1
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
MOC Network Cluster Research WorkshopHarvard Business School, 12 December 2010
A European Proposalfor Comparative Cluster Policy Research
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 2
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
Silicon Valley Y ValleySilicon 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
2
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 3
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
• Diffusion of cluster policies across time and space• How? ⇒ Channels• Adaptation? ⇒ Policy Learning• What impact? ⇒ Evaluation
• Impact of structural & institutional variety on the design, implementation and effectiveness of cluster policies poorly understood
• E.g. varieties of capitalism (Hall/Soskice 2001) ⇒ liberal vs. coordinated market economies
• Constellations of actors in regional governance structures• Interdependencies across spatial scales ⇒ multilevel governance (cf.
Callaghan 2010)
⇒ Convergent vs. divergent forces⇒ Determine scope for policy learning
• Relationship between theory, empirical cluster research, policy and practice ⇒ Public Choice perspective
Guiding Questions
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 4
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
• Methodology
• Key concepts and findings
• Public Choice perspective (cf. Kiese 2008, Kiese/Wrobel forthcoming)
• Stylized facts
• Diffusion & policy learning (cf. Kiese 2010)
• Varieties of cluster policy (cf. Kiese 2009, Sternberg et al. forthcoming, Stockinger et al. 2009)
• Taking CCPR forward
Comparative Cluster Policy Research: Outline
3
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 5
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
(Regional) Cluster Policy
• all efforts of government to 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, involving cluster firms, government and/or the research community (Sölvell et al. 2003, p. 31)
Cluster Initiative vs. Cluster Policy
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 6
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
1) cf. Fromhold-Eisebith/Eisebith 2005, p. 1256
Governance1 Public Private
Cluster reference1 Implicit Explicit
Complexity Single Instrument Holistic Approach
Cluster Orientation Low High
Coherence Low High
Institutionalisation Weak Strong
Maturity Embryonic Completed
PPP
Dimensions of Cluster Policy
4
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 7
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
Hannover Region:hannoverimpuls GmbH Wolfsburg AG
Projekt RegionBraunschweig GmbH
Regensburg
Nuremberg Region/Central Franconia
dortmund-project
Wuppertal-Solingen-Remscheid:
kompetenzhoch3
Cartography: Stephan Pohl
• Three federal states in West Germany
• North Rhine-Westphalia ~ mature industries facing structural change
• Bavaria ~ late industrialisation, high-tech
• Lower Saxony ~ ‘grey mass’region
• Regional typology ⇒ structural, institutional & political variance
• Seven sub-regional cases
• 110 semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 134 practitioners, observers & consultants (2006/2007)
Case Study Regions: Western Germany
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 8
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
AcademiaConceptual
Action Space
Economic
Rationality
Political Action Space
Political
Rationality
Practical Action Space
Bureaucratic
Rationality
Implementation
Electorate
P
P
P
A
A
A
AP
Principal-Agent-Constellation
Cluster TheoryMethods for Cluster
Identification & Analysis
Advice
Cf. Kiese 2008, p. 133
A Public Choice Model of Cluster Promotion
5
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 9
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
“Even if the public authority that oversees the cluster is highlycompetent and attempts to maximise local welfare, an optimal cluster policy looks like something extraordinarily difficult to achieve.“
“Cluster policies that already look fraught with difficulties in a world of benevolent governments look extremely 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
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 10
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
• Porter’s definition only 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-how and experience-based learning dominates
• daily duty leaves no time to deal with fragmented theory• no recognition of practical value• ‘academic’ approach conflicts with mobilisation of firms
• Technocratic understanding: clusters are ‘made’ and often equated with organised effort (initiative/policy) ⇒ danger of overlooking / crowding out organic cluster development
• Equation of clusters and networks ⇒ institutionalisation• Superficial reference to value chains ⇒ selectivity ⇒ rhetoric?!
Understanding of Clusters in German Policy and Practice
6
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 11
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
Stylized Facts on Regional Cluster Policy in Germany
1. Technocratic understanding of clusters in policy & practice
2. For simplicity‘s sake, clusters are understood as networks3. Spatial mismatch between cluster and policy ⇒ over-/
underbounding
4. Temporal mismatch (short-termism vs. cluster development)
5. Herd behaviour (ICT, bio, nano…)
6. From horizontal demonstration effects to top-down diffusion7. Inflationary use of cluster term ⇒ meaning, credibility ⇓
8. Lack of explicit theoretical foundation/reference9. Sloppy identification of cluster potential
10. Declining cluster focus over time
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 12
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
AcademiaConceptual
Action Space
Economic
Rationality
Political Action Space
Political
Rationality
Practical Action Space
Bureaucratic
Rationality
Implementation
Electorate
P
P
P
A
A
A
AP
Principal-Agent-Constellation
Cluster TheoryMethods for Cluster
Identification & Analysis
Advice
Blurred action spaces and rationalities:• Politics and Bureaucracy
govern concept development
• Action purpose-led ⇒ unity of reason? (cf. Willgerodt 1994)
Cf. Kiese 2008, p. 133
Fuzzy Action Spaces of Cluster Promotion
7
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 13
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
• Channels• Literature
• Academic• Best practice case studies• Manuals
• Mobility of personnel (dispositive/operative)• Consultants as transfer agents (Stone 2004)
• Knowledge communities• Epistemic communities (Haas 1992)
• Communities of practice (Brown/Duguid 1996)
• Journeys of politicians and practitioners (policy tourism)• Formal & informal communication (secondary)
Policy Transfer: Channels and Determinants
• Determinants (cf. Lütz 2007: 139-141)
• Endogenous = cultural, institutional, socio-economic proximity• Exogenous: frequency of interaction, networks, transfer agents• Transfer object: complexity, visibility, potential for conflict
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 14
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
Hannover Region:hannoverimpuls GmbH Wolfsburg AG
Projekt RegionBraunschweig GmbH
City of Regensburg
Nuremberg Region/Central Franconia District
dortmund-project
Bergisches Städtedreieck:kompetenzhoch3
Cartography: Stephan Pohl
• International projects, esp. U.S./ Silicon Valley ⇒ knowledge management
• ThyssenKrupp = key supplier to VW• Lower Saxony ⇒ Hannover region as pilot
project for new structural policy approach „regional growth concepts“
• State funding for concept development in Braunschweig region
• Further growth concepts in Weserbergland(2004), Süderelbe (2005)
• McK spin-off designed comparable projects in Wernigerode, Aachen
• 2005 prelim study for Bochum 2015
Consultants as Transfer Agents: The McKinsey Case
Cf. Kiese 2010
8
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 15
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
Transfer Channels: Summary of Evidence
WidespreadConsultants
Common, but doubts about transferabilityJourneys
Low, limited to regional/national scene
German practitioners hardly participate in international KCs
Knowledge communities
Informal exchange btw state ministries, otherwise rarePersonal communication
Some cases in cluster management for transfer of procedural knowledgePersonnel mobility
low (limited to Porter’s definition, manuals hardly known nor used)Literature
Occurrence / RelevanceChannel
⇒ Overall low degree (inspiration, sometimes combination), path-dependent learning by doing tends to dominate
⇒ McKinsey projects = notable exception (copying, adaptation), but influence fading over time
⇒ Unilateral policy shopping as dominant mechanismCf. Kiese 2010
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 16
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
Interregional vs. Path-dependent Institutional Learning
based on Hassink/Lagendijk (2001: 69), also cf. Nonaka/Takeuchi 1995
Cluster approach
genericexplicit
accumulated experience, learning by doing
(„laboratory“)
local-specifictacit
(Re-)Contex-tualisation
Decoding
Adaption
Decontex-tualisation
Codification
Regional cluster concept
path-dependent learning (incremental, cumulative)
Interregional learning is embedded in path-dependent local learning processes.
9
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 17
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
LiberalMarket Economies
CoordinatedMarket 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. 221) Hall/Soskice 2001
Cluster Policy and Varieties of Capitalism1
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 18
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
Case Study Regions in the U.S.
Stockinger 2010, p. 66 (Cartography: Stephan Pohl)
• 3 states + 2 sub-regional caseseach
• 2007/2008: 87 interviews with practitioners, advisors and observers
PortlandSouthern Oregon
PhiladelphiaPittsburgh
Research Triangle
PiedmondTriad
10
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 19
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
Cluster Policies in Germany vs. U.S.: Selected Differences
• Federal government: focus on workforce development and disadvantaged regions(reactive)
• States: Locational marketing and 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 in radical innovation, high-tech industries, commercialization aided by strong VC base
• Diffusion and absorptive capacity limited by skills constraints.
• Focus on incremental innovation, perceived problems with commercialization of scientific breakthroughs
• Dual system of vocational training supports diffusion and absorptive capacity through human capital.
National System of Innovation
• Individualism and competition• Less institutional thickness• Collective agency less formalized, less trust
and social capital2
• Cooperation and consensus• Institutional thickness1, neo-corporatism
(chambers, associations)• More collective agency, trust, social capital
Institutional setting
Germany U.S.
Implementation • Structural: Public & collective actors• Institutionalization, more political top-down
initiation• Higher organizational capacity3, but
technocratic (⇒ stylized facts)
• More private agency & reliance on individual leadership
• Flexible framework, but lack of strategic coherence
Cf. S
tockingeret al. 2009, Sternberg et al. (forthcom
ing)1) cf. Am
in/Thrift 1993; 2) cf. Putnam 1995; 3) van den Berg/B
raun 1999
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 20
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
• Horizontal expansion: Including more countries to increase variety (e.g. Kiese 2009)
• Perspectives proved useful• institutional (VoC, regional & multilevel governance)• policy diffusion/transfer and learning• Public Choice
• Conceptual broadening through new perspectives and tasks, e.g.• Isolated best-practice case studies ⇒ common framework for systematic
CCPR• Increase interdisciplinary research• need for independent scholarly evaluation
Comparative Cluster Policy Research: Towards an Agenda
• ECRP (European Collaborative Research Programme) as an opportunity, but 2011 call has been cancelled due to organizational transitions ⇒ new funding opportunities sought
11
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 22
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
Amin, A.; Thrift, N.J., 1993: Globalization, Institutional Thickness and Local Prospects. In: Revue d'ÉconomieRégionale et Urbaine, (3): 405-427.
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.
Bruch-Krumbein, W.; Hochmuth, E., 2000: Cluster und Clusterpolitik. Begriffliche Grundlagen und empirische Fallbeispiele aus Ostdeutschland. Marburg: Schüren.
Callaghan, H., 2010: Beyond Methodological Nationalism: How Multilevel Governance Affects the Clash of Capitalisms. In: Journal of European Public Policy, 17(4): 564-580.
Castells, M.; Hall, P., 1994: Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st Century Industrial Complexes. London, New York: Routledge.
Duranton, G., 2009: California Dreamin'. The Feeble Case for Cluster Policies. Toronto, 1 July 2009. http://individual.utoronto.ca/gilles/Papers/Cluster.pdf, last accessed 7 December 2010.
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.
Haas, P.M., 1992: Introduction. Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. In: International Organzation, 46(1): 1-35.
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.
Hassink, R.; Ladendijk, A., 2001: The Dilemmas of Interregional Institutional Learning. In: Environment and Planning C, 19(1): 65-84.
Hospers, G.-J.; Beugelsdijk, S., 2002: Regional Cluster Policies: Learning by Comparing? In: Kyklos, 55(3): 381-402.
References (1/3)
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 23
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
Kiese, M., 2008: Mind the Gap: Regionale Clusterpolitik im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft, Politik und Praxis aus der Perspektive der Neuen Politischen Ökonomie. In: Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 52(2-3): 129-145.
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.
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.
Kiese, M.; Wrobel, M., forthcoming: Wagging the Analytical Dog: A Public Choice Perspective on Regional Cluster and Network Promotion in Germany. Paper accepted for publication in European Planning Studies.
Lütz, S., 2007: Policy-Transfer und Policy-Diffusion. In: Benz, A.; Lütz, S.; Schimank, U.; Simonis, G. (eds.): Handbuch Governance: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendungsfelder. Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwissenschaften: 132-143.
Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H., 1995: The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
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.
Putnam, R.D., 1995: Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. In: Journal of Democracy, 6(1): 65-78.Sölvell, Ö.; Lindqvist, G.; Ketels, C., 2003: The Cluster Initiative Greenbook. Gothenburg: Ivory Tower AB.
Internet-Quelle: http://www.ivorytower.se/eng/projgrnbk.htm (09.05.2006).
References (2/3)
12
MOC Network Cluster Research Workshop Harvard Business School 12 December 2010 24
Matthias KieseInstitute for Competitiveness and Communication ICC
Sternberg, R.; Kiese, M.; Stockinger, D., forthcoming: Cluster Policies in the U.S. and Germany: A Varieties of Capitalism Perspective on Two High-Tech States. Paper accepted for publication in Environment and Planning C.
Stockinger, D.; Sternberg, R.; Kiese, M., 2009: Cluster Policy in Co-ordinated vs. Liberal Market Economies: A Tale of Two High-Tech States. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference on Innovation, Strategy and Knowledge, Copenhagen Business School, 18-20 June, 2009. Copenhagen Business School. http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=5890&cf=32, last accessed 7 December 2010.
Stockinger, D., 2010: Handlungsräume und Akteure der Clusterpolitik in den USA: Implementierungsprozesse in North Carolina, Oregon und Pennsylvania aus politisch-ökonomischer und institutioneller Perspektive. Berlin: Logos.
Stone, D., 2004: Transfer Agents and Global Networks in the „Transnationalization“ of Policy. In: Journal of European Economic Policy, 11(3): 545-566.
van den Berg, L.; Braun, E., 1999: Urban Competitiveness, Marketing and the Need for Organising Capacity. In: Urban Studies, 36(5-6): 987-1000.
Willgerodt, H., 1994: Politische contra ökonomische Rationalität? Über die Interdependenz von Moral und Vernunft. In: Orientierungen zur Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftspolitik, 60(2): 4-12.
References (3/3)