Measuring the maritime potential of nations. The CenPRIS ocean index, phase one (ASEAN)

This paper describes the methods used to construct an index to measure the maritime potential of nations. This prototype uses a limited number of variables to measure (a) the locational advantage of having a long coastline in comparison to the landmass (Maritime Potential Index MPI) , (b) the maritime economy (MEI) and (c) the degree a nation or region has utilized its maritime potential (OI). A timeseries of data from 2000 to 2005 for ASEAN states are used to develop the prototype. It is planned to develop the index further by adding variables and extending the regional coverage to all states of Malaysia

Knowledge cluster formation as a science policy: lessons learned

Regional science policy aims at the creation of productive knowledge clusters, which are central places within an epistemic landscape of knowledge production and dissemination, K-clusters are said to have the organisational capability to drive innovations and create new industries. The following paper will look at Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam and their path towards a Knowledge-based economy. All governments have used cluster formation as one of their development strategies. Some evidence on the current state of knowledge cluster formation is provided. If the formation of a knowledge cluster has been the government policy, what has been the result? Is there an epistemic landscape of knowledge clusters? Has the main knowledge cluster really materialised? Data collected from websites, directories, government publications and expert interviews have enabled us to construct the epistemic landscape of Peninsular Malaysia and the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. Several knowledge clusters of a high density of knowledge producing institutions and their knowledge workers have been identified and described. An analysis of the knowledge output, measured in terms of scientific publications, patents and trademarks show that knowledge clusters have, indeed, been productive as predicted by cluster theory, though the internal working of clusters require further explanation.Science policy; knowledge and development; knowledge-based economy; knowledge clusters; knowledge corridors; Malaysia; Vietnam

Penang as a knowledge hub

Malaysian development strategies since independence, again in the 10th Malaysia Plan 2010 have emphasized the development of industrial clusters, like the Penang free trade zone and the MSC. Malaysia has two strong knowledge clusters: the Klang valley with KL and the MSC, Penang State and a number of smaller clusters. A calculation of the density of knowledge institutions and knowledge personnel show the epistemic landscape of Malaysia. A preliminary study of Penang reveals that the epistemic landscape is fragmented. There are several areas with a high density of knowledge institutions and knowledge workers, which however do not necessarily overlap with industrial clusters. These imbalances need to be corrected to ensure a safe passage towards a knowledge-based economy and society.Malaysia; Penang; knowledge clusters; knowledge economy; development strategy

Measuring the maritime potential of nations. The CenPRIS ocean index, phase one (ASEAN)

This paper describes the methods used to construct an index to measure the maritime potential of nations. This prototype uses a limited number of variables to measure (a) the locational advantage of having a long coastline in comparison to the landmass (Maritime Potential Index MPI) , (b) the maritime economy (MEI) and (c) the degree a nation or region has utilized its maritime potential (OI). A timeseries of data from 2000 to 2005 for ASEAN states are used to develop the prototype. It is planned to develop the index further by adding variables and extending the regional coverage to all states of Malaysia.Ocean Research; economic development; maritime industries; fisheries; shipping; economic geography; development policy; ASEAN; Southeast Asia

Knowledge hubs and knowledge clusters: Designing a knowledge architecture for development.

With globalisation and knowledge-based production, firms may cooperate on a global scale, outsource parts of their administrative or productive units and negate location altogether. The extremely low transaction costs of data, information and knowledge seem to invalidate the theory of agglomeration and the spatial clustering of firms, going back to the classical work by Alfred Weber (1868-1958) and Alfred Marshall (1842-1924), who emphasized the microeconomic benefits of industrial collocation. This paper will argue against this view and show why the growth of knowledge societies will rather increase than decrease the relevance of location by creating knowledge clusters and knowledge hubs. A knowledge cluster is a local innovation system organized around universities, research institutions and firms which successfully drive innovations and create new industries. Knowledge hubs are localities with high internal and external networking and knowledge sharing capabilities. Both form a new knowledge architecture within an epistemic landscape of knowledge creation and dissemination, structured by knowledge gaps and areas of low knowledge intensity. The paper will focus on the internal dynamics of knowledge clusters and knowledge hubs and show why clustering takes place despite globalisation and the rapid growth of ICT. The basic argument that firms and their delivery chains attempt to reduce transport (transaction) costs by choosing the same location is still valid for most industrial economies, but knowledge hubs have different dynamics relating to externalities produced from knowledge sharing and research and development outputs. The paper draws on empirical data derived from ongoing research in the Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University and in the Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, supported by the German Aeronautics and Space Agency (DLR).knowledge; knowledge and development; industrial agglomeration; knowledge hub; cluster; space

The governance of Singapore’s knowledge clusters: off shore marine business and waterhub

