Innovationspolitischer Mehrwert durch Vernetzung Cluster- und Netzwerkförderung als Politikinstrument auf Bundes- und Länderebene

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. summary: Innovation policies in both old and new industrial countries increasingly promote regional clusters and distributed networks. Public financing of cluster and networks of business firms, research institutions and other organizations is based on the observation that networking plays an increasing role in technological progress. This paper analyses the German cluster and networks programs which receive funding by the Federal Government or the Federal states. About 300 state-sponsored cluster and network initiatives currently address JEL Classification: O33, O38, O25 → Terms of use: Documents in

Re-thinking cluster policies: the role of shared vision and Place Leadership on the development of resilient clusters

“…The pressure to conform in order to obtain funding leads cluster organizations to adapt to the respective program documents in terms of technological orientation, membership structure, strategy, and regional concentration. The more concretely formulated these are, the stronger the focus required to acquire the funding (Rothgang and Lageman 2011 ). This approach becomes particularly problematic when trying to implement clusters not based on region-specific cluster potentials, a phenomenon increasingly occurring in European countries in which many artificial cluster initiatives are created as a result of entrepreneurial efforts to obtain public funding, but which do not represent true clusters in the sense of actual market structures with strong regional specialization (Kowalski 2020 ).…”

“…It is commonly assumed that after an initial phase supported by state funding, cluster organizations will continue to develop on their own without state funding. Experience shows that continuous development is only likely in specific fields where financially strong large companies are present and strongly committed (Rothgang and Lageman 2011 ). Companies are only willing to invest in a cluster if they get a corresponding return and the investment is seen as necessary to achieve a particular goal.…”

“…Internationally known flagship clusters such as Silicon Valley that have shown sustainable success have attracted policy interest and called for the promotion of clusters worldwide. Porter’s concept, which was initially based more on microeconomic competition analysis and not aimed at state intervention in the market, gradually changed policy practice into a “directive“ for structural and innovative policy action (Rothgang and Lageman 2011 ).…”

“…The cluster organizations align themselves with the respective goals of the funding agencies. This applies to the content and strategic orientation, but also in part to the membership structure and regional expansion, which are aimed at the respective program (Rothgang and Lageman 2011 ). As a result, clusters that are not sustainably successful because they lack the necessary framework conditions are implemented and promoted.…”