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




0 download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li> 1. AEuropeanProposal forComparativeClusterPolicyResearch</li></ul><p> 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 &amp; Copycat Behavior 3. </p> <ul><li>Diffusionof cluster policies across time and space </li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>How?Channels </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Adaptation?Policy Learning </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>What impact?Evaluation </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>Relationship betweentheory ,empirical cluster research ,policyandpracticePublic Choice perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Impact of structural &amp; institutionalvarietyon the design, implementationand effectivenessof cluster policies poorly understood </li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>E.g.varieties of capitalism (Hall/Soskice 2001) liberal vs. coordinated market economies </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Constellations of actors inregional governancestructures </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Interdependencies across spatial scales multilevel governance(cf. Callaghan 2010) </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Convergent vs. divergent forces </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Determine scope forpolicy learning </li></ul></li></ul><p>Guiding Questions 4. </p> <ul><li>Methodology </li></ul><ul><li>Key concepts and findings </li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Public Choice perspective </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Stylized facts </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Varieties of cluster policy </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Diffusion &amp; policy learning </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>Taking CCPR forward </li></ul><p>Comparative Cluster Policy Research: Outline 5. </p> <ul><li>(Regional) Cluster Policy </li></ul><ul><li>all efforts ofgovernmentto develop and support clusters (in a particular region)(Hospers/Beugelsdijk 2002, p. 382) </li></ul><ul><li>Industrial, structural, technology or innovation policy promoting regional specialisation </li></ul><ul><li>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.) </li></ul><p>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. </p> <ul><li>Threefederal statesin West Germany </li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>North Rhine-Westphalia ~ mature industries facing structural change </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Bavaria ~ late industrialisation, high-tech </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Lower Saxony ~ grey mass region </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>Regional typologystructural, institutional &amp; political variance</li></ul><ul><li>Sevensub-regional cases </li></ul><ul><li>110 semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 134 practitioners, observers &amp; consultants (2006/2007) </li></ul><p>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 &amp; 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 </p> <ul><li>Welfare-enhancing cluster policies threatened by </li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>multiple information asymmetries </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>political and bureaucratic rationalities </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>lobbying und rent seeking </li></ul></li></ul><p> 10. </p> <ul><li>Porters definitiononly academic/theoretical reference </li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>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.) </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>General scepticism of theory;practical know-howandexperience-based learningdominates </li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>daily duty leaves no time to deal with fragmented theory </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>no recognition of practical value </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li> academic approach conflicts with mobilisation of firms </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>Technocraticunderstanding: clusters are made and often equated withorganised effort(initiative/policy)danger of overlooking / crowding out organic cluster development </li></ul><ul><li>Equation ofclusters and networks institutionalisation </li></ul><ul><li>Superficial reference tovalue chains selectivityrhetoric?! </li></ul><p>Understanding of Clusters in German Policy and Practice 11. Stylized Facts on Regional Cluster Policy in Germany </p> <ul><li>Technocraticunderstanding of clusters in policy &amp; practice </li></ul><ul><li>For simplicitys sake, clusters are understood asnetworks </li></ul><ul><li>Spatial mismatchbetween cluster and policyover-/ underbounding </li></ul><ul><li>Temporal mismatch(short-termism vs. cluster development) </li></ul><ul><li>Herd behaviour(ICT, bio, nano) </li></ul><ul><li>From horizontal demonstration effects totop-down diffusion </li></ul><ul><li>Inflationary useof cluster termmeaning, credibility </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of explicittheoretical foundation/reference </li></ul><ul><li>Sloppy identificationof cluster potential </li></ul><ul><li>Declining cluster focusover time</li></ul><p> 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 &amp; Analysis Advice Blurred action spaces and rationalities: </p> <ul><li>Politics and Bureaucracy govern concept development </li></ul><ul><li>Action purpose-ledunity of reason?