Abstract
In this article, we propose to discuss public policies oriented to promote science and technology clusters. For this purpose, we studied a particular cluster case linked to a public university located in the suburban area of the city of Buenos Aires: the National University of San Martín (UNSAM). We analyze two cooperation networks between UNSAM research groups, companies, technology centers and potential adopters of innovations: a “bottom up” cluster experience of diagnostic kits development and a “top-down” University-State experience, aero spatial micro-wave development. We adopt a “proximity approach” (RALLET; TORRE, 1999, 2005; BOSCHMA, 2005; KNOBEN, 2008; LAGENDIJK; OINAS, 2005). This approach goes beyond geographical proximity explanation of clusters coordination. It takes in account social proximity (GRANOVETTER, 1985), organizational proximity (Williamson, 1975, 1979, 1985), institutional proximity (EDQUIST; JOHNSON, 1997; HOFSTEDE, 1991) and technological proximity (COHEN; LEVINTHAL, 1990; NOOTEBOOM et al., 2007). This approach enables us to analyze the tensions between opportunism and lock-in that characterize university – enterprise relations and that should be taken into account when defining science and technology clusters. The results of the case studies show that these tensions are solved in an idiosyncratic and particular way. When organizational proximity is low and risks of opportunism are high (under a bottom-up scheme), the tendency is to compensate with greater social proximity. When organizational and technological proximity is high and there is a risk of lock in (under a top-down scheme), the tendency is to seek greater openness of the network with new applications and potential new users.References
ANTONELLI, C. The economics of information networks. Amsterdam y Ney York: Elsevier Science, 1992.
ANTONELLI, C. Collective knowledge communication and innovation: the evidence of technological districts. Regional Studies, v. 34, n. 6, p. 535-547, 2000. doi: 10.1080/00343400050085657
ARTHUR, W. B. Silicon Valley’locational clusters: when do increasing returns imply monopoly? Mathematical Social Sciences, v. 19, n. 3, p. 235-251, 1990.
ASHEIM, B. T.; COENEN, L. Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy, v. 34, n. 8, p. 1173-1190, 2005.
BABA, Y.; IMAI, K. Systemic innovation and cross-border networks: the case of the evolution of the VCR systems. In: SCHERER, F.; PERLMAN, M. Entrepreneurship, technological innovation and economic growth. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992. p. 143-153.
BELL, M.; ALBU, M. Knowledge systems and technological dynamism in industrial clusters in developing countries. World Development, v. 27, n. 6, 1715-1734, 1999.
BIANCHI, C.; GRAS, N.; SUTZ, J. Make, buy and cooperate in innovation: evidence from Uruguayan manufacturing surveys and other innovation studies. National innovation surveys in Latin America: empirical evidence and policy implications. Santiago: ECLAC, 2011. p. 97-122.
BOSCHMA, R. Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Regional Studies, v. 39, n. 1, p. 61-74, 2005. doi: 10.1080/0034340052000320887
BOSCHMA, R, Lambooy JG (1999) Evolutionary economics and economic geography. J Evol Econ 9:411–429. doi: 10.1007/s001910050089
BRESNAHAN, T.; GAMBARDELLA, A. Building high-tech clusters: Silicon Valley and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
BRESNAHAN, T.; GAMBARDELLA, A.; SAXENIAN, A. Old economy inputs for new economy outcomes: cluster formation in the new Silicon Valleys. In: BRESCHI, S.; MALERBA, F. (Ed.). Clusters, networks and innovation. Oxforf: Oxford University Press, 2005. p. 113-134.
CASSIOLATO J.; SHAPIRO, M.; LASTRES, H. Local system of innovation under strain: the impacts of structural change in the telecommunications cluster of Campinas, Brazil. International Journal of Technology Management, v. 24, n. 7, p. 680-704, 2002.
COHEN, W. M.; LEVINTHAL, D. A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 35,n. 1, 128-152, 1990.
COLYVAS, J. A. From divergent meanings to common practices: the early institutionalization of technology transfer in the life sciences at Stanford University. Research Policy, v. 36, n. 4, p. 456-476, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.019
COOKE, P. regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. ICC, v. 10, n. 4, p. 945-974, 2001. doi: 10.1093/icc/10.4.945
COOKE, P. Regional innovation systems: general findings and some new evidence from biotechnology clusters. The Journal of Technology Transfer, v. 27, n. 1, p. 133-145, 2002.
COOKE, P.; MORGAN, K. The creative milieu: a regional perspective on innovation. In: DODGSON, M.; ROTHWELL, R. The handbook of industrial innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1994. p. 25-32.
EDQUIST, C.; JOHNSON, B. System of innovation: overview and basic concepts. 1997.
