What's Next in Researching Cluster Policy: Place-Based Governance for Effective Cluster Policy

Reconciling Perspectives on Clusters: An Integrative Review and Research Agenda

“…The AIS reflects both the number of citations that papers published in a journal received over a window of 5 years, as well as the prestige of these citations (West et al 2006). In our selection of fields, it is notable that, contrary to previous reviews (Hervas-Oliver et al 2015;Lazzeretti et al 2014), we included public administration to account for the increasing number of studies on cluster policies (Ebbekink and Lagendijk 2013). The AIS thus has marked advantages over the impact factor, which maintains a shorter, 2-year window, and does not consider prestige and self-citation (Kianifar et al 2014).…”

Understanding regional innovation policy dynamics: Actors, agency and learning

“…621-639;Garud and Karnøe, 2001). For instance, Ebbekink and Lagendijk (2013) argue that cluster policy tends to be a strategy of 'muddling through', namely a succession of incremental changes based on trial-and-error in circumstances of very incomplete understanding. Policy agency is embedded -it is part of the system it is trying to influence, rather than the work of a single, all-seeing policy maker somehow operating outside of the system (Flanagan et al, 2011).…”

SMEs' Preference for Innovation Networks: A Choice Experimental Approach

“…Policy makers and other stakeholders that aim at fostering collective efforts through building innovation networks are recommended to pay particular attention to the needs of potential participants when designing such networks. In particular, they should not seek to follow ‘one‐size‐fits‐all recipes’ (Ebbekink & Lagendijk, ), but rather should try to assure the fit between the network's strategy and design – in terms of, for example, type of members, appropriability regimes and supports provided – with the type of firms, and in particular the innovation objectives and actual networking behaviour. In line with the findings of van der Borgh, Cloodt and Romme () to assure such a fit, policy makers and network managers are advised to engage in a close and continual dialogue not only with the potential but also the current network participants as their needs will most likely change over time.…”

“…Scholars suggest that the success of these policy approaches and innovation networks lies in the understanding of the local context, in particular the needs and expectations of the direct beneficiaries, i.e. the SMEs (Ebbekink & Lagendijk, , van der Borgh, Cloodt & Romme, ). It is assumed that innovation networks that meet SMEs' needs and expectations about benefits will survive longer than networks that fail to do so (Miller, Besser & Malshe, ).…”