Regional food clusters and government support for clustering: Evidence for a ‘dynamic food innovation cluster’ in Alberta, Canada?

Location-based clusters and virtual cluster configurations have received significant attention from policymakers due to their potential implications on productivity, innovation and regional growth. This paper presents a short review of studies that have analyzed clustering activity in the food sectors of several countries. The key insights from these studies with regard to the underlying factors for clustering success are contrasted with empirical evidence from the food processing sector of Alberta, Canada. This includes the presentation of results from an exploratory firm-level survey on government support for clustering activity in Alberta’s food. Considering the level of government support for innovation, the limited access to supporting business infrastructure, and the lack of effective networking between industry stakeholders, we find little evidence for an emerging innovation cluster in Alberta’s food industry.regional clusters, food processing, government support for innovation, Canada

Entrepreneurship, Evolution and Geography

This chapter is an inquiry into the role of entrepreneurship in evolutionary economic geography. The focus is on how and why entrepreneurship is a distinctly spatially uneven process. We will start with a discussion on the role of entrepreneurship in the theory of economic evolution. Next, we will review the empirical literature on the geography of entrepreneurship. The chapter concludes with a discussion of a future agenda for the study of entrepreneurship within evolutionary economic geography.entrepreneurship, evolution, geography

The Cluster Policy Paradox: Externalities vs. Comparative Advantages

The literature on clustering has highlighted several advantages of industrial agglomerations. Persons and firms benefit from the production and innovation activities of neighbouring companies in the same and related industries. Considering such benefits, Michael Porter states that clustering is an important way for firms fulfilling their competitive advantages and for rising regional and national competitiveness. This justification has increasingly driven regional policy towards the cluster promotion. However, the cluster-support policy is in the middle of a controversy, since the traditional optimal-policy perspective recommends providing a subsidy to firms of clusters generating externalities, while Porter’s prescriptions recommend not choosing among clusters. So, we state that cluster policy is involved in a paradox: policy makers use the competitiveness rhetoric inspired in the competitive advantages of Porter but, in practice, they go on using the industrial targeting that was also criticized b Porter. This paper deals with this paradox presenting a model, which proves that despite the extensive amount of externalities is the traditional comparative advantage approach that must guide policy. This finding is congruent with the Porter’s policy prescriptions and has clear implications in regional policy.clusters, dynamic and static externalities, knowledge spillovers, regional economic development, spatial agglomeration

Regional Food Clusters and Government Support for Clustering: Evidence for a ‘Dynamic Food Innovation Cluster’ in Alberta, Canada?

This paper analyzes government support for networking and regional cluster growth in the food sector. It is, to the best of our knowledge, the first paper to provide a literature review of studies on regional food clusters, focusing on key features that characterize successful regional food clusters. The review compares key characteristics of such clusters with characteristics of clusters from other industrial sectors. The insights from these studies on clustering success and the role of government are contrasted with empirical evidence on government support for clustering in the Canadian food sector, specifically in the province of Alberta. The empirical evidence is based on two small industry surveys, one conducted in March 2005, and the second in August 2009. Considering this empirical evidence, we have little support for an emerging food (innovation) cluster in Alberta, and little evidence for effective government support toward food cluster development in Alberta.location-based clustering, food clusters, networks, innovation, government support, Alberta, Canada, Industrial Organization, Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies, R11, L32, L38, O32, O38, Q13,

Technological spillovers from multinational presence - Towards a conceptual framework

This paper undertakes a critical review of existing spillover analyses and proposes a unique analytical framework for examining technological spillovers in a manufacturing industry setting. The proposed framework overlaps three different literature strands; cluster and network dynamics, technological innovations; and spillover literature. It enables determination of the extent to which multinational presence in a host country stimulates spillover occurrence to local firms as well as their nature. Using this framework, the kind and the channels through which spillovers occur most can be equally determined - this is particularly relevant for policy intervention in a technically backward country. Lastly, it allows determination of factors and conditions under which spillovers from multinationals occur.International Economic Relations, Technology Transfer, Learning, Network Dynamics, Capability Building, Technological Change, Multinational Enterprises

