Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
in an amalgamated form. But how do we put boundaries around an idea? One possible
answer is that one can study ideas as discrete units, as long as their informational ele-
ments are sui ciently distinct to determine if the information acquired and passed on is
novel, contains errors, has been changed, and so forth. This is what Burt (2004) did when
he studied the likelihood that the ideas that information brokers have get noticed, are
accepted as valuable, and are passed on. For this to happen, there must exist individuals
with an attentive and interpreting mind. As long as the presence or absence of particular
ideas is discernable in the minds of individuals, ideas can function as units of selection,
making possible the description of clusters in terms of the cognitive elements underly-
ing phonotypic representations, such as a common identity or a joint strategy. The only
requirement for an evolutionary account of the transmission of ideas is that there are
observable dif erences between them and that these dif erences can af ect their reproduc-
tive success. The ambiguity surrounding the boundary (of ideas) question is the evolu-
tionary condition that enables imagination, innovation, and new knowledge creation.
Studying ideas as the micro-foundation for entities driving the evolution of clusters
has several implications. First, it serves to remind theorists that the analysis of cluster
dynamics should go beyond a narrow focus on competition and cooperation. Selection
operates along multiple dimensions, including criteria such as cognitive consistency,
historical i t, or social legitimacy. Whether dif erences within a population of units at
a given point in time have consequences for population evolution depends also on the
malleability of the units. One may hypothesize about the robustness of ideas and the
strength of the selection process. Background ideas, for example, are more stable than
ideas operating in the foreground. Changes in the 'deep' cognitive structure of clusters,
such as their core identity, are costly and potentially risky, as we know from clusters
in East Germany that have struggled to reinvent themselves after German reunii ca-
tion (Heidenreich, 2005). A selection process that favors reproducibility works in favor
of organizations and clusters that exhibit strong inertial tendencies. Selection criteria
rewarding reliability and accountability might include ideas concerning, for example,
the expectation that businesses invest in economically distressed regions. The long-term
ef ect of such ideas may be to inhibit rather than strengthen the forces of change. A
selection environment rewarding organizational reproducibility is one where innovation
achieved through the transformation of existing patterns is relatively rare. Selection in
this case will, over time, eliminate i rms that alter their core features too often, independ-
ent of interi rm competition or cooperation.
Second, focusing on ideas draws attention to persistence and change independent of
the
assumption
- evident, for example, in population ecology theory - of inertia. Studying
cognitive micro-foundations highlights the dif erent pace at which evolution proceeds at
dif erent levels of action. In general, evolution proceeds at a faster pace at lower levels
of action, with outcomes that may dif er from those at higher levels. For example, high
failure rates at the level of i rms do not necessarily jeopardize the survival of the cluster
as a whole if, for example, strong institutional support systems remain in place (Staber,
1998). Or, the interpersonal linkages between specii c innovators may be very unstable,
without af ecting the identity of the regional cluster as a whole (Cantner and Graf,
2006). The reason why evolution is generally faster at lower levels is that the diversity
of units that evolutionary selection can explore is smaller for subunits than for whole
entities. Thus, the probability of discovering the 'correct' coni guration quickly is lower
