城市竞争力中的软硬网络【外文翻译】.doc

1、 外文翻译 原文 Hard and Soft Networks for Urban Competitiveness Material Source: Urban Studies, Vol. 39, Nos 56, 929945, 2002 Author: Edward J. Malecki Competitive Cities? The competitiveness of placeslocalities, regions and nationsrefers to the ability of the local economy and society to provide an incre

2、asing standard of living for its inhabitants (Malecki, 2000a). In what sense are some cities competitive, while others are not? The ability to be sticky or to attract both investment and talented migrantsto sustain their attractiveness to both labor and capital (Markusen, 1996, p. 293)is essential.

3、The ability to create and sustain jobs with adequate pay levels is a typical output criterion of competitiveness. This ability includes not only inward investment in the conventional forms of offices and manufacturing plants, but also international tourism and local entrepreneurship (Fry, 1995). Mos

4、t research on competition among places builds upon Porters (1990) diamond model of competitiveness (Healey and Dunham, 1994; Kresl, 1995). Although there may be little in the model that determines successful local development (Simmie, 1997), the structured framework of the diamond model and the simp

5、le checklist it represents are attractive to local groups and certainly are better than less systematic local strategies that focus on low costs and low taxes. Kresl (1995) has divided the determinants into two types: economic and strategic. Economic determinants include factors of production, infra

6、structure, location, economic structure and urban amenities. Strategic determinants include governmental effectiveness, urban strategy, publicprivate sector co-operation and institutional flexibility. In one of the few analyses of this framework, some of the economic determinantsresearch centres, un

7、iversity-educated workers and the educational attainment of the resident populationcontribute significantly to urban competitiveness (Kresl and Singh, 1999). These characteristics do not emerge by themselves, of course, but are the cumulative outcomes of local universities, research related establis

8、hments in the area and a set of amenities that appeal to a discerning, high consumption population (Florida, 2000; Malecki and Bradbury, 1992). Cultural activities and amenities are increasingly seen as a central part of the competitive city (Dziembowska-Kowalska and Funck, 1999; Florida, 2000; Scot

9、t, 2000). Cumulative advantages keep successful places ahead of other places, continuing to attract high-skill migrants and mobile professionals (Bradley and Taylor, 1996; Massey, 1995). More recently, Begg (1999) has suggested a complex maze through which the local capacity for innovation and learn

10、ing influences urban performance. In addition to advantages in culture and knowledge, much of the competitiveness of a place currently is attributed to untraded interdependencies, which are perhaps the mysterious synergy identified previously in many successful places. Untraded interdependencies are

11、 now understood to be the basis of dynamic agglomeration economies, which enhance opportunities for technological learning, as opposed to simply reducing the unit costs of production with a given technology (Martin and Sunley, 1996; Storper, 1995, 1997). Regional competencethat shared by a group of

12、firms and based on their interactionproduces a regional system of higher-order capabilities that are distinct from the capabilities of individual firms(Foss, 1996; Lawson, 1999). Collective learning, likewise, is more than the learning of individual firms (Capello, 1999). Clusters of interlinked fir

13、ms and organisations, operating at world-class levels of competitiveness, are found in many placesnot only in large urban agglomerations and not only in high-tech sectors (Porter, 1998a; Steiner, 1998). The discussion thus far, however, has treated cities and regions as faceless entities. The next t

14、wo sections attempt to add people and their networks to the competitiveness framework. Networks: Hard and Soft Our understanding of local economic development has progressed through several phases, each adding new dimensions and softer, less tangible and measurable requirements. For example, Isserma

15、n (1994) defines three waves of economic development policy at the state level in the US: chasing investment; self-improvement and competitiveness (including high-tech and small business); and, knowledge and process (including clusters, networks and strategic plans). The third-wave strategies, such

16、as capacity-building and networks, were the rise of appreciation for soft networks (Eisinger, 1995). Clarke and Gaile (1998) see a fourth wave emerging since the mid 1990s, comprising a mix of public-sector policies that engender a focus on integrating local economies into global markets, developing

17、 local human capital resources and increasing use of telecommunications as a development tool. The concept of networks captures many of the newer elements. These include local networks as discussed above in the context of social capital, associationalism and institutional thickness as well as nonloc

