matthias kiese: a european proposal for comparative cluster policy research

Download Matthias kiese: A European Proposalfor Comparative Cluster Policy Research

Post on 15-May-2015

1.130 views

Category:

Education

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 1. AEuropeanProposal forComparativeClusterPolicyResearch

2. Silicon Valley Y Valley Silicon X Max-Peter Menzel Presidents, ministers, and dignitaries come in pilgrimage here, in well-publicized delegations that aim to capitalize the visit in social prestige or political votes back home. (Castells/Hall 1994, S. 12) Motivation: Best Practice & Copycat Behavior 3.

  • Diffusionof cluster policies across time and space
    • How?Channels
    • Adaptation?Policy Learning
    • What impact?Evaluation
  • Relationship betweentheory ,empirical cluster research ,policyandpracticePublic Choice perspective
  • Impact of structural & institutionalvarietyon the design, implementationand effectivenessof cluster policies poorly understood
    • E.g.varieties of capitalism (Hall/Soskice 2001) liberal vs. coordinated market economies
    • Constellations of actors inregional governancestructures
    • Interdependencies across spatial scales multilevel governance(cf. Callaghan 2010)
    • Convergent vs. divergent forces
    • Determine scope forpolicy learning

Guiding Questions 4.

  • Methodology
  • Key concepts and findings
    • Public Choice perspective
    • Stylized facts
    • Varieties of cluster policy
    • Diffusion & policy learning
  • Taking CCPR forward

Comparative Cluster Policy Research: Outline 5.

  • (Regional) Cluster Policy
  • all efforts ofgovernmentto develop and support clusters (in a particular region)(Hospers/Beugelsdijk 2002, p. 382)
  • Industrial, structural, technology or innovation policy promoting regional specialisation
  • Public efforts to develop concentrations of industry or network structures into clusters, or to promote existing clusters(cf. Bruch-Krumbein/Hochmuth 2000, p. 69 f.)

Cluster Initiative= an organised effort to increase the growth and competitiveness of a cluster within a region, involvingcluster firms , government and/or the research community(Slvell et al. 2003, p. 31) Cluster Initiative vs. Cluster Policy 6. 1) cf. Fromhold-Eisebith/Eisebith 2005, p. 1256 PPP Dimensions of Cluster Policy Governance 1 Public Private Cluster reference 1 Implicit Explicit Complexity Single Instrument Holistic Approach Cluster Orientation Low High Coherence Low High Institutionalisation Weak Strong Maturity Embryonic Completed 7.

  • Threefederal statesin West Germany
    • North Rhine-Westphalia ~ mature industries facing structural change
    • Bavaria ~ late industrialisation, high-tech
    • Lower Saxony ~ grey mass region
  • Regional typologystructural, institutional & political variance
  • Sevensub-regional cases
  • 110 semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 134 practitioners, observers & consultants (2006/2007)

Case Study Regions: Western Germany Hannover Region: hannoverimpuls GmbH Wolfsburg AG Projekt Region Braunschweig GmbH Regensburg Nuremberg Region/ Central Franconia dortmund-project Wuppertal-Solingen- Remscheid: kompetenzhoch3 Cartography: Stephan Pohl 8. Cf. Kiese 2008, p. 133 A Public Choice Model of Cluster Promotion Academia Conceptual Action Space Economic Rationality Political Action Space Political Rationality Practical Action Space Bureaucratic Rationality Implementation Electorate P P P A A A A P Principal-Agent- Constellation Cluster Theory Methods for Cluster Identification & Analysis Advice 9. Even if the public authority that oversees the cluster is highly competent and attempts to maximise local welfare, anoptimal cluster policylooks likesomething extraordinarily difficultto achieve. Cluster policies that already look fraught with difficulties in a world of benevolent governments lookextremely unappealing when political agency is explicitly taken into account . (Duranton 2009, p. 26-27; emphasis added) Public Choice Economics: Implications for Cluster Policy

  • Welfare-enhancing cluster policies threatened by
    • multiple information asymmetries
    • political and bureaucratic rationalities
    • lobbying und rent seeking

10.

  • Porters definitiononly academic/theoretical reference
    • Cluster = geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers, firms in related industries, and associated institutions (for example, universities, standards agencies, and trade associations) in particular fields that compete but also cooperate(Porter 1998, p. 197 f.)
  • General scepticism of theory;practical know-howandexperience-based learningdominates
    • daily duty leaves no time to deal with fragmented theory
    • no recognition of practical value
    • academic approach conflicts with mobilisation of firms
  • Technocraticunderstanding: clusters are made and often equated withorganised effort(initiative/policy)danger of overlooking / crowding out organic cluster development
  • Equation ofclusters and networks institutionalisation
  • Superficial reference tovalue chains selectivityrhetoric?!

Understanding of Clusters in German Policy and Practice 11. Stylized Facts on Regional Cluster Policy in Germany

  • Technocraticunderstanding of clusters in policy & practice
  • For simplicitys sake, clusters are understood asnetworks
  • Spatial mismatchbetween cluster and policyover-/ underbounding
  • Temporal mismatch(short-termism vs. cluster development)
  • Herd behaviour(ICT, bio, nano)
  • From horizontal demonstration effects totop-down diffusion
  • Inflationary useof cluster termmeaning, credibility
  • Lack of explicittheoretical foundation/reference
  • Sloppy identificationof cluster potential
  • Declining cluster focusover time

12. Cf. Kiese 2008, p. 133 Fuzzy Action Spaces of Cluster Promotion Academia Conceptual Action Space Economic Rationality Political Action Space Political Rationality Practical Action Space Bureaucratic Rationality Implementation Electorate P P P A A A A P Principal-Agent- Constellation Cluster Theory Methods for Cluster Identification & Analysis Advice Blurred action spaces and rationalities:

  • Politics and Bureaucracy govern concept development
  • Action purpose-ledunity of reason?(cf. Willgerodt 1994)

13. Case Study Regions in the U.S. Stockinger 2010, p. 66 (Cartography: Stephan Pohl)

  • 3 states + 2sub-regional caseseach
  • 2007/2008: 87 interviews with practitioners, advisors and observers

Portland Southern Oregon Philadelphia Pittsburgh Research Triangle Piedmond Triad 14. Liberal Market Economies Coordinated Market Economies

  • More CIs initiated by companies
  • More focused on export growth
  • Stronger role of government in CIs
  • More national cluster policies
  • More focused on upgrading innovation
  • More CI staff
  • More trust across groups

Global Cluster Initiative Survey (GCIS II), Ketels et al. 2006, p. 22 1) Hall/Soskice 2001 Cluster Policy andVarieties of Capitalism 1 15. Cluster Policies in Germany vs. U.S.: Selected Differences Cf. Stockinger et al. 2009, Sternberg et al. (forthcoming) 1) cf. Amin/Thrift 1993; 2) cf. Putnam 1995; 3) van den Berg/Braun 1999

  • Federal government: focus onworkforce developmentanddisadvantaged regions(reactive)
  • States:Locational marketingand workforce development
  • Federal & state governments:innovation policy regional networks of science and industry to accelerate commercialization
  • Regions: economic development,structural policy(holistic)

Policy area

  • Strength inradical innovation , high-tech industries, commercialization aided by strong VC base
  • Diffusion and absorptive capacity limited byskills constraints .
  • Focus onincremental innovation , perceived problems with commercialization of scientific breakthroughs
  • Dual system of vocational training supportsdiffusionandabsorptive capacitythrough human capital.

National System of Innovation

  • Individualism and competition
  • Less institutional thickness
  • Collective agency less formalized, less trust and social capital 2
  • Cooperation and consensus
  • Institutional thickness 1 , neo-corporatism (chambers, associations)
  • More collective agency, trust, social capital

Institutional setting Germany U.S. Implementation

  • Structural : Public & collective actors
  • Institutionalization, morepolitical top-downinitiation
  • Highe