local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation

The version of record [Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 31-56.] is available online at: http://phg.sagepub.com/content/28/1/31 [doi: 10.1191/0309132504ph469oa]The paper is concerned with spatial clustering of economic activity and its relation to the spatiality of knowledge creation in interactive learning processes. It questions the view that tacit knowledge transfer is confined to local milieus whereas codified knowledge may roam the globe almost frictionlessly. The paper highlights the conditions under which both tacit and codified knowledge can be exchanged locally and globally. A distinction is made between, on the one hand, the learning processes taking place among actors embedded in a community by just being there dubbed buzz and, on the other, the knowledge attained by investing in building channels of communication called pipelines to selected providers located outside the local milieu. It is argued that the co-existence of high levels of buzz and many pipelines may provide firms located in outward-looking and lively clusters with a string of particular advantages not available to outsiders. Finally, some policy implications, stemming from this argument, are identified

Revisiting an Evasive Concept: Introduction to the Special Issue on Competitiveness

The term competitiveness stems from the analysis of firms and is usually thought to be well defined at the firm level. Today, however, the notion competitiveness has become a prominent concept in the assessment of countries, regions and locations. The competitive advantage of nations and the competitiveness of locations have become important topics in economic policy. Interest in this field has been notably stimulated by the work of Michael Porter. Although the diversity of approaches presented in this issue may appear large to the reader, it is in reality dwarfed by the multiplicity of concepts, articles and books which have been written in reference to the term competitiveness. The vagueness of the general term, the lack of theoretical background, implicit preferences and prejudices, and finally the scope of policy recommendations made in reference to this term have induced outstanding researchers to warn that the term competitiveness of a nation could be dangerous, obsessive, elusive or meaningless. 1 The articles presented in this volume share some elements of this critique, but also demonstrate that research is being continued, and that it is indeed relevant to the design and evaluation of economic policy, most notably, the so-called Lisbon Strategy of the European Union. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006competitiveness, welfare evaluation, innovation, Lisbon Strategy, F10, F15, F43, O31, O40, O57,

Competitive advantage revisited: Michael Porter on strategy and competitiveness.

Strategic management is constantly evolving as both an academic discipline and as a reflection of management practice. This article, based on a recent interview with Michael Porter, assesses his contribution to the development of the discipline in the context of the advances that have taken place since the publication of his seminal work Competitive Strategy in 1980. The authors conclude that Porter has made major lasting contributions to strategy, increasing both its academic rigor and its accessibility to managers. The article and interview place Porter's work at the center of the development of strategic management in terms of the provision of practical analytical frameworks, transforming it into a recognized and recognizable field of academic study and management practice. This feat of transformation has not been equaled before or since, so that 25 years after his first seminal contribution, Porter's work continues to provide remarkable insights into the nature of competition and strategy

Competitiveness: From a Dangerous Obsession to a Welfare Creating Ability with Positive Externalities

The attempt to define the term “competitiveness of nations” has reached the phase of decreasing returns. Fortunately, the literature seems to be converging slightly, a tendency, we hope to accelerate. We propose (1) defining competitiveness as “the ability of a country or location to create welfare.” We maintain (2) that a comprehensive evaluation contains an output evaluation and a process evaluation. We claim (3) that the output evaluation (competitiveness achieved) is closely related to a welfare assessment, with a specific slant and stepwise operationalisations. Furthermore, (4) process evaluation (investigating the ability) is related to the analysis of production and technology functions, adding qualitative elements like strategies, and the strengths and weaknesses of a country. This consensus is at variance with the concept of price competitiveness; it sidelines the importance of external balances, while the productivity approach to competitiveness is nested within. Dangerous obsessions and wrong policy conclusions can never be excluded, but are much less likely if we use this approach to competitiveness—as compared to concepts focusing on price competitiveness or on external balances. Specifically, the greater competitiveness of one country must not necessarily go hand in hand with lower competitiveness in other countries. In advanced countries specifically, policies promoting the ability to create welfare will create positive spillovers into other economies. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006competitiveness, welfare evaluation, innovation, Lisbon strategy, F10, F15, F43, O31, O40, O57,