Despite the diffusion of cluster policies across time and space, the universal applicability of the underlying concept or its otherwise necessary adaptation to national, regional, and local peculiarities are rarely questioned. Drawing on the varieties of capitalism approach, we adopt an institutional perspective to compare the cluster policies of North Carolina and Bavaria, situated in their countries' multilevel governance frameworks in which the state level interacts with federal and local policies. Contrasting North Carolina and Bavaria, we link the differences in the design and implementation of cluster policies to characteristics of the national institutional environment, as well as to regional specifics and path dependencies. Our findings highlight the importance of institutional contexts that needs to be considered when adapting cluster policies to specific circumstances.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkermansDCastaldiCLosB, 2009, “Do ‘liberal market economies’ really innovate more radically than ‘coordinated market economies’? Hall and Soskice reconsidered”Research Policy38181–191
2.
ArdyB, 2007, “Industrial and competitiveness policy: The Lisbon strategy” in The European Union: Economics and Policies8th edition, Ed. El-AgraaA M (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 261–280
3.
AsheimB TCoenenL, 2006, “Contextualising regional innovation systems in a globalising learning economy: On knowledge bases and institutional frameworks”Journal of Technology Transfer31163–173
4.
BatheltHGertlerM S, 2005, “The German variety of capitalism: Forces and dynamics of evolutionary change”Economic Geography811–10
5.
Bayernkurier, 2006, “Firmen im bayerischen Automotive-Cluster”Bayernkurier5711
BlythM, 2003, “Same as it never was: Temporality and typology in the varieties of capitalism”Comparative European Politics1215–225
8.
BMBF, 2005Bio Regionen in Deutschland: Starke Impulse für die nationale Technologieentwicklung3rd edition, Federal Ministry for Education and Research, Berlin
9.
BMBF, 2006Die Hightech-Strategie für DeutschlandFederal Ministry for Education and Research, Berlin
10.
BovairdA GLöftierEParrado-DíezS (Eds), 2008Multi-level Governance: New Approaches to Decentralising Power in European Countries (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos)
11.
BraunerhjelmP BFeldmanM P (Eds), 2006Cluster Genesis: Technology-based Economic Development (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
12.
BührerSKrollHStahleckerTBrandtTZimmermannAKulickeMKoschatzkyKBaierE, 2008Zwischen-Evaluation der Cluster-Offensive Bayern: Final Report to the Bavarian Ministry of the Economy, Infrastructure, Transportation and Technology (Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe)
13.
BurfittAMacNeillS, 2008, “The challenges of pursuing cluster policy in the congested state”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32492–505
14.
BuschA, 2005, “Globalization and national varieties of capitalism: The contested viability of the ‘German model’”German Politics14125–139
15.
CallaghanH, 2010, “Beyond methodological nationalism: How multilevel governance affects the clash of capitalisms”Journal of European Public Policy17564–580
16.
CasperS, 2007Creating Silicon Valley in Europe: Public Policy Towards New Technology Industries (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
17.
ChiangJ T, 1991, “From ‘mission-oriented’ to ‘diffusion-oriented’ paradigm: The new trend of US industrial technology policy”Technovation11339–356
18.
ConzelmannTSmithR (Eds), 2008Multi-level Governance in the European Union: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead (Nomos, Baden-Baden)
19.
CookeP N, 2001, “New economy innovation systems: Biotechnology in Europe and in the USA”Industry and Innovation8267–289
CrescenziRRodríguez-PoseAStorperM, 2007, “The territorial dynamics of innovation: A Europe–United States comparative analysis”Journal of Economic Geography7673–709
22.
DickenP, 2007Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy5th edition (Sage, London)
23.
DiefenthalT, 2006, “BioRegio Regensburg: Biotechnologische Revolution und Gründungsboom an der Donau”, in Stadtatlas Regensburg Eds SedlmeierAVossenJ (Pustet, Regensburg) pp 110–111
EickelpaschAFritschM, 2005, “Contests for cooperation: A New approach in German innovation policy”Research Policy341269–1282
29.
EtzkowitzHLeydesdorffL, 2000, “The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university – industry – government relations”Research Policy29109–123
30.