Based on two case studies of knowledge clusters (off shore marine/rig business and water hub) in Singapore, the paper illustrates the importance of good knowledge governance in creating robust and value-creating knowledge clusters. We begin by defining key terms used such as knowledge clusters, hubs and governance, followed by a short historical account of good knowledge governance for Singapore’s development. The two cases studies of knowledge clusters presented here include (i) the offshore oil rig business (Keppel) which we posit as an example of innovative value creation based on sophisticated fabrication methods and R&D as well as (ii) the island republic’s dynamic and rapidly emerging, global hydrohub called ‘WaterHub’. We examine the structural characteristics of both clusters, assess their progress based on the cluster lifecycle literature, highlight key governance enablers required to create and sustain such competitive hubs and draw conclusions for K4D latecomers

Knowledge Loss: Managing Local Knowledge in Rural Uzbekistan

Knowledge loss is not a remote phenomenon, unique to one knowledge system. Rather we argue that the loss of knowledge is an issue for other knowledge systems as well. Knowledge loss is certainly a concern for anthropologists working on indigenous knowledge, fearful of ‘losing’ indigenous knowledge entirely as a result of modernisation (cf. Cox, 2000). Equally, staff movements within the corporate world probably lead to a large amount of knowledge displacement, yet staff (and thus knowledge) retention is more often seen as a human resource than a knowledge management issue. Similarly in academia, which thrives on the wide interchange of knowledge and ideas and openly promotes the exchange of knowledge, much of this knowledge can be ‘leaked’ (i.e. it leaves academia for another knowledge community, say, a corporation) or it can be ‘lost’ altogether. Thus we attempt here to explain in theoretical terms how knowledge loss operates, what are the drivers of knowledge loss and how these can be ameliorated. We suggest that knowledge loss is a failure of knowledge management insofar as it demonstrates a lack of knowledge sharing, dissemination and use. The central argument being that knowledge must be reproduced (or stored in a repository) for it to be used and to continue to exist. Because local knowledge resides in individuals, who are apt to move to different knowledge systems (leakage) their doing so carries with them a considerable amount of knowledge. Key to reducing this is effective knowledge sharing during the time they are within the community or organisation. This provides the inherent benefit of greater knowledge utilisation through greater knowledge sharing, as well as reducing the risks of knowledge loss. Yet, individuals do not always share knowledge, when they do this sharing can be partial. In many cases this is because of the high transaction cost (and risk) associated with sharing their knowledge. We argue that knowledge management and knowledge governance theory needs to inform institutions (informal and formal policies) which can introduce better protections for individuals to share knowledge, in order to reduce the transaction costs of knowledge sharing. These transaction costs can be lowered by guaranteeing continued ownership of intellectual property, by establishing a proper policy framework for academic honesty and by enforcing these rules in a transparent manner. In the case of local knowledge the transaction costs are somewhat reduced by knowledge sharing within the family, shown in generational transfer of mastership. In the same way should projects, corporations and ultimately nation states develop structures which allow for enhanced knowledge sharing, by reducing the transaction cost of sharing this knowledge. Part of these systems must allow for knowledge which is no longer relevant, which is not useful or which is simply wrong, to be replaced by more appropriate knowledge. In this regard simple databases are somewhat counterproductive as they do not encourage the dynamic displacement and replacement of knowledge, which whilst it involves some knowledge ‘loss’ is actually a knowledge creation and sharing process. Thus we theorise knowledge loss as a phenomenon to be evidence of poor knowledge management. In its own right it is a failure of management and governance to allow knowledge resources, expensively produced within the community, to be lost. On a wider level it evidences a lack of knowledge reproduction and retention, which can be seen as a result of excessive transaction costs and risks to knowledge sharing.knowledge; knowledge management; development; rural economy; Usbekistan

The governance of Singapore’s knowledge clusters: off shore marine business and waterhub

Based on two case studies of knowledge clusters (off shore marine/rig business and water hub) in Singapore, the paper illustrates the importance of good knowledge governance in creating robust and value-creating knowledge clusters. We begin by defining key terms used such as knowledge clusters, hubs and governance, followed by a short historical account of good knowledge governance for Singapore’s development. The two cases studies of knowledge clusters presented here include (i) the offshore oil rig business (Keppel) which we posit as an example of innovative value creation based on sophisticated fabrication methods and R&D as well as (ii) the island republic’s dynamic and rapidly emerging, global hydrohub called ‘WaterHub’. We examine the structural characteristics of both clusters, assess their progress based on the cluster lifecycle literature, highlight key governance enablers required to create and sustain such competitive hubs and draw conclusions for K4D latecomers.Knowledge governance; knowledge clusters; science policy; maritime industry; Singapore

The maritime potential of ASEAN economies

Countries may utilize a long coastline in relation to their landmass as a resource to develop their maritime economy. This paper argues that ASEAN countries differ in utilizing their maritime potential. As a basis for further comparative studies the Center for Policy Research and International Studies (CenPRIS) in Penang developed a set of indicators to measure the maritime potential of nations, the state of their maritime industries, and the degree to which the maritime potential has actually been utilized. Using the CenPRIS Ocean Index (COI) shows that Brunei and the Philippines have underutilized their maritime potentials, whereas Singapore and Thailand have made full use of it. Malaysia still has the potential to further develop its maritime economy.ASEAN; Malaysia;shipping; fisheries; maritime economy; resources; indicators