Multiscalar institutional complementarity and the scaling of clusters

Economic geographers have become strongly focused on two scales over the last 25 years : the local and the global. That’s why they mostly ignore the growing literature on the so-called variety of capitalism thesis that, contrary to what the glocalisation thesis claims, stresses a persistent continuity of national forms of capitalism and national forms of the state in the era of globalisation. In this variety-of-capitalism literature the concept of institutional complementarity plays a key role. It means, among others, that one institution makes the other more efficient (and vice versa). In their studies on clusters economic geographers stress a strong “horizontal” institutional complementarity at the local level (although they do not use that concept) but largely ignore a “vertical” complementarity of local and national institutions. Adherents of the variety of capitalism thesis, on the other hand, stress a “horizontal” institutional complementarity at the national level but, being blind to geography, ignore a “vertical” institutional complementarity between the national and local level.In this paper I aim to bridge both bodies of literature and to explore the “vertical” institutional complementarity between national forms of capitalism and clusters. To give my arguments flesh and blood, I explore how and why the Dutch vegetables-under-glass cluster is interwoven with the national corporatist institutions, which is a key characteristic of the Dutch form of capitalism and state form.Au cours de ces 25 dernières années, les géographes économistes se sont fortement focalisés sur deux échelles : locale et globale. Ainsi se détournent-ils de la littérature de plus en plus abondante consacrée à la thèse de la variété du capitalisme qui, contrairement à ce que prétend la thèse de la glocalisation, met l’accent sur une continuité persistante des formes nationales de capitalisme et des formes nationales d’Etat à l’ère de la globalisation. Dans cette littérature sur la variété du capitalisme, le concept de complémentarité institutionnelle joue un rôle clé : il signifie, entre autres, qu’une institution renforce l’efficacité de l’autre (et inversement).Dans leurs études sur les clusters, les géographes économistes soulignent une forte complémentarité institutionnelle “horizontale” au niveau local (bien qu’ils n’utilisent pas ce concept), mais ignorent largement une complémentarité “verticale” entre institutions nationales et locales. Les partisans de la thèse de la variété du capitalisme soulignent par ailleurs une complémentarité institutionnelle “horizontale” au niveau national, mais, étant aveugles à la géographie, ignorent une complémentarité institutionnelle “verticale” entre niveaux national et local.Dans cet article, je tente de rapprocher ces deux corpus littéraires et d’explorer la complémentarité institutionnelle “verticale” entre formes nationales de capitalisme et clusters. Afin de donner du poids à mes arguments, j’examine comment et pourquoi le cluster néerlandais de la culture des légumes sous verre est lié avec les institutions corporatistes nationales, une caractéristique clé de la forme de capitalisme et de la forme d’Etat propres aux Pays-Bas

Variety of Modes of Governance of a Global Value Chain: The Case of Tourism from Holland to Turkey

Global value chains analysis has become an ever more important approach in economics and economic geography to study the globalization of different sectors. However, it is largely ignored in tourism research. This paper examines the modes of governance of the tourism value chain from Holland to Turkey. One of the most striking findings of this paper is the large variety of governance modes of that chain, not only within the same market segment but even within one firm. The second important finding is the importance of the specific context of the inbound country, to a much lesser extent than the outbound country. In other words, the chain is strongly embedded in the national/local political economic institutions of the inbound country but is fairly disembedded from those of the outbound country

Tourism-firm differentiation and place differentiation in the sun-sea-sand tourism city of Antalya

This study aims to explore whether tourism firms follow a more active strategy of differentiation in some tourism places than in others. In this context, this study is about the relation between differentiation (innovation and renovation) strategies of incumbent tourism firms (hotels, restaurants, jewellers, and clothing-, shoes-, and bags shops strongly oriented at the tourism market) and tourism-place differentiation in the sun-sea-sand mass-tourism city of Antalya (Turkey). It differs from previous researches: 1) by bringing a tourism dimension to firm differentiation, and tourism place differentiation, and 2) by employing a quantitative method of analysis (correspondence and chi-square) based on a firm-level survey (hotels, restaurants, jewellery- and retail-trade companies). It is hypothesized that (1) hotels in tourism enclaves follow, paradoxically, more actively strategies of differentiation than in other tourism places, (2) mixed places with a variety of tourism and non-tourism firms and a mix of local inhabitants/visitors (historical diversified tourism places and mixed places with strong tourism functions) are the most favourable environment for tourism firms that follow strategies of differentiation, and (3) that tourism firms which realize less or no innovations and/or renovations are predominantly found in mixed places with weak tourism functions predominantly visited by lower and lower-middle class locals. It is found firstly that hotels in tourism enclaves follow more actively strategies of differentiation. Secondly, restaurants, jewellers, and retail-trade shops that actively followed a strategy of differentiation are most likely located in a historical diversified tourism place, and mixed places with strong tourism functions. Thirdly, all tourism firms in mixed places with weak tourism functions mainly visited by lower and lower-middle class locals follow less strategies of innovation and/or renovation than in other tourism places.Publisher's Versio

Varieties of glocalisation: the international economic strategies of Amsterdam, Manchester, and Zurich compared

Our aim in this paper is to explain the international strategies of cities by focusing on market conditions. Drawing on a critique of the glocalisation thesis we show that the design of these strategies can plausibly be explained by the specific characteristics of urban capitalism found in the different cities. Whereas the international strategy of Manchester must be seen as a response to problems of postindustrial restrictions, the importance of the logistic sector in Dutch capitalism strongly shapes Amsterdam’s strategy. In Zurich, though, it is argued that the city was already very well prepared for the transformation towards a post-Fordist regime, and so did not need any strategy at all. We conclude that varieties of glocalisation trajectories are a major factor driving and shaping the characteristics of international urban strategies.