European Commission, 2003Developing Innovative Clusters (European Commission, Luxembourg)
31.
European Commission, 2006Regions and Cities for Growth and Jobs: An Overview of Regulations 2007–2013 on Cohesion and Regional PolicyDirectorate-General for Regional Policy, European Commission, Brussels
32.
European Commission, 2008Towards World-class Clusters in the European Union: Implementing the Broad-based Innovation Strategy. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, SEC(2008) 2637 (Commission of the European Communities, Brussels), http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/com_2008_652_en.pdf
ForayDLlerenaP, 1992, “Structures informationnelles et modes de coordination dans les politiques technologiques de l'Allemagne de l'Ouest”Revue d'Economie Industrielle59248–261
GriffithsAZammutoR F, 2005, “Institutional governance systems and variations in national competitive advantage: An integrative framework”Academy of Management Review30823–842
38.
HallP ASoskiceD, 2001, “An introduction to varieties of capitalism”, in Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage Eds HallP ASoskiceD (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 1–68
39.
HallPThelenK, 2009, “Institutional change in varieties of capitalism”Socio-economic Review77–34
40.
HeidenreichM, 2005, “The renewal of regional capabilities: Experimental regionalism in Germany”Research Policy34739–757
41.
HeidenreichMMiljakV, 2005, “Die Erneuerung regionaler Fähigkeiten: Clusterpolitik in Leipzig und Nürnberg”, in Netzwerke und strategische Kooperationen in der Wirtschqft Initiative für Beschäftigung OWL e.V., Net'sWork-Kongress (Kleine, Bielefeld) pp 101–112
42.
HospersG-JBeugelsdijkS, 2002, “Regional cluster policies: Learning by comparing?”Kyklos55381–402
43.
HowellC, 2003, “Varieties of capitalism: And then there was one?”Comparative Politics36102–124
44.
IHK Nürnberg, 2005Entwicklungsleitbild der Wirtschaftsregion NürnbergChamber of Commerce for Central Franconia, Nuremberg
KerberWEckardtM, 2005Policy Learning in Europe: The ‘Open Method of Coordination’ and Laboratory Federalism (University of Rostock, Rostock)
47.
KetelsC H MLindqvistGSölvellÖ, 2006, “Cluster initiatives around the world: preliminary findings from Greenbook II”, presentation to the 9th Annual Conference of The Competitiveness Institute, Lyon, 13 October; copy available from M Kiese, Institute for Competitiveness and Communication, School of Business, University of Applied Sciences Northwest Switzerland, Olten
48.
KieseM, 2009, “National styles of cluster promotion: Cluster policies between variety and convergence”, in Innovative City and Business Regions Ed. HagbarthL (Hagbarth, Bollschweil) pp 57–67
49.
KieseM, 2010, “Policy transfer and institutional learning: An evolutionary perspective on regional cluster policies in Germany”, in Emerging Clusters: Theoretical, Empirical and Political Perspectives on the Initial Stage of Cluster Evolution Eds FornahlDHennSMenzelM-P (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 324–353
50.
KitsonM, 2005, “The American economic model and European economic policy”Regional Studies39987–1001
51.
KoschatzkyKLoV, 2007, “Promoting regional networking and cluster formation in East Germany: A Chance for setting up new regional growth regimes in an economic volatile environment?”International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management7462–481
52.
LinkAScottJ, 2003, “The growth of research triangle park”Small Business Economics20167–175
53.
LugerM IGoldsteinH A, 1991Technology in the Garden: Research Parks and Regional Economic Development (University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC)
LugerM IStewartLAndroneyG, 2003, “Identifying ‘targets of opportunity’: competitive clusters for RTRP and its sub-regions”, report prepared for the Research Triangle Regional Partnership Future Cluster Competitiveness Initiative, http://www.researchtriangle.org/uploads/Reports/OppTargets.pdf
56.
MartinR ASunleyP, 2003, “Deconstructing clusters: Chaotic concept or policy panacea?”Journal of Economic Geography35–35
57.
