmsincertainindustrialclusterstendtobeheavilydrivenandlargelystimulatedbywhatneighboringcompetingﬁrmsaredoing.Finally,aﬁrm’sparticularsocialapproachestolearningandknowledgecreation,aswellastheculturalnormsandbehaviorsitvaluesandenacts,canbeheavilyinﬂuencedbythesurroundingsocioeconomicsystemoflocalculturalvaluesandtheinstitutionalfabricofanindustrialcluster.5Conversely,incertainindustrialclustersaﬁrm’sexternal,internalandsocialfactorscanbelargelydrivenbytheglobalizationoftheworldeconomy.Thisphenomenonhasparti-cularlyacceleratedsincethe1970s,involvinganincreasinginternationalization,greatercom-petitionbetweenﬁrms,moreinstabilityanduncertaintyinproductmarkets,aswellasshiftingpatternsofcompetitionwhereknowl-edgeintensitycarriesapremium(Gordon,1996;Veltz,1993).Globalizationhashadagreatimpactonindustrialclusters,thoughnotinthedirectionthatsomemighthavethoughtatﬁrst(Granovetter,1973).Althoughithasreducedtheimportanceoftraditionallylocal-izedfactorsofproduction,globalizationhasperhapsincreasedtheimportanceoflocalizedindustrialclustersacrosstheentirerangeofaﬁrm’sexternal,internalandsocialactivities.Forexample,ﬁrmsinmanyindustrialclusterstailorexternallytoaglobalclienteleandtoglobalproductmarkets.Similarly,anincreas-ingnumberofindustrialclusterscompetegloballyforkeyinternalresources,anddevelopkeyprocessesandcapabilitieswithinaglobalcompetitivelandscape.Finallyithasbeenthecasethatsocialapproachestolearning,knowledgesharingandculturalbehaviorofﬁrmswithinanindustrialclusterwereradicallyinﬂuencedandchanged––i.e.fromﬁercely

314WORLDDEVELOPMENT

Table1.Knowledge-basedclassiﬁcationofindustrialclusters

Keyconstructs

I––InstitutionalfabricSocialcommunity

––Relativelyhomogenoussystemofvaluesandviews––Systemofvaluesandviewencouragesinitiativeandtechnicalchange

––SystemofinstitutionsthatspreadsystemofvalueswithintheclusterEconomicagents

––Relativenumberofindividualswithspecializedskillsandknowledge

––Relativenumberofﬁrmsingeographicproximity––Relativenumberofeconomicallylinkedﬁrms––Relativenumberofinternationalandmultina-tionalﬁrms

––Relativenumberof‘‘meso-level’’institutions––Diversityof‘‘meso-level’’institutions––Qualityof‘‘meso-level’’institutionsII––Geographiccloseness

––Netinternaleconomiesofscaleadvantages––Netspecializedlaboradvantages

––Netinterﬁrmknowledgesharingandnetworkingadvantages

––Netinterﬁrmtechnologytransferadvantages––Netsharedmarketintelligenceadvantages

––Netproduct-,technology-andmanagerial-inno-vationsadvantagesIII––Economiclinkages

––Commoncustomers(bothﬁrmsandindividuals)––Commonsuppliersandserviceproviders

––Commoninfrastructuresuchastransportation,communicationsandutilities

––Commonpoolofhumantalentsuchasskilledprofessionalsorspecializedlabor

––Commoneducational,trainingandcoachingfacilitiesforworkers

––Commoneducational,trainingandcoachingapproachesforworkers

––Commonuniversity,researchcenterandtechnol-ogyinstitutespecializations

––CommonriskcapitalmarketsIV––‘‘CommonGlue’’Leadership

––Explicitleadersofthecluster

––Explicitleadersareacceptedbyallofthecluster’seconomicagents

––Explicitleadershiprolesinclude:––Knowledgesharingcoordination

––Coachingfutureleadersofthecluster’sﬁrms––Disputearbitration

––Visionanddrivingchange

Mainreferences

AminandThrift(1992),Becattini(1990),GordonandMcCann(2000),Ingley(1999),Porter(1998),Pykeetal.(1990),Rabellotti(1995),Saxenian(1994)

Arni(1999),Brusco(1999),CzamanskiandAblas(1979),FeserandBergman(2000),Gordonand

McCann(2000),Hudson(1998),Meyer-Stamer(1999),Muller-Glodde(1991),PioreandSabel(1984),RamosCampos,Nicolau,andFerrazC󰀂ario(1999)

BerardiandRomagnoli(1984),Camagni(1991),CheshireandGordon(1995),EuropeanCommission(1999),KeebleandWilkinson(1999),Lazerson(1990),Marshall(1925),PioreandSabel(1984),Porter(1998),Sabel(1982),SimmieandSennett(1999),SwannandPrevezer(1996)

AminandThrift(1992),Arthur(1994),Becattini(1990),Becker(2000),CheshireandGordon(1995),CooperandFolta(2000),FeserandBergman(2000),Gordon(1996),Lazerson(1990)

Buck,Crookston,Gordon,andHall(1997),Evans(1993),LeonardandSwap(2000),Meyer-Stamer(1999),Rabellotti(1999),Rosenberg(2002)

INDUSTRIALCLUSTERS

Table1—continued

Keyconstructs

Buildingblocks

––Strongsocioculturaltiesacrossboundaries––Commoncodeofbehavioramongthecluster’seconomicagents

––Degreeoftrustamongthecluster’seconomicagents

––Attitudeofmutualcollaborationamongthecluster’seconomicagents––Commonlanguage

––Commonindustrialculture––Commonindustrialatmosphere

––Commonapproachestodevelopinghumancapital––Commonbusinessunderstandingandmindset––CommoncompetitiveperformanceapproachesandmeasurementsCommunicationrituals

––Regularcommunicationevents

––Regularcommunicationinteractions––Regularcommunicationapproaches

Knowledgeinteractions

––Benchmarkingtaskforcesacrossthecluster’sﬁrms––Rolesofresearchcenters,technologicalinstitutes,universitiesinclude

Executiveeducationoftheclusterﬁrms’employeesMutualcooperationinitiativesacrossthecluster’sﬁrms

Technologytransfersacrossthecluster’sﬁrmsJointR&Dinitiativesacrossthecluster’sﬁrmsJointmanufacturinginitiativesacrossthecluster’sﬁrms

Jointproductdesigninitiativesacrossthecluster’sﬁrms

Jointsalesandmarketinginitiativesacrossthecluster’sﬁrms

––‘‘Meso-level’’institutions’rolesinclude

Initiatingcoordinationmechanismsinsidethecluster

ManagingcoordinationmechanismsinsidetheclusterProfessionalrotations

––Degreeofown-sectoremploymentwithincluster’shomeregion

––Degreeofinterﬁrmmobilitywithincluster

––Degreeofspin-oﬀs/start-upsbycluster’semployees

Mainreferences

315

BRITE(2001),Dominguez-VillalobosandGrossman(1992),HumphreyandSchmitz(1998),Leon(1998),LeyshonandThrift(1994),Lorenz(1996),

Meyer-Stamer(1999),MorrisandLowder(1992),Piore(1990),Rabellotti(1995),SimmieandSennett(1999),Zhang(2001)

Pykeetal.(1990),Porter(1998),SchmitzandNadvi(1994);AminandThrift(1992),Granovetter(1973),Magplane(2001)

BostonConsultingGroup(1998),Saxenian(1994)

Bagchi-Sen(2001),Brusco(1999),Christensen(1997),Keeble,Lawson,Moore,andWilkinson(1999),Leon(1998),Lorenz(1996),Pedersen,Sverrisson,andvanDijk(1994),Porter(1998),SaxenianandHsu(2001),Schmitz(2000)

AminandThrift(1995),EuropeanCommission(2002),Keebleetal.(1999),Sanch󰀂ez,delCastillo,Lacave,andTerras(2000)

Athreye(2001),Becker(2000),BaptistaandSwann(1998),BortagarayandTiﬃn(2000),Brusco(1999),Keebleetal.(1999),LeonardandSwap(2000),Lorenz(1996),Paija(2001)

competitivetohighlycooperative––onceglobalcompetitionbecamethenormwithintheindustry.InTable2,wesummarizeaseriesofkeyparametersthatcanservetocharacterizethecompetitivescopeofanindustrialcluster’s

316WORLDDEVELOPMENT

Table2.Scopeofcompetitionofindustrialclusters

Extenttowhichthecompetitivedriversofanindustrialcluster’sﬁrmsaremostlylocalorglobalaccordingto

thesefactorsKeyconstruct

Externalfactors

––Maincustomers

––Mainproductandservicesmarkets––Keydemographictrends

––Mainlegalandregulatoryframeworks

Internalfactors

––Keyresources(i.e.humancapital,ﬁnancialcapital)––Keyprocesses(i.e.innovation,productdevelopment,supplychainmanagement)––Keycompetenciesandcapabilities

(i.e.keytechnologies,speedofinnovation)Socialfactors

––Learning(i.e.aboutcustomers,products,technologies,managerialapproaches)––Knowledgecreation––Knowledgesharing

––Culturalbehaviorandnorms

Mainreferences

Brusco(1999),Feloy,Gordon,Lloyd,andRoe(1997),Lazerson(1990),Mishan(1971),Sanch󰀂ezetal.(2000),Schmitz(1995)

Porter(1998),SimmieandSennett(1999),Rabellotti(1995),PuriandHellmann(2000),Saxenian(1994)

Brusco(1999),Keebleetal.(1999),LeonardandSwap(2000),Rabellotti(1995)Sanch󰀂ezetal.(2000)

ﬁrmsaccordingtoexternal,internalandsocial

factors.

11.LINKBETWEENKNOWLEDGE

INTEGRATION,SCOPEOFCOMPETITIONANDTHEPERFORMANCEOFCLUSTERSAbroadarrayofexistingempiricalevidence(someofwhichisreferencedintheprevioussections)suggeststhatboththedegreeofknowledgeintegrationandthescopeofcompe-titionareco-evolvingfactorsthatarecrucialtoexplaintheeconomicperformanceofindustrialclusters.Althoughtheempiricalevidenceremainsslightlyfragmented,itsuggeststhatﬁrmsinindustrialclustersthatpresentahighdegreeofknowledgeintegrationandcompetegloballyinnovatemore,presentstrongergrowthpatterns,adapttochangingenvironmentalconditionsmorerapidlyandhaveamoresus-tainableeconomicperformancethanﬁrmsinlessintegratedclustersthattendtocompetewithinstrictlylocalgeographicboundaries(Meyer-Stamer,1998;Porter,1998;Pykeetal.,1990;Rabellotti,1995;Schmitz,2000;Simmie&Sennett,1999).Thesekindsofempiricalevi-denceunderliethefollowinghypothesis:

Thehigherthedegreeofknowledgeintegrationbetweenmemberﬁrms,andthehighertheglobalscopeofcompetitionofmemberﬁrms,thehighertheeconomicperformanceofindustrialclusters.Figure1providesagraphicillustrationofourhypothesizedeﬀects,postulatingacomparativetaxonomyofindustrialclustersacrossadiver-sityofindustriesandgeographies,whichweassessedwithinthecontextofourresearch.Thishypothesizedtaxonomyisincludedhereforillustrativepurposesonly.Itisbased,however,onanexaminationofover2,000pagesofarchivaldata,academicandspecializedpubli-cationsaswellasexpertopiniongatheredthroughaseriesofﬁeldvisitsandinterviewswithindustrialclusteragents(e.g.,entrepre-neurs,associationrepresentatives,practitio-ners)insouthernBrazil,Brazil’sAmazonStateandnorthernItaly.BoththeliteraturereviewandtheexpertinterviewswecarriedoutweretightlystructuredaroundthetemplatesandconstructsoutlinedinTables1and2(seeAppendixB).Ouranalysesfocusedonthemid-1990s,forwhicharelativelylargebodyofempiricaldataexistsonindustrialclustersalongthefollowingdimensions:degreeofknowledgeintegration,scopeofcompetitionandeconomicperformance(e.g.,Becattini,1990;Feser&

INDUSTRIALCLUSTERS317

Figure1.Hypothesis:knowledgeintegration,scopeofcompetitionandperformanceofindustrialclusters.

Bergman,2000;Gordon&McCann,2000;Meyer-Stamer,1998;Rabellotti,1999).

Figure1thusillustratesanumberofoverallpatternsthatseemtoemergequiteclearlyfromthegrowing––albeitfragmented––empiricallit-eratureonindustrialclustersoverthelasttwodecadesofthe20thcentury.Thesepatternsunveilamultitudeofcharacteristicsthatappearbothtoexplainanddeterminetheeconomicperformanceofindustrialclusters.Someofthesecharacteristicshavetodowithcompeti-tivefactorsthatareinherentintheindustrialsectorsinwhichtheclustersoperate.Othershavetodowithfactorsconcerninganindustrialcluster’sinstitutionalfabric,geographicclose-ness,economiclinkagesand‘‘commonglue,’’andherethescopeforpositiveinterventionisarguablygreaterforthemacro-economicpolicymakerandthebusinessplanneralike.

Anempiricaltestofthehypothesiswehavedeveloped,remains,however,achallengingstepforabetter,holisticunderstandingofthemajorfactorsthatbothexplainanddeterminetheeconomicperformanceofanindustrialcluster.Wesuggestthatthisempiricaltest,conductedalongtheconstructsdevelopedinTables1and2,couldcontributetothisunderstandinginawaythatencompassesthe

economicandsocialaspectsthatappeartobeequallyimportanttothecompetitivefunction-ingofindustrialclusters.

12.CONCLUDINGREMARKSWehavelookedatindustrialclustersfromaneconomicandasocialperspective.Thecom-plexityandrichnessofthisphenomenonseemstobeasgreatasitspotentialtocontributeeconomicvaluetoboththeeconomicagentsandthesocialcommunitiesinvolved.Wesug-gestthatbylookingatthecrucialdimensionsofknowledgeintegrationandthescopeof(global)competition,muchoftheunderlyingfunctioningfabricofindustrialclusterscanbecapturedinwaysthataremeaningfultoboththeeconomicpolicymakerandthebusinessexecutive.Nolessimportant,theanalyticalframeworksandtestablehypothesisdevelopedinthisstudycanalsohighlightandstrengthenthemanysocialdimensionsthataresocentraltoexplainingtheunprecedentedeconomicsuccessanduniquecompetitiveadvantagesthatindustrialclustershavecometorealizeatthedawnofthe21stcentury.

NOTES

1.A‘‘cluster’’ofSumeriancitiesalongtheFertileCrescent(anelongatedvalleybetweentheTigrisandEuphratesrivers,intoday’ssouthernIraq)iscommonlyregardedbyarchaeologistsastheworld’sﬁrsturbandevelopment,theverycradleofhumankind.Early20th-centuryexcavationsintheseancientcities,whichdatebackto4000–3500bc,unveiledastonishingremnantsofentiredistrictsdevotedtowell-deﬁnedartisanactivities,aswellasspecializedmarketswithhighlydevelopedrulesandlawsgoverningtheproductionandexchangeof

318WORLDDEVELOPMENT

numberofindustrialclusterstoday.AdescriptionofthetypesofactiontakenbygovernmentisgiveninAppendixA.

4.Avariablethatincreasinglyseemstoaﬀecttheabilityofaclustertoattractorretainhumantalentisitsqualityoflife.Thisincludesfactorssuchashousingcosts,amenities,commutingtimeandcleanenvironment,andhasbeenusedtoexplainthegrowthof‘‘secondtier’’clusterswhenqualityoflifedeclinesintheoriginalcluster(Bortagaray&Tiﬃn,2000).

5.SeeanintroductionbyDrucker(1997).

goodsandservices.Mostsurprisingofall,clearevidenceofthecommercialreachofthesedistrictswasfoundasfarawayasAnatolia(today’sTurkey),AsiaMinor(inmodernSyria)andEgypt.

2.Becattini’s(1990)descriptionofanindustrialclus-ter’s‘‘institutionalsystem’’iscertainlyamoreholisticnotionthaneither‘‘meso-level’’or‘‘associational’’conceptions.Thisappliesbothtotherangeofinstitu-tionsthatan‘‘institutionalsystem’’encompassesandtotheinherentpurposeoftheseinstitutions,i.e.socialandeconomicasopposedtostrictlyeconomic.

3.Theroleofdiﬀerentgovernmentbodiesasinitiator,promoter,coordinatorandmanagerisrelevanttoa

REFERENCES

€,J.,Paija,L.,Reilly,C.,&Yla€-Anttila,P.Ali-Yrkko

(2000).Nokia:abigcompanyinasmallcountry.ETLA––TheResearchInstituteoftheFinnishEcon-omy.Helsinki,Finland:TaloustietoOy.

Amin,A.,&Thrift,N.(1992).Neo-Marshalliannodes

inglobalnetworks.InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch,16,571–587.

Amin,A.,&Thrift,N.(1995).Globalisation,institu-tionalÔthickness’andthelocaleconomy.InP.Healey,S.Cameron,S.Davoudi,S.Graham,&A.Madani-Pour(Eds.),Managingcities:Thenewurbancontext(pp.91–109).Chichester,UK:JohnWiley.Arias,P.(1992).Nuevarusticidadmexicana.Mexico

City,Mexico:Conaculta––ConsejoNacionalparalaculturaylasartes.

Arni,K.(1999).Finland’snationaltradeexpansion

strategies.1999ExecutiveForum,Helsinki,Finland.Arthur,B.(1994).Increasingreturnsandpathdependence

intheeconomy.AnnArbor,MI:UniversityofMichiganPress.

Athreye,S.S.(2001).Agglomerationandgrowth:a

studyoftheCambridgeHi-techcluster.SIEPRDiscussionPaperno.00-42.StanfordInstituteforEconomicPolicyResearch,Stanford,CA.

Bagchi-Sen,S.(2001).TheroleofR&Dalliancesin

innovation.Science,TechnologyandInnovationprogramViewpoints[forum].Available:http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidbiotech/comments/comments126.htm.

Baptista,R.,&Swann,P.(1998).Doﬁrmsinclusters

innovatemore?ResearchPolicy,27(5),525–0.Barbagli,M.,Brusco,S.,Pisati,M.,Santono,M.,&

Serravalli,G.(1998).Societ󰀁a,economiaelavoroinEmiliaRomagnaRegioneLavoro.Bologna,Italy:UniversityofBologna.

Becattini,G.(1990).TheMarshallianindustrialdistrict

asasocio-economicnotion.InF.Pyke,G.Becattini,&W.Sengenberger(Eds.),Industrialdistrictsandinter-ﬁrmcooperationinItaly(pp.37–51).Geneva,Switzerland:InternationalInstituteforLabourStud-ies.

Becker,G.S.(2000).Globalsiliconvalleys?First,killall

thesubsidies.BusinessWeek,3674,26.

Belussi,F.(1992).Piccoloimpreseecapacitainnovativa.

Leradicidiundibattitoteoricoedalcuneevidenzeempiriche.PiccolaImpresa,3(76).

Berardi,M.,&Romagnoli,M.(1984).L’areapratesetra

crisiemutamento:relazionesullostatoeleprospettivedell’economialocale.Prato,Italy:ConsortziocentrostudiperlaprogrammazionenelcircondariodiPrato.

Bortagaray,I.,&Tiﬃn,S.(2000).Innovationclustersin

LatinAmerica.InFourthInternationalConferenceonTechnologyPolicyandInnovation,Curitiba,Brazil,28–31August.

BostonConsultingGroup(1998).Industriadelcalzado.

MexicoCity,Mexico:Secoﬁ.

Bresnahan,T.,Gambardella,A.,&Saxenian,A.(2001).

ÔOldeconomy’inputsforÔneweconomy’outcomes:clusterformationinthenewsiliconvalleys.IndustrialandCorporateChange,10(4),835–860.

BRITE(2001).Basicresearchinindustrialtechnologies

Europe,EuropeanCommission’sBrite-EuRam,Re-searchDirectorateGeneral,EuropeanCommission.B-1049Brussels,Belgium.Available:http://euro-pa.eu.int/comm/research/br-eur1.html.Tel.:+32-2-295-8220.

Brusco,S.(1982).TheEmilianmodel:productive

decentralizationandsocialintegration.CambridgeJournalofEconomics,6(2),167–184.

Brusco,S.(1999).Rulesofthegameinindustrial

districts.InA.Grandori(Ed.),Interﬁrmnetworks:OrganizationandindustrialCompetitiveness(pp.17–40).London,UK:Routledge.

Brusco,S.,&Righi,E.(19).Localgovernment,

industrialpolicyandsocialconsensus:thecaseofModena(Italy).EconomyandSociety,18(4),405–424.

Buck,N.,Crookston,M.,Gordon,I.,&Hall,P.(1997).

Asocio-economicassessmentofLondon:AreportbyLlewelynDaviesandPartners.London:AssociationforLondonGovernment.

INDUSTRIALCLUSTERS

319

Camagni,R.(1991).Local‘‘milieu’’,uncertaintyand

innovationnetworks:towardsanewdynamictheoryofeconomicspace.InR.Camagni(Ed.),Innovationnetworks:Spatialperspectives(pp.121–145).Lon-don,UK:BelhavenPress.

Capecchi,V.(1990).Ahistoryofﬂexiblespecialisation

andindustrialdistrictsinEmilia–Romagna.InF.Pyke,G.Becattini,&W.Sengenberger(Eds.),Industrialdistrictsandinter-ﬁrmcooperationinItaly(pp.20–36).Geneva,Switzerland:InternationalInstituteforLabourStudies.

Carrie,A.S.(2000).Fromextendedenterprisesto

regionalclusters––thechangingbasisofcompeti-tion.InPricewaterhouseCoopers(Ed.),Manufac-turingleadership:Throughtheextendedenterprise(pp.127–130).LondonUK:TechnologyPublishingLtd.

Cheshire,P.C.,&Gordon,I.R.(Eds.).(1995).Terri-torialcompetitioninanintegratingEurope:Localimpactandpublicpolicy.Aldershot,UK:Gower.Christensen,C.M.(1997).Theinnovator’sdilemma:

Whennewtechnologiescausegreatﬁrmstofail.Cambridge,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.Cooper,A.,&Folta,T.(2000).Entrepreneurshipand

high-technologyclusters.InD.L.Sexton&H.Landstrom(Eds.),TheBlackwellhandbookofentre-preneurship(pp.348–367).Malden,MA:BlackwellBusiness.

Czamanski,S.,&Ablas,L.A.(1979).Identiﬁcationof

industrialclustersandcomplexes:acomparisonofmethodsandﬁndings.UrbanStudies,16(1),61–80.

Dominguez-Villalobos,L.,&Grossman,F.B.(1992).

EmploymentandincomeeﬀectsofstructuralandtechnologicalchangesinfootwearmanufacturinginMexico.Geneva,Switzerland:InternationalLaborOrganization(ILO).

Drucker,P.F.(1997).InF.Hesselbein,M.Goldsmith,

&R.Beckhard(Eds.),Theorganizationofthefuture(pp.4–5).SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

EuropeanCommission(1999).Analysisoftransnational

technologynetworkingbetweenexistingclustersofSMEsandoneormoretechnologypoles.Clusterbuildingandnetworks,FinalReport.Agiplan,M€u

lheimanderRuhr,Germany.EuropeanCommission(2002).Regionalclustersin

Europe.ObservatoryofEuropeanSMEs2002,No.3.Brussels,Belgium.

Evans,P.A.L.(1993).Dosingtheglue:applyinghuman

resourcetechnologytobuildtheglobalorganization.InB.Shaw&P.Kirkbride(Eds.),Researchinpersonnelandhumanresourcesmanagement:Volume3(pp.21–).Greenwich,CT:JAIPress.

Feloy,M.,Gordon,I.,Lloyd,P.E.,&Roe,P.(1997).

Londonemployersurvey.London,UK:LondonTrainingandEnterpriseCouncils.

Feser,E.J.,&Bergman,E.M.(2000).Nationalindustry

clustertemplates:aframeworkforappliedregionalclusteranalysis.RegionalStudies,34(1),1–19.

FinnFacts(2001).ICTclusterinFinland––ahistorical

perspective.Helsinki,Finland:TATGroup.Avail-able:http://www.ﬁnnfacts.com/english/country/story/worldeconomy/historical.html.

Gordon,I.(1996).Territorialcompetitionandlocational

advantageintheLondonregion.Charlotte,NC:AmericanAssociationofGeographers’AnnualCon-ference.

Gordon,I.,&McCann,P.(2000).Industrialclusters:

complexes,agglomerationand/orsocialnetworks?UrbanStudies,37(3),513–532.

Granovetter,M.S.(1973).Thestrengthofweakties.

AmericanJournalofSociology,78,1360–1380.

Granovetter,M.S.(1992).Problemsofexplanationin

economicsociology.InN.Nohria&R.Eccles(Eds.),Networksandorganizations:Structure,formandaction(pp.25–56).Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Hudson,R.(1998).Restructuringregionandstate:the

caseofNorthEastEngland.TijdschriftvoorEcono-mischieenSocieleGeographie,(1),15–30.

Humphrey,J.,&Schmitz,H.(1998).Trustandinter-ﬁrmrelationsindevelopingandtransitioneco-nomies.TheJournalofDevelopmentStudies,34(4),32–45.

Ingley,C.(1999).Theclusterconcept:cooperative

networksandreplicability.InProceedingsoftheinternationalconferenceofsmallandmediumenter-prises,Naples,Italy.

Keeble,D.,&Wilkinson,F.(1999).Collectivelearning

andknowledgedevelopmentintheevolutionofregionalclustersofhightechnologySMEsinEurope.RegionalStudies,33(4),295–303.

Keeble,D.,Lawson,C.,Moore,B.,&Wilkinson,F.

(1999).Collectivelearningprocesses,networkingandÔinstitutionalthickness’intheCambridgeregion.RegionalStudies,33(4),319–331.

Koski,H.R.P.,Rouvinen,P.M.,&Yl€a-Anttila,P.

(2001).ICTclustersinEurope––thegreatcentralbananaandthesmallnordicpotato.DiscussionPaperWDP2001/06.WorldInstituteforDevelop-mentEconomicsResearch,Helsinki,Finland.

Lazerson,M.(1990).SubcontractingintheModena

knitweardistrict.InF.Pyke,G.Becattini,&W.Sengenberger(Eds.),Industrialdistrictsandinter-ﬁrmcooperationinItaly.Geneva,Switzerland:Interna-tionalInstituteforLabourStudies.

Leon,M.E.(1998).Analysisofcooperationnetworksin

theSME’stelecommunicationﬁrms.Unpublisheddissertation.DepartamentodeEngenhariadeProducßa~

o,S~aoPaulo,Brazil.Leonard,D.,&Swap,W.(2000).Gurusinthegarage.

HarvardBusinessReview,78(6),71–78.

Leyshon,A.,&Thrift,N.(1994).Accesstoﬁnancial

servicesandtheprocessofﬁnancialinfrastructurewithdrawal:problemsandpolicies.Area,26,268–275.Lorenz,E.(1996).Collectivelearningprocessesandthe

regionallabourmarket.Unpublishedresearchnote,Europeannetworkonnetworks,CollectiveLearningandRTDinRegionally-clusteredHighTechnologySMEsquotedinD.Keeble&F.Wilkinson.(1999).CollectiveLearninginRegionallyClusteredHighTechnologySMEsinEurope(p.296).RegionalStudies,33(4),295–304.

Magplane,(2001).‘‘WhydoITcompaniescluster?’’

Available:http://www.magplane.com/html/archive.htm#301,March5,2001.

320WORLDDEVELOPMENT

Marshall,A.(1925).Principlesofeconomics(eighthed.).

London,UK:Macmillan.

Meyer-Stamer,J.(1998).Pathdependenceinregional

development:persistenceandchangeinthreeindus-trialclustersinSantaCatarina,Brazil.WorldDevel-opment,26(8),1495–1511.

Meyer-Stamer,J.(1999).Regionalandlocationalpolicy

whatcanwelearnfromtheceramicsandtextiles/clothingclustersofSantaCatarina,Brazil.InBuild-ingamodernandeﬀectivebusinessdevelopmentservicesindustryinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.Duisberg,Germany/JoinvilleBrazil:InstituteforDevelopmentandPeace/Fundacßa€

oEmpreender.Mishan,E.(1971).Thepostwarliteratureonexternal-ities:aninterpretativeessay.JournalofEconomicLiterature,9(1),1–28.

Morosini,P.(1998).Managingculturaldiﬀerences.

Oxford,UK:PergamonPress.

Morosini,P.(2002).Competingonsocialcapabilities:a

deﬁningstrategicchallengeofthenewmillennium.IMDWorkingPaper2002-1.IMD,Lausanne,Swit-zerland.

Morris,A.S.,&Lowder,S.(1992).Flexiblespecializa-tion:Theapplicationoftheoryinapoor-countrycontext:Leon,Mexico.InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch,16(2),190–201.

Muller-Glodde,U.(1991).Wherethereisnoparticipa-tion:Insights,strategies,casestudies,do’sanddon’tsinregionalruraldevelopment.EschbornGermany:DeutscheGesellschaftfurTechnischeZusammenar-beit(GTZ).

Murray,R.(1991).Localspace,Europeandtheregion-alism.Manchester,UK:TheCentreforLocalEconomicStrategies.

Paija,L.(Ed.).(2001).FinnishICTclusterinthedigital

economy.Helsinki,Finland:TheResearchInstituteoftheFinnishEconomy(ETLA).

Pedersen,P.O.,Sverrisson,A.,&vanDijk,M.P.(Eds.).

(1994).Flexiblespecialization:Thedynamicsofsmall-scaleindustriesintheSouth.London,UK:Interme-diateTechnology.

Piore,M.J.(1990).Fragmentsofacognitivetheoryof

technologicalchangeandorganizationalbehav-iour.InN.Nohria&R.G.Eccles(Eds.),Networksandorganisations:structure,formandaction(pp.430–444).Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Piore,M.J.,&Sabel,C.F.(1984).Thesecondindustrial

divide.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Pitelis,C.(1993).Marketandnon-markethierarchies:

Theoryofinstitutionalfailure.Oxford,UK:Black-well.

Porter,M.E.(1998).Clustersandtheneweconomicsof

competition.HarvardBusinessReview,76(6),77–90.Prahalad,C.K.,&Hamel,G.(1990).Thecore

competenceofthecorporation.HarvardBusinessReview,68(3),79–91.

Puri,M.,&Hellmann,T.(2000).Theinteractionof

productmarketandﬁnancingstrategy:theroleofventurecapital.ReviewofFinancialStudies,13(4),959–984.

Pyke,F.,Becattini,G.,&Sengenberger,W.(Eds.).

(1990).Industrialdistrictsandinter-ﬁrmcooperation

inItaly.Geneva,Switzerland:InternationalInstituteforLabourStudies.

Rabellotti,R.(1995).IsthereanÔindustrialdistrict

ﬂow’?FootweardistrictsinItalyandMexicocom-pared.WorldDevelopment,23(1),29–41.

Rabellotti,R.(1999).RecoveryofaMexicancluster:

devaluationbonanzaorcollectiveeﬃciency.WorldDevelopment,27(9),1571–1585.

RamosCampos,R.,Nicolau,J.A.,&FerrazC󰀂ario,S.

A.(1999).Clusterecapacitaßc~aotecnol󰀂ogica:aexperi󰀂encianaind󰀂ustriaCer^amicadeRevestimentodeSantaCatarina.Florianopolis,Brazil:FederalUniversityofSantaCatarina.

Romagnoli,A.,&Lungarella,R.(19).Letras-formazzionidell’industriadell’Emilia–Romagnanegliannisettanataeneiprimianniottanta.Bologna,Italy:EnteRegionaleperlaValorizzazioneEconomicadelTerritorioSpA(ERVET)EmiliaRomagna.

Rosenberg,D.(2002).CloningSiliconValley:thenext

generationhigh-techhotspots.London,UK:Reuters/PearsonEducation.

Rumelt,R.P.(1984).Towardsastrategictheoryofthe

ﬁrm.InR.B.Lamb(Ed.),Competitivestrategicmanagement(pp.556–570).EnglewoodCliﬀs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Sabel,C.(1982).Workandpolitics:thedivisionoflabour

inindustry.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.Sanch󰀂ez,B.,delCastillo,J.,Lacave,M.,&Terras,J.

(2000).Clustergame:Betweenlocalandinternationalchallenges.Bilbao,Spain:Infyde.

Saxenian,A.L.(1994).Regionaladvantage:cultureand

competitioninSiliconValleyandRoute128.Cam-bridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Saxenian,A.L.,&Hsu,J.Y.(2001).TheSiliconValley–

Hsinchuconnection:technicalcommunitiesandIndustrialupgrading.IndustrialandCorporateChange,10(4),3–920.

Schmitz,H.(1995).Smallshoemakersandfordistgiants:

taleofasupercluster.WorldDevelopment,23(1),9–28.

Schmitz,H.(2000).Doeslocalco-operationmatter?

EvidencefromindustrialclustersinSouthAsiaandLatinAmerica.OxfordDevelopmentStudies,28(3),323–336.

Schmitz,H.,&Nadvi,K.(1994).Industrialclustersin

lessdevelopedcountries:Reviewofexperiencesandresearchagendas.Brighton:IDS.

Simmie,J.,&Sennett,J.(1999).Innovativeclusters:

globalorlocallinkages?NationalInstituteEconomicReview,170,70–81.

Sternberg,R.(1996).Regionalgrowththeoriesand

high-techregions.InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch,20(3),518–538.

Swann,P.,&Prevezer,M.(1996).Acomparisonofthe

dynamicsofindustrialclusteringincomputingandbiotechnology.ResearchPolicy,25,1139–1157.

Taylor,P.,Beaverstock,J.,Cook,G.,Pandit,N.,Pain,

K.,&Greenwood,H.(2003).FinancialservicesclusteringanditssigniﬁcanceforLondon.London,UK:CorporationofLondon.

Veltz,P.(1993).D’uneg󰀂eographiedesco^uts󰀂aune

g󰀂eographiedel’organisation.Quelquesthesessur

INDUSTRIALCLUSTERS

321

l’󰀂󰀂evolutiondesrapportsentreprises-territoires.RevueEconomique,44(4),671–684.

Williamson,O.(1985).Theeconomicinstitutionsof

capitalism.NewYork:FreePress.

Woodruﬀ,C.(1998).Contractenforcementandtrade

liberalizationinMexico’sfootwearindustry.WorldDevelopment,26(6),979–991.

Zhang,J.(2001).Theinnovatorsdilemmaandthefuture

ofSiliconValley.Perspectives,3(1)(onlinejournal)Available:http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/13_083101/innovator_dilemma.htm.

APPENDIXA.THEROLEOFLOCAL,

NATIONALANDREGIONAL

GOVERNMENTSTherolethatlocal,nationaland––increas-ingly––regionalgovernmentsplayinboththebirthandmanagementofindustrialclustershasbeenstudiedquiteextensivelyinthepast.Governmentsarestronglyattractedtothisphenomenonforavarietyofreasons,mostofwhichmustseemobvioustoall:thereispotentialforeconomicgrowthandemploy-mentaswellasforattractingvaluablein-vestments,technologicalassetsandcriticaleconomicresourcestocertaingeographicareas,typicallythoseseenaslesseconomicallydevel-opedor‘‘strategic.’’

