Chapter 5 The New “Cluster Moment”: How Regional Innovation Clusters can Foster the Next Economy

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to advance understanding of regional industry or innovation clusters and the opportunities that the cluster framework provides policymakers for delivering economic impact, clarifying economic priorities, and coordinating disparate programmatic efforts, and to articulate some basic principles for formulating cluster strategies. Methodology/approach – As the cluster concept enters its third decade and the body of related literature reaches a new level of maturity a consensus has emerged among academics and policy thinkers on the economic benefits of clusters. In fact, clusters have emerged as major focus of economic and policy discussion just now – in what the authors dub a “cluster moment” – by dint of their demonstrated practical impact, their value in paradigm discussions, and their potential utility in policy reform. The chapter reviews the benefits of clusters and traces their ascendance – and re-emergence post-recession – among policy thinkers. Findings – New research confirms that strong clusters tend to deliver positive benefits to workers, firms, and regions. As a paradigm, they reflect the nature of the real economy and as a matter of policymaking, clusters provide a framework for rethinking and refocusing economic policy. In pursuing cluster-based economic development strategies, policy leaders should not try to create clusters; use data to target interventions, drive design, and track performance; focus initiatives on addressing discrete gaps in performance or binding constraints on cluster growth; maximize impact by leveraging pre-existing cluster-relevant programs; align efforts vertically as well as horizontally; and let the private sector lead. All three tiers of the nation's federalist system have distinct and complementary roles to play in advancing the cluster paradigm. Research limitations/implications (if applicable) – The paper includes no new/original data. Practical implications (if applicable) – Given that clusters have emerged as a major focus of economics and policy, this chapter lays out a core set of general principles for pursuing cluster-based economic development strategies – and for avoiding common pitfalls – to which policymakers can adhere. Originality/value of paper – The chapter advances cluster thinking and cluster strategies as a paradigm with the potential to accelerate regional economic growth and assist with the nation's needed restructuring and rebalancing toward a more productive post-recession economy.

[1]  Ryohei Nakamura Agglomeration Effects on Regional Economic Disparities: A Comparison between the UK and Japan , 2008 .

[2]  S. Rosenthal,et al.  The Geography of Entrepreneurship in the New York Metropolitan Area , 2005 .

[3]  Gregory Tassey,et al.  The Technology Imperative , 2007 .

[4]  M. Feldman,et al.  Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation , 2004 .

[5]  E. Glaeser,et al.  Growth in Cities , 1991, Journal of Political Economy.

[6]  Michael Porter,et al.  The Economic Performance of Regions , 2003 .

[7]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Industrial Clustering and the Returns to Inventive Activity Canadian Biotechnology Firms, 1991-2000 , 2004 .

[8]  G. Tassey Rationales and mechanisms for revitalizing US manufacturing R&D strategies , 2010 .

[9]  W. Wheaton,et al.  Urban Wages and Labor Market Agglomeration , 2000 .

[10]  Pamela Mueller,et al.  Employment effects of business dynamics: Mice, Gazelles and Elephants , 2007 .

[11]  A. Chandler,et al.  Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 , 1994 .

[12]  Meric S. Gertler,et al.  The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography , 2003 .

[13]  T. Kalil Prizes for Technological Innovation , 2006 .

[14]  M. Feldman,et al.  R&D spillovers and the ge-ography of innovation and production , 1996 .

[15]  Gerald A. Carlino,et al.  Urban Density and the Rate of Invention , 2006 .

[16]  Gilles Duranton,et al.  California Dreamin’: The Feeble Case for Cluster Policies , 2011, Review of Economic Analysis.

[17]  M. Porter Clusters and the new economics of competition. , 1998, Harvard business review.

[18]  P. Swann,et al.  Do firms in clusters innovate more , 1998 .

[19]  M. Porter The Competitive Advantage Of Nations , 1990 .

[20]  Christian H.M. Ketels,et al.  The Cluster Initiative Greenbook , 2003 .

[21]  S. Rosenthal,et al.  Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies , 2004 .

[22]  J. Henderson,et al.  Marshall's scale economies , 2001 .

[23]  M. Muro,et al.  MetroPolicy: Shaping a New Federal Partnership for a Metropolitan Nation , 2008 .

[24]  R. Hall,et al.  Productivity and the Density of Economic Activity , 1993 .

[25]  M. Porter Clusters and Economic Policy: Aligning Public Policy with the New Economics of Competition , 2009 .

[26]  Andrew Reamer,et al.  Clusters and Competitiveness: A New Federal Role for Stimulating Regional Economics , 2008 .

[27]  Karl Wennberg,et al.  How do entrepreneurs in clusters contribute to economic growth , 2007 .

[28]  David A. Wolfe,et al.  Do Clusters Make a Difference? Defining and Assessing their Economic Performance , 2010 .

[29]  M. Porter Clusters and Competition: New Agendas for Companies, Governments and Institutions , 1998 .

[30]  R. Gibbs,et al.  Rural Industry Clusters Raise Local Earnings , 1997 .

[31]  R. Atkinson,et al.  Boosting Productivity, Innovation, and Growth through a National Innovation Foundation , 2008 .

[32]  M. Storper,et al.  The Increasing Importance of Geographical Proximity in Knowledge Production: An Analysis of US Patent Citations, 1975–1997 , 2008 .

[33]  H. Overman,et al.  The 10th year of the Journal of Economic Geography: a decade of high impact publication , 2010 .