Search results

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.

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.

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.

This paper aims at assessing the impacts of the national cluster policy, cluster age, cluster development benchmarks of neighbouring regions and the cumulative level of regional innovative capacity on the quantity and quality of cluster initiatives in Russia.

Hypotheses’ testing was carried out by a series of calculations comparing the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of cluster initiatives; the number of new cluster initiatives to the number of neighbouring regions, where cluster initiatives had begun to develop earlier; and ranks of regions within the Russian regional innovation scoreboard to the quantity and quality characteristics of cluster initiatives therein.

The results of the study empirically confirm that the national cluster policy significantly influenced the emergence and advancement of cluster initiatives in Russia. The proximity to the regions, having previously launched cluster support programmes, also had an impact on the emergence of new cluster initiatives. The cluster initiatives’ age had an ambiguous effect on their performance. Finally, the level of regional innovative capacity was correlated only with the number of cluster initiatives localised therein.

The findings show that along with the direct effects of the national cluster policy for the government-supported clusters, there are positive externalities, e.g. the emergence of new cluster initiatives throughout the country.

The research database of 277 cluster initiatives has been drawn up as a part of the first national cluster mapping and covers almost a decade of clustering activity in Russia. The study analyses not only the cluster initiatives supported by the federal government but also those developed independently.

“It should also be noted that the objective of convergence and equal distribution, including across under-performing areas, can hinder efforts to generate growth. Contrariwise, the objective of competitiveness can exacerbate regional and social inequalities, by targeting efforts on zones of excellence where projects achieve greater returns (dynamic major cities, higher levels of general education, the most advanced projects, infrastructures with the heaviest traffic, and so on). If cohesion policy and the Lisbon Strategy come into conflict, it must be borne in mind that the former, for the moment, is founded on a rather more solid legal foundation than the latter” European Commission (2005, p. 9)Adaptation of Cohesion Policy to the Enlarged Europe and the Lisbon and Gothenburg Objectives.

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 examine a cluster-based strategy implemented in the German federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia under the 2007-2013 “Regional Competitiveness and Employment” programme. Departing from traditional discretionary approaches, a substantial share of the funds was now allocated on a competitive basis. The authors analyse the resulting distribution of funds across stakeholders and sub-regions and try to assess the pros and cons of this process, which constitutes a novel delivery system for cluster policies.

Following a literature review, the paper applies two sets of regression models to explain the distribution of funds under the new policy delivery system. Interviews with stakeholders provide evidence on the efficacy and efficiency of the competitive funding process.

The changes introduced in the 2007-2013 funding period benefit universities and research organisations, as well as intermediary organisations, whereas the private sector and especially small firms capture a rather small piece of the pie. Contrary to the “innovation paradox” hypothesis, structurally weak sub-regions did not lose out in state-wide funding contests. The presence of universities with an overall high volume of third-party funding is the key variable explaining the spatial distribution of funds. This interview evidence identifies the duration of the selection process and its administrative complexity as main weaknesses, which the authors attribute to bureaucratic rationality on different levels.

This is the first analysis of a competitive funding scheme at the sub-national level, using the German federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia as a case study. It sheds light on the mechanisms of funding allocation in the 2007-2013 funding period of the European Union’s cohesion policy, which was reoriented towards supporting regional competitiveness and employment in response to the Lisbon Agenda. While competitive funding is still seen as mobilising regional stakeholders and improving the quality of projects and the selection process, these findings highlight administrative complexity as a main deficiency, which has partly been addressed in the 2014-2020 funding period.

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.

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).