Search results

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to advance understanding of regional industry or innovation clusters and the opportunities that the cluster framework provides policymakers for delivering economic impact, clarifying economic priorities, and coordinating disparate programmatic efforts, and to articulate some basic principles for formulating cluster strategies.

Methodology/approach – As the cluster concept enters its third decade and the body of related literature reaches a new level of maturity a consensus has emerged among academics and policy thinkers on the economic benefits of clusters. In fact, clusters have emerged as major focus of economic and policy discussion just now – in what the authors dub a “cluster moment” – by dint of their demonstrated practical impact, their value in paradigm discussions, and their potential utility in policy reform. The chapter reviews the benefits of clusters and traces their ascendance – and re-emergence post-recession – among policy thinkers.

Findings – New research confirms that strong clusters tend to deliver positive benefits to workers, firms, and regions. As a paradigm, they reflect the nature of the real economy and as a matter of policymaking, clusters provide a framework for rethinking and refocusing economic policy. In pursuing cluster-based economic development strategies, policy leaders should not try to create clusters; use data to target interventions, drive design, and track performance; focus initiatives on addressing discrete gaps in performance or binding constraints on cluster growth; maximize impact by leveraging pre-existing cluster-relevant programs; align efforts vertically as well as horizontally; and let the private sector lead. All three tiers of the nation's federalist system have distinct and complementary roles to play in advancing the cluster paradigm.

Research limitations/implications (if applicable) – The paper includes no new/original data.

Practical implications (if applicable) – Given that clusters have emerged as a major focus of economics and policy, this chapter lays out a core set of general principles for pursuing cluster-based economic development strategies – and for avoiding common pitfalls – to which policymakers can adhere.

Originality/value of paper – The chapter advances cluster thinking and cluster strategies as a paradigm with the potential to accelerate regional economic growth and assist with the nation's needed restructuring and rebalancing toward a more productive post-recession economy.

This chapter applies the five drivers of productivity framework to regional microdata for Egypt and extends it by introducing an index of industrial clusters as an explanatory factor of the productivity performance of local private sector firms. Applying structural equation models, the geographic concentration of sectoral economic activity is found to have a positive and statistically significant effect on labor productivity. The transmission mechanism is conjectured to be the positive spillovers that are created, which local firms can tap into. In contrast, a higher concentration of skilled workers in an industrial sector in a region is associated with lower levels of labor productivity – a finding that suggests there may be structural deficiencies in the allocation of skilled workers. Regional policy should focus on net investments in gross capital formation throughout the country, for which the national and regional governments should improve how public investments are managed and the institutional framework – including the rule of law, bureaucracy and red tape, conflict of interest, transparency, and governance – so that private investment (both local and foreign) may substantially increase.

Relying on mergers and acquisition transaction-level data set and adopting a more region-specific approach with a focus on industry-region pairs, this paper aims to examine how cross-border acquisitions (CBAs) have an effect, in terms of technological spillover and collaboration, on European regional clusters.

Adopting an industry-region pair approach, this study is based on a quantitative analysis of regional clusters belonging to 262 European regions and 25 patenting industries. Different thresholds of industrial specialization are used to identify clustering industries within a region. Invention performance at the regional cluster level is defined through two sets of different measurements to assess the impact of CBAs on invention quantity performance and internal and external technological collaboration.

The results reveal that CBAs have a positive and significant impact on the number of patents as well as the number of internal and external technological collaborations and that this effect is persistent over time. Furthermore, through exploring the interindustry technological spillover effect of CBAs registered in the same region of a cluster but outside the cluster itself, the authors found that CBAs in a regional cluster are inclined to produce technological spillovers within the cluster but no significant effects in the other industries of the region.

This paper is an attempt to empirically explore CBAs and technological spillover in European regional clusters. Therefore, it contributes to the debate, thanks to the use of an industry-region pair approach.

The purpose of this paper is to study the specialization of regional clusters and their innovative behaviour, in a particular Portuguese region.

A regional case study (Region Centro of Portugal) is used, employing secondary and primary data in order to measure specialized critical mass of a region's clusters and analyze their innovative behavior following the European Cluster Observatory (ECO) methodology.

Combining the different nature of data (primary and secondary), this paper identifies the specialized critical mass of a region's cluster, makes statements about the role of clusters in a regional context, and demonstrates how a regional clustering approach is important to understanding the innovative process. Based on an empirical survey, three types of clusters were found: basic, intermediate and advanced.

Among the research limitations is the undersized sample of primary data which does not allow deep findings to be drawn about the innovative behavior of the clusters in a general way. Therefore, future research should focus on this area, extending the empirical analysis presented here to add qualitative indicators on innovative behaviour, to calculate the impact of absorptive capacity in the case of regional clusters.

This study provides a consistent methodology of cluster operation which could be useful for undertaking comparative work within regions' clusters across different sectors and countries, to reinforce the importance of the current discussion of policy clusters, and to identify specific requirements and needs of each cluster in order to improve the quality of decision making and to draw some policy implications.

This paper is the first to measure specialized critical mass of a region's clusters at the enterprise level and to explain cluster innovative behaviour, combining primary and secondary, based on ECO criteria. Furthermore, it provides initial empirical evidence and an amount of significant findings to support managers and policymakers in the understanding of regional and innovation clustering of small to medium‐sized enterprises.

This paper aims to analyse the impact of clusters on development and growth at the firm and regional level in Latin America (LA). The past 20 years have witnessed an acceleration of cluster initiatives, assuming their positive impact on firm performance and regional development. However, theoretical development and empirical meta-studies in emerging countries to validate this assumed relationship are scarce.

This paper reviews empirical evidence from a population of 123 studies and a sample of 45 empirical studies including 216 clusters in LA.

It concludes that clusters contribute to both development and growth at the firm- and regional-level contingent to factors such as cluster stage of development, collective efficiency, the pattern of governance of the value chain and the sector in which the firm operates; however, clusters are also a potential source of socio-economic divides.

Therefore, these results qualify the conclusions of studies of clusters in developed countries (Porter, 2003; Delgado et al., 2010).

This chapter aims to enrich knowledge about cluster initiatives acting as intermediaries primarily between members in a cluster or in regional context. This is a practically oriented manuscript written to contribute to refinement of existing policies by proposing recommendations based on recent empirical studies regarding funding, actors’ and activities’ content, as well as cluster initiatives’ assessment. It is proposed that public support should be balanced, targeting new as well as established, well-functioning cluster initiatives. Furthermore, regional authorities should encourage multifaceted collaboration (e.g., Triple Helix), stimulate variation in activities to maximize the benefit of cluster initiatives as well as define and communicate success factors that make it possible to evaluate cluster initiatives from a holistic perspective. These recommendations are primary aimed for regional authorities and reflect a bottom-up perspective where both logic of initiatives’ actions and their development are captured. Yet, even national authorities can make use of the recommendations in this chapter to improve governance of cluster initiatives and to determine further directions of regional policies.

This paper aims to discuss and present the regional-innovation cluster policy for R&D efficiency and the creative economy. In particular, the R&D efficiency and creative economy of Daedeok Innopolis are discussed for the science and technology policy of the R&D regional-innovation cluster. In this research, the region cluster policy change, the creative innovation system construction, the manpower system construction and the support unification for R&D and commercialization are presented as policy proposals for R&D efficiency and the creative economy.

In this research, the universities, research institutes and enterprises of Daedeok Innopolis were studied. Thirty people from the universities in the area, 30 from the research institutes and 30 from the enterprises were surveyed through the quota sampling of the non-probability sampling method for this research. These survey respondents were science and technology policy specialists for the R&D, industrialization and entrepreneurial activities of Daedeok Innopolis. The methodological material is a questionnaire. The study’s investigation factors were the government’s role, knowledge creation and the network. Also, F-test, ANOVA and chi-square independence test were utilized for the survey data analysis.

Regional-innovation cluster construction is a representative method of realizing regional development and competition enhancement. This research was found through the analysis that the government policy is very useful for innovation ecosystem development. The knowledge capability has been enhanced in connection with knowledge creation. Also, the network has been vitalized. New-dimension industry–university–institute collaboration and a human resource management system are needed for R&D efficiency and the creative economy. Daedeok Innopolis needs consistent support for industrialization and foundation.