FREEMAN, C. Networks of innovators: a synthesis of research issues. Research Policy, v. 20, n. 5, p. 499-514, 1991. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(91)90072-X
GRANOVETTER, M. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, v. 91, n. 3, p. 481-510, 1985.
HALL, P. A.; SOSKICE, D. Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
HOFSTEDE, G. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival.. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
KEEBLE, D.; WILKINSON, F. Collective learning and knowledge development in the evolution of regional clusters of high technology SMEs in Europe. Regional Studies, v. 33, n.4, p. 295-303, 1999.
KNOBEN, J. Firm mobility and organizational networks: innovation, embeddedness and economic geography. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008.
LAGENDIJK, A.; OINAS, P. Proximity, distance and diversity: issues on economic interaction and local development. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.
LAVARELLO, P.; SARABIA, M. La política industrial en la Argentina durante la década de 2000. CEPAL, 2015 (Documento de Proyecto, n. 44).
LIPPMAN, S. A.; RUMELT, R. P. Demand uncertainty, capital specificity, and industry evolution. Ind Corp Change, v. 1, n. 1, p. 235-262, 1992. doi: 10.1093/icc/1.1.235.
LONGHI, C.; QUÉRÉ, M. Innovative networks and the technopolis phenomenon: the case of Sophia Antipolis. Environment and Planning C, v. 11, n. 3, p. 317-317, 1993.
LUNDVALL, B. National innovation systems – Analytical concept and development tool. Industry & Innovation, v. 14, n. 1, p. 95-119, 2007. doi: 10.1080/13662710601130863
LUNDVALL, B. National systems of innovation. Anthem Press, 1992.
MASKELL, P. Towards a knowledge‐based theory of the geographical cluster. Ind Corp Change, v. 10, n. 4, p. 921-943, 2001. doi: 10.1093/icc/10.4.921
MASKELL, P.; MALMBERG, A. Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, v. 23, n. 2, p. 167-185, 1999. doi: 10.1093/cje/23.2.167
NELSON, R. R.; WINTER, S. G. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, 1982.
NIOSI, J.; BANIK, M. The evolution and performance of biotechnology regional systems of innovation. Cambridge J Econ, v. 29, n. 3, p. 343-357, 2005. doi: 10.1093/cje/bei044
NOOTEBOOM, B.; VAN HAVERBEKE, W.; DUYSTERS, G. et al. Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, v. 36, n. 7, p. 1016-1034, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.04.003
NOOTEBOOM, B. Learning and innovation in organizations and economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
RALLET, A.; TORRE, A. Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of global economy? GeoJournal, n. 49, p. 373-380, 1999. doi: 10.1023/A:1007140329027
SAXENIAN, A (1990). Regional networks and the resurgence of Silicon Valley. California Management Review 33, 89–112.
SAXENIAN, A. Regional advantage: culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press, 1996.
SCHMITZ, H. On the clustering of small firms. IDS Bulletin, n. 23, p. 64-69, 1992. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.1992.mp23003012.x
STORPER, M.; VENABLES, A. J. Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy. J Econ Geogr, v. 4, n. 4, p. 351-370, 2004. doi: 10.1093/jnlecg/lbh027
TORRE, A.; RALLET, A. Proximity and localization. Regional Studies, v. 39, n. 1, p. 47-59, 2005. doi: 10.1080/0034340052000320842
TRIPPL, M.; TÖDTLING, F. Developing biotechnology clusters in non‐high technology regions – The case of Austria. Industry and Innovation, v. 14, n. 1, p. 47-67, 2007. doi: 10.1080/13662710601130590
UZZI, B. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect. American Sociological Review, v. 61, n. 4, p. 674-698, 1996. doi: 10.2307/2096399
WILLIAMSON, O. E. Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics, v. 22, n. 2, p. 233-261, 1979. doi: 10.1086/466942
WILLIAMSON, O. E. The economic institutions of capitalism. Simon and Schuster, 1985.
WILLIAMSON, O. E. Markets and hierarchies. New York, 1975.
YOGUEL, G.; BOCCHERINI, F. Hacia un modelo interpretativo de las actividades innovativas en las PyMEs: evidencias del caso argentino. In: KANTS, H. Desarrollo y gestión de PyMEs: aportes para un debate necesario. Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional General Sarmiento, 1998.
YOGUEL, G. Desarrollo del proceso de aprendizaje de las firmas: los espacios locales y las tramas productivas. Revista Desarrollo Económico, v. 41, abr.-jun. 2001.
The content of the articles and reviews published in RBI are of absolute and exclusive responsibility of their authors.
Downloads