Ethics and taxation : a cross-national comparison of UK and Turkish firms

This paper investigates responses to tax related ethical issues facing busines

Emergence and Transformation of Clusters and Milieus

A renewed interest in the location of the productive activity has appeared during the last two decades. The literature analyzes a great number of cases of local productive systems in which all types of activities are produced and which locate in regions and countries with different levels of development (Altenburg and Meyer-Stamer, 1999; Rosenfeld, 1997; Staber, 1997; Porter, 1998). Electronics in Silicon Valley, U.S.A. and Silicon Glen in Scotland, but also in Guadalajara, Mexico and in Penang, Malaysia; the car industry in Detroit, U.S. and in Vigo, Spain, but also in the Gran ABC in the Sao Paulo metropolitan area, Brazil; ceramic tiles in Sassuolo, Italy and in Castellón, Spain, as well as in Criciuma, Brazil; the shoe industry in Brenta, Italy and in Elche, Spain, as well as in León, Guanajuato, Mexico; textiles and the garment industry in Reutlingen, Germany and in La Coruña, España, but also in Itaji Valley, Brazil. Financial services in New York City, in London and in Frankfurt, Germany, but also in Hong Kong and Shanghai, in China. This diversity has been dealt with from different points of view; no doubt due to the fact that sociologists, geographers and economists believe that at the present time the organization of production is going through a profound transformation process. Mass production, integrated in the fordist model of large firm reduces its hegemony and gives way to more flexible forms of organization, as are industrial districts and milieus. This has produced multiple interpretations such as the industrial districts (Becattini, 1979), flexible specialization (Piore and Sabel, 1984), the new industrial spaces (Scott, 1988), industrial clusters (Porter, 1990), the knowledge economy (Cook, 2002), the new economic geography (Krugman, 1991; Fujita et al., 2000), the theory of the innovative milieu (Aydalot, 1986; Maillat, 1995), or economic sociology (Granovetter, 1985). Thus, a single unique interpretation or theory as to how production is organized within the territory does not exist for explaining the factors that make the agglomerations and industrial production centres appear, the mechanisms through which they develop, as well as the reasons for its change and transformation. Gordon and McCann (2000) conclude that the diversity of the analytical approaches led to some degree of confusion in the analyses and interpretations. The paper discusses the question of spatial organization of production from the perspective of economic development. It maintains that the spatial organization of production takes shape, as the markets and relations between cities and regions developed, the transportation and communication system consolidated itself, firms developed their form of organization, innovation and knowledge was introduced in firms and the transportation and communications system, and the economic system integrated itself as a result of globalization. In fact, given that development takes on different forms in each historical period, spatial organization of production also changes and these changes are affected by the territorial strategies of firms and the economic strategies of cities and regions, and they are responsible for the emergence and reconstruction of clusters and milieus.

Why Do Business Service Firms Cluster? Small Consultancies, Clustering and Decentralisation in London and Southern England

Notwithstanding their remarkable recent growth, surprisingly little research has hitherto been conducted on the evolving geography of professional and business services in Britain. This paper analyses the results of a detailed survey of 300 small and medium-sized management and engineering consultancies, in investigating the forces underpinning both the striking clustering of such firms in central London and their growth in decentralised locations of East Anglia and South West England. Particular attention is paid to the role of demand-side influences, localised 'collective learning' processes, and increasing globalisation in clustering, and to so called 'enterprising behaviour theory' in explaining decentralisation.business services, clustering London, globalisation, SMEs, collective learning

Externalities, clusters and economic growth: The Cluster Policy Paradox

The literature on clustering has highlighted several advantages of industrial agglomerations. Persons and firms benefit from the production and innovation activities of neighbouring companies in the same and related industries. Considering such benefits, which are viewed as positive externalities, Michael Porter argues that clustering is an important way for firms fulfilling their competitive advantages and for rising regional and national competitiveness. So, it is opportune to ask: what is the appropriate policy for maximizing the benefits of CE (cluster externalities)? There are basically two possible replies to the above question: on the one hand, the traditional optimal-policy perspective recommends providing a subsidy to firms generating CE, with the subsidy adjusted for equalizing the strength of the externality; on the other, a more pragmatic perspective based on Porter’s policy prescriptions. However, the evidence shows a paradox: policy makers use the competitiveness rhetoric inspired in the competitive advantages of Porter but, in practice, they go on using the industrial targeting that was also criticized by Porter. In this paper we deal with this paradox proving that despite the extensive amount of externalities is the traditional comparative advantage approach that must guide policy. This finding is congruent with the Porter’s policy prescriptions and has clear implications in regional policy allowing to support the answer to the following question: Must policy be focused on creation of new clusters in activities that have verified large positive effects elsewhere or, conversely, on developing the traditional activities in region, which allegedly have shown lower externalities? But the answer to this question depends on our comprehension of industrial aggregation processes, which implies the full understanding of concepts as clusters and externalities. So, the remainder of this paper is organized as follows. After reflecting on the concept of cluster in section 2, section 3 deals with the different type of externalities present in industrial agglomerations. Section 4 considers the existence of dynamic externalities and relates them with the advantages of backwardness. Section 5 uses a model that includes various types of externalities in order to draw lessons for guiding clustering policy. Finally, section 6 concludes.

The changing face of innovation policy: implications for the Northern Ireland economy

No description supplie