Abstract
This paper adds to the literature by deconstructing knowledge heterogeneity for the understanding of cluster evolution. Starting from the distinction between sustaining and radical innovations, as moderators of knowledge heterogeneity in Marshallian industrial districts (MIDs), this study’s objective consists of answering the question why and how districts evolve, through the understanding of the differing processes creating knowledge, i.e. sustaining and radical, and the type of firms that do so, and analysing critical issues such as how technological changes affect the pattern of district evolution. Theoretical development states that (1) in MIDs radical disruption can be expected to be led by new firms and not by incumbent technology gatekeepers (TGs), which are mainly oriented to providing incremental innovations in order to maintain their status quo and centrality, and (2) in MIDs leading incumbents demonstrate predominantly an orientation towards the creation of sustaining knowledge in dense and orchestrated networks and aim to develop competence-enhancing variety which ensures their centrality and the status quo, making clusters evolve expanding central stages, i.e. specialization. Our argumentation has also challenged a central assumption in MIDs about leading incumbents: the type of knowledge necessary to challenge leading incumbents must be new to the industry and to the district, based on exploratory district boundary-spanning, technology-distant knowledge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We focus on clusters and also on industrial districts. In this paper industrial district and cluster are used indistinctively, although we recognize in the former intensive social capital processes following Becattini (1979).
- 2.
Extract from the Economist, http://www.economist.com/node/13636558
Disruptive/technology innovation
- 3.
We focus on both Marshallian industrial districts and other cluster types and use the terms interchangeably throughout the paper. However, following Becattini (1979), we recognize the role of intensive social capital processes said to be typical of the industrial district model.
- 4.
References
Ahuja, G., & Morris Lampert, C. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 521–543.
Allarakhia, M., & Walsh, S. (2010). Managing knowledge assets under conditions of radical change: The case of the pharmaceutical industry. Technovation, 31(2/3), 105–117.
Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical models of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604–633.
Baglieri, D., Cinici, M. C., & Mangematin, V. (2012). Rejuvenating clusters with sleeping anchors: The case of Nanoclusters. Technovation, 32(2), 1320–1335.
Baumol, W. J. (2004). Entrepreneurial enterprises, large established firms and other components of the free-market growth machine. Small Business Economics, 23(9–21), 310–342.
Becattini, G. (1979). Scienza economica e trasformazioni sociali. La Nuova Italia.
Belussi, F., & Sedita, S. R. (2009). Life cycle vs. multiple path dependency in industrial districts. European Planning Studies, 17(4), 505–528.
Boschma, R., & Fornahl, D. (2011). Cluster evolution and a roadmap for future research. Regional Studies, 45(10), 1295–1298.
Cho, M., & Hassink, R. (2009). Limits to locking-out through restructuring: The textile industry in Daegu, South Korea. Regional Studies, 43(9), 1183–1198.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.
Clark, K. B. (1985). The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy, 14, 235–251.
Crespo, J., Suire, R., & Vicente, J. (2014). Lock-in or lock-out? How structural properties of knowledge networks affect regional resilience. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(1), 199–219.
Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120–1171.
Eisingerich, A. B., Bell, S. J., & Tracey, P. (2010). How can clusters sustain performance? The role of network strength, network openness, and environmental uncertainty. Research Policy, 39(2), 239–253.
Feldman, M., & Francis, J. L. (2006). Entrepreneurs as agents in the formation of industrial clusters. In B. Asheim, P. Cooke, & R. Martin (Eds.), Clusters and regional development: Critical reflections and explorations (pp. 115–136). London: Routledge.
Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 909–928.
Fornahl, D., Hassink, R., & Menzel, M.-P. (2015). Broadening our knowledge on cluster evolution. European Planning Studies, 23(10), 1921–1931. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1016654.
Garofoli, G. (1991). Local networks, innovation and policy in Italian industrial districts. In E. M. Bergman, G. Maier, & F. Todtling (Eds.), Regions reconsidered–economic networks, innovation, and local development in industrialized countries (pp. 119–140). London: Mansell.
Gertler, M. S. (2003). Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography, 3(1), 75–99.
Gilbert, B. A. (2012). Creative destruction: Identifying its geographic origins. Research Policy, 41(4), 734–742.
Glasmeier, A. (1991). Technological discontinuities and flexible production networks: The case of Switzerland and the world watch industry. Research Policy, 20(5), 469–485.
Henderson, R. (1993). Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. The Rand Journal of Economics, 24, 248–270.
Hervas-Oliver, J. L. (2016). What about radical innovation in clusters? Retaking a missing debate. In M. D. Parrilli, R. Fitjar, & A. Rodriguez-Pose (Eds.), Innovation drivers and regional innovation strategies. New York: Rotuledge.
Hervas-Oliver, J. L., & Albors-Garrigos, J. (2014). Are technology gatekeepers renewing clusters? Understanding gatekeepers and their dynamics across cluster life cycles. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development: An International Journal, 26(5–6), 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2014.933489.
Jiang, L., Tan, J., & Thursby, M. (2010). Incumbent firm invention in emerging fields: Evidence from the semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 55–75.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111–125.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14(1), 319–338.
Lorenzoni, G., & Lipparini, A. (1999). The leveraging of Interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4), 317–338.
March, J.G. (1991), Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87 (Special Issue: Organizational Learning: Papers in Honour of (and by) James G. March).
Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(4), 395–437.
Menzel, M., & Fornalh, D. (2010). Cluster life cycles-dimensions and rationales of cluster evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(1), 205–238.
Munari, F., Sobrero, M., & Malipiero, A. (2011). Absorptive capacity and localized spillovers: Focal firms as technological gatekeepers in industrial districts. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(2), 429–462.
Pouder, R., & John, C. H. S. (1996). Hot spots and blind spots: Geographical clusters of firms and innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1192–1225.
Robertson, P., & Langlois, R. N. (1995). Innovation, networks, and vertical integration. Research Policy, Elsevier, 24(4), 543–562.
Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306.
Saxenian, A. (1990). Regional networks and the resurgence of Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 33(1), 89–112.
Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2004a). One size fits all. In Towards a differentiated policy approach with respect to regional innovation systems [SRE-Discussion Papers, 2004/01]. Vienna: Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien.
Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2004b). Like phoenix from the ashes? The renewal of clusters in old industrial areas. Urban Studies, 41(5–6), 1175–1195.
Trippl, M., & Tödtling, F. (2007). Developing biotechnology clusters in non-high technology regions—The case of Austria. Industry and Innovation, 14(1), 47–67.
Trippl, M., Grillitsch, M., Isaksen, A., & Sinozic, T. (2015). Perspectives on cluster evolution: Critical review and future research issues. European Planning Studies, 23(10), 2028–2044. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2014.999450
Tushman, M., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439–465.
Wolfe, D. A., & Gertler, M. S. (2006). Local antecedents and trigger events: Policy implications of path dependence for cluster formation. Cluster Genesis: Technology-Based Industrial Development, 243–263.
Acknowledgements
Dr. Hervas-Oliver has received financial support from ECO-63645-R (MINECO/FEDER) from the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hervas-Oliver, JL., Manjarres-Henríquez, L., Boronat-Moll, C. (2018). Marshallian Industrial District Evolution: Technological Impacts and Firms’ Heterogeneity. In: Belussi, F., Hervas-Oliver, JL. (eds) Agglomeration and Firm Performance. Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90575-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90575-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90574-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90575-4
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)