18、al networks. Both the purely business aspects of private enterpriseand the interaction of firms with the public sectorare sustained by networks. It is increasingly the case that these networks must operate at the global, national, regional and local scales, gathering knowledge via social interaction

19、, which we will call soft networks. It is critical that links to outside, even global, networks be established and maintained. The level of innovativeness and competitiveness of firms in any place depends not only on the degree to which they are embedded within local networks of suppliersthe industr

20、ial district modelbut also on the presence of links to external markets (Malecki and Oinas, 1999; Oinas, 2000). But it is not only links to external markets that are needed, but the ability to use signals gained there to unlearn what was formerly competitive (Hassink, 1997). In this way, technologic

21、al discontinuities may be less likely to cause discontinuities in regional advantage (Utterback and Afuah, 1998). Soft Networks The need for complex internal and external networks is now well-established in transnational corporations. The internal network focuses on routine intrafirm communication a

22、nd on learning by sharing and internalizing what is obtained from the external network (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Zanfei, 2000). This involves both co-operation with local firms and a global network. Translated to the context of places, cities must develop and maintain links

23、 to knowledge sources outside the communitywhat Flora (1993) call vertical links, developed and maintained by active, entrepreneurial gatekeepers. Successful city-regionslike successful companiesmaintain connections with other places in the global economy (Amin and Thrift, 1992; Bennett and McCoshan

24、, 1993; Kanter, 1995; Ohmae, 1995; Simmie, 1997). Just how and where those connections are madeand by whomare rarely identified except anecdotally. In effect, places need institutions and people to scan for information and trends elsewhere (Johannessen et al., 1997). This is the case in order to att

25、ract any form of investment, including tourism, conventions or sporting events, as well as fixed investment for new economic activities (Loftman and Nevin, 1996). Although scanning the external environment is a common activity within firms (van Wyk, 1997), this seems to be far less common among citi

26、es and regions. Benchmarking and comparative data-gathering are done occasionally, but typically not routinely. In essence, competitive places need constantly to monitor sources of information in order to have vision and creativity (Ache, 2000; Sabel, 1996). Place marketingwhether in the hands of lo

27、ng-standing urban elites or a more democratic grouprequires good information on what other places are doing to market themselves and on the reality versus the hype or exaggeration used in advertising. A final critical capability is technological capability not only of firms but also of the public se

28、ctor, whose employees must be able to scan the technical environment, select appropriate new technologies and implement them within their organisations. Just as companies must develop absorptive capacity, so must the public sector. Absorptive capacity is the ability to evaluate potential knowledge,

29、assimilate it and apply it. Companies accumulate knowledge during the course of R Foss, 1996; Lane and Lubatkin, 1998). Government agencies generally have not developed routines to effect this. Indeed, fear of the high road of technological innovation is common among regional policy-makers (Rosenfel

30、d, 1997; Thomas, 2000). Hard Networks The Internet is a new hard network that is, in principle, ubiquitous. Any telephone can connect to the Internet as can, increasingly, televisions and other devices. However, the convergence of computing, telecommunications and information media into digital form

31、 masks or overshadows great inequalities in the availability of bandwidth for data transmission. The IMD (2001) World Competitiveness Yearbook includes several indicators of technological infrastructure, including: investment in telecommunications (as a percentage of GDP), share of worldwide compute

32、rs in use, computers per capita, computer power (share of total worldwide MIPS millions of instructions per second), computer power per capita, connections to the Internet (number of hosts per 1000 people) and cellular mobile telephone subscribers per 1000 inhabitants. These are supplemented with re

33、sponses to two survey questions: (1) The implementation of new information technology does not meet business requirements. (2) Electronic commerce is not sufficiently developed for business opportunities. Concluding Thoughts The trend towards transparent, interactive government, operating state-of-t

34、he-art systems and understanding if not always rubber-stamping the needs of businesses requires awareness of a competitive global system. In such a system, awareness of the economies of other cities and of their activities in local economic development embodies the notion of competitiveness as firms

35、 know it through such concepts as benchmarking. Two final thoughts. First, inner cities, often the home of derelict buildings, poor schools and few jobs for local residents, are a particular challenge for large cities. However, in one overlooked respect, central cities have a new advantage rarely fo

