Advertisement

Marshallian Industrial District Evolution: Technological Impacts and Firms’ Heterogeneity

  • Jose-Luis Hervas-Oliver
  • Liney Manjarres-Henríquez
  • Carles Boronat-Moll
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

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.

Keywords

Cluster evolution Radical innovation Marshallian industrial districts Innovation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Dr. Hervas-Oliver has received financial support from ECO-63645-R (MINECO/FEDER) from the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical models of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baglieri, D., Cinici, M. C., & Mangematin, V. (2012). Rejuvenating clusters with sleeping anchors: The case of Nanoclusters. Technovation, 32(2), 1320–1335.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Becattini, G. (1979). Scienza economica e trasformazioni sociali. La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
  7. Belussi, F., & Sedita, S. R. (2009). Life cycle vs. multiple path dependency in industrial districts. European Planning Studies, 17(4), 505–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boschma, R., & Fornahl, D. (2011). Cluster evolution and a roadmap for future research. Regional Studies, 45(10), 1295–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cho, M., & Hassink, R. (2009). Limits to locking-out through restructuring: The textile industry in Daegu, South Korea. Regional Studies, 43(9), 1183–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, K. B. (1985). The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy, 14, 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120–1171.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 909–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert, B. A. (2012). Creative destruction: Identifying its geographic origins. Research Policy, 41(4), 734–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glasmeier, A. (1991). Technological discontinuities and flexible production networks: The case of Switzerland and the world watch industry. Research Policy, 20(5), 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jiang, L., Tan, J., & Thursby, M. (2010). Incumbent firm invention in emerging fields: Evidence from the semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14(1), 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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).Google Scholar
  30. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(4), 395–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Menzel, M., & Fornalh, D. (2010). Cluster life cycles-dimensions and rationales of cluster evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(1), 205–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robertson, P., & Langlois, R. N. (1995). Innovation, networks, and vertical integration. Research Policy, Elsevier, 24(4), 543–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saxenian, A. (1990). Regional networks and the resurgence of Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 33(1), 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Trippl, M., & Tödtling, F. (2007). Developing biotechnology clusters in non-high technology regions—The case of Austria. Industry and Innovation, 14(1), 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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/10.1080/09654313.2014.999450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tushman, M., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jose-Luis Hervas-Oliver
    • 1
    • 3
  • Liney Manjarres-Henríquez
    • 2
  • Carles Boronat-Moll
    • 3
  1. 1.ESIC Business and Marketing SchoolMadridSpain
  2. 2.Corporación Universitaria de la Costa (CUC)BarranquillaColombia
  3. 3.Universitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations