Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
The literature emphasizes the importance of network structure (e.g. Gemunden et
al., 1996; Van Haverbeke and Noorderhaven, 2001), the position of the i rm inside the
network (Gulati, 1999), the type of inter-organizational ties (Burt, 1992; Powell, 1990;
Uzzi, 1996), the role of social dynamics (Donet and Cannon, 1997; Leana and Van
Buren, 1999; Nooteboom, 2002), and knowledge sharing (Brock-Smith, 1997; Ritter,
1999) as factors of successful i rm performance and evolution. Many scholars highlight
how knowledge spillovers occur in social networks (Almeida and Kogut, 1999; Maggioni
and Uberti, 2005). This chapter explores the circumstances in which network features,
such as centrality or density degree, can alter the above described social evolutionary
process, by supporting some i rms located in given positions in their network. In par-
ticular, this section establishes a distinction between district- and network-specii c social
resources. Social networks do not necessary require permanent co-location for interac-
tive learning to take place (Torre and Rallet, 2005). It's wrong to assume that all net-
works are geographically co-localized, even though geographical proximity and social
interactions should signii cantly support collaborative initiatives (Boschma and Ter Wal,
2007; Bunnell and Coe, 2001).
Network value added evolves over time, becomes embedded in social dynamics, and
concretely expresses its potential as inter-organizational routines (Foss, 1999; Gulati,
1999; Nelson, 1993; Saxenian, 1994; Simonin, 1997). In order to preserve the competitive
advantages deriving from their ability to operate ei ciently and l exibly as members of a
community of connected i rms, small i rms located within a restricted geographical area
must reduce the costs of their collaboration. This can be done within social relationships
by using trust and reputation as an informal coordination system (Perrone, 2001).
The interest in local networks, such as districts and local clusters, has produced many
theoretical studies (Garofoli, 1991; Marshall, 1920; Sforzi, 1990) and empirical surveys
(Bellandi, 1989; Dei Ottati, 1994). In international literature, districts and local clusters
seem to be more or less synonymous, but there are some dif erences, which an analysis of
alternative dei nitions can coni rm. By district we mean:
a socio-territorial entity which is characterized by the active presence of both a community of
people and a population of i rms in one naturally and historically bounded area.
(Becattini,
1990, p. 39)
According to this dei nition, four elements characterize the district; that is, i rms'
high specialization, a homogeneous system of values, strong inl uence of the social
dimension, and geographical concentration. In this vision, territorial resources and
patterns of interaction among i rms and institutions clearly play a central role. On
the other hand, according to a dei nition adopted in international literature, by local
cluster we mean:
geographically proximate i rms in vertical and horizontal relationships involving a localized
i rm support infrastructure with shared developmental vision for business growth, based on
competition and co-operation in a specii c market i eld. (Cooke and Huggins, 2002, p. 52)
The core elements characterizing the notion of cluster are a stronger emphasis on
economic rather than social factors and inter-i rm dynamics, a shared vision for busi-
ness growth, and no explicit mention of the role of the social dimension as the network
