A View of SME Clusters and Networks in Europe



It is a matter of course that each country in the large European Union presents specific characters and individual features of its own industrial environment. However, a common peculiarity can be recognized, evidenced by two numbers: the percentage of SMEs in any national industrial system, always close to 90% of the total number of enterprises, and the percentage of personnel employed in SMEs, greater than 60% of the active population. What can also be widely recognized in almost all European countries are the recent crises, which have affected SMEs, and the attempt by SMEs to counteract their difficult position by searching for agreements and cooperation. One type of reciprocal support SMEs looked for in a crisis was contracts with larger enterprises: this gave rise to supply chains. But often the desire of SMEs was to have collaborative links with other SMEs, operating in the same industrial sector and mainly located in the same region: this resulted in the rise of networks and districts. In the last decade, the European Commission has started to promote studies devoted solely to supporting these types of clustering. Some countries have also launched programs to finance SME aggregations, defining agencies for pushing the establishment of new SMEs groups. This chapter offers an outline of a number of different national situations, concerning the rise and, sometimes, the fall of SME clusters and networks. Obviously, the scope of this chapter is not to give an exhaustive presentation of the European situation of SME aggregations: it aims to force the reader to recognize similarities, weakness and strength aspects, and to apply these to an analysis of the SME aggregations performance.


Supply Network Industrial District Virtual Organization Virtual Enterprise Science Park 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Afsarmanesh H, Camarinha-Matos LM (2005) A framework for management of virtual organizations breeding environments. In: Proceedings of PRO-VE’05, Collaborative Networks and their Breeding Environments, Valencia, Spain. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakouros YL, Mardas DC, Varsakelis N (2002) Science Parks, High Tech Fantasies? An Analysis of the Science Parks of Greece. Technovation 22(2):123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becattini G, Bellandi M, Dei Ottati G, Sforzi F (2003) From Industrial Districts to Local Development. An Itinerary of Research. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  4. Bezitzoglou C (2006) Showcasing Innovative Greece. ERSA Conference Papers. European Regional Science Association, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  5. Bridgefield (2006) Bridgefield Group ERP/Supply Chain Glossary. bridgefieldgroup/glos2.htm#C. Accessed 17 Dec 2007Google Scholar
  6. Callegati E, Grandi S (2005) Cluster Dynamics and Innovation in SMEs: the Role of Culture, International Centre for Research on the Economics of Culture, Institutions, and Creativity (EBLA), Working paper No. 03/2005. Dipartimento di Economia “S. Cognetti de Martiis”, University of TorinoGoogle Scholar
  7. Camarinha-Matos LM (2001) Execution system for distributed business processes in a virtual enterprise. Future Generation Comput Syst 17(8):1009–1021zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan KF, Lau T (2005) Assessing technology incubator programs in the science park: the good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation 25(10):1215–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Club dei Distretti Industriali e Unioncamere (2003) Guida ai Distretti Industriali Italiani, RomaGoogle Scholar
  10. Dettwiller P, Lindelof P, Lofsten H (2006) Utility of location: A comparative survey between small new technology- based firms located on and off Science Parks- Implications for facilities management. Technovation 26(4):506–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hall P (1994) Technopoles of the World: The Making of the 21st Century Industrial Complexes. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansson F, Husted K, Vestergaard J (2005) Second generation science parks: from structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society. Technovation 25(9):1039–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IASP (1996) The economics of Science Parks. International Association of Science Parks, MalagaGoogle Scholar
  14. IASP (1998) Delivering Innovation. International Association of Science Parks, MalagaGoogle Scholar
  15. Mowery DC, Rosenberg N (1989) Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Podolny JM, Page K (1998) Network Forms of Organization. Annu Rev Sociol 24:57–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Porter ME (1985) Competitive Advantage. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Porter ME (1998a) Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Porter ME (1998b) On Competition. Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Shannon Development (2007) Engineering & Electronic Manufacturing at Shannon Free Zone. Accessed 6 Dec 2007Google Scholar
  21. Sturgeon TJ (2000) How Do We Define Value Chains and Production Networks, MIT IPC Globalization Working Paper 00-010Google Scholar
  22. Thomson G (2003) Between Hierarchies & Markets: The Logic and Limits of Network Forms of Organisation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Williams IF (2000) Policy for Inter-firm Networking and Clustering: A Practitioner’s Perspective. http://www. Accessed Sept 2007Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer London 2009

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations