Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
There are at least three sources of localized learning processes (see Malmberg and
Maskell, 1997, 2002). All three relate to time-geography and the fact that spatial proxim-
ity makes face-to-face interaction easier (less costly, time consuming, tiresome) and tends
to carry with it an element of social, cultural, and not least cognitive, proximity.
The i rst two sets of sources of localized learning relate to the two dimensions - vertical
and horizontal - along which the division of labor may develop. The third is based on the
assertion that spatial proximity increases the likelihood of fruitful unanticipated encoun-
ters among key players that help them incorporate insights, opinions, and ideas from a
broader community of informed observers. This third - social - dimension of spatial
proximity may
be seen as a neighborhood ef ect.
In the
vertical dimension
, i rms specializing in dif erent stages of a production chain
are linked through input/output relations. They possess knowledge, experience, or skills
useful for undertaking dissimilar but complementary activities. However, while vertical
links make up the core of much analysis of localized learning, the fact remains that few
empirical studies have been able to show that vertical linkages are indeed predominantly
local (Gordon and McCann, 2005; Malmberg and Maskell, 2002). There are presumably
several reasons for this, one being the spatial extension of markets that is part and parcel
of the general process of globalization. Successful i rms do tend to 'grow out of their
local context' and access more distant markets as they develop and grow (this is indeed
part of the dei nition of competitive success). Therefore it should be no surprise that
most i rms, also if located in vibrant clusters, have most of their suppliers, customers or
collaborators in distant markets.
Many localized industrial systems are instead based on
the horizontal dimension
. Such
spatial agglomerations are made up of several i rms operating in the same industry,
producing similar output. While vertically related i rms are business partners and col-
laborators, horizontally related i rms are mainly rivals and competitors (Maskell, 2001).
Marshall (1890) i rst drew attention to the possible advantages of variation that are
caused by the localized and parallel performance of similar tasks carried out by inde-
pendent i rms. The parallel experimentation and testing of approaches by independent
i rms - with dif erent perceptive powers, insights, attitudes and assessment of the infor-
mation at hand - is a constant source of variation, despite the fact that they act within
the same institutional structure (see the next section). An essentially Darwinian feature
of such variation is that it does not presuppose any trust whatsoever among the i rms as
a prerequisite for learning. It does not require any close contact or even an arm's-length
interaction between the i rms, but is simply the result of the parallel experimentation that
goes on in a horizontally disintegrated system.
Furthermore, collocated i rms undertaking similar activities i nd themselves in a situ-
ation where every dif erence in the solutions chosen, however small, can be observed
and compared. First, regarding
observability
, spatial proximity brings with it the special
feature of spontaneous, automatic observation. Business i rms often have remarkably
good knowledge of the undertakings of nearby i rms. A second element is
comparabil-
ity
. While it might be easy for i rms to blame an inadequate local factor market when
confronted with the superior performance of competitors located far away, it is less so
when the premium producer is located in the same local environment. The sharing of
common conditions, opportunities, and threats makes the strengths and weaknesses of
each individual i rm apparent to anyone who cares to take an interest. Firms with similar
