1) The document proposes a comparative study of cluster policy research across European countries to understand how cluster policies diffuse and are adapted based on structural and institutional variety. 2) Key concepts to be examined include varieties of capitalism, multilevel governance structures, and public choice perspectives on policymaking. 3) The methodology would involve case studies of cluster policy in multiple countries, analyzing channels of policy transfer and the impact of different political and economic systems on cluster policy design and effectiveness.

1. A European Proposal for Comparative Cluster Policy Research

2. Silicon Valley Y Valley Silicon X © Max-Peter Menzel „ Presidents, ministers, and dignitaries come in pilgrimage here, in well-publicized delegations that aim to capitalize the visit in social prestige or political votes back home.“ (Castells/Hall 1994, S. 12) Motivation: Best Practice & Copycat Behavior

3. 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 Guiding Questions

4. Methodology Key concepts and findings Public Choice perspective Stylized facts Varieties of cluster policy Diffusion & policy learning Taking CCPR forward Comparative Cluster Policy Research: Outline

5. (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.) Cluster Initiative = an organised effort to increase the growth and competitiveness of a cluster within a region, involving cluster firms , government and/or the research community (Sölvell et al. 2003, p. 31) Cluster Initiative vs. Cluster Policy

6. 1) cf. Fromhold-Eisebith/Eisebith 2005, p. 1256 PPP Dimensions of Cluster Policy Governance 1 Public Private Cluster reference 1 Implicit Explicit Complexity Single Instrument Holistic Approach Cluster Orientation Low High Coherence Low High Institutionalisation Weak Strong Maturity Embryonic Completed

7. Three federal states in West Germany North Rhine-Westphalia ~ mature industries facing structural change Bavaria ~ late industrialisation, high-tech Lower Saxony ~ ‘grey mass’ region Regional typology  structural, institutional & political variance Seven sub-regional cases 110 semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 134 practitioners, observers & consultants (2006/2007) Case Study Regions: Western Germany Hannover Region: hannoverimpuls GmbH Wolfsburg AG Projekt Region Braunschweig GmbH Regensburg Nuremberg Region/ Central Franconia dortmund-project Wuppertal-Solingen- Remscheid: kompetenzhoch3 Cartography: Stephan Pohl

8. Cf. Kiese 2008, p. 133 A Public Choice Model of Cluster Promotion Academia Conceptual Action Space Economic Rationality Political Action Space Political Rationality Practical Action Space Bureaucratic Rationality Implementation Electorate P P P A A A A P Principal-Agent- Constellation Cluster Theory Methods for Cluster Identification & Analysis Advice

9. “ 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) Public Choice Economics: Implications for Cluster Policy Welfare-enhancing cluster policies threatened by multiple information asymmetries political and bureaucratic rationalities lobbying und rent seeking

10. 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?! Understanding of Clusters in German Policy and Practice

11. Stylized Facts on Regional Cluster Policy in Germany Technocratic understanding of clusters in policy & practice For simplicity‘s sake, clusters are understood as networks Spatial mismatch between cluster and policy  over-/ underbounding Temporal mismatch (short-termism vs. cluster development) Herd behaviour (ICT, bio, nano…) From horizontal demonstration effects to top-down diffusion Inflationary use of cluster term  meaning, credibility  Lack of explicit theoretical foundation/reference Sloppy identification of cluster potential Declining cluster focus over time

12. Cf. Kiese 2008, p. 133 Fuzzy Action Spaces of Cluster Promotion Academia Conceptual Action Space Economic Rationality Political Action Space Political Rationality Practical Action Space Bureaucratic Rationality Implementation Electorate P P P A A A A P Principal-Agent- Constellation Cluster Theory Methods for Cluster Identification & Analysis Advice Blurred action spaces and rationalities: Politics and Bureaucracy govern concept development Action purpose-led  unity of reason? (cf. Willgerodt 1994)

