Cluster Policies in the US and Germany: Varieties of Capitalism Perspective on Two High-Tech States

Abstract

Introduction Over the past two decades regional-sectoral clusters in the sense of Porter (1990) have become a popular target of national, regional, and local economic development policies worldwide. Although heavily criticized by scholars of various academic disciplines, policy makers still believe in this approachöand many of them still think it is possible to support the emergence or the later development of such clusters by government policies (ie by cluster policies). While it would be worth showing how many of these numerous cluster policies are really successful, our aim is to show in a theory-based, comparative attempt how and why cluster policies have developed differently in two regions in Germany and the US. These two countries represent two types of economies which are described as liberal market economies (LMEs) and coordinated market economies (CMEs) by the concept of`varieties of capitalism' (VoC) developed by Hall and Soskice (2001).VoC currently belongs to the most popular theoretical attempts to explain why, even in the face of globalization, nation-specific capitalisms persist through a coevolution of the institutional environment and corporate strategies, which are mutually reinforcing. This persistence is strengthened by the inertia and rather incremental evolution of institutions. Despite a lot of enthusiasm, this approach has provoked a large amount of critique especially from a theoretical perspective [see the dispute about institutional change in VoC between Watson (2003), Blyth (2003), and Howell (2003), and the response from Hall and Thelen (2009)]. The critique by various scholars focusing on the worldwide applicability of the VoC approach (eg Peck and Theodore, 2007) calls for an international comparison of cluster policies across the relevant spatial and administrative levels of governance, using the

Understanding regional innovation policy dynamics: Actors, agency and learning

“…In particular, this special issue addresses and connects a number of topics that have been long debated in the pages of EPC, such as: the importance of institutional entrepreneurship and leadership in regional policy (Forbes, 2012;Sotarauta and Mustikkama¨ki, 2015;Sotarauta and Pulkkinen, 2011); the role of politics, policy networks, ideas and interests in shaping particular policy agendas (Bulkeley, 2000;Kern, 2011;Smith, 2000;Tomaney and Marques, 2013); the cross-border (Perkmann, 2007) and multi-level dimensions of innovation policy (Uyarra and Flanagan, 2010), not least in relation to sustainability issues (Bulkeley, 2000); and the importance of the institutional environment and path dependencies in the implementation of regional policies (Sternberg et al, 2010). Finally, it addresses the key issue of policy learning and its implications for understanding change (Hassink and Lagendijk, 2001;Sotarauta, 2012).…”

Local Management of National Cluster Policies: Comparative Case Studies of Japanese, German, and French Biotechnology Clusters

“…Most previous studies of clusters focus on a unique case (such as Silicon Valley) or cases in the same country, compare two countries with one prominent cluster from each [43], or compare numerous clusters in various sectors from several countries [33,36]. Moreover, previous studies are concentrated on the US and EU countries.…”

“…This indicates that innovation activities are more decentralized and conducted in several local clusters in Germany than in Japan, implying that innovation in local clusters is more developed in Germany than in Japan. Such differences may reflect the tradition of political and economic decentralization in Germany as a Federal Republic (in this regard, it is noteworthy that federal states' cluster policies also play an important role in Germany [8,43]) compared to Japan, with its high level of political and economic concentration in Tokyo. The Japanese government has promoted manufacturing plant relocation to various regions since the 1970s, which was unable to effectively inhibit the concentration of innovation activities [61].…”

“…These facts suggest that the Bavarian ministry may strongly influence the cluster organization. Confer Sternberg et al [43] for cluster policy in Bavaria.…”

Industrial Nationalism versus European Partnerships: An Analysis of State-Led Franco—German Interfirm Linkages

“…Environment and Planning C (Atherton 2006, Bennett 2008, sometimes with a focus on France or Germany (Sternberg et al 2010, Menu 2012. Existing literature on various modes of market entry focusing on French and German firms tends to concentrate on comparing their expansion strategies.…”