Are technology gatekeepers renewing clusters? Understanding gatekeepers and their dynamics across cluster
By: Hervas-Oliver, Jose-Luis
Material type:
ArticlePublisher: 2014Description: 431 - 452Subject(s): Evolution | Renewal | Cluster Life Cycles | Technology Gatekeepers
In:
Entrepreneurship & Regional DevelopmentSummary: The cluster literature assumes that technology gatekeepers (TGs) shape a district's learning process and its evolution. However, analysis of the resilience of TGs, and their role across different stages of the cluster life cycle (CLC), is absent. Instead, most of the evidence that has been produced is set at a particular stage of the CLC. This article seeks to use a qualitative case study to understand the dynamics of TGs, and their knowledge creation and diffusion capabilities in the CLC renewal period. This is a stage less studied in the literature. Further, the article explores TG resilience across different stages of the CLC. Our results show that not all TGs are resilient and necessary for cluster renewal. In addition, they are not sufficient for fostering disruptions: their manifest reluctance to destroy the status quo and their network centrality makes necessary the entrance of new firms with new knowledge. TGs are necessary because they facilitate a cluster's transition across stages thanks to their powerful control of the most vital aspect of clusters: networks.
| Item type | Current location | Call number | Vol info | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles
|
Ahmedabad (HO) | (Browse shelf) | Vol. 26, Issue. 5-6 | Available | 018950 |
The cluster literature assumes that technology gatekeepers (TGs) shape a district's learning process and its evolution. However, analysis of the resilience of TGs, and their role across different stages of the cluster life cycle (CLC), is absent. Instead, most of the evidence that has been produced is set at a particular stage of the CLC. This article seeks to use a qualitative case study to understand the dynamics of TGs, and their knowledge creation and diffusion capabilities in the CLC renewal period. This is a stage less studied in the literature. Further, the article explores TG resilience across different stages of the CLC. Our results show that not all TGs are resilient and necessary for cluster renewal. In addition, they are not sufficient for fostering disruptions: their manifest reluctance to destroy the status quo and their network centrality makes necessary the entrance of new firms with new knowledge. TGs are necessary because they facilitate a cluster's transition across stages thanks to their powerful control of the most vital aspect of clusters: networks.
There are no comments on this title.