SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2009 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

Innovativeness in industrial cluster: Do firm characteristics matter?

Endüstriyel kümelerde yenilikçilik: Firma özellikleri etkili mi?

Elif Ayşe ŞENGÜN
CETIN ONDER
Pages
5–34
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Study results show that retailers, positioned downstream the value-chain, are more advantageous compared to manufacturers, positioned upstream the value-chain, in terms of benefiting from the innovative potential provided by clustering.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:There is continuing debate over intra-cluster homogeneity versus heterogeneity in the literature on geographical agglomeration of economic activity.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study investigates whether firm’s position in the value chain and related firm characteristics explain heterogeneity between firms within a cluster with respect to benefiting from the innovative potential of clustering.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Study results show that retailers, positioned downstream the value-chain, are more advantageous compared to manufacturers, positioned upstream the value-chain, in terms of benefiting from the innovative potential provided by clustering.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

There is continuing debate over intra-cluster homogeneity versus heterogeneity in the literature on geographical agglomeration of economic activity. Whereas some authors have assumed internal homogeneity, others have emphasized intra-cluster differences and argued that some firms may benefit more from the advantages of clustering compared to others. This study investigates whether firm’s position in the value chain and related firm characteristics explain heterogeneity between firms within a cluster with respect to benefiting from the innovative potential of clustering. Study results show that retailers, positioned downstream the value-chain, are more advantageous compared to manufacturers, positioned upstream the value-chain, in terms of benefiting from the innovative potential provided by clustering.

Özet

Ekonomik faaliyetlerin coğrafi yoğunlaşması üzerine yazına bakıldığında endüstriyel kümelerdeki firmalar arasında türdeşlik (homojenlik) mi farklılaşma (heterojenlik) mı olduğuna ilişkin bir tartışmanın süregittiği görülmektedir. Bazı yazarlar küme firmalarının türdeş olduğunu varsaysa da diğerleri bazı firmaların kümelenmeden diğerlerine göre daha fazla fayda sağlayabileceğinin altını çizmektedirler. Bu çalışmada endüstriyel kümelerdeki firmaların değer zinciri içerisindeki konumlarının ve bununla ilintili diğer firma özelliklerinin kümelenmenin sağladığı yenilikçilik avantajlarından faydalanmak açısından firmalar arasında anlamlı bir farklılaşmaya etki edip etmediği araştırılmaktadır. Araştırma bulguları değer zincirinin alt aşamalarında konumlanmış olan satıcı firmaların değer zincirinin üst aşamalarında konumlanmış olan imalatçı firmalara göre kümenin sağladığı yenilikçi avantajlardan daha fazla faydalandığını ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞENGÜN, E. A., ONDER, C. (2009). Innovativeness in industrial cluster: Do firm characteristics matter?. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 5–34. https://ajindex.com/articles/336525

References (10)

  1. Amin, A. 1994. The difficult transition from informal economy to Marshallian industrial district. Area, 26(1): 13-24.
  2. Appleyard, M. M. 1996. How does knowledge flow? Interfirm patterns in the semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 137-154.
  3. Audetsch, D. ve Feldman, M. 1996. Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86(3): 630-640.
  4. Baptista, R. ve Swann, P. 1998. Do clusters innovate more? Research Policy, 27: 525-540.
  5. Barney, J. B. ve Hesterly, W. S. 2008. Strategic management and competitive advantage. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2nd Ed. Bellandi, M. 1989. The industrial district in Marshall E. Goodman, J. Bamford, ve P. Saynor (Der.), Small firms and industrial districts in Italy: 136-152. London: Routledge. Beerepoot, N. 2008. Diffusion of knowledge and skills through labor markets: Evidence from the furniture cluster in Metro Cebu. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 20: 67-88.
  6. Berg, Bruce. L. 1998. Qualitative research methods for social sciences. Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Brusco, S. 1996. Global systems and local systems. F. Cossentino, F. Pyke, ve W. Sengenberger (Der.). Local and regional response to global pressure: The case of Italy and its industrial districts: 145-158. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies. Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I. ve Tsakanikas, A. 2004. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: Complements or substitutes for innovative performance. Technovation, 24: 29-39.
  7. Coffrey, A. ve Atkinson, P. 1996. Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Cohen, S. S. ve Fields, G. 1999. Social capital and capital gains in Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 41, 108-30.
  8. Cohen, W. M. ve Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128-152.
  9. Dayasindhu, N. 2002. Embeddedness, knowledge transfer, industry clusters and global competitiveness: A case of the Indian software industry. Technovation, 22: 551-560.
  10. Dei Ottai, G. 2003. Trust, interlinking transactions and credit in the industrial district. M. Becattini, G. Dei Ottai, ve F. Sforzi (Der.), From industrial districts to local development: 108-130. UK: Edward Elgar. Dhanaraj, C., Lyles, M. A., Steensma, H. K. ve Lazslo, T. 2004 Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: The role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of