This final chapter presents the authors’ view of how to link geography, innovation, and firm competitive advantage. Porter and Sölvell span many of the themes raised in the foregoing chapters, and highlight several of the more contentious issues as seen from their vantage point. The stress is on the geographical dimension and its importance for technological development in a broad sense, and, by implication, for sustainable firm competitive advantage. The dense, localized (regional) clusters reappear, as does the geographical embeddedness of firm activities and knowledge. Among other things, the authors look at the interesting things that go on outside the legal boundaries of the firm in this environment, and in particular, explore extra‐firm innovative activities and their determinants.
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide an analysis of regional concentration patterns within ten new European Union (EU) member states, EU10, and make comparisons with EU15 and the US economy.Design/methodology/approachIndustrial specialization and clusters are measured as employment in the intersection between a sector (three‐digit NACE data) and a particular region (NUTS 2 level), with a total of 38 sectors and 41 regions within EU10. Regional cluster size and degree of specialization is measured along 3D: absolute number of employees (>10,000 jobs is used as cut‐off for a regional cluster), degree of specialization (regional sector employment is at least two times expected levels) and degree of regional market labor dominance (>3 per cent of total employment in a particular sector). Each of these three measures of cluster size, specialization and labor market focus are classified with a “star”. The largest and most specialized clusters receive three stars.FindingsEU10 exhibits 19 three‐star regional clusters, which display high values for each of the three measured parameters. In addition, there are 92 two‐star regional clusters and 313 one‐star regional clusters. The analysis also suggests that regional concentration in EU10 is clearly lower than in the USA, and slightly lower than in the old EU member states. In a few cases – IT, biopharmaceuticals and communications equipment – where the total size of the cluster is small, and there is little historical legacy in Eastern Europe, the EU10 exhibits higher geographical concentration than EU15.Research limitations/implicationsOverall, the economies of EU10 exhibit a pattern of geographical concentration close to a random distribution, i.e. the process of regional concentration and redistribution of industry is in a very early phase. If Europe is to build a more competitive economy, industrial restructuring towards larger clusters must be allowed and pushed by policy makers both at the national and EU levels.Practical implicationsPolicymakers must be well informed about geographical concentration patterns of industry. The research offers a consistent methodology of mapping regional clusters and geographical concentration patterns across sectors.Originality/valueThis paper is the first in measuring regional concentration patterns in Europe at this fine level, and is based on a new methodology developed by Professor Michael E. Porter at Harvard University. The paper has also introduced a new method of ranking clusters according to the star model.
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to analyze how The Competitive Advantage of Nations project led by Professor Michael E. Porter has opened up new perspectives on competitiveness of nations and firms for scholars, practitioners and policymakers. With the publication of The Competitive Advantage of Nations (CAON) book in 1990, Professor Michael E. Porter opened up a whole new perspective on competitiveness and clusters, including both new research avenues and new perspectives for practitioners and politicians. By questioning the traditional, more static and macroeconomic, views on competitiveness, he opened up for a new model of microeconomic drivers of long-run firm competitiveness. The new conceptual model, the Diamond model, pointed to the importance of healthy rivalry and dynamic clusters, in the proximate firm environment, as central to our understanding of how firms build sustainable competitive advantages in global markets. Design/methodology/approach – Literature review and conceptual. Findings – To distinguish between short-term, more static, and long-term, more dynamic competitiveness of firms, and the competitiveness of nations and regions, the paper proposes a conceptualization into three interrelated concepts: competitiveness and innovativeness of firms, and attractiveness of nations and regions. Originality/value – This paper summarizes 40 years of Professor Porter’s seminal research with a focus on the CAON project that began with the 1990 book on The Competitive Advantage of Nations. The paper proposes three interrelated concepts to cover issues of competitiveness: competitiveness (firm’s static advantages), innovativeness (firm’s dynamic advantages) and attractiveness (national/regional advantages).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.