36、und elsewhere: they are typically the point of convergence of telecommunication lines and of the largest agglomerations of telecom infrastructurethe hard networks. Although not among the attributes Porter (1997) recountedhis list includes strategic location, integration with regional clusters, unmet

37、 local demand and human resourcesthe importance of large cities and of their central cities provides new hope for them. Secondly, the risks of exclusion loom large; digital divides between the computer- literate and the rest of the population threaten ubiquitous e-commerce (Warf, 2001). They threate

38、n e-government even more, because governments cannot choose to serve only select customers. One suspects that some differentiation will set in: they can provide services tailored to different groupsfor example, those interested in sports and recreation, cultural activities, or crime prevention might

39、 have websites tailored to their specific needs. Cities and other levels of government clearly have a great deal to learn from businesses about how to do this. What it takes to be competitive, then, is a mix of lessons from the private sector that will help in a time of interurban hypercompetition.

40、These are more fundamental than merely having a website. The most important elements may be good people, good communications and good management of knowledgemuch the same as what is needed for e-management in business (Cairncross, 2000). If the opportunity is taken seriously, cities will become more

41、 attractive places in which to live and work. 译文 城市竞争力中的软硬网络 资料来源 : Urban Studies, Vol. 39, Nos 56, 929945, 2002 作者： Edward J. Malecki 竞争的城市 城市的竞争力 -地方，地区和国家 -是指本地的经济和提供给它的居民一个日渐提高的生活水平的社会的能力（马莱茨基， 2000）。在某种意义上是一些城市的竞争力，另一种意义上则不是。有“粘性 ” 的能力或者说吸引投资和有天赋的移民 -“ 劳动和资金决定着他们的吸引力 ” -是必须的。创造能力和支撑足够工资水平的工作是一个

42、典型产出竞争力的标准。这种能力不仅包括常规形式下的办公室和生产厂房的外来投资，还包括了国际旅 游和企业家精神（ 弗赖伊 ， 1995）。 很多关于地区之间的竞争力的理论研究都是建立在波特（ 1990）的“钻石“竞争力模型的基础上的（希利和邓汉， 1994；柯瑞莎， 1995）。尽管可能这个模型几乎没有确定更成功的使当地更成功发展的因素（西米， 1997），钻石模型的框架结构和简单清单代表对于本地团队的吸引力明显高过较少的系统的集中于低成本，低税收的本地战略。 柯瑞莎（ 1995）将决定因素分成了两种类型：经济和战略。经济决定因素包括生产要素，基础设施，位置，经济结构和城市的 便利设施 。战略决

43、定因素包括政府的效用，城市 的战略，公共私营部门合作，体制灵活性。少数的对这个框架结构分析的其中一个，一些经济决定因素 -研究中心，高校毕业的工人和常住人口的文化素养 -对城市竞争力有显著影响（柯瑞莎和 僧伽 ， 1999）。当然，这些特征并不是由他们自己表现出来，而是由当地大学的累积毕业人数，该地区与研究相关的研究设施的建立和一套辨别高低消费人群的设施来表现的（弗罗里达， 2000；马莱茨基和布拉德波利， 1992）。文化活动和公共设施越来越被视为一个城市竞争力的中心部分（戴泽波斯卡 -卡哇斯卡和方可， 1999；弗罗里达， 2000；斯哥特， 2000）。 累积的好处是保持一个城市领先于其

44、他城市的成功，持续吸引高技术的专业人才（布拉德波利和泰勒， 1996；马西， 1995）。最近，贝格（ 1999）通过本地“革新和学习能力”对城市表现的影响提出了一个复合“迷宫”。 除了文化和知识上的优势之外，很多的城市竞争力普遍的归因于“非贸易的相互依存关系”，其实有可能是因为先前成功的鉴定一些地区的神秘的“ 企业合并后的协力优势或协合作用 ”。非贸易的相互依存关系目前被理解为动态的聚集经济的基础，它为技术的学习扩大了机会，一个特定的技术相对的减少了产品的单位成本（马丁 和桑力， 1996；斯多坡， 1995,1997）。“区域性的权限” -由一群公司共享，建立在他们相互作用的基础上 -不同

45、于别的个人公司，它产生一个区域性高阶系统能力（佛斯， 1996；劳森， 1999）。集体公司能学到的，同样超过从个人公司学到的（卡帕勒， 1999）。 多个连锁性的竞争力在世界级水平的公司和组织，被发现不仅仅只在大的城市群组和高科技地区（波特， 1998；斯坦纳， 1998）。讨论了这么多，然而，到目前为止还没有一个完善的城市和地区竞争力的方案。接下来的两个部分尝试将人和与她有关的网络关系加入到竞 争力研究框架中。 网络中的软硬方面 我们对于经济发展的理解经历了好几个阶段，每个阶段都加入了新的特点和“软性因素” ,较少的现实和测量的需求。比如说，以色曼（ 1994）定义了三种美国国家水平的经济

46、发展政策：追逐投资；自我提高和竞争力（包括高科技和商业）；知识和过程（包括族群，网络和战略计划） 。“三波”战略，例如建设能力和网络，都被上升到网络的“软因素”（爱利辛格， 1995）。卡拉克和盖勒（ 1998）在 90 年代中期以来发现了一个第四波的出现，一个公共部门政策的混合 -一个聚焦进入全球市场全球经济的产生，开发当地人的资本资源和逐渐增长的交流工具的使用。“网络”的概念抓住了更多的元素。它包括了对于社会资本的前后关系，联想论，体制厚度和非局部网络。 纯粹的私营企业的商务方面 -公司和公共部门的相互作用 -都是被网络支撑起来的。我们称之为软网络的是在全球，国际间，地区间和本地范围内经营

47、的，通过社交 获取知识的网络。网络在和外界甚至全球的联系中被建立和支撑是至关重要的。在任何地方公司的革新力合竞争力不仅仅依靠本地市场网络的供应商 -工业区模型 -还要依靠外部的市场（马莱茨基和欧那斯， 1999；欧那斯， 2000）。但它不仅是联系外部需要的市场，还是一种利用之前竞争信号的能力（哈森克， 1997）。用这种方法，技术性的中断几乎不可能引起地区优势上的中断（ 厄特巴克 和阿法尔， 1998）。 软网络 目前跨国公司建立了很好的内外需的网络。内部网络注重内部交流，学习将从外部市场获得的吸收和内在化（诺那卡和塔克池， 1995；诺那卡和康诺，1998；张飞， 2000）。这个涉及到和

48、本地公司和全球网络下的合作。翻译上文，城市必须发展和支持同外在的知识源联系 -弗洛拉（ 1993）称之为“垂直杠杆”，由企业家的信息传递者开发和维持。成功的城市地区 -像成功的公司 -和全球经济下的其他地方保持联系（爱敏和斯瑞福特， 1992；本纳特和麦克杉， 1993；康特， 1995；欧麦尔， 1995；西米， 1997）。联系在哪里和怎么建立 -由谁建立 -很少被定义。事实上，地区需要扫描机构和人的信息（乔翰纳森， 1997）。这是为了吸引任何 形式的投资，包括旅游，体育赛事，以及新经济活动下的固定投资（拉夫曼和那纹， 1996）。 尽管浏览外部环境就像公司的活动（万威克， 1997），

49、城市和地区间也是不同的。偶尔做标杆学习和数据比较，但这不是例行公事。竞争的地区为了可视和创造需要经常监视信息来源（阿克， 2000；沙巴， 1996）。“场所营销” -不管是否是常在的城市还是一个更民主的地方 -要求在其他地方更好的营销自己，大肆宣传自己和夸张的使用广告。 一个最重要的能力是“技术能力”，不仅是公司也是公共部门的能力，他们所雇用的员工必须细查技术环境，选 择适当的新技术，在组织内实施他们。公司和公共部门必须开发“吸收能力”。吸收能力是评估潜在知识，同化利用它的能力。公司通过研发和从外部市场累计知识（可汗和乐文莎， 1990,1994；福斯，1996；拉娜和路拜金， 1998）。政府机构一般都还没有开发方式来影响中国。的确，的确决策者都有对技术革新“高速公路”的恐惧（罗森菲德， 1997；汤玛斯， 2000）。 硬网络 原则上，互联网是一个新的普及的硬网络。很多电话可以连到互联