1、 外文翻译 原文 Innovation, networking and the new industrial clusters: the characteristics of networks and local innovation capabilities in the Turkish industrial clusters Material Source: Eraydin, Ayda; Armatli-Krolu, Bilge.Innovation, networking and the new industrial clusters: the characteristics of ne
2、tworks and local innovation capabilities in the Turkish industrial clustersJ. ENTREPRENEURSHIP Armatli-Krolu, Bilge Elaborating on the literature on industrial districts, this paper suggests that innovation and networking are the two key issues, which provide the new generation industrial clusters c
3、ompetitive capacity in the globalization process. The paper presents the findings on the innovative and networking capabilities of the three important industrial clusters of Turkey based on the data collected from the sample firms in each of these industrial clusters through in-depth interviews. The
4、 findings clearly show the importance of local and national networking as well as global linkages and confirm the positive relation between intensity of local networking and innovativeness. Moreover, the paper provides evidence that firms within global networks have higher numbers of innovations tha
5、n firms with higher intensity of locally embedded linkages. Keywords: industrial clusters; innovativeness; local networks; global networks. 1. Introduction The recent literature on spatial development and industrial geography presents many success stories identified as industrial districts, which we
6、re peripheral and semi-peripheral regions of earlier decades. While major industrial centres of mass production had been deeply affected by the negative conditions brought by the 1970s crisis, these clusters of small and medium enterprises adapted successfully to the changing economic conditions. Th
7、is situation has created a wide interest on defining success factors of such districts and describing the way in which they have achieved international competitiveness (Brusco 1982, Piore and Sabel 1984, Amin 1989, Capecchi 1989, Sabel 1989, Pyke, Becattini and Sengenberger 1990, Storper 1990, 1993,
8、 Becattini 1991). In the 1980s literature there are various examples of industrial districts from the advanced part of the world, such as Emilia Romagna, Baden Wurttemberg and Silicon Valley, among many others, as well as examples from peripheral countries. Following the initial studies that describ
9、ed the factors of economic growth of certain industrial districts, however, some of the new studies on these industrial agglomerations showed that their internal assets have not been enough to protect their competitiveness in later years (Bellini 1996, Cooke 1996, Staber 1997), while some others hav
10、e still been defined as the models of local economic development. In fact the characteristics of the model are not clear, and there is a continuous change in the context and attributes of the terms industrial district and industrial cluster, although there are several attempts to define the differen
11、t types and categories of industrial clusters (Markusen 1996, van Dijk and Sverrisson 2003). A basic idea of the literature on industrial districts, clusters and agglomerations is that it is the entire productive system rather than the firm itself that should be considered in trying to understand di
12、fferentiated business performance. Taking external economies due to the agglomeration of firms as the focal point, several studies on different industrial clusters tried to define the context in which firms operate. This interest reflects itself in both formal models of industrial concentration desc
13、ribed by Krugman (1991a, b), Fujita and Thisse (1996), and Fujita et al. (1999) and also in the new industrial geography literature, which created a wide collection of descriptive studies. Formal models of industrial concentrations all assume that increasing returns, which has been the key notion fo
14、r understanding the new growth theory, is the outcome of the dynamic and cumulative advantages of spatial proximity (van Oort 2004). Agglomeration is explained purely as a result of increasing returns in the firms production function combined the effect of transport costs and it is assumed that cert
15、ain place-specific circumstances induce higher than proportional growth in productivity with a fixed amount of factor inputs. The studies of industrial geography, on the other hand, have been concentrated on defining the different sources of externalities defined by Marshall (1920), namely the exist
16、ence of thick markets for specialized labour, the occurrence of knowledge and technology spillovers, and the emergence of supplementary trades. While labour market conditions (Angel 1991, Oakey 1985, Schmitz and Musyck 1994) received special attention as the source of externalities, 3 various terms
17、such as flexibility through specialization and inter-firm co-operation (Pyke and Sengenberger 1991), collaboration instead of competition (Brusco 1990), co-operation by strong collective networks (Harrison 1992), subcontracting relations among vertically disintegrated firms specialized in different
