Cluster policy and regional development: scale, scope and renewal

Abstract

Consistent with Marshallian/Porterian theories, the Norwegian cluster policy has been linked to the development of specialized regional industry environments. Cluster projects are relatively sector-specific entities often supporting (already) strong regional industries and sectors. Following a review of the current literature on clusters and innovation, and informed by evolutionary thought, we argue that such constellations of specialized clusters may hamper the long-term innovation ability of regions. In a conceptual discussion of cluster evolution and its links to innovation and regional path renewal, we argue that special emphasisboth theoretical and politicalhas been placed on the geographical scale of clusters, but there has been less emphasis on scope. Accordingly, we present three theory-based strategies for cluster evolution and link these to regional development and innovation by assessing their impact on regional path renewal. We illustrate our argument empirically using examples from the Norwegian Centre of Expertise (NCE) cluster programme.

Networking policy and firm performance

“…Furthermore, policy makers should be aware that IFN contracts could be a vehicle to foster not only regional economic growth for neighbouring regions, but also inter‐regional growth, increasing knowledge transfer and social capital via collaborative practices (Fitjar & Rodríguez‐Pose, ; Huggins, ). Finally, comparing the Italian case with other European countries, where policies are allocated not just to cluster firms but also to networks similar to IFNs, might be an interesting generalisation of the presented results and it might drive the attention of policy makers and local authorities to support related policies (Audretsch & Peña‐Legazkue, ; Njøs & Jakobsen, ).…”

Capturing cluster life cycle with a mixed‐method analysis: Evidence from a French cluster case study

“…Indirect cluster policies must also be taken into account: those include past creations of public structures such as technology and science parks or research universities (Belussi & Sedita, ; Paton & Kenney, ). “While cluster promotion policies [as the French CC policy] are unlikely to succeed in creating clusters ab initio” (Martin & Sunley, ), indirect policies can contribute to developing the clusters' premises and support their development (Njøs & Jakobsen, ; Uyarra & Ramlogan, ). In this regard, Brenner and Schlump () argue that the effects of policy measures differ depending on the stages of the CLC: investment in education and specialized sectors has the strongest impact on the expansion phase, whereas public research has a significant role throughout the entire CLC; promoting and funding start‐ups is more important in the initial phase, while supporting spin‐offs appears more important in the expansion phase.…”

Cluster Policy as a Determining Factor for Development of World Class-Clusters

“…The key pillars of excellence in cluster management include a regular review of both cluster objectives and the objectives of the cluster organization, 'trying out' various types of actions and learning from the results of those actions, as well as constant monitoring and regular evaluation, adaptive performance measurement systems and active engagement of cluster stakeholders at all stages of the management 30 . Nowadays, cluster management excellence is considered as a main prerequisite for a cluster organization to achieve the highest impacts within a given technological, industrial, regional, social and legislative framework for the cluster members, the industrial sector and the regional and national economy.…”

“…Relationship between firms and their customers, suppliers and competitors flourished in regional agglomerations where repeated interaction builds shared identities and mutual trust (high social capital). The firms are 30 . The development of Aviation Valley (158 cluster members) is an excellent example of Polish world-class cluster.…”