13. Case Study Regions in the U.S. Stockinger 2010, p. 66 (Cartography: Stephan Pohl) 3 states + 2 sub-regional cases each 2007/2008: 87 interviews with practitioners, advisors and observers Portland Southern Oregon Philadelphia Pittsburgh Research Triangle Piedmond Triad

14. Liberal Market Economies Coordinated Market Economies More CIs initiated by companies More focused on export growth Stronger role of government in CIs More national cluster policies More focused on upgrading innovation More CI staff More trust across groups Global Cluster Initiative Survey (GCIS II), Ketels et al. 2006, p. 22 1) Hall/Soskice 2001 Cluster Policy and Varieties of Capitalism 1

15. Cluster Policies in Germany vs. U.S.: Selected Differences Cf. Stockinger et al. 2009, Sternberg et al. (forthcoming) 1) cf. Amin/Thrift 1993; 2) cf. Putnam 1995; 3) van den Berg/Braun 1999 Federal government: focus on workforce development and disadvantaged regions (reactive) States: Locational marketing and workforce development Federal & state governments: innovation policy  regional networks of science and industry to accelerate commercialization Regions: economic development, structural policy (holistic) Policy area Strength in radical innovation , high-tech industries, commercialization aided by strong VC base Diffusion and absorptive capacity limited by skills constraints . Focus on incremental innovation , perceived problems with commercialization of scientific breakthroughs Dual system of vocational training supports diffusion and absorptive capacity through human capital. National System of Innovation Individualism and competition Less institutional thickness Collective agency less formalized, less trust and social capital 2 Cooperation and consensus Institutional thickness 1 , neo-corporatism (chambers, associations) More collective agency, trust, social capital Institutional setting Germany U.S. Implementation Structural : Public & collective actors Institutionalization, more political top-down initiation Higher organizational capacity 3 , but technocratic (  stylized facts) More private agency & reliance on individual leadership Flexible framework, but lack of strategic coherence

16. 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) Policy Transfer: Channels and Determinants 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 conflict

17. State funding for concept development in Braunschweig region Further growth concepts in Weserbergland (2004), Süderelbe (2005) McK spin-off designed comparable projects in Wernigerode, Aachen 2005 prelim study for Bochum 2015 Consultants as Transfer Agents: The McKinsey Case Cf. Kiese 2010 Hannover Region: hannoverimpuls GmbH Wolfsburg AG Projekt Region Braunschweig GmbH City of Regensburg Nuremberg Region/ Central Franconia District dortmund-project Bergisches Städtedreieck: kompetenzhoch3 Cartography: Stephan Pohl International projects, esp. U.S./ Silicon Valley  knowledge management ThyssenKrupp = key supplier to VW Lower Saxony  Hannover region as pilot project for new structural policy approach „regional growth concepts“

18. Transfer Channels: Summary of Evidence 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 2010 Widespread Consultants Common, but doubts about transferability Journeys Low, limited to regional/national scene German practitioners hardly participate in international KCs Knowledge communities Informal exchange btw state ministries, otherwise rare Personal communication Some cases in cluster management for transfer of procedural knowledge Personnel mobility low (limited to Porter, manuals hardly known nor used) Literature Occurrence / Relevance Channel

19. Interregional vs. Path-dependent Institutional Learning based on Hassink/Lagendijk (2001: 69), also cf. Nonaka/Takeuchi 1995 Interregional learning is embedded in path-dependent local learning processes. Cluster approach generic explicit accumulated experience, learning by doing („laboratory“) local-specific tacit (Re-)Contex-tualisation Decoding Adaption Decontex-tualisation Codification Regional cluster concept path-dependent learning (incremental, cumulative)

20. 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 Comparative Cluster Policy Research: Towards an Agenda ECRP (European Collaborative Research Programme) as an opportunity, but 2011 call has been cancelled due to organizational transitions  new funding opportunities sought

21. Thank you for your kind attention!

22. Amin, A.; Thrift, N.J., 1993: Globalization, Institutional Thickness and Local Prospects. In: Revue d'Économie 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. References (1/3)

23. 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: America's 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. References (2/3)

24. 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. References (3/3)