Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
arising from previous patterns of economic development are very weak (Boschma, 2004;
Boschma and Frenken, 2003; Krugman, 1991; Lambooy and Boschma, 2001). However,
while this interpretation may have some validity in particular cases - and possibly in
earlier periods of industrial history - the assumption that new paths require only generic
assets that can subsequently be moulded is somewhat questionable as a general working
hypothesis. Contemporary innovations combine inherited competences, experiences
with customers and many i elds of specialized knowledge (Pavitt, 2005). Moreover, this
'window of locational opportunity' view at times appears to conl ate ex ante unpredict-
ability with ex post inexplicability, and, as we will argue, while some types of selection
pressure may be weak during the early phases of industry emergence, other types of
selection process are critical and strong. As a consequence, this view underestimates the
importance of place - of local economic and social history and context - in processes of
path creation.
Places inl uence the origins of new technological-industrial paths in two main ways.
First, place is likely to be implicated in processes of entrepreneurial variety generation,
and second place is also likely to be important in processes of collective support, selec-
tion and the emergence of new trajectories. It is precisely the embedding of agents in
particular paths that enables them to accumulate the resources and experience necessary
to launch new technological paths (Garud and Karnøe, 2001). In this sense, the idea of
dependence between successive paths , between successive industrial-technological trajec-
tories in particular places becomes relevant. How exactly then might this occur?
The analysis of the emergence of high-technology clusters has emphasised the impor-
tance of pre-existing comparative advantages in shaping new increasing returns ef ects.
As Bresnahan et al. (2005) argue, 'old economy' (or more generally, 'old' path) inputs,
such as the supply of technical and managerial skills, connections to market niches,
and the role of key i rms, are often crucial in determining whether and where 'new
economy' ('new' path) based increasing returns actually emerge and develop. While the
development of technology clusters can be triggered by specii c actions and events with
unforeseen ef ects, these consequences only typically emerge because such events occur
in the context of longer term conditions and facilitating factors. Thus while the growth
of Silicon Valley was initiated by small contingent decisions such as Shockley's move to
Palo Alto and the founding of Fairchild (Kenney and von Burg, 2001), there were also
important preconditions including the development of the electronics industry in the
area during the interwar period (Sturgeon, 2000). Another apt example is the Cambridge
high-tech cluster (covering scientii c instruments, software, and biotechnology, among
other activities) in the UK. The origins of this are usually ascribed to the establishment
of Cambridge Consultants in 1960 (a group of chemistry graduates concerned to foster
research links between the university and local industry in the Cambridge area), or to the
establishment of a science park by Trinity College in 1970. But they could equally well be
traced back to antecedents in the 1930s, such as the existence of a specialist aeronautical
instrument sector or the local agro-chemical industry.
In fact, there is increasing recognition of the ways in which resources and competences
used in old paths may be recombined and reworked to form the basis of purposeful
entrepreneurial deviations into new paths (Bathelt, 2001; Kemp et al., 2001; Metcalfe,
2005). A key mechanism here is the way in which spinof i rms inherit routines and com-
petences from their parents. There is also mounting evidence that entrepreneurs transfer
Search WWH ::




Custom Search