Subsidy and networking: The effects of direct and indirect support programs of the cluster policy

被引:108
作者
Nishimura, Junichi [1 ]
Okamuro, Hiroyuki [1 ]
机构
[1] Hitotsubashi Univ, Grad Sch Econ, Tokyo 1868601, Japan
关键词
Cluster policy; Industrial cluster; R&D support; Subsidy; Networking; RESEARCH-AND-DEVELOPMENT; DEVELOPMENT SPILLOVERS; KNOWLEDGE SPILLOVERS; INDUSTRIAL CLUSTERS; PROPENSITY SCORE; SCIENCE PARKS; INNOVATION; COOPERATION; PERFORMANCE; COMPETITION;
D O I
10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.011
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
Industrial clusters have attracted considerable attention worldwide for their expected contribution to regional innovation. Recently, policymakers in various countries have developed specific cluster policies. However, there exist few empirical studies on cluster policies. Focusing on the Industrial Cluster Project (ICP) in japan initiated by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in 2001, we address two research questions on the support programs of the cluster policies: if the project participants who exploit various support programs are more successful in network formation within the cluster than others, and which kind of support program contributes to firm performance. We pay special attention to the differences between direct R&D support and indirect networking/coordination support. The estimation results, which are based on recent original survey data, suggest that cluster participants who exploit support programs (especially indirect support measures) expand the industry-university-government network after participating in the ICP. Moreover, we find that not every support program contributes to firm performance; firms should therefore select the program that is most aligned with their aims. Indirect support programs have an extensive and strong impact on output whereas direct R&D support has only a weak effect. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:714 / 727
页数:14
相关论文
共 54 条
[1]   The role of information asymmetry in the market for university-industry research collaboration [J].
Abramo, Giovanni ;
D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea ;
Di Costa, Flavia ;
Solazzi, Marco .
JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, 2011, 36 (01) :84-100
[2]   Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge [J].
Acs, ZJ ;
Anselin, L ;
Varga, A .
RESEARCH POLICY, 2002, 31 (07) :1069-1085
[3]   Geographic and technological R&D spillovers within the triad: micro evidence from US patents [J].
Aldieri, Luigi ;
Cincera, Michele .
JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, 2009, 34 (02) :196-211
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2004, 456 ZEW
[5]   Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations [J].
Anselin, L ;
Varga, A ;
Acs, Z .
JOURNAL OF URBAN ECONOMICS, 1997, 42 (03) :422-448
[6]  
Arita T., 2001, REV URBAN REGIONAL D, V13, P85, DOI [10.1111/1467-940X.00034, DOI 10.1111/1467-940X.00034]
[7]  
ARNOLD E, 2003, INNOVATION PAPER, V31, P1
[8]  
Audretsch DB, 2005, RES POLICY, V34, P1113, DOI 10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.009
[9]  
Blundell R., 2000, Fiscal Studies, V21, P427, DOI [DOI 10.1111/J.1475-5890.2000.TB00031.X, 10.1111/j.1475-5890.2000.tb00031.x, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2000.tb00031.x]
[10]   When do research consortia work well and why? Evidence from Japanese panel data [J].
Branstetter, LG ;
Sakakibara, M .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2002, 92 (01) :143-159