• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
M Kiese: A European Proposal for Comparative Cluster Policy Research
 

M Kiese: A European Proposal for Comparative Cluster Policy Research

on

  • 947 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
947
Views on SlideShare
947
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
36
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    M Kiese: A European Proposal for Comparative Cluster Policy Research M Kiese: A European Proposal for Comparative Cluster Policy Research Document Transcript

    • Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC A European Proposal for Comparative Cluster Policy ResearchMOC Network Cluster Research WorkshopHarvard Business School, 12 December 2010 Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC Guiding Questions • Diffusion of cluster policies across time and space • How? ⇒ Channels • Adaptation? ⇒ Policy Learning • What impact? ⇒ Evaluation • Relationship between theory, empirical cluster research, policy and practice ⇒ Public Choice perspective • Impact of structural & institutional variety on the design, implementation and effectiveness of cluster policies poorly understood • E.g. varieties of capitalism (Hall/Soskice 2001) ⇒ liberal vs. coordinated market economies • Constellations of actors in regional governance structures • Interdependencies across spatial scales ⇒ multilevel governance (cf. Callaghan 2010) ⇒ Convergent vs. divergent forces ⇒ Determine scope for policy learning MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 3 1
    • Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICCComparative Cluster Policy Research: Outline• Methodology• Key concepts and findings • Public Choice perspective • Stylized facts • Varieties of cluster policy • Diffusion & policy learning• Taking CCPR forwardMOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 4 Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICCCluster Initiative vs. Cluster PolicyCluster Initiative = an organised effort to increase the growth andcompetitiveness of a cluster within a region, involving cluster firms,government and/or the research community (Sölvell et al. 2003, p. 31)(Regional) Cluster Policy• all efforts of government to develop and support clusters (in a particular region) (Hospers/Beugelsdijk 2002, p. 382)• Industrial, structural, technology or innovation policy promoting regional specialisation• Public efforts to develop concentrations of industry or network structures into clusters, or to promote existing clusters (cf. Bruch- Krumbein/Hochmuth 2000, p. 69 f.)MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 5 2
    • Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICCDimensions of Cluster PolicyGovernance1 Public PPP PrivateCluster reference1 Implicit ExplicitComplexity Single Instrument Holistic ApproachCluster Orientation Low HighCoherence Low HighInstitutionalisation Weak StrongMaturity Embryonic Completed1) cf. Fromhold-Eisebith/Eisebith 2005, p. 1256MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 6 Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICCCase Study Regions: Western Germany • Three federal states in West Germany • North Rhine-Westphalia ~ mature industries facing structural change Hannover Region: hannoverimpuls GmbH Wolfsburg AG • Bavaria ~ late industrialisation, high-tech Projekt Region Braunschweig GmbH • Lower Saxony ~ ‘grey mass’ dortmund-project region Wuppertal-Solingen- Remscheid: • Regional typology ⇒ structural, kompetenzhoch3 institutional & political variance Nuremberg Region/ Central Franconia • Seven sub-regional cases Regensburg • 110 semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 134 practitioners, observers & consultants (2006/2007)Cartography: Stephan PohlMOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 7 3
    • Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC A Public Choice Model of Cluster Promotion Economic Cluster Theory Methods for Cluster Academia Identification & Analysis Conceptual Advice Action Space A Rationality Political PP A Political Action ImplementationPrincipal-Agent- SpaceConstellation A P Rationality Bureaucratic P A Practical Action Electorate Space Rationality Cf. Kiese 2008, p. 133 MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 8 Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC Public Choice Economics: Implications for Cluster Policy “Even if the public authority that oversees the cluster is highly competent and attempts to maximise local welfare, an optimal cluster policy looks like something extraordinarily difficult to achieve.“ “Cluster policies that already look fraught with difficulties in a world of benevolent governments look extremely unappealing when political agency is explicitly taken into account.“ (Duranton 2009, p. 26-27; emphasis added) • Welfare-enhancing cluster policies threatened by • multiple information asymmetries • political and bureaucratic rationalities • lobbying und rent seeking MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 9 4
    • Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICCUnderstanding of Clusters in German Policy and Practice• Porter’s definition only academic/theoretical reference • Cluster = “geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers, firms in related industries, and associated institutions (for example, universities, standards agencies, and trade associations) in particular fields that compete but also cooperate” (Porter 1998, p. 197 f.)• General scepticism of theory; practical know-how and experience-based learning dominates • daily duty leaves no time to deal with fragmented theory • no recognition of practical value • ‘academic’ approach conflicts with mobilisation of firms• Technocratic understanding: clusters are ‘made’ and often equated with organised effort (initiative/policy) ⇒ danger of overlooking / crowding out organic cluster development• Equation of clusters and networks ⇒ institutionalisation• Superficial reference to value chains ⇒ selectivity ⇒ rhetoric?!MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 10 Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICCStylized Facts on Regional Cluster Policy in Germany1. Technocratic understanding of clusters in policy & practice2. For simplicity‘s sake, clusters are understood as networks3. Spatial mismatch between cluster and policy ⇒ over-/ underbounding4. Temporal mismatch (short-termism vs. cluster development)5. Herd behaviour (ICT, bio, nano…)6. From horizontal demonstration effects to top-down diffusion7. Inflationary use of cluster term ⇒ meaning, credibility ⇓8. Lack of explicit theoretical foundation/reference9. Sloppy identification of cluster potential10. Declining cluster focus over timeMOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 11 5
    • Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC Fuzzy Action Spaces of Cluster Promotion Blurred action spaces and Economic Cluster Theory rationalities: Methods for Cluster Academia Identification & Analysis • Politics and Bureaucracy Conceptual Advice govern concept Action Space development A Rationality • Action purpose-led ⇒ unity Political P of reason? (cf. Willgerodt 1994)P A Political Action ImplementationPrincipal-Agent- SpaceConstellation A P Rationality Bureaucratic P A Practical Action Electorate Space Rationality Cf. Kiese 2008, p. 133 MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 12 Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC Case Study Regions in the U.S. • 3 states + 2 sub- regional cases each • 2007/2008: 87 Philadelphia interviews with Portland practitioners, Pittsburgh Southern advisors and Oregon observers Research Triangle Piedmond Triad Stockinger 2010, p. 66 (Cartography: Stephan Pohl) MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 13 6
    • Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC Cluster Policy and Varieties of Capitalism1 Liberal Coordinated Market Economies Market Economies • More CIs initiated by companies • Stronger role of government in CIs • More focused on export growth • More national cluster policies • More focused on upgrading innovation • More CI staff • More trust across groupsGlobal Cluster Initiative Survey (GCIS II), Ketels et al. 2006, p. 221) Hall/Soskice 2001MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 14 Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC Cluster Policies in Germany vs. U.S.: Selected Differences 1) cf. Amin/Thrift 1993; 2) cf. Putnam 1995; 3) van den Berg/Braun 1999 Cf. Stockinger et al. 2009, Sternberg et al. (forthcoming) Germany U.S. Institutional • Cooperation and consensus • Individualism and competition setting • Institutional thickness1, neo-corporatism • Less institutional thickness (chambers, associations) • Collective agency less formalized, less trust • More collective agency, trust, social capital and social capital2 National System • Focus on incremental innovation, • Strength in radical innovation, high-tech of Innovation perceived problems with commercialization industries, commercialization aided by of scientific breakthroughs strong VC base • Dual system of vocational training supports • Diffusion and absorptive capacity limited by diffusion and absorptive capacity through skills constraints. human capital. Policy area • Federal & state governments: innovation • Federal government: focus on workforce policy ⇒ regional networks of science and development and disadvantaged regions industry to accelerate commercialization (reactive) • Regions: economic development, structural • States: Locational marketing and policy (holistic) workforce development Implementation • Structural: Public & collective actors • More private agency & reliance on • Institutionalization, more political top-down individual leadership initiation • Flexible framework, but lack of strategic • Higher organizational capacity3, but coherence technocratic (⇒ stylized facts)MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 15 7
    • Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC Policy Transfer: Channels and Determinants • Channels • Literature • Academic • Best practice case studies • Manuals • Mobility of personnel (dispositive/operative) • Consultants as transfer agents (Stone 2004) • Knowledge communities • Epistemic communities (Haas 1992) • Communities of practice (Brown/Duguid 1996) • Journeys of politicians and practitioners (policy tourism) • Formal & informal communication (secondary) • Determinants (cf. Lütz 2007: 139-141) • Endogenous = cultural, institutional, socio-economic proximity • Exogenous: frequency of interaction, networks, transfer agents • Transfer object: complexity, visibility, potential for conflictMOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 16 Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC Consultants as Transfer Agents: The McKinsey Case • International projects, esp. U.S./ Silicon Valley ⇒ knowledge management • ThyssenKrupp = key supplier to VW Hannover Region: hannoverimpuls GmbH Wolfsburg AG • Lower Saxony ⇒ Hannover region as pilot Projekt Region project for new structural policy approach Braunschweig GmbH „regional growth concepts“ dortmund-projectBergisches Städtedreieck: kompetenzhoch3 • State funding for concept development in Nuremberg Region/ Braunschweig region Central Franconia District • Further growth concepts in Weserbergland (2004), Süderelbe (2005) City of Regensburg • McK spin-off designed comparable projects in Wernigerode, Aachen • 2005 prelim study for Bochum 2015Cartography: Stephan Pohl Cf. Kiese 2010MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 17 8
    • Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICCTransfer Channels: Summary of Evidence Channel Occurrence / Relevance Literature low (limited to Porter, manuals hardly known nor used) Personnel mobility Some cases in cluster management for transfer of procedural knowledge Knowledge Low, limited to regional/national scene communities German practitioners hardly participate in international KCs Journeys Common, but doubts about transferability Consultants Widespread Personal Informal exchange btw state ministries, otherwise rare communication ⇒ Overall low degree (inspiration, sometimes combination), path-dependent learning by doing tends to dominate ⇒ McKinsey projects = notable exception (copying, adaptation), but influence fading over time ⇒ Unilateral policy shopping as dominant mechanism Cf. Kiese 2010MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 18 Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICCInterregional vs. Path-dependent Institutional Learning generic explicit Cluster approach (Re-)Contex- Decontex- Regional cluster tualisation tualisation concept Decoding Codification accumulated experience, Adaption learning by doing („laboratory“) path-dependent learning (incremental, cumulative) local-specific tacit Interregional learning is embedded in path-dependent local learning processes.based on Hassink/Lagendijk (2001: 69), also cf. Nonaka/Takeuchi 1995MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 19 9
    • Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICCComparative Cluster Policy Research: Towards an Agenda• Horizontal expansion: Including more countries to increase variety (e.g. Kiese 2009)• Perspectives proved useful • institutional (VoC, regional & multilevel governance) • policy diffusion/transfer and learning • Public Choice• Conceptual broadening through new perspectives and tasks, e.g. • Isolated best-practice case studies ⇒ common framework for systematic CCPR • Increase interdisciplinary research • need for independent scholarly evaluation• ECRP (European Collaborative Research Programme) as an opportunity, but 2011 call has been cancelled due to organizational transitions ⇒ new funding opportunities soughtMOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 20 Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC References (1/3) Amin, A.; Thrift, N.J., 1993: Globalization, Institutional Thickness and Local Prospects. In: Revue dÉconomie Régionale et Urbaine, (3): 405-427. Brown, J.S.; Duguid, P., 1991: Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. In: Organization Science, 2(1): 40-57. Bruch-Krumbein, W.; Hochmuth, E., 2000: Cluster und Clusterpolitik. Begriffliche Grundlagen und empirische Fallbeispiele aus Ostdeutschland. Marburg: Schüren. Callaghan, H., 2010: Beyond Methodological Nationalism: How Multilevel Governance Affects the Clash of Capitalisms. In: Journal of European Public Policy, 17(4): 564-580. Castells, M.; Hall, P., 1994: Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st Century Industrial Complexes. London, New York: Routledge. Duranton, G., 2009: California Dreamin. The Feeble Case for Cluster Policies. Toronto, 1 July 2009. http://individual.utoronto.ca/gilles/Papers/Cluster.pdf, last accessed 7 December 2010. Fromhold-Eisebith, M.; Eisebith, G., 2005: How to Institutionalize Innovative Clusters? Comparing Explicit Top- down and Implicit Bottom-up Approaches. In: Research Policy, 34(8): 1250-1268. Haas, P.M., 1992: Introduction. Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. In: International Organzation, 46(1): 1-35. Hall, P.A.; Soskice, D., 2001: An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism. In: Hall, P.A.; Soskice, D. (ed.): Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1-68. Hassink, R.; Ladendijk, A., 2001: The Dilemmas of Interregional Institutional Learning. In: Environment and Planning C, 19(1): 65-84. Hospers, G.-J.; Beugelsdijk, S., 2002: Regional Cluster Policies: Learning by Comparing? In: Kyklos, 55(3): 381-402.MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 22 10
    • Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC References (2/3) Kiese, M., 2008: Mind the Gap: Regionale Clusterpolitik im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft, Politik und Praxis aus der Perspektive der Neuen Politischen Ökonomie. In: Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 52(2-3): 129- 145. Kiese, M., 2009: National Styles of Cluster Promotion: Cluster Policies between Variety and Convergence. In: Hagbarth, L. (ed.): Innovative City and Business Regions. (=Structural Change in Europe, 6). Bollschweil: Hagbarth Publications, 57-67. Kiese, M., 2010: Policy Transfer and Institutional Learning: An Evolutionary Perspective on Regional Cluster Policies in Germany. In: Fornahl, D.; Henn, S.; Menzel, M.-P. (eds): Emerging Clusters: Theoretical, Empirical and Political Perspectives on the Initial Stage of Cluster Evolution. (=Industrial Dynamics, Entrepreneurship and Innovation). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 324-353. Lütz, S., 2007: Policy-Transfer und Policy-Diffusion. In: Benz, A.; Lütz, S.; Schimank, U.; Simonis, G. (eds.): Handbuch Governance: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendungsfelder. Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwissenschaften: 132-143. Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H., 1995: The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Porter, M.E., 1998: Clusters and Competition. New Agendas for Companies, Governments and Institutions. In: Porter, M.E. (ed.): On Competition. (= The Harvard Business Review Book Series). Boston: The Harvard Business School Publishing, p. 197-287. Putnam, R.D., 1995: Bowling Alone: Americas Declining Social Capital. In: Journal of Democracy, 6(1): 65-78. Sölvell, Ö.; Lindqvist, G.; Ketels, C., 2003: The Cluster Initiative Greenbook. Gothenburg: Ivory Tower AB. Internet-Quelle: http://www.ivorytower.se/eng/projgrnbk.htm (09.05.2006). Sternberg, R.; Kiese, M.; Stockinger, D., forthcoming: Cluster Policies in the U.S. and Germany: A Varieties of Capitalism Perspective on Two High-Tech States. Paper accepted for publication in Environment and Planning C.MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 23 Matthias Kiese Institute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC References (3/3) Stockinger, D.; Sternberg, R.; Kiese, M., 2009: Cluster Policy in Co-ordinated vs. Liberal Market Economies: A Tale of Two High-Tech States. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference on Innovation, Strategy and Knowledge, Copenhagen Business School, 18-20 June, 2009. Copenhagen Business School. http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=5890&cf=32, last accessed 7 December 2010. Stockinger, D., 2010: Handlungsräume und Akteure der Clusterpolitik in den USA: Implementierungsprozesse in North Carolina, Oregon und Pennsylvania aus politisch-ökonomischer und institutioneller Perspektive. Berlin: Logos. Stone, D., 2004: Transfer Agents and Global Networks in the „Transnationalization“ of Policy. In: Journal of European Economic Policy, 11(3): 545-566. van den Berg, L.; Braun, E., 1999: Urban Competitiveness, Marketing and the Need for Organising Capacity. In: Urban Studies, 36(5-6): 987-1000. Willgerodt, H., 1994: Politische contra ökonomische Rationalität? Über die Interdependenz von Moral und Vernunft. In: Orientierungen zur Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftspolitik, 60(2): 4-12.MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 24 11