18、stages of production (Piore and Sabel 1984), interaction between moreorless equal small enterprises (Piore and Sabel 1984), local production networks (Saxenian 1990, 1991, Bahrami 1992) untraded interdependencies (Storper 1995) have been used to define the benefits of inter-firm relations in industr
19、ial agglomerations. On the other hand, socially constructed inter-firm relationships employing both tacit and codified knowledge (Camagni 1991, Pyke and Sengenberger 1991, Storper 1995, Belussi 1996, Malmberg 1996), common cultural and social background (Becattini 1989, 1990, Rabelotti 1995) and ins
20、titutional thickness (Amin and Thrift 1994, To dtling 1994, Locke 1995, Gregersen and Johnson 1997, Rabelotti 1997) are defined as the factors that facilitate knowledge spillovers and firm-to-firm knowledge transfers. Porter (1990) using some of the existing work readdressed cluster externalities un
21、der a different heading; competitive advantage. He explained firms competitive advantage in certain areas as a result of the interaction of factor conditions; demand conditions; related and supporting industries; and firm strategy, structure and rivalry. These factors determine the competitive envir
22、onment of firms. Porter (1998: 197) therefore defines clusters as geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers, firms in related industries, and associated institutions in particular fields that compete but also co-operate. The new attention on clus
23、tering is also to be found in knowledge spillovers and innovation. Human capital and knowledge spillovers, which most naturally will induce innovations, became the core of the new growth theory. However the industrial geographers paid more attention to the spatial diffusion of knowledge and innovati
24、on. According to van Oort (2004: 42) two types of approaching can be distinguished in spatial diffusion of knowledge and innovation; those stressing physical proximity and those focusing on functional linkages in hierarchically equivalent but not necessarily nearby locations. In fact, there are some
25、 theoretical attempts to connect innovation and networking such as learning regions (Florida 1995) and innovative milieu models (Camagni 1991, Lawson 1997). The learning region model assures that firms behaviour with respect to innovation and firmsinnovation performance are both affected by the envi
26、ronment in which they operate (de Propris 2002). Similarly, according to the innovative milieu model geographical proximity and informal relationships between firms facilitate information and knowledge exchange. Therefore collective learning may be a cause of enhanced innovative behaviour by firms a
27、nd has been seen as an uncertainty reducing mechanism in a rapidly changing technology context (Longhi 1999, Keeble 2000). A brief review of the literature on the sources of cluster externalities indicates strong emphasis on the importance of local potential and dynamics. It is stated that clusters
28、provide the basic context supporting the firms performance; it is here that information flows, institutions, infrastructure and competence formation are localized (Porter 1990). In other words, the sources of externalities and competitiveness are defined by local conditions. The studies on industria
29、l clusters, however, pay less attention to linkages with firms external to an existing cluster (Markusen 1996, Britton 2004). 2. Networking and innovation as the two distinctive characteristics of industrial clusters The short summary on the characteristics of industrial clusters above suggests that
30、 what really makes us locate industrial districts as the focus of the development discourse recently, are two of their important features: networking and innovativeness. Industrial clusters can be defined as the context of business and social networks in these areas and their main functions. Accordi
31、ng to Johannisson et al. (1994: 332) in industrial districts there are formal structures, in terms of institutions deliberately created to deal with collective concerns, which are accompanied by social and business networks. While talk networks offer dialogue between business and social life, acquai
32、ntance networks enable social control and a safety net of social resources. Among business networks, commercial networks provide local markets for new ventures and established firms and professional networks in the industrial clusters reflect the experimental learning process. The contextual definit
33、ion of networks above emphasizes the importance of localized networks and locally embedded collective processes. There are also nonlocal/global networks that bind firms beyond the boundaries of clusters. Non-local/global networks enable firms to benefit from relations beyond the limits of a cluster.
34、 For certain activities, while local networks are indispensable, long distance relations may be even more valuable. For example studies of innovation systems in several metropolitan areas have shown that spatial proximity is more important in horizontal linkages between manufacturing firms, research
35、 institutes or competitors, whereas vertical co-operation is not so reliant on spatial proximity and can be sustained and operationalized over longer distances (Revilla-Diez 2002). Obviously, the importance of innovation and different networks vary in the industrial clusters specialized in different
36、 types of production sectors. The nature of production is the key to understanding diversities (Kanter 1996). It is expected that industrial clusters specialized in traditional production sectors are less innovative, more reliant on local production (Taplin 1989, Christerson and Appelbaum 1995) and
37、knowledge networks that make it possible to use locally embedded knowledge sources (Schmitz 1995), whereas innovation is essential for the success of new/high-tech production sectors. The high-tech clusters use global knowledge networks in order to reach new knowledge that is crucial for innovation
38、activities (Koschatzky 1999). There is a third group of production activities, which were important production sectors of the mass production era, such as car manufacturing and chemicals. They are still important in the composition of manufacturing industries in many countries and are the core of ma
39、ny industrial clusters. These types of production units, which received less attention in the recent literature, are forced to bring process and product innovations in the increasingly competitive economy. They are usually less dependent on local linkages, but they try to be on the global value chai
40、ns. The above discussions provide a general understanding on industrial clusters. However, this paper tries to provide a deeper understanding of the innovative and networking activities of different types of industrial clusters with the help of several questions. What are the differences in networki
41、ng patterns and the level of innovativeness of firms in peripheral industrial clusters that are specialized in different production sectors? Which networks at different geographical levels are more important in different types of industrial clusters? How do the weight of functional networks change a
42、mong different industrial clusters? How far are local and global linkages important in the innovativeness of firms and is there any difference among the clusters specialized in different production sectors in this respect? We believe that the study on the three Turkish industrial clusters provides a
43、 new insight into the typology of clusters in developing countries introduced by van Dijk and Sverrisson (2003: 188)4 and the importance of networking and innovativeness in peripheral clusters. 译文 Innovation, networking and the new industrial clusters: the characteristics of networks and local innov
44、ation capabilities in the Turkish industrial clusters. 资料来源 : Eraydin, Ayda; Armatli-Krolu, Bilge.Innovation, networking and the new industrial clusters: the characteristics of networks and local innovation capabilities in the Turkish industrial clustersJ. ENTREPRENEURSHIP Armatli-Krolu, Bilge 对工业区的
45、文学阐述，本文认为创新和网络是两个关键问题， 在全球化进程中 提供了新一 代的工业 集群竞争 能力。本文 依据 收集的 一 些产业集群 中 样本公司的调查资料， 介绍了 土耳其 三个重要的工业 关于创新集群和网络能力的结果 。调查结果清楚地表明了地方和全国联网以及全球联系的重要性，并 证实了当地的网络之间的正相关关系和创新力度。此外，该文 中 提供的 数 据 将 表明 全球网络中的 公司 已具有 比嵌入式联系 企业 更高 的本地企业的创新数 字。 关键词：产业集群；创新；本地网络；全球网络 1.简介 近期在 地理空间发展和产业 杂志上的 文 章 提出了许多成功的 产业集群例子 ，是前几十年的周
46、边和半边缘地区的事 例 。虽然大规模生产的主要工业中心 已经 深受 由上世纪 70 年代危机带来的负面环境影响， 但 那 些 中小型企业集群成功地适应 了 不断变化的经济条件。这种情况 已经 引起 了 学者 对界定这些地区成功 的因素，并描述他们取得 国际竞争力 方式 的广泛兴趣 （ Brusco 1982, Piore and Sabel 1984, Amin 1989, Capecchi 1989, Sabel 1989, Pyke, Becattini and Sengenberger 1990, Storper 1990, 1993, Becattini 1991）。 19 世纪 80
47、 年代 的 文 献中 也有 不同的工业区 的 例子，有世界 上 一部分先进 国家 以及周边国家的例子，如艾米利亚罗马涅，巴登符腾堡和硅谷。 以下描述的是某些工业区经济增长因素的初步研究，对这些产 业聚集区的一些新的研究表明，其内部还没有足够的资产来保护他们后期 的竞争力（ Bellini 1996, Cooke 1996, Staber 1997） ， 而另一些 则 仍 把其 定义 为当地经济发展的模式。 尽管 几次试图确定不同类型和产业集群类别 ，但 该模型的特征 实际 并不明确，而且有不断变化的 工业区 和产业集群背景和条件 属性 （ Markusen 1996, van Dijk 和 S
48、verrisson2003 年）。 一个关于工业区，集群和聚集文学的基本想法是，它是 一个 整 体的 生产系统，而不是 试图考虑理解差异化 公司的经营业绩。在 研究 几项 不同的产业集群时 ，学者们 试图确定 以企业为重点集聚的外部经济 的运作背景。这种兴趣反映了 Krugman（ 1991a,b） , Fujita and Thisse（ 1996）等 所描述的产业集中度的正式模型，并在新的工业地理文学领域创造了 数据 收集 广泛的 描述性研究。 工业集中的形式化模型假设报酬递增 是空间距离（ van Oort 2004）的动态和优势累积的结果 ，已 经成 为了解新增长理论的关键概念 。集聚
49、 被 纯粹地 解释为 增加企业的生产函数 回报并 结合运输成本影响的结果，它假设某地的具体情况引起的增长比例高于生产力与生产要素的固定数额。 工业地理学的研究，一方面，一直集中在确定马歇尔 （ 1920） 外部定义的不同来源，即专 业 的劳动力市场的存在，知识和技术溢出的发生， 及 辅助 贸易的 出现 。 当 劳工市场 状 况（ Angel 1991, Oakey 1985, Schmitz and Musyck 1994）受 到 来 自 外部的特别注意 时 ，各种条件 已被用来确定工业聚集区企业间关系的益处 ，如 灵活地 通过公司之间的 专业化 合作（ Pyke and Sengenberger1991）而不是竞争（ Brusco1990）， 借助稳健的集体网络 合作（ Harrison 1992 年）， 生产的不同阶段中 垂直解体 化的 专业公司的 分包 关系 （ Piore and Sabel 1984）， 较为平等的小企业之间的互动 （ Piore and Sabel 1984）， 本地生产网络（ Saxenian1990年， 1991 年 , Bahrami1992）非贸易的相互依赖（ Storper 1995）。另一方面
