Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Varaldo and Ferrucci (1996) concluded that the future of Italian district i rms depended
more and more on their capacity to make links to non-district i rms displaying strategic
competitive advantage, including, crucially, networks of global i rms. Instead of tightly
dei ned districts, their model for the future was of more loosely dei ned 'clusters' of inter-
i rm relationships. These were thought capable of taking advantage of the incremental
innovation made possible in periods of relative stability where close networks and what
we now call 'related variety' could facilitate rapid information dif usion and learning.
But for the more dynamic, strategic innovations by means of which global competitive-
ness is sustained, i rms in local networks need to be in touch, not necessarily directly,
but through the supply-chain, with global networks. Clearly no one saw the likelihood
of globalisation producing an involuted evolution of certain districts (especially cloth-
ing and textiles-related) with Asian immigrant upgrading to the fore. Nor at that time
was the establishment of new districts in low-wage countries like Romania envisaged.
Finally, as Becattini and Coltorti (2006) make clear, Italy's industrial districts in the
post-war epoch have generally out-performed the rest of the economy in terms of i rm
and employment growth.
If we broaden the discussion of economic development from the local to the regional
level, keeping the possibility of an exploration of the systemic relationships open, then
we are drawn into rel ection on the notion of 'cluster' since it is the systemic rather
than simply agglomerative nature of the phenomenon that is of potential interest and
the cluster concept rests on that characteristic. We may briel y explore two related but
distinctive elaborations of the basic cluster idea and, in the process, say more about the
systems of innovation
approach
to thinking about how these may be coordinated. The
systems
dimension arises from the 'membership' of the network comprising the cluster.
Minimally, the
innovative region
, especially the
high-technology kind, may be expected to
have agglomerations of new technology businesses that have the characteristics, denoted
above, of clusters. It is crucial not to see 'cluster' and 'regional innovation system' as syn-
onymous. This is for three reasons: in scale terms clusters are seldom regional but local;
clusters have very dif erent governance mechanisms from regions, ranging from asso-
ciative 'clubs' to little more than regular market interactions; and regions may contain
many clusters (or none) as well as other organisational forms of industry. Clusters too
vary, and not only in terms of governance. In Bottazzi et al. (2002) and Paniccia (2006)
useful, but very i rm-focused typologies range from 'horizontally diversii ed' through
'Smithian' supply chain to 'oligopolistic' and 'science-driven'. Conceivably, examples of
each might be found in a region. The key point about the concept of
cluster
is that while
it will consist of i rms, large and small, in a lead industry and supporting activities, it is
the interactive nature of such i rms, ranging from doing business to doing favours, that
is its generally distinctive feature.
Further network relationships may exist proximately or virtually, with research and
higher education institutions, private R&D laboratories, technology transfer agencies,
chambers of commerce, business associations, vocational training organisations, rel-
evant government agencies and appropriate government departments. This constitutes
the basis for an integrative governance arrangement. The club, forum, working party,
consortium or partnership model is what typii es this
associative
(Casson, 1995; Cooke
and Morgan, 1998; Hirst, 1994) approach towards enhancing the commercial commu-
nity. From such arrangements, institutional learning and innovation gains may more