Movement of and cooperation among humans, goods, knowledge, technologies, etc., occur in many areas (science, the economy, culture, arts, etc.) because of the compression of time and space through informatization and globalization. This has brought about changes in cross-border, regional and national relations and has stimulated competition in the aforementioned areas. To date, a state-dominated system has been operated to deal with these changes, but it has been shown to be inefficient because it cannot reflect the conditions in the region and does not allow quick reaction. The advantages of the region must be identified and utilized to boost the survival and development of the region. Regional-innovation cluster construction is a representative method of realizing regional development and competition enhancement.

The innovative feature of the study is proposed the science and technology policy (the region cluster policy change, the creative innovation system construction, the manpower system construction and the support unification for R&D and commercialization) for the R&D regional-innovation cluster through the survey data analysis. In this paper, the R&D efficiency and the creative economy of Daedeok Innopolis are discussed for the science and technology policy of the R&D regional-innovation cluster. The science and technology policy for the R&D regional-innovation cluster development is examined for the first time in this paper. This research is expected to make a significant contribution to the establishment of a development strategy for the regional-innovation cluster, and to the decision-making regarding the science and technology policy.

The purpose of the work is to determine conflicts that may appear in clusters.

The methodology of the research is based on combination of systemic, institutional, and evolutional approaches, including private general scientific methods of subject-object, factor, comparative, functional and structural and descriptive analysis, classification, and modeling.

Comparison of programs of development of territorial innovational clusters is conducted, as well as comparative analysis of methodological approaches to analysis of the institutional basis of regional clusters; a ranking of target directions of regional programs of development of innovational territorial clusters is compiled. The authors’ classification of conflicts of regional clusters is offered.

The performed analysis helped to determine presence of various defects, dysfunctions, and negative effects with clusters that emphasize their high susceptibility to conflicts that have to be taken into account during formation of regional cluster policy, aimed at their conflict-free functioning.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an analysis of regional concentration patterns within ten new European Union (EU) member states, EU10, and make comparisons with EU15 and the US economy.

Industrial specialization and clusters are measured as employment in the intersection between a sector (three‐digit NACE data) and a particular region (NUTS 2 level), with a total of 38 sectors and 41 regions within EU10. Regional cluster size and degree of specialization is measured along 3D: absolute number of employees (>10,000 jobs is used as cut‐off for a regional cluster), degree of specialization (regional sector employment is at least two times expected levels) and degree of regional market labor dominance (>3 per cent of total employment in a particular sector). Each of these three measures of cluster size, specialization and labor market focus are classified with a “star”. The largest and most specialized clusters receive three stars.

EU10 exhibits 19 three‐star regional clusters, which display high values for each of the three measured parameters. In addition, there are 92 two‐star regional clusters and 313 one‐star regional clusters. The analysis also suggests that regional concentration in EU10 is clearly lower than in the USA, and slightly lower than in the old EU member states. In a few cases – IT, biopharmaceuticals and communications equipment – where the total size of the cluster is small, and there is little historical legacy in Eastern Europe, the EU10 exhibits higher geographical concentration than EU15.

Overall, the economies of EU10 exhibit a pattern of geographical concentration close to a random distribution, i.e. the process of regional concentration and redistribution of industry is in a very early phase. If Europe is to build a more competitive economy, industrial restructuring towards larger clusters must be allowed and pushed by policy makers both at the national and EU levels.

Policymakers must be well informed about geographical concentration patterns of industry. The research offers a consistent methodology of mapping regional clusters and geographical concentration patterns across sectors.

This paper is the first in measuring regional concentration patterns in Europe at this fine level, and is based on a new methodology developed by Professor Michael E. Porter at Harvard University. The paper has also introduced a new method of ranking clusters according to the star model.

During the 1990s, most European countries have increased their interest in the direction of industrial districts, clusters and local production systems as an integral part of their industrial policy. At the same time, there have been significant changes in the consideration of industrial policy in Europe. The aim of this paper is to analyze two basic approaches in the development of cluster initiatives in the formation of cluster policy.

This paper analyzes two basic approaches in the development of cluster initiatives in the formation of cluster policy: top‐down and bottom‐up approach. The analysis also points to the diversity of national approaches in terms of policy clusters, but in the same time at some common trends.

The development of cluster policy is still at an early stage in most countries. There are also significant differences among the countries of Eastern and Western Europe. Among those countries that have adopted the policy of the cluster after 2000, are mostly small countries in terms of population and/or geographical size of countries in Eastern Europe.

Policies that encourage cluster formation have to be developed, particularly in developing countries and countries in transition that are seeking their place in the international market.