Therelevantliteraturehasidentiﬁedanum-berofrolesthatlocal,nationalandregionalgovernmentstypicallyplayvis-󰀁a-visindustrialclusters(Meyer-Stamer,1999;Rabellotti,1999).Theserolescanbeclassiﬁedinafewcategories:

––Initiator:Macro-economicorregionalpolicydecisionsoftenpavethewayforindustrialclusterstoemergeorthey––oftenlessdeliberately––createcriticalconditionsthatforcetheseclusterstoevolveincom-pletelynewways.Perhapsthemostspecta-cularrecentexampleoftheformeristheFinnishgovernment’sliberalizationandderegulationofthetelecommunicationsindustryduringthe1980s.Thisradicalpro-cesscontributedtothedevelopmentofaworld-classindustrialclusterinsouthernFinlandoverthenextdecade,nurturingthe

growthofglobaltelecommunicationsequip-mentleaderssuchasNokia.

––Promoter:Governmentscanpromoteanindustrialcluster’sproducts,servicesandimageinavarietyofways,includingexportpromotioninfrastructure,networkingabroadandtradingnegotiationswithothergovern-ments.NationalgovernmentsofcountriessuchasFrance,TaiwanandSingaporepro-videgoodexamplesoflong-termpromo-tioneﬀortsonaglobalscaleinsupportofindustrialclusters,i.e.inthefood,semicon-ductorandcomputerhardwaresectors,respectively.

––Coordinator:Stategovernmentscanbeactiveincarryingoutprojecttaskssuchasbenchmarking,technologytransfer,best-practiceexchangesandexpertassistanceonbehalfofclusters.IntheBrazilianstateofSantaCatarina,forexample,thelocalgovernmenthasbeendescribedasplayinganactivecoordinatingrolethroughoutthe1990stosupportthestate’stextileandtilemanufacturingclusters(Meyer-Stamer,1999).

––Manager:State,nationalorregionalgov-ernmentssometimesprovidemassivere-sourcestostartand/orsupportindustrialclustersinparticularlyintensivewaysthateitherincludeorfalljustshortoftakingownershipstakesinsomeofthemainﬁrmsandrelatedeconomicandcapitalinfrastruc-ture.Thisisoftenthecasewith‘‘industrialcities,’’‘‘industrialpoles’’andthelike,whicharetypicallystartedwithasigniﬁcantinjectionofpublicfundsandsupportedthereafterwithheavilysubsidizedre-sources,taxincentivesandfavorablemacro-economicpolicies.Inaddition,inthesesituations,governmentalinstitutionsandrepresentativesoftenplayaratheractiverole,notonlyinﬂuencingthestrategicori-entationsandbusinessactivitiesoftheﬁrmswithintheclusterbutalsotakinganopenlymanagerialrole,i.e.runningtheeconomic,capitalandﬁnancialinfrastructuresur-roundingthecluster’sﬁrms––orevensomeoftheﬁrmsthemselves.

APPENDIXB

RESEARCHSTUDIESLOOKINGATINDUSTRIALCLUSTERS,DEGREEOFKNOWLEDGEINTEGRATION,ANDSCOPEOFCOMPETITIONa

LondonFinancial

I––InstitutionalfabricSocialcommunity

RelativelyhomogenousPiemonteAutomobile

EmiliaRomagnaTiles

MexicanShoeManufacturing

SantaCata-rinaTextiles

FinlandICT

SiliconValley

322AminandThrift

BelussiBarbagli,Brusco,RabellottiMeyer-Arni(1999)

Saxenian(1994),systemofvaluesandviewsSystemofvaluesandviewsencouragesinitiativeandtechnicalchange

SystemofinstitutionsthatspreadsystemofvalueswithintheclusterEconomicagents

Relativenumberof

individualswithspecializedskillsandknowledgeRelativenumberofﬁrmswithingeographicproximityRelativenumberof

economicallylinkedﬁrmsRelativenumberof

internationalandmultina-tionalﬁrms

RelativesizeofinternationalandmultinationalﬁrmsRelativenumberof‘‘meso-level’’institutionsDiversityof‘‘meso-level’’institutions

Qualityof‘‘meso-level’’institutionsII—Geographiccloseness

Netinternaleconomiesofscaleadvantages

Netspecializedlaboradvantages

(1992)GordonandMcCann(2000)

NANANA

NACheshireand

Gordon(1995)

(1992)

EuropeanCommission(1999)

EuropeanCommission(1999)Pisati,Santono,andSerravalli(1998),Capecchi(1990)

PioreandSabel

(1984),Brusco(1982),Brusco(1999),Sternberg(1996),Lazerson(1990)

BruscoandRighi

(19)Murray(1991)Brusco(1999),Pykeetal.(1990)

BerardiandRo-magnoli(1984)Lazerson(1990)

(1995),Arias(1992)Rabellotti(1999),Schmitz(2000),HumphreyandSchmitz(1998)

Rabellotti(1995)

Stamer(1999)

RamosCamposetal.(1999)

Muller-Glodde(1991)

Meyer-Sta-mer(1999)

FinnFacts(2001)

Koski,Rouvi-nen,andYl€a-Anttila(2001)

Porter(1998)

Saxenian(1994),Rosenberg(2002),Becker(2000),Bresnahan,Gambardella,andSaxenian

(2001)

Porter(1998)

WORLDDEVELOPMENTNetinter-ﬁrmknowledgeshar-ingandnetworkingadvantagesNetinter-ﬁrmtechnologytrans-feradvantages

Netsharedmarketintelligenceadvantages

Netproduct-,technology-andmanagerial-innovationadvantages

III––EconomiclinkagesCommoncustomers

(bothﬁrmsandindividuals)Commonsuppliersandserviceproviders

Commoninfrastructuresuchastransport,communicationsandutilities

Commonpoolofhumantalent,suchasskilledprofessionals,orspecializedlabor

Commoneducational,trainingandcoachingfacilitiesforworkers

Commoneducational,trainingandcoachingapproachesforworkers

Commonuniversity,researchcenterandtechnologyinvstitutespecializations

Commonriskcapitalmarkets

IV–‘‘CommonGlue’’Leadership

Explicitleadersofthecluster

AminandThrift

(1992)Feloyetal.(1997)

CheshireandEuropeanGordon(1995),CommissionGordonand(1999)

McCann(2000)

AminandThrift

(1992)

Bucketal.(1997)PioreandSabel(1984)Sabel(1982)Sabel(1982)RomagnoliandLungarella(19)

Lazerson(1990)

HumphreyandSchmitz(1998),Rabellotti(1995)

Meyer-Sta-mer(1999)HumphreyandSchmitz(1998)

Meyer-Sta-mer(1999)Arni(1999)

Sanch󰀂ezetal.

(2000)

Sanch󰀂ezetal.

(2000)SwannandPrevezer(1996)

Arthur(1994)

CooperandFolta(2000)Becker(2000)

SwannandPrevezer(1996)

Becker(2000)

Rosenberg(2002)

INDUSTRIALCLUSTERS323APPENDIXB––continued

324Explicitleadersareacceptedbyallofthecluster’seco-nomicagents

Buildingblocks

Strongsocioculturaltiesacrossboundaries

Commoncodeofbehavioramongstthecluster’seco-nomicagentsDegreeoftrustbetweenthecluster’seconomicagentsAttitudeformutualcollabo-rationamongstthecluster’seconomicagentsCommonlanguage

CommonindustrialcultureCommonindustrialatmosphere

CommonapproachestodevelopinghumancapitalCommonbusinessunder-standingandmindsetCommoncompetitive

performanceapproachesandmeasurements

CommunicationmechanismsRegularcommunicationevents

Regularcommunicationinteractions

LondonFinancial

LeyshonandThrift(1994)

BRITE(2001),Tayloretal.(2003)Feloyetal.(1997)

Feloyetal.(1997)

AminandThrift

(1992)

PiemonteAutomobile

EuropeanCommission(1999)

EmiliaRomagnaTiles

Rabellotti(1995)

HumphreyandSchmitz(1998)Rabellotti(1995)

MexicanShoeManufacturing

Rabellotti(1995)

Dominguez-Vill-alobosandGrossman(1992)

HumphreyandSchmitz(1998)

MorrisandLowder(1992)

Rabellotti(1995)

SantaCata-rinaTextiles

Meyer-Sta-mer(1999)

FinlandICT

SiliconValleyITLeonardandSwap(2000)

Sanch󰀂ezetal.

Sternberg(1996)

(2000)

Zhang(2001)

CooperandFolta(2000)Porter(1998)

Sanch󰀂ezetal.(2000),Ali-Yrkk€o

,Paija,Reilly,andYl€a-Anttila(2000)

WORLDDEVELOPMENTRegularcommunicationRabellottiapproaches

(1995)

CoordinationmechanismsBenchmarkingtaskforcesacrossthecluster’sﬁrms

Executiveeducationofclusterﬁrm’semployees

MutualcooperationinitiativesFeloyetal.acrosscluster’sﬁrms

(1997)

Technologytransfersacrossthecluster’sﬁrms

JointR&DinitiativesacrossNAthecluster’sﬁrmsJointmanufacturing

initiativesacrossthecluster’sﬁrms

Jointproductdesign

initiativesacrossthecluster’sﬁrms

Jointsalesandmarketingini-NA

tiativesacrossthecluster’sﬁrmsProfessionalrotationsDegreeofown-sector

Feloyetal.employmentwithincluster’s(1997)

homeregion

Degreeofinter-ﬁrmmobilitywithincluster

Degreeofspin-oﬀs/start-upsbycluster’semployees

ScopeofcompetitionofindustrialclustersExternalfactorsMaincustomersFeloyetal.Mainproductandservices(1997)markets

Keydemographictrends

Rabellotti(1995)

Brusco(1999)Pedersenetal.(1994)

Schmitz(1995)

Rabellotti(1995)

Schmitz(1995)Brusco(1999)

BostonMeyer-Sta-Consultingmer(1999)

GroupStudy(1998)

HumphreyandSchmitz(1998)

Rabellotti(1995)

Woodruﬀ(1998),Rabe-llotti(1995)

Sanch󰀂ezetal.(2000),Paija(2001)

Paija(2001)Sanch󰀂ezetal.(2000)

Saxenian(1994)

Christensen(1997)

Becker(2000)

INDUSTRIALCLUSTERS325326APPENDIXB––continued

LondonPiemonteEmiliaMexicanShoeSantaCata-FinlandICT

SiliconValley

Financial

AutomobileRomagnaTilesManufacturingrinaTextiles

Mainlegalandregulatoryframeworks

Internalfactors

Keyresources(i.e.humanSimmieandSen-Rabellotti(1995)

RabellottiPuriandHell-capital,ﬁnancialcapital)

nett(1999)

(1995),Hum-mann(2000)Keyprocesses(i.e.innovation,phreyandSch-Saxenian(1994)

productdevelopment,supplymitz(1998)

chainmanagement)

Keycompetenciesandcapa-Porter(1998)

bilities(i.e.keytechnologies,speedofinnovation)Socialfactors

Learning(i.e.aboutKeebleetal.Rabellotti(1995)

RabellottiPorter(1998),customers,products,(1999)

(1995)

Leonardandtechnologies,managerialSwap(2000)

approaches)

KnowledgecreationSanch󰀂ezetal.

Knowledgesharing

(2000)

Culturalbehaviorandnorms

aForVenetoPlastics,ManausTelecom,ManausConsumerElectronics,ManausLightAutomotiveandStuttgartAutoparts,wecarriedoutexpertinterviewsandﬁeldvisits,usingthetemplatesandconstructsoutlinedinTables1and2.

WORLDDEVELOPMENT

因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容

查看全文