Where Is the Value Added in the Cluster Approach? Hermeneutic Theorising, Economic Geography and Clusters as a Multiperspectival Approach

Abstract

Barnes has argued that (new) economic geography has moved in to a phase of theory development that he describes as 'hermeneutic' theorising. This epistemological position is characterised by an interpretive, reflexive and open-ended mode of inquiry that recognises the diversity of sources available for theorising and the subsequent conversations that will ensue from such diversity. In a recent deconstruction of the clusters concept in economic geography, and especially that version (or brand) expounded by Michael Porter, Martin and Sunley ask the question as to what added value is delivered by the concept's gatecrashing of academic and policy debates. This paper argues that clusters should not be overendowed as a singular 'brand', but recognised as an emergent set of multiple perspectives in dialogue. From a position of hermeneutic theorising, 'clusters' have the potential to add value by allowing theoretical debate across a wide range of (overlapping and competing) perspectives whose partiality and situatedness are made explicit. The possibilities for theoretical, empirical and policy cross-fertilisation from the difficult act of holding together these threads is one potential drawn from the conversations engendered through hermeneutic theorising in economic geography. Nevertheless, this 'work in progress' must be deepened and extended if the potential of clusters is to be realised.

Territory, Cluster and Competitiveness of the Intensive Horticulture in Almería (Spain)

“…Porter's cluster concept has been classified as "chaotic" [26], a "work in progress" [27] or excessively "flexible" [28]. Nevertheless, although its conceptual validity may be somewhat limited, it has been recognized as a theoretical instrument of general applicability which is apt to interpret the organization of quite different productive scenarios.…”

Cluster considerations and Korean subsidiaries in the US

“…In other words, foreign-owned firms may adopt the same labour market and training practices as their local counterparts, but will not generally adopt the same kinds of relationships crossing the boundary of the firm-a finding of considerable importance.'' This type of approach adopts a less 'rigid' (Malmberg 2003, 155) 'local' focus and is geared toward maximizing the benefits of deploying multiple perspectives (see also Benneworth and Henry 2004). In this way, intra, inter, and extra-firm relationships tied to proximity, and therefore spatially bound at a cluster level, are examined simultaneously along with firm relationships created and maintained over space.…”

Cluster Initiatives as Intermediaries : A Study of their Management and Stakeholders

“…Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978); however when it is, it is usually mentioned as an aside in a discussion of cluster limitations. Benneworth & Henry (2004) explain this interchangeable use of the phenomena by high level of appropriation of Porterian cluster and its domestication enabled by creation of other versions of cluster, like the cluster initiative. The cluster initiatives are sometimes considered as clusters and sometimes as separate entities striving to meet the specific needs of clusters.…”