Cụm công nghiệp, các DNVVN và các chính sách công cộngMột bài đánh giá và khuyến nghị cho các vùng ngoại viMeir Russa và Jeannette K. JonesbaAustin E. Cofrin School of Business, đại học Wisconsin - Green Bay, Green Bay, WI 54311-7001, Mỹ e-mail: russm@uwgb.edubAmerican liên lục địa Đại học Hoffman Estates, Illinois 60192, Hoa Kỳ e-mail: jeannette.jones@faculty.aiuonline.eduTóm tắtNghiên cứu cho thấy rằng các doanh nghiệp nhỏ và vừa (DNNVV) là những người đóng góp chính để tạo việc làm và ổn định yếu tố cho phát triển kinh tế kể từ khi họ đang bị ràng buộc tại địa phương và ít điện thoại di động. Nó tin rằng, Tuy nhiên, những lợi thế phát triển kinh tế được giảm bớt nếu DNNVV này tọa lạc trong một khu vực kiến thức tước. Nghiên cứu riêng của chúng tôi cho thấy Tuy nhiên, rằng tại các kiến thức tước nhỏ, công ty chuyên sâu kiến thức có thể chịu đựng nếu họ mạng ra khỏi khu vực và cộng tác với nhà cung cấp và/hoặc khách hàng. Kể từ khi khoảng cách tâm lý thường sẽ thay thế các khoảng cách vật lý như là những rào cản chính cho sự hợp tác, tạo kênh của mạng rất quan trọng. Một câu hỏi quan tâm là làm thế nào DNN & v trong kiến thức tước vùng có thể được hỗ trợ bởi tổ chức phát triển kinh tế khu vực và/hoặc quốc gia do đó, nó có thể tham gia một cách hiệu quả trong nền kinh tế toàn cầu kiến thức. Giấy này sẽ đề xuất một số ý tưởng và nguyên tắc chính sách hỗ trợ như vậy, tham gia vào xem xét các khía cạnh độc đáo của chính sách thực hiện liên quan đến kiến thức quản lý của DNN & v nằm trong một khu vực ngoại vi. Ý tưởng trung tâm là sự hỗ trợ và tạo ra một cơ sở hạ tầng thích hợp; Ví dụ, viễn thông và giao thông vận tải cơ sở hạ tầng (đó là hiển nhiên), và ít rõ ràng, quy định (ví dụ: quy định thủ chuyển) và hành chính (ví dụ:, khu vực chị mối quan hệ) hỗ trợ. Trong số các chính sách khác hướng dẫn là hỗ trợ cho cuộc họp cơ hội, (ví dụ như, hỗ trợ hội nghị quốc tế), công nhận chính thức của cụm chẳng hạn như trường đại học công nghiệp hợp tác, và các hoạt động địa phương và quốc tế. Trong bài báo này, chúng tôi cũng sẽ địa chỉ các cạm bẫy chẳng hạn như, "Đừng chọn người chiến thắng," và "cho cộng đồng doanh nghiệp lái xe quá trình này."Key words: Industry clusters, peripheral regions, public policy, SMEsIntroductionThe new, knowledge-based economy where intangible products, services, and resources are playing an increasingly important role (Teece, 1998), presents unique challenges to individual entrepreneurs, companies, regions, national governments (e.g., Statistics Canada, 2005), and international organizations (e.g. OECD, World Bank, see Roelandt and den Hertog,The paper was accepted by Associate Editor J. Michael Geringer, who also arranged for the peerreview of the manuscript. 1999). One of the challenges is the growing importance of tacit knowledge and the impact this has on company strategies, on industry clusters, and on economic development policies and practitioners (e.g. Audretsch, 2003). The importance of tacit knowledge as the foundation of an exogenous source of economic growth and the engine of economic development is now widely accepted by economists for regions and nations (e.g. Statistics Canada, 2005), and as an endogenous source of growth by business strategists it is acknowledged at the individual/entrepreneur and company levels (e.g. Bergman and Schubert, 2005; Audretsch, 2003). Also, the importance of the stickiness of tacit knowledge is increasing (e.g. Audretsch, 2003; Sternberg, 2003). At the same time, it has become clearer that the “long tail” - exponential distribution of wealth and growing inequality among individuals, companies, regions, and nations is one outcome of the proliferation of Information Communication Technologies (ICT) and globalization. One can see the increasing importance that mega-regions have on economic development (e.g. Florida et al., 2007), the increasing market share and consolidation of the leading companies in numerous industries (e.g., UNCTAD, 2007; Baldwin et al., 2001; appendix C, pp. 89-93), or the growing wealth of the top deciles--what some people call the growing gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” (e.g., Piketty and Saez, 2006).Is this suggesting that only a few mega-metropolitan areas will thrive in the new knowledge-based economy (Florida et al., 2007)? Will the “long-tale” theory of the creative economy win as Florida (2005) suggested? Recent experience suggests that government policy can reverse this trend in only a few cases, and only with heavy investment and a complementary set of policies (The World Bank, 2008). But can the new generation of ICT’s reverse that trend? Counter-intuitively, until recently this was not the case. The major reason being that the shortened half-life and sticky nature of knowledge greatly increased the importance of face-to- face (F2F) exchanges for innovation which played a major role in business success and wealth creation (e.g. Dohse, 2003). In addition, the increased pace of new knowledge creation resulted in a higher concentration of industry clusters in major urban areas. If knowledge in the new economy is the most important asset (e.g., Lytras et al., 2008), then learning and regional networks of knowledge development are of critical importance. This tacitness and the stickiness of knowledge impose new characteristics on public policy toward economic development (e.g., Koschatzky, 2005; Johansson et al., 2001). For example, the need to support collaborative relationships between different actors within the region (e.g., Fedderke and Klitgaard, 1998), or the need to develop strategic foresight as a governance process, is new to many policy makers and/or economic development practitioners (Koschatzky, 2005). In addition, the need to support “brain circulation” by promoting supportive venture capital policies (Saxenian, 2005) that might at first appear contradictory to political traditions, was at least initially counter-intuitive.
The growing income gap between the munificent regions and the poor, rural areas is one of the major concerns that drive this paper. Another concern is the misconception about the role of public policy in the new, knowledge-based economy. This paper will propose that in order for a public policy to be effective, the policy makers need to be able to understand the role of the economic, social, and educational background against which their policy is operating. This includes understanding the nature of the life cycle of the industry clusters, specifically the stage at which the industry cluster is within the life cycle, the unique nature of tacit knowledge and the effect it has on the specific industry cluster (Gertler and Wolfe, 2006; Cooke, 2007), and the implications of the next generation ICT- specifically, Web 2.0, video-conferencing and mobile telecommunication (e.g., Stephens, 2008). The importance of the life cycle of the industry clusters will be discussed along with a focus on the impact of early stages, namely the infancy and the growth stages. Some examples of policy that could have an impact on a region and also policies that will focus on specific clusters will be identified. Two mega-trends seem to be the
major drivers behind this new environment: the “decoupling” of the value added chain (unbundling) which allows for a major industry revamp (e.g., Enright, 2000) and the younger generation’s adoption of social media (e.g., Xenos and Foot, 2008).
The paper will proceed as follows. First, we will discuss different types of economic and educational regions. Specifically, this paper will identify four types: the mega-region, the stand- alone region, the marginal region, and the peripheral region. Second, we will discuss the recent research development regarding industry clusters which we believe will have a major impact on public policy, such as a cluster’s life cycle. Third, we will continue with a discussion of some of the more successful policies and guidelines implemented in support of traditional industry clusters. Fourth, we will propose our recommendations.
Regional Scope
Previous research (e.g. Malerba and Orsenigo, 1995) as well as our earlier paper (Russ and Paterni, 2007) identified two types of economic regions when considering the richness of the geographical region: the munificent, rich in resources regions, and the peripheral, poor in resources regions. In this paper we propose to improve the two region framework by splitting them into four types of economic regions. The munificent regions can be divided into mega- regions and stand-alone regions. Specifically, in Europe one can identify: Amsterdam and Rotterdam in the Netherlands, Ruhr and Cologne in Germany, Brussels and Antwerp in Belgium, and Lille in France as a mega-region, or Boston-NY-Washington in the US, or the Shanghai- Nanjing-Hangzhou triangle in China. The stand-alone economic regions can be seen as Bordeaux in France, Helsinki in Finland, the Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO or the Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in the US. In the Middle East one can identify Tel- Aviv, its suburb, Haifa, and Jerusalem or Abu-Dhabi and Dubai as stand-alone regions. The peripheral regions can be divided into marginal-- those that are on the outskirts of the stand- alone region, or on the margins of a mega-region (e.g. Northeast Wisconsin), or at a hole within the mega-region (e.g. Akron, OH); or peripheral--regions that are far away from the centers of the munificent regions, rural, poor, and/or uneducated (e.g. Sicily). Additional discussion regarding the four types of regions in the policy context will be elaborated in Part 4 of this paper and will be summarized in Table 1.
Similar to the “liability of newness” (Stinchcomb, 1965), “liability of adolescence” (Bruderl and Schussler, 1990), and “liability of foreignness” (Zaheer, 1995), we propose the concept of “liability of the periphery” meaning that companies and entrepreneurs that are located
đang được dịch, vui lòng đợi..