When does defection pay?

The stability of institutional arrangements in clusters
  • Kerstin PressEmail author
Regular Article


The present paper investigates cluster adjustment to changing economic environments by focussing on the role and stability of institutional arrangements in their local culture. It postulates two idealtypical local cultures where firms act in the common (collective) or in their own interest (egoistic). By comparing adjustment performance and stability for both types, the model finds that clusters in very volatile environments are unlikely to exhibit collective local cultures as these are unstable and provide only limited benefits for adjustment performance. Clusters facing more stable environments are more likely to show collective local cultures as these increase adjustment performance and are more stable against individual defection. Both findings suggest that collective local cultures in clusters can be relatively stable for limited environment volatility.


Clusters Adjustment N/K model Local culture 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Axelrod R, Cohen MD (1999) Harnessing complexity: organizational implications of a scientific frontier. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Boschma RA, Lambooy JG (2002) Knowledge, market structure, and economic coordination: dynamics of industrial districts. Growth Change 33(3):291–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braunerhjelm P, Carlsson B, Cetindamar D, Johansson D (2000) The old and the new, the evolution of polymer and biomedical clusters in Ohio and Sweden. J Evol Econ 10:471–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bresnahan TF, Gambardella A, Saxenian A (2001) ’Old economy’ inputs for ’new economy’ outcomes: cluster formation in the new Silicon Valleys. Ind Corporate Change 10:835–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brusco S (1982) The Emilian model: productive decentralisation and social integration. Cam J Econ 6:167–184Google Scholar
  6. Brusco S (1986) Small firms and industrial districts: the experience of Italy. In: Keeble D, Wever E (eds.) New firms and regional development in Europe. Croom Helm, London, pp. 184–202Google Scholar
  7. Brusco S, Righi E (1989) Local government, industrial policy and social consensus: the case of Modena (Italy). Econ Soc 18(4):405–424Google Scholar
  8. Caeldries F (1996) The institutional embeddedness of strategy: predation through legislation (or, see you in court). Adv Strat Manage 13:215–224Google Scholar
  9. Cainelli G, Zoboli R (eds.) (2004) The evolution of industrial districts: changing governance, innovation and internationalisation of local capitalism in Italy. Contributions to Economics. Physica, Heidelberg, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Capecchi V (1990) A history of flexible specialisation and industrial districts in Emilia-Romagna. In: Pyke F, Beccattini G, Sengenberger W (eds.) Industrial districts and inter-firm co-operation in Italy. International Institute for Labour Studies, Geneva, pp. 20–36Google Scholar
  11. Cappellin R (2003) Networks and technological change in regional clusters. In: Bröker J, Dohse D, Soltwedel R (eds.) Innovation clusters and interregional competition. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp. 52–78Google Scholar
  12. Dosi G, Levinthal DA, Marengo L (2003) Bridging contested terrain: linking incentive-based and learning perspectives on organizational evolution. Ind Corporate Change 12(2):413–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellison G, Glaeser E (1997) Geographic concentration in U.S. manufacturing industries: a dartboard approach. J Polit Econ 105(5):889–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q J Econ 114(3): 817–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frenken K (2006) Innovation, evolution and complexity theory. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham UKGoogle Scholar
  16. Grabher G (1993) The weakness of strong ties: the lock-in of regional development in the Ruhr area. In: Grabher G (eds). The embedded firm - On the socioeconomics of industrial networks. Routledge, London, New York, pp. 255–277Google Scholar
  17. Grabher G (2002) Cool projects, boring institutions: temporary collaboration in social context. Reg Stud 36(3):205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holländer H (1990) A social exchange approach to voluntary cooperation. Am Econ Rev 80(December):1157–1167Google Scholar
  19. Kandel E, Lazear EP (1992) Peer pressure and partnership. J Polit Econ 100(4):801–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kauffman SA (1993) The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Krugman P (1991) Geography and trade. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. List F (1909) The national system of political economy. Longmans, Green and Co, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Lombardi M (2003) The evolution of local production systems: the emergence of the “invisible mind” and the evolutionary pressures towards more visible “minds”. Res Policy 32:1443–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Louch H (2000) Personal network integration: transitivity and homophily in strong-tie relations. Soc Networks 22:45–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maillat D (1998) Innovative milieux and new generations of regional policies. Entrep Reg Dev 10:1–16Google Scholar
  26. Marengo L, Dosi G, Legrenzi P, Pasquali C (2000) The structure of problem-solving and the structure of organisations. Ind Corporate Change 9(4):757–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marshall A (1920) Principles of economics, 8edn. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Maskell P (2001) Towards a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster. Ind Corporate Change 10(4):921–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maskell P, Lorenzen M (2004) The cluster as market organization. Urban Studies 41(5/6):991–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Massey D, Meegan R (1982) Anatomy of job loss. The how, why and where of employment decline. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Porter ME (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Press K (2006) A life cycle for clusters? The dynamics of agglomeration, change and adaptation. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  33. Pyke F, Beccattini G, Sengenberger W (1990) Industrial districts and inter-firm co-operation in Italy. International Institute for Labour Studies, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  34. Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2003) Balancing search and stability: interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Manage Sci 49(3):290–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robertson PL, Langlois RN (1995) Innovation, networks, and vertical integration. Res Policy 24(4):543–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saxenian A (1994) Regional advantage: culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  37. Siggelkow N, Levinthal DA (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ Sci 14(6):650–669Google Scholar
  38. Siggelkow N, Rivkin JW (2005) Speed and search: designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organ Sci 16(2):101–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simon H (2002) Near decomposability and the speed of evolution. Ind Corporate Change 11:587–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Varian HR (1990) Monitoring agents with other agents. J Inst Theor Econ 146(March):153–174Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Systems DesignETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations