The role of clusters as sources of dynamic externalities in the US semiconductor industry

Cluster Life Cycles - Dimensions and Rationales of Cluster Development

“…For an overview of regional factors, see MOULAERT and SEKIA (2003) as well as BRENNER and GILDNER (2006). 5 We include demand insofar as it refers to a buyer-supplier relationship within the cluster, the importance of this for cluster development is indicated by case studies (KETELHOHN, 2006) 6 Most cycle theories (see VERNON, 1966;KLEPPER, 1997) propose a change from product innovation to process innovation as the industry matures. A direct analogy would deterministically imply the decline of clusters, as cost reduction becomes more important during later stages of the life cycle.…”

“…In addition to this, the increasing codification of knowledge in the maturing industry decreases the necessity for a company to be near the places where this knowledge is generated. KETELHOHN (2006), applying the Ellison-Glaeser Index (ELLISON and GLAESER, 1997), shows that the geographic concentration of the semiconductor industry in the US increased until the 1980s and then declined. AUDRETSCH and FELDMAN (1996) compare the location of innovative activity of 210 industries that are in different phases of the industry life cycle.…”

Geography and High-Tech Employment Growth in US Counties‡

“…They find supply chain effects available in a diverse metropolitan area as benefiting information and communication technology firms. Ketelhohn (2006) reports evidence of spillovers from buyers for the semiconductor industry, which may be of greater importance than within industry spillovers, but did not find evidence of supply chain spillovers. Therefore, through the varied channels outlined above, local high-tech employment growth (HTGRW) can be expressed in reduced form as related to the initial level of high-tech employment in the area (CLUSTER), urban agglomeration (AGGLOM), geographic proximity in the urban hierarchy (GEOG), presence of a public university (UNIV), human capital (HUMCAP) and natural amenity levels (AMENITY):…”

“…Such geographic considerations include access to markets for inputs and products (King et al, 2003;Rosenthal and Strange, 2003;Andersson and Hellerstedt, 2009), proximity to human capital (Glaeser et al, 1995;Simon, 1998, Simon andNardinelli, 2002), positive knowledge spillovers from firms (Crescenzi, 2005), universities (Braunerhjelm et al, 2000) and buyers and sellers (Ketelhohn, 2006;Maine et al, 2010), and negative spillovers from increased competition (Rosenthal and Strange, 2003;Tallman et al, 2004).The influence of geographic distance also has been reported to vary across high-tech sectors (Arauzo-Carod and Viladecans-Marsal, 2009;Anselin et al, 2000). However, no study has systematically examined the role of geography along all dimensions across the spectrum of high-tech industries.…”

Determinants of International Competitiveness in the Pharmaceutical Industry

“…This, of course, is related to a continuous process of reorganization, mainly in merging and acquisition activities (Ketelhohn, 2002). Mergers and acquisitions between pharmaceutical companies lead to beneficial effects in terms of global competitiveness, being the main ones the reduction of high costs in R&D, the achievement of economies of scale, increasing the capacity of technological transfer (Lee and Mansfield, 1996;Mansfield, 1994), organizational abilities (Ketelhohn, 2002;Robbins Roth, 2000) and market access (Brännback and Renko, 2002). For his part, Fai (2003) establishes that competitiveness is focus in R&D. This represents 12% of the industry incomes, due to the patent system and the marketing process.…”