MeixnerH, 2006“Cluster Sensorik: Vom regionalen Netzwerk zum bayerischen Cluster”, presentation, 10 December; copy available from M Kiese, Institute for Competitiveness and Communication, School of Business, University of Applied Sciences Northwest Switzerland, Olten
58.
MillsKReynoldsEReamerA, 2008Clusters and Competitiveness: A Federal Role for Stimulating Regional Economies (The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC)
59.
MurmannJ P, 2003Knowledge and Competitive Advantage: The Coevolution of Firms, Technology, and National Institutions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
60.
NeumannG, 1996, “Regionales Change-Management: Das Nürnberg-Programm: Ein exemplarischer Ansatz zur Verknüpfung von Regional-, Wirtschafts- und Arbeitsmarktpolitik”WSI-Mitteilungen49754–763
NorthD C, 1990Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge University Press., Cambridge)
63.
PeckJ ATheodoreN, 2007, “Variegated capitalism”Progress in Human Geography31731–772
64.
PioreM JSabelC F, 1984The Second Industrial Divide: Conditions for Prosperity (Basic Books, New York)
65.
PorterM E, 1990The Competitive Advantage of Nations (Free Press, New York)
66.
PorterM E, 1998, “Clusters and competition: New agendas for companies, governments and institutions”, in On Competition Ed. PorterM E (Harvard Business School, Boston, MA) pp 197–287
67.
PorterM E, 2001Clusters of Innovation: Regional Foundations of US Competitiveness: Clusters of Innovation InitiativeCouncil on Competitiveness, Washington, DC
68.
PorterM E, 2008, “Why America needs an economic strategy”Business Week 10 November, 38–42
69.
ReppelK, 2007, “Clusterpolitik der Europäischen Kommission”, presentation to the Federal-State Joint Committee on Research and Technology, Berlin, 22 March; copy available from M Kiese, Institute for Competitiveness and Communication, School of Business, University of Applied Sciences Northwest Switzerland, Olten
70.
Research Triangle Regional Partnership, 2004, “Staying on top: winning the job wars of the future. A competitiveness plan for the Research Triangle region, North Carolina”, http://www.researchtriangle.org/stayingontop.pdf
71.
SölvellÖLindqvistGKetelsC H M, 2003The Cluster Initiative Greenbook (Ivory Tower AB, Gothenburg)
72.
SoskiceD, 1999, “Globalisierung und institutionelle Divergenz: Die USA und Deutschland im Vergleich”Geschichte und Gesellschaft: Zeitschrift für Historische Sozialwissenschaft25201–225
73.
StadtRegensburg, 2003Strategische Partnerschaft zwischen Unternehmen, Hochschulen und der Stadt Regensburg im Bereich der Sensorik: KooperationsvereinbarungStadt Regensburg, Regensburg
74.
SternbergR, 1996, “Government R&D expenditure and space: Empirical evidence from five advanced industrial economies”Research Policy25741–758
75.
SternbergR, 1998Technologiepolitik und High-Tech Regionen: ein internationaler Vergleich2nd edition [Technology policy and hightech regions: an international comparison] (Lit, Münster)
76.
SternbergR, 2010, “Neither planned nor by chance: How knowledge-intensive clusters emerge”, in Emerging Clusters: Theoretical, Empirical and Political Perspectives on the Initial Stage of Cluster Evolution Eds FornahlDHennSMenzelM-P (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 295–323
TinbergenJ, 1952On the Theory of Economic Policy (North-Holland, Amsterdam)
82.
van den BergLBraunEvan der MeerJ, 1997, “The organising capacity of metropolitan region”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy15253–272
83.
van der LindeC M, 2005, “Cluster und regionale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit: Wie Cluster entstehen, wirken und aufgewertet werden”, in Cluster und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit von Regionen: Erfolgsfaktoren regionaler Wirtschaftsentwicklung Eds CernavinOFührMKaltenbachM (Duncker and Humblot, Berlin) pp 15–34
84.
WatsonM, 2003, “Ricardian political economy and the varieties of capitalism approach: Specialization, trade and comparative institutional advantage”Comparative European Politics1227–240
