A tale of two clusters: high technology industries in Cambridge

This paper offers a textured case analysis of biotechnology and ICT clusters in Cambridge (UK). Arguing that this is the superior method by which an understanding of clustering processes may be gained, until econometric methods move beyond their infancy in analysing socio-economic interaction, it is shown that clustering in this university city is pronounced, changing and, in some instances, problematic. The two clusters are embedded in network relationships among a multitude of actors of consequence. These networks are partially exclusive, especially regarding new activities like leisure software/computer games that may be less "scientific" than core cluster activities. There are diseconomies of agglomeration and labour market mismatches requiring educational provision of a less scientific and more technical nature. The demand for land is insatiable but heavily constrained by zoning regulations. Nevertheless, the clusters show no sign of degrading under these circumstances, rather the opposite of continuing dynamism.

[1]  Edward Lorenz,et al.  Collective Learning, Tacit Knowledge and Regional Innovative Capacity , 1999 .

[2]  European Life Sciences , 1984 .

[3]  O. Crevoisier.  Financing regional endogenous development: The role of proximity capital in the age of globalization , 1997 .

[4]  Paul Krugman,et al.  Complex landscapes in economic geography , 1994 .

[5]  Manuel Castells,et al.  Technopoles of the World: The Making of Twenty-First-Century Industrial Complexes , 1994 .

[6]  J. Eatwell.  The Cambridge Phenomenon , 2005 .

[7]  Nick Henry,et al.  Paul Krugman's geographical economics, industrial clustering and the British motor sport industry. , 1999 .

[8]  Michael R. Darby,et al.  GEOGRAPHICALLY LOCALIZED KNOWLEDGE: SPILLOVERS OR MARKETS? , 1998 .

[9]  V. Balasubramanyam,et al.  The software cluster in Bangalore , 2000 .

[10]  Barry Moore,et al.  Collective Learning Processes, Networking and 'Institutional Thickness' in the Cambridge Region , 1999 .

[11]  Rolf Sternberg,et al.  Munich as Germany's No. 1 High Technology Region: Empirical Evidence, Theoretical Explanations and the Role of Small Firm/Large Firm Relationships , 1999 .

[12]  A. Lipietz,et al.  New Technologies, New Modes of Regulation: Some Spatial Implications , 1988 .

[13]  Elizabeth Garnsey,et al.  The Genesis of the High Technology Milieu: A Study in Complexity , 1998 .

[14]  M. Best,et al.  Silicon Valley and the Resurgence of Route 128: Systems Integration and Regional Innovation , 2002 .

[15]  Elizabeth Garnsey,et al.  Proximity and complexity in the emergence of high technology industry: The oxbridge comparison , 1998 .

[16]  M. Storper.  The Resurgence of Regional Economies, Ten Years Later , 1995 .

[17]  W. Arthur,et al.  Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy , 1996 .

[18]  Allen J. Scott,et al.  The wealth of regions , 1995 .

[19]  C. Lawson,et al.  Towards a competence theory of the region , 1999 .

[20]  M. Feldman,et al.  Innovation in Cities: Science-Based Diversity, Specialization and Localized Competition , 1999 .

[21]  Christian Longhi,et al.  Networks, collective learning and technology development in innovative high-technology regions : the case of Sophia-Antipolis , 1999 .

[22]  Philip Cooke,et al.  Knowledge Economies: Clusters, Learning and Cooperative Advantage , 2001 .

[23]  D. Audretsch.  Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity , 1998 .