Subsidy and networking: The effects of direct and indirect support programs of the cluster policy

Abstract

Industrial clusters have attracted considerable attention worldwide for their expected contribution to regional innovation. Recently, policymakers in various countries have developed specific cluster policies. However, there exist few empirical studies on cluster policies. In this study, we use original questionnaire data to empirically evaluate the Industrial Cluster Project (ICP) initiated by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in 2001. We address two research questions on the effect of the ICP: are the project participants who exploit various support programs more successful in alliance/network formation within the cluster than others and which kind of ICP support program contributes to firm performance.In a departure from previous such projects, the ICP aims at the autonomous development of regional industries and includes both direct R&D support and indirect networking/coordination support. The focus of public support for local firms has clearly shifted toward enabling networking and coordination for those who can help themselves. Thus, we pay special attention to the differences between direct R&D support and indirect networking/coordination support, which indicate the conditions necessary for the effective organization of cluster policies to improve firm performance.Our empirical evaluation is based on a recent original survey of a sample of 511 firms. We first employ the propensity score and the difference-in-differences estimation to analyze the degree of alliance/network formation before and after participating in the ICP. Thereafter, we use Heckman's two-step procedure and the negative binomial model to examine the effects of support programs on firm performance.The estimation results suggest that cluster participants who exploit support programs (especially indirect support measures) expand the industry-university-government network after participating in the ICP. Moreover, we find that not every support program contributes to firm performance; firms should therefore select the program that is most aligned with their aims. Indirect support programs have an extensive and strong impact on output, especially innovation outcomes, whereas direct R&D support has only a weak effect.Keywords: cluster policy, industrial cluster, R&D support, subsidy, networking JEL codes: O25; O38; R11 2 1. Introduction Industrial clusters have been attracting considerable attention worldwide for their expected contribution to regional innovation and development, especially through enhanced collaboration and knowledge spillover among local firms and research organizations. Ever since the 1990s, policymakers in various countries have launched specific cluster policies (see Appendix 1).However, to the best of our knowledge, there exist few empirical studies on the effects of cluster policies on the performance of local firms, whereas agglomeration theories derive a major implication that regional differences in agglomeration explain differences in regional industry structure and performance (Porter, 1998;Glaeser...

Geographical clustering and the effectiveness of public innovation programs

“…They did not find a significant effect of cluster participation on a firm's R&D productivity, but rather showed that participating firms collaborating with partners outside the cluster were more productive in terms of patent output. In further research focused on the same cluster program, Nishimura and Okamuro (2011b) discovered that cluster participants making use of indirect support measures within the program (e.g. information and consulting services, participating in events) significantly expanded their network activities, whilst direct R&D subsidies had only a weak effect.…”

Local Management of National Cluster Policies: Comparative Case Studies of Japanese, German, and French Biotechnology Clusters

“…In Japan, MEXT implemented the Knowledge Cluster Initiative (KCI) and the City Area Program (CAP) in 2002, which were reorganized and integrated into the Regional Innovation Cluster Program in 2010, while METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) carried out another cluster policy, Industrial Cluster Project ( [18,19]). In the MEXT programs, universities and public research institutes play a central role in the clusters as the cores of research collaboration with private firms.…”

“…Moreover, some recent studies empirically evaluate the effects of cluster policies on participant firms using micro data, such as [13][14][15] for Germany, [16,17] for France, and [18,19] for Japan. There is a vast amount of literature on the economies of agglomeration (e.g., [16] and on the clustering process or mechanism in an established cluster (e.g., [1]).…”

Analysis of the interplay between knowledge and performance management in industrial clusters

“…As with supply chains, collaboration in industrial clusters requires strategic alignment, selection of common performance measures, agreement on a shared set of principles and rules, as well as the development of coordination capabilities (Sölvell et al, 2003;Afsarmanesh et al, 2009). Nishimura & Okamuro (2011) found that indirect coordination support helps to build up new collaborative networks within clusters. The authors also suggest that participating in meetings and events and using coordination and advisory services enhance several dimensions of a company's performance.…”