(cf. Willgerodt 1994) </li></ul><p> 13. Case Study Regions in the U.S. Stockinger 2010, p. 66 (Cartography: Stephan Pohl) </p> <ul><li>3 states + 2sub-regional caseseach </li></ul><ul><li>2007/2008: 87 interviews with practitioners, advisors and observers </li></ul><p>Portland Southern Oregon Philadelphia Pittsburgh Research Triangle Piedmond Triad 14. Liberal Market Economies Coordinated Market Economies </p> <ul><li>More CIs initiated by companies </li></ul><ul><li>More focused on export growth </li></ul><ul><li>Stronger role of government in CIs </li></ul><ul><li>More national cluster policies </li></ul><ul><li>More focused on upgrading innovation </li></ul><ul><li>More CI staff </li></ul><ul><li>More trust across groups </li></ul><p>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 </p> <ul><li>Federal government: focus onworkforce developmentanddisadvantaged regions(reactive) </li></ul><ul><li>States:Locational marketingand workforce development </li></ul><ul><li>Federal &amp; state governments:innovation policy regional networks of science and industry to accelerate commercialization </li></ul><ul><li>Regions: economic development,structural policy(holistic) </li></ul><p>Policy area </p> <ul><li>Strength inradical innovation , high-tech industries, commercialization aided by strong VC base </li></ul><ul><li>Diffusion and absorptive capacity limited byskills constraints . </li></ul><ul><li>Focus onincremental innovation , perceived problems with commercialization of scientific breakthroughs </li></ul><ul><li>Dual system of vocational training supportsdiffusionandabsorptive capacitythrough human capital. </li></ul><p>National System of Innovation </p> <ul><li>Individualism and competition </li></ul><ul><li>Less institutional thickness </li></ul><ul><li>Collective agency less formalized, less trust and social capital 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Cooperation and consensus </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional thickness 1 , neo-corporatism (chambers, associations) </li></ul><ul><li>More collective agency, trust, social capital </li></ul><p>Institutional setting Germany U.S. Implementation </p> <ul><li>Structural : Public &amp; collective actors </li></ul><ul><li>Institutionalization, morepolitical top-downinitiation </li></ul><ul><li>Higherorganizational capacity 3 , buttechnocratic( stylized facts)</li></ul><ul><li>Moreprivate agency&amp; reliance onindividual leadership </li></ul><ul><li>Flexibleframework, butlack of strategic coherence </li></ul><p> 16. </p> <ul><li>Channels </li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Literature </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Academic </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Best practice case studies </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Manuals </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Mobility of personnel(dispositive/operative) </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Consultants astransfer agents (Stone 2004) </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Knowledge communities </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Epistemic communities (Haas 1992) </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Communities of practice (Brown/Duguid 1996) </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Journeys of politicians and practitioners ( policy tourism ) </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Formal &amp; informalcommunication (secondary) </li></ul></li></ul><p>Policy Transfer: Channels and Determinants </p> <ul><li>Determinants(cf. Ltz 2007: 139-141) </li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Endogenous= cultural, institutional, socio-economic proximity </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Exogenous : frequency of interaction, networks, transfer agents </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Transfer object : complexity, visibility, potential for conflict </li></ul></li></ul><p> 17. </p> <ul><li>State funding for concept development in Braunschweig region </li></ul><ul><li>Further growth concepts inWeserbergland(2004),Sderelbe(2005) </li></ul><ul><li>McK spin-off designed comparable projects in Wernigerode, Aachen </li></ul><ul><li>2005 prelim study for Bochum 2015 </li></ul><p>Consultants as Transfer Agents: The McKinsey Case Cf. Kiese 2010 Hannover Region: hannoverimpuls GmbH Wolfsburg AG Projekt Region Braunschweig GmbH City of Regensburg Nuremberg Region/ Central Franconia District dortmund-project Bergisches Stdtedreieck: kompetenzhoch3 Cartography: Stephan Pohl </p> <ul><li>International projects, esp. U.S./ Silicon Valleyknowledge management </li></ul><ul><li>ThyssenKrupp = key supplier to VW </li></ul><ul><li>Lower SaxonyHannover region as pilot project for new structural policy approach regional growth concepts </li></ul><p> 18. Transfer Channels: Summary of Evidence </p> <ul><li>Overall low degree ( inspiration , sometimescombination ), path-dependentlearning by doingtends to dominate </li></ul><ul><li>McKinsey projects = notable exception ( copying, adaptation ), but influence fading over time </li></ul><ul><li>Unilateral policy shoppingas dominant mechanism </li></ul><p>Cf. Kiese 2010 Widespread Consultants Common, but doubts about transferability Journeys Low, limited to regional/national scene German practitioners hardly participate in international KCs Knowledge communities Informal exchange btw state ministries, otherwise rare Personal communication Some cases in cluster management for transfer of procedural knowledge Personnel mobility low (limited to Porter, manuals hardly known nor used) Literature Occurrence / Relevance Channel 19. Interregional vs. Path-dependent Institutional Learning based on Hassink/Lagendijk (2001: 69), also cf. Nonaka/Takeuchi 1995 Interregional learning is embedded in path-dependent local learning processes. Cluster approach generic explicit accumulated experience, learning by doing (laboratory) local-specific tacit (Re-)Contex-tualisation Decoding Adaption Decontex-tualisation Codification Regional cluster concept path-dependent learning (incremental, cumulative) 20. </p> <ul><li>Horizontal expansion : Including more countries to increase variety(e.g. Kiese 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Perspectivesproved useful </li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>institutional (VoC, regional &amp; multilevel governance) </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>policy diffusion/transfer and learning </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Public Choice </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>Conceptual broadeningthrough new perspectives and tasks, e.g. </li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Isolated best-practice case studies common frameworkfor systematic CCPR </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>Increaseinterdisciplinaryresearch </li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><ul><li>need for independent scholarlyevaluation </li></ul></li></ul><p>Comparative Cluster Policy Research: Towards an Agenda </p> <ul><li>ECRP (European Collaborative Research Programme) as an opportunity, but 2011 call has been cancelled due to organizational transitionsnew funding opportunities sought </li></ul><p> 21. Thank you for your kind attention! 22. </p> <ul><li>Amin, A.; Thrift, N.J., 1993:Globalization, Institutional Thickness and Local Prospects. In: Revue d'conomie Rgionale et Urbaine, (3): 405-427. </li></ul><ul><li>Brown, J.S.; Duguid, P., 1991 : Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. In: Organization Science, 2(1): 40-57. </li></ul><ul><li>Bruch-Krumbein, W.; Hochmuth, E., 2000 : Cluster und Clusterpolitik. Begriffliche Grundlagen und empirische Fallbeispiele aus Ostdeutschland. Marburg: Schren. </li></ul><ul><li>Callaghan, H., 2010:Beyond Methodological Nationalism: How Multilevel Governance Affects the Clash of Capitalisms. In: Journal of European Public Policy, 17(4): 564-580.</li></ul><ul><li>Castells, M.; Hall, P., 1994:Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st Century Industrial Complexes. London, New York: Routledge. </li></ul><ul><li>Duranton, G., 2009:California Dreamin'. The Feeble Case for Cluster Policies. Toronto, 1 July 2009., last accessed 7 December 2010. </li></ul><ul><li>Fromhold-Eisebith, M.; Eisebith, G., 2005:How to Institutionalize Innovative Clusters? Comparing Explicit Top-down and Implicit Bottom-up Approaches. In: Research Policy, 34(8): 1250-1268. </li></ul><ul><li>Haas, P.M., 1992:Introduction. Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. In: International Organzation, 46(1): 1-35. </li></ul><ul><li>Hall, P.A.; Soskice, D., 2001:An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism. In: Hall, P.A.; Soskice, D. (ed.): Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1-68. </li></ul><ul><li>Hassink, R.; Ladendijk, A., 2001:The Dilemmas of Interregional Institutional Learning. In: Environment and Planning C, 19(1): 65-84. </li></ul><ul><li>Hospers, G.-J.; Beugelsdijk, S., 2002:Regional Cluster Policies: Learning by Comparing? In: Kyklos, 55(3): 381-402. </li></ul><p>References (1/3) 23. </p> <ul><li>Kiese, M., 2008:Mind the Gap: Regionale Clusterpolitik im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft, Politik und Praxis aus der Perspektive der Neuen Politischen konomie. In: Zeitschrift fr Wirtschaftsgeographie, 52(2-3): 129-145. </li></ul><ul><li>Kiese, M., 2009:National Styles of Cluster Promotion: Cluster Policies between Variety and Convergence. In: Hagbarth, L. (ed.): Innovative City and Business Regions. (=Structural Change in Europe, 6). Bollschweil: Hagbarth Publications, 57-67. </li></ul><ul><li>Kiese, M., 2010:Policy Transfer and Institutional Learning: An Evolutionary Perspective on Regional Cluster Policies in Germany. In: Fornahl, D.; Henn, S.; Menzel, M.-P. (eds): Emerging Clusters: Theoretical, Empirical and Political Perspectives on the Initial Stage of Cluster Evolution. (=Industrial Dynamics, Entrepreneurship and Innovation). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 324-353. </li></ul><ul><li>Ltz, S., 2007:Policy-Transfer und Policy-Diffusion. In: Benz, A.; Ltz, S.; Schimank, U.; Simonis, G. (eds.): Handbuch Governance: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendungsfelder. Wiesbaden: VS Verl. fr Sozialwissenschaften: 132-143. </li></ul><ul><li>Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H., 1995:The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, New York: Oxford Univ. Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Porter, M.E., 1998:Clusters and Competition. New Agendas for Companies, Governments and Institutions. In: Porter, M.E. (ed.): On Competition. (= The Harvard Business Review Book Series). Boston: The Harvard Business School Publishing, p. 197-287. </li></ul><ul><li>Putnam, R.D., 1995:Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. In: Journal of Democracy, 6(1): 65-78. </li></ul><ul><li>Slvell, .; Lindqvist, G.; Ketels, C., 2003:The Cluster Initiative Greenb...</li></ul>