Clusters from the Inside and Out: Local Dynamics and Global Linkages

Abstract

This paper surveys some of the current methodologies employed to analyse cluster development, as well as some of the key themes emerging from both the analytical and prescriptive literature noted above. It uses this survey as the context in which to present a synthesis of the initial findings of the current national study of industrial clusters in Canada, conducted by the Innovation Systems Research Network. The national study comprises 26 cases which aim to identify the presence of significant concentrations of firms in the local economy and to understand the process by which these regional-industrial concentrations of economic activity are managing the transition to more knowledge-intensive forms of production. The central questions in each case are: What role do local institutions and actors play in fostering this transition? How important is interaction with non-local actors in this process? How dependent are local firms on unique local knowledge assets and what is the relative importance of local versus non-local knowledge flows between economic actors? How did each local industrial concentration evolve over time to reach its present state and what key events and decisions shaped its path? And, finally, to what extent do these processes, relationships and local capabilities constitute a true cluster? Ultimately, what are the key relationships, linkages and processes that ground the cluster in its existing location?

A Network-based view of regional growth

“…This has led some to question the view that tacit knowledge transfer is confined to local milieus, arguing that firms source tacit knowledge from selected providers located outside the local milieu by investing in the building of new channels of communication (Wolfe and Gertler, 2004;Fontes, 2005;Gertler, and Levitte, 2005;Fitjar and Rodriguez-Pose;. It is suggested, therefore, that although knowledge spillovers may take place across regions, it is usually through more selective routes (Audretsch and Feldman, 1996;Audretsch and Lehmann, 2005;Bode, 2004).…”

“…Saxenian (2006: 6) describes the role of what she terms the 'new argonauts' -or global entrepreneurs connecting advanced and developing economies, which 'are undermining the old pattern of one-way flows of technology and capital from the core to the periphery, creating far more complex and decentralized two-way flows of skill, capital, technology', resulting in the rapid development of cross-regional connections and communities. The key aspect of these developments is that the knowledge base of the world's most advanced regional economies is no longer necessarily local, but positioned within global knowledge networks, connecting clusters and their actors (Wolfe and Gertler, 2004;Huggins and Izushi, 2007;Lundquist and Trippl, 2011).…”

“…The network metaphor has become highly prevalent within the economic geography and regional economic development literature, with a vast body of work on notions such as global production networks (Olds and Thrift, 1997;Henderson et al;Coe et al, 2004; innovative milieu (Maillat, 1998a;1998b), regional innovation systems (Asheim and Isaksen, 2002;Doloreux, and Parto, 2005), and clusters (Porter, 1998;Wolfe, and Gertler, 2004;Malmberg and Power, 2006;Huber, 2011), suggesting the relevance of networks to economic growth and performance. While these studies often apply the network concept in a broad manner, few have sought to apply it in a more formal and constrained way, which would allow for a more precise rendering of the potential role of networks within regional growth processes.…”

Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: a network theory

“…Even in those locations possessing a knowledge-rich environment there is evidence of a greater role being played by non-localized networks (Saxenian 2005). The key aspect of these developments is that the knowledge base of the world's most advanced local and regional economies is no longer necessarily local, but positioned within global knowledge networks (Wolfe and Gertler 2004;Huggins and Izushi 2007;Lorentzen 2008). There is also a growing school of thought that non-proximate actors are often equally, if not better, able to transfer strategically relevant and valuable knowledge across such spatial boundaries providing a high performing network structure is in place Knowledge will tend to spill over beyond regional borders as a consequence of the existence of different forms of inter-regional contacts, with flows of inter-regional knowledge acting as important agents of innovation (Rodríguez-Pose and Crescenzi 2008).…”

Do clusters really matter for innovation practices in Information Technology? Questioning the significance of technological knowledge spillovers

“…Also, this definition does not include cases of so-called rent externalities where less compensation is given than the market value of the knowledge (Caniels and Romijn, 2005, 499). 3 research and development (Wolfe andGertler, 2004, 1076). 2 It has been often argued that knowledge flows freely within co-located organisations as a local public good (Breschi and Lissoni